Ever heard of cohousing? It's a new style of building neighborhoods in which families live in their own houses, built around a commons area, and share an old-fashioned community life without exactly being a commune. Here are the Six Characteristics of Cohousing:
1. Participatory process. Future residents participate in the design of the community so that it meets their needs. Some cohousing communities are initiated or driven by a developer. In those cases, if the developer brings the future resident group into the process late in the planning, the residents will have less input into the design. A well-designed, pedestrian-oriented community without significant resident participation in the planning may be “cohousing-inspired,” but it is not a cohousing community.2. Neighborhood design. The physical layout and orientation of the buildings (the site plan) encourage a sense of community. For example, the private residences are clustered on the site, leaving more shared open space. The dwellings typically face each other across a pedestrian street or courtyard, with cars parked on the periphery. Often, the front doorway of every home affords a view of the common house. What far outweighs any specifics, however, is the intention to create a strong sense of community, with design as one of the facilitators.
3. Common facilities. Common facilities are designed for daily use, are an integral part of the community, and are always supplemental to the private residences. The common house typically includes a common kitchen, dining area, sitting area, children's playroom and laundry, and also may contain a workshop, library, exercise room, crafts room and/or one or two guest rooms. Except on very tight urban sites, cohousing communities often have playground equipment, lawns and gardens as well. Since the buildings are clustered, larger sites may retain several or many acres of undeveloped shared open space.
4. Resident management. Residents manage their own cohousing communities, and also perform much of the work required to maintain the property. They participate in the preparation of common meals, and meet regularly to solve problems and develop policies for the community.
5. Non-hierarchical structure and decision-making. Leadership roles naturally exist in cohousing communities, however no one person (or persons) has authority over others. Most groups start with one or two “burning souls.” As people join the group, each person takes on one or more roles consistent with his or her skills, abilities or interests. Most cohousing groups make all of their decisions by consensus, and, although many groups have a policy for voting if the group cannot reach consensus after a number of attempts, it is rarely or never necessary to resort to voting.
6. No shared community economy. The community is not a source of income for its members. Occasionally, a cohousing community will pay one of its residents to do a specific (usually time-limited) task, but more typically the work will be considered that member's contribution to the shared responsibilities.
Here's a cohousing community called Blueberry Hill, in Vienna, Va. Here's how it came together. I must say I find this very attractive, and pretty much what I have in mind when I think about the Benedict Option. But I would not personally get involved in a situation like this without a serious shared religious commitment as the defining aspect of the community. For me, I could become part of a community of Protestants, Catholics and/or Orthodox in the Touchstone magazine model -- traditionalist Christians, in other words, even if we don't all worship in the same church.
The Orthodox community around the cathedral in Eagle River, Alaska, was a cohousing community before cohousing was cool! I really, really long to live and raise my family in a place like that. But I have no idea how to make it happen...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
AB,
A Google search of "consensus building" will produce many websites. I'd generically recommend two criteria in judging a site: its academic base (.edu sites good) and its focus on "conflict resolution".
With full caveats about blurred definitional lines, consensus is present even in a disciplined, chain-of-command environment. I have no surprise at all that you find it at work in your military experience. I encourage you to explore it more, and if you can find a congenial officer -- better if he or she started in the enlisted ranks, but only some better -- who is willing to discuss the differences between following orders and being invested in the decision process. A person implementing orders -- and this is true in any setting -- does so most effectively when his or her intellect is engaged. No order can cover all contingencies. Often, the intended results of the order is the only important aspect of that order. Your training will govern how you implement it, and I daresay except in combat you are expected to show innovation and self-direction. Since I am only just a little better read about the military than your average civilian, I'll stop there in comparing to military scenarios. You're a smart lady, I'm betting you can find similarities and parallels without my groping for them. ;-)
One key aspect of consensus, something often overlooked, is that when consensus is reached everyone bears the responsibility of achieving the result, including those who disagreed during the consensus building process. The strength of consensus is in its focus on community spirit. If that spirit is not present first, consensus is usually a colossal waste of time.
Rod,
There should be a forming community called Wildflower Village somewhere there in the Dallas area. You may want to check it out.
Actually, there's a story about it today by Bob Moos in your own paper, now that I looked.
The military has a corner on the whole concept of group cohesiveness. And this war has really put an emphasis on "commander's intent," which means the commander tells you your endstate - you get there your own way. There's an entire generation of rather junior personnel coming up that are accustomed to accomplishing the mission with relatively little guidance and input. I just hope the Army is able to retain enough of them to make an institutional difference.
At any rate, I'm going to go read up on consensus building now.
Franklin,
You wrote: "I do wonder though -- and this is just from your post, so your clarification would be appreciated -- but most people don't truly understand consensus either as a concept or as a process."
I would tend to agree, but then again, in religious circles (which is my main area of study), there will be groups that will embrace this concept while others will outright reject it.
For example, the Congregationalists historically have worked by consensus. For example, the entire church body (women included) could vote on issues facing the group, and the congregation would be responsible for calling (and supporting) a minister to serve their congregation. This is in comparison to the Roman Catholic Church which historically has employed a hierarchical, top down approach not only to church government and leadership at the parish level, but also to policy and doctrine. The laity, generally speaking, have been left out of the decision making process.
When we speak of consensus in religious circles, we must also deal with a groups understanding of "truth". In Catholicism, consensus matters not if the "truth" is being erroded and "heresy" has taken its place. Consider St. Athanasius. On the other hand, we are living in a time when there are certain religious groups who have built consensus on things historically abhorant to Christian thought (homosexual marriage comes to mind).
Franklin continues, "Consensus says: this result is desired, within that timeframe; so long as the result is accomplished, one may suggest alternate ways of accomplishing it."
Again, this historically has not been the case for the Roman Catholic: "Rome has spoken, the case is closed." The problem occurs when Rome has softened or changed its theological viewpoint or discipline over time. Today's traditionalist Catholic, despising the present rule and discipline, seeks tradition - but the question becomes which is the valid tradition, and which (if any) was the valid reform? In this, one will argue that the means (whether the eucharistic fast, the mysteries of the rosary, kneeling to receive communion) are just as important as the desired result since the means are vehicles of grace.
The debate is endless, and a consensus is, dare I say, impossible.
Thank you, Matthew. I always enjoy reading someone's inside perspective. I have strong sympathy for the religious group experience, if from a very different (non-hierarchical) angle. Modern paganism has some very strong communities, specific to a belief system (Wicca, Druidism, Asatru), but it lacks a more general cohesion. That is something of personal interest (and some grief).
The thread topic might be expanded by using a more expansive term: intentional community. It can be used constructively to examine/explore the food co-op experience, various efforts like Free Cycle (recycling of unwanted items as opposed to materials) and community gardens (both being of personal interest), and arguably the home schooling movement. It's a model for living, it can be specific and limited in scope or encompass most or all aspects of living.
It occurs to me to mention another misconception about consensus: there is a mythic quality in the view of many that consensus is about breaking rules as well as making them, of replacing core structures and entities solely on the basis of the group somehow deciding that they need to be changed. This is antithetical to the notion of community. Any given group will form around a core of beliefs or intentions. If that core should change, the group is no longer an entity. The decision-making process is not involved in that dynamic. Consensus works best when it inhabits a clearly and strongly defined scope. It works solely within that scope, and has no power beyond it. Consensus is a method of community dynamics, of promoting the community strength by being inclusive and participatory beyond the potential of a hierarchical system. When consensus has failed in the promotion, it has lost its validity.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.