Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Rules

[Wayne Tyson (landrest]

Kay and CoHo:

Kay has many good points. 

Bear in mind that I said SUBTLY (he said unsubtly) disrespectful. But we could 
bicker about subtleties interminably without getting to the spirit, the 
principle, the crucial (but obviously not obvious) distinction between 
rules/laws/coercion and an inner sense of cooperation, of continuously working 
things out that produces social mores. I realize that I am having a difficult 
time expressing my point, but that, itself, is an example of working toward 
social mores that actually work to bond a true community feeling of sharing 
that is not that long dead or diminished. Barn-raisings and potlatches, for 
example, were not rule- or law/statute- based; they were the result of a 
spirit, a principle of sharing and recognizing that we are not all equal, but 
we know, or can learn by experience what equity is. My late poet friend, L. W. 
Brown, for example, had severe rheumatoid arthritis for much of her life. She 
never, however, laid down a rule in her life, but when the local (urban) 
captains of industry, commerce, and politics saw her enter the room, the 
stopped horsing around like schoolboys and got down to business. This was not 
power challenging power, it was leading by example. Another friend has such a 
high IQ (and he was very intelligent too), that he had great difficulty in many 
social situations understanding and being understood. He marched for equal 
right and got his head bashed in by Bull Connor's troops, then he got hit by a 
truck and had some of his brain removed as a result. 

I'm not "against" social "contracts," but I do question whether written rules 
are up to the task of being malleable enough to fit the infinite combinations 
of circumstances and contexts that govern human behavior. Somewhere in some 
dusty box I used to have a cartoon depicting a bunch of men in hard-hats 
standing around a "manhole," their feet on folding barricades, apparently 
talking but not working. There was no caption, but the fold-up traffic sign 
that was part of the scene, instead of saying "Men Working" said "Men Working 
Things Out." A simple line-drawing, but "high" art. 

I'm not against writing things down, but I do question posting the practice of 
posting rules when people who truly socialize are able to work things out more 
easily and comfortably for all than making threats before a mistake mistakenly 
misinterpreted as "bad conduct" when the mistake was unintentional or "made" 
for good cause. After the mistake, corrective action, proportional to the 
"offense" can be exercised, starting with asking questions rather than making 
accusations. 

Much can be learned by so-called "primitive" cultures, the social component of 
which are often greater than "ours." For example, the Hopi people do not, as 
the Nazi culture used to (and for all I know, may still) correct their children 
by shouting "That is forbidden!" The Hopi whisper, audible only to the child 
involved, "That is not the Hopi way." The so-called "Pueblo" people are similar 
in their child-rearing practices. While having supper in a restaurant one time, 
a small Pueblo boy of about 6 or 8 got to horsing around with another boy about 
the same age. His mother, seated on my right, ignored him, but his older sister 
(12 or 13), seated on my left, quietly motioned to the boy, who immediately 
came to her, and she whispered something briefly into his ear. He settled down 
immediately. The sister was "in training" to be a mother, taking some of that 
burden off the mother. Very peaceful, no noise, no recriminations, voluntary 
respect for tribal ways. Community. 

That's a very interesting point about the enforcement of dress codes and 
harassment--certainly a good example of unwritten cultural coercion. It is a 
unilateral, hierarchical force-game, aimed at compliance, not cooperation. 

Social mores against murder is an excellent example of this issue and the 
inability of laws to justly consider context when applied "according to 
statute." Juries are supposed to accomplish the necessary judgment in applying 
the laws, but are most often bullied by judges into the blindness of 
"precedent," ironically perverting the real meaning (impartiality) of the 
blindfold on "Lady Justice," and convicting or not in the absence of their own 
original purpose--to administer justice fairly. You be the judge. 

Again, it's about what works best, that takes human culture in a more 
community-direction than a disintegrated, hierarchical, authoritarian one (even 
one slippery step at a time), not about any aversion to cooperative, peaceful, 
loving behavior that promotes peace rather than needless conflict. While I 
regret any abridgement of anyone's freedom, I do agree that the freedom to 
holler "fire" in a crowded theatre is not free speech, this old saw is a 
logical absurdity. The "freedom" I have to swing my fist, not only stops at 
your nose, you have the right to take preventive action far before my fist is 
lifted, based on your honest judgment of the threat I might represent. You 
might make a mistake in judgment and go to jail or be sued. It might not have 
been a mistake but a good call about my real intent and I could have had a 
better lawyer. Or I might have fooled the jury. That's where context and the 
subtleties and nuances of the endless variety of circumstance affect the guilt 
or innocence of someone who failed to mop a floor--or is that too weak a 
metaphor. I'm the first to confess that I don't do well with metaphors, 
especially when it comes to judging other humans who are just as flawed as I. 

WT


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kay Argyle" <Kay.Argyle [at] utah.edu>
To: "'Cohousing-L'" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Rules


> 
> The only thing that posting agreements (rules, laws, manners) assumes is
> that people's memories aren't perfect.  Is it disrespectful if your
> significant other posts a note on the fridge reminding you that the items
> you agreed to stop at the store for are yogurt, mayo, cornflakes, cucumbers,
> and turtle beans? Is it disrespectful that our dining room has a home-made
> poster on the wall with a list of good table manners that the children
> themselves came up with?
> 
> As others have pointed out, whether an agreement has the consent of the
> governed is unrelated to its formality (that is, where it falls on the
> spectrum from social more to written law). Most people are not thinking
> about the death penalty when they refrain from murdering someone they find
> annoying - laws against murder are consensual. Cultures often enforce
> "modest" dress in women by harassment - some social mores are coercive. 
> 
> I think people who are rule-shy have had experience of rules that combined
> two at-best marginally related traits - they were formalized and they were
> coercive - and have generalized (often unconsciously) that formal equals
> coercive. IMO, this is somewhat like concluding that (a) zebras run away
> when frightened, (b) zebras are black and white striped, (b) skunks are
> black and white striped, (d) therefore skunks run away when frightened.
> (Please make sure I'm not downwind if you test this hypothesis.)
> 
> You don't need to worry about being sprayed with butyl mercaptan if a zebra
> stamps its foot, and mutually agreed-upon beneficial rules don't suddenly
> become tyrannical when put in writing - but there's no convincing some
> people of that.
> 
> Kay
> Wasatch Commons
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: 
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1435/3633 - Release Date: 05/12/11
>