Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement (Wayne Tyson)

[Wayne Tyson (landrest]

All:

Again, I appreciate the thoughtful responses very much.

In a rule-bound environment, the phrase, "It is written" is common in one 
form or another. In a rules-free environment, each case is a "test" case for 
the previous one, where the context was slightly different. Liz is "on the 
money" with her comments; rules are features of culture, perhaps THE feature 
of culture.

Whether or not the previous culture "likes it" or not, newer cultures arise 
from older ones, sometimes violently so, primarily because the previous 
one(s) had rigid, rule-bound, hierarchical, authoritarian structures. 
"Disapproving" glances are at the root of freedom from rules; they are 
social mores in action. But once they are frozen, not subject to question or 
to testing, they become culturally rigid. Being subject to question does not 
have to mean that disapproval cannot be expressed, only that the questioning 
goes both ways. Otherwise, it would, by definition, be rule-bound.

Liz, if I was not fully responsive to your contribution, please let me know 
(give me a disapproving glance or comment).

WT


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elizabeth Magill" <pastorlizm [at] gmail.com>
To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement (Wayne Tyson)


> In my experience "no rules" means "only unwritten rules".
>
> That is, "everyone" expects a certain type of behavior (say, no
> running in the common house, pay bills no more than 2 days late, take
> a turn mowing the lawn) and  will glance disapprovingly at the person
> who doesn't follow the rule.
>
> But should a person not know what is expected, forget what was
> discussed, join after the first day, not have reading social signals
> as a major strength, or be having a bad day; that person doesn't have
> any way to find out what that rule is. So they see people looking dis-
> approving, but don't know why.
>
> "Social mores" depend on culture. If you expect all members to be
> from the same culture you are limiting the group quite a bit. It will
> be unlikely to attract people from other cultures (say different
> education levels, different economic background, different ethnicity,
> different religions, etc.) if the founding members have a set of
> social mores they aren't willing to name, and discuss, but just think
> "everyone should know this".
>
> In terms of kids and rules, my nephew S would thrive in "no rules"-- 
> he reads the social mores cultures similar to his own easily.
> My niece A would simply be unable to participate. (14 year olds.)
>
> -Liz
> Elizabeth Magill
> www.worcesterfellowship.org
>
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
>
> > Neena,
> >
> > Thanks for the ideas; they will help a lot, especially in an
> > environment of
> > no rules about not talking about rules or no rules.
> >
> > Where I'm going with this is a challenge to the straight-jacketing
> > effects
> > of rules and laws as a substitute for social mores and, of course,
> > "working
> > things out." I know this is uncomfortable for some, but I join you in
> > appreciating the cordial nature of the discourse.
> >
> > Will kids be better off in a rules environment or a no-rules
> > environment?
> >
> > WT
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3124 - Release Date: 09/09/10 
06:34:00