On Intentional Community
Sep. 9th, 2005 02:38 pmThis is just one of many posts I could write about community.
I got in an argument with someone the other day.
The difference of opinion boiled down to this:
I believe that it is possible to have an intentional community in a home owned by a single person who is renting the rooms out to the other people. He did not believe that was possible.
In my mind, the community is not the location. It is the people and the interpersonal interactions, and they have nothing to do with power, or power over. A kindly and ethical lord/landowner way back when could be part of the community which includes the peasants who rent his land to work. An office can have a sense of community that includes the boss(es). In any of these situations, the moment the people in power abuse their power, the community leaves them by a sort of unspoken consensus. Likewise, with a group of people living in a household, the community is that group of people. If the owner decides to start being a jerk, the community can leave. The house is, after all, just a house.
He seemed to feel that community == equality. I felt that he was trying to make intentional community into commune. They AREN'T the same thing, necessarily, even though they can be sometimes.
Compare to common room furniture, which usually technically belongs to someone living in the household. I've never seen anyone in a common household pull the, "It's my TV, so we're going to watch what I want to watch" or "It's my couch, so I get to sit on it when the living room is crowded" card. They could though, and in many ways they'd be within their rights (and not, in other ways). The point here is that people DON'T say that, and anyone who did is just not suited to community living (and possibly adulthood).
I got in an argument with someone the other day.
The difference of opinion boiled down to this:
I believe that it is possible to have an intentional community in a home owned by a single person who is renting the rooms out to the other people. He did not believe that was possible.
In my mind, the community is not the location. It is the people and the interpersonal interactions, and they have nothing to do with power, or power over. A kindly and ethical lord/landowner way back when could be part of the community which includes the peasants who rent his land to work. An office can have a sense of community that includes the boss(es). In any of these situations, the moment the people in power abuse their power, the community leaves them by a sort of unspoken consensus. Likewise, with a group of people living in a household, the community is that group of people. If the owner decides to start being a jerk, the community can leave. The house is, after all, just a house.
He seemed to feel that community == equality. I felt that he was trying to make intentional community into commune. They AREN'T the same thing, necessarily, even though they can be sometimes.
Compare to common room furniture, which usually technically belongs to someone living in the household. I've never seen anyone in a common household pull the, "It's my TV, so we're going to watch what I want to watch" or "It's my couch, so I get to sit on it when the living room is crowded" card. They could though, and in many ways they'd be within their rights (and not, in other ways). The point here is that people DON'T say that, and anyone who did is just not suited to community living (and possibly adulthood).
no subject
Date: 2005-09-09 07:16 pm (UTC)With one exception.
If the person's property is *never* used for their benefit (i.e. the only opportunities they have to watch TV are when everyone is home and they are always getting outvoted on what to watch). Then I would say they were within their rights to say, "We need to find a compromise, or I'm taking my property back."
no subject
Date: 2005-09-09 09:06 pm (UTC)The idea that the community can "walk away" from a person with power that abuses it doesn't ring true for me -- if they do, they end up jobless or homeless, even temporarily, and that's a hassle most people strive to avoid. The "common room furniture" argument has, at times, come up in my experience, and that's nothing compared to discussions of, say, rent increases.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-09 10:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-09 10:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-09 10:22 pm (UTC)So yes, I agree with you. Community doesn't necessarily involve only people exactly equal to each other.
regen
Date: 2005-09-09 10:34 pm (UTC)I should email her this link so she can comment on it.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-09 11:01 pm (UTC)Is it likely or common? No, I don't think so.
No, an intentional community does not have to be a commune. A peaceable country does not have to be a democracy. But in both cases, it helps.
Part of an intentional community is getting together to set the rules, and chart the path that the community is going to go. When one person has a big 'it's my house' stick, that becomes increasingly difficult. While it is true that if that person becomes a big jerk, everybody else can just move away, this isn't always practicable, with the nature of finding big empty houses, and also with the binding nature of leases.
One way that might make it work, is if the owner of the house signs an agreement that if they do, in the view of most of the rest of the house, become at odds with the views of the community, that THEY will move out, and become just a landlord, and not a member of the community. That at least mitigates some of the big stick power of landlord/community member.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-10 08:08 am (UTC)is it possible? yes. right there is a specific case where it happened. is it common/easy/the norm? i really can't answer that myself as i don't know.