Cohousing

Sounds like what the Israelis would call a moshav, as opposed to a kibbutz.

"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. "

You keep changing your religion, though, Rod. What happens if one of these traditionalist Christian members suddenly decides he's atheist or Wiccan? Do you sling him out? Do you install polygraphs?

I'm considering buying land with enough room for extended family to build on. My mother could use some help in life, as she is raising my youngest brother alone. I wouldn't mind an unattached uncle staying out there on occasion either, and would be DELIGHTED if my other brother and his new wife eventually settled nearby. It would be wonderful for my future kids to grow up with his, and with my mother nearby. And if I really wanted to get into gardening, there's free labor right there.

This doesn't really meet your criteria for co-housing. There WOULD be some shared economics, we've always had that in my family. And leadership roles would generally default to the eldest of each generation, as has been our custom. I'm not sure we could handle shared kitchens - there's a quite a split between philosophies of cooking and eating, it'd cause more family rifts than necessary. But we've been sharing cars and lawn equipment and washers all along, since certain familymembers can't seem to keep anything mechanical running, so they have to borrow other peoples' things so they can break them too!

Also, religion wouldn't be too big a problem - family ties generally withstand religious shifts, though it can take a period of adjustment. In general, family's great, because they are people that have to put up with you, even if they don't have to like you.

I guess this really isn't co-housing, it's simply a reversion to the way, historically, most people have lived. My family's maintained some of those traditions, such as a certain pool of common finances and a more collective decision-making process among defined generational leaders. We'd have to formally talk out all the finances and responsibilities. It's just an idea so far.

Picture on the link reminds me a dacha settlements we had in soviet times. Though of course it is not exactly the same.
Houses were united by the principle of their owners being employed at the same organisations. For example my great-grandfather was involved in electric industry, and all neighbours were more or less familiar to him by work, by the way it was he who proposed to build houses on that place. Houses were separate but everyone knew each other. Every 2nd sunday of May the elders from each garden came to the counsil which was held in the house of chairman. People discussed all kinds of common problems, such as prices for electricity, who's houses were robbed during winter, collected money to repair common water-pipes, choosing new chairman if previous was bad. Even if there were no serious problems people came to meeting and discussed why aple-trees were not blossoming, where to obtain cheap cow-dung and suchlike. Many came with children. Some unknown old man might say: are you grand-daughter of X. who was a chairman in 193X? how is health of your grandmother? Once an old neighbour wandered into our garden and said in a sad nostalgic voice: how everything changed here, in the time of your great-grandmother here growed a bush of lilacs, and there was a pine...(possibly previous time he visited our garden was around 40 or 50 years ago and we felt a bit sorry that our garden changed).
It's sad that almost all old owners either died or went abroad, or sold gardens. Earth suddenly became very expensive, many heirs overcome nostalgic feelings, they sell earth and and buy another dacha somewhere by the sea, in Spain or elsewhere.

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...

I couldn't agree more. I've been thinking about this topic for a few years: I used to run a website that helped former career women find fulfillment outside of the workforce, and what I found over and over again was that the dissatisfaction that so many stay-at-home moms felt was ultimately rooted in the fact that they had zero community and casual, day-to-day adult interaction outside of the workforce. I think that the negative impact of the disconnected, isolated circumstances in which most Americans live cannot be overstated.

If you have any interest, there was a fascinating discussion about this topic in the comments to this post over at my site a while back. Some of the comments had some really interesting ideas for how to make this sort of ideal a reality. Definitely worth a scan.

Rod: 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 ...

An eon or two ago when I studied classics as an avocation, a group of us talked about the idea of forming a "polis" or small community where we would pursue our interest in antiquity on a living basis while continuing to work in the "real" world. It was decided that we would speak only Attic Greek (except for Saturday night Homeric recitations) and form an assembly or ekklesia to govern ourselves. There were no religious restrictions -- one of the members was a Hindu, another a Jew (whose Greek was tainted by the LXX but he was improving), I a lapsed Catholic (already quasi-polytheistic in a metaphysical sort of way, I suppose) -- but rather an acknowledgement of the Greek gods and mythology would unite us. Christians were not to be excluded but it was obvious to all that their quaint beliefs were a source of sempiternal drollery.

Unfortunately our little quasi-Fourierist scheme never came into being. Despite a half-finished constitution composed in hexameters of polished Attic and with solonic perspicuity, we could not agree on organizing a militia for defense against the local barbarians (mainly the sheriff), nor on the equitable allocation of land for growing such basic victuals as grapes, figs, olives and marijuana.

Nonetheless, I look back on our youthful enthusiasm and ambition as, despite our callow naiveté, a laudable attempt at communal liberation from the economic and political strictures of the modern world.

Unless I am very much mistaken, it does sound like Rod has something similar in mind. Without the Hellenism, of course. Or Judaism. Or Mormonism. Or Christian Scientism. Or Mennonism.

Come to think of it, the Mennonites are experts at it. I wonder if they'd accept a disillusioned Jovian Witness?

Is this even legal? Wouldn't the almighty state sue you if you allowed only people of certain types into this little neighborhood?

Feh. the church looks very Roman Catholic for an Orthodox church. All those chairs. And what is the point of having an iconostasis if you can see everything going on in the altar? Where are the holy doors and curtain?

:)

Matthew: Again, while not co-housing, you would do well to read Hostettler's "Amish Society" to see why the Amish are still able to live in community. Hint: It has something to do with enforceable standards.

One interesting thing about Hostettler himself is that he was raised Amish, but chose to live "English" (by becoming a sociology professor.) The Amish *are* able to live in community, but many (esp. in the Old Order) leave because of the rigid standards. We have a fair amount of Mennonites here (for instance) who were former Old Order. It's not the only reason they left (farmland in PA for instance went through the roof in price), but it is something *every* intentional community deals with. If you don't retain your children, it's basically just another housing option.

Roland,

Can you elaborate on your constitutional debate about the militia? We are entering strange times and would-be Benedictines should not assume that their communities will always be safeguarded by the civil authorities.

I'll be moving into one of these hopefully within a couple of years. I'll keep you all posted!

I would welcome such a community also to raise my family, though also only with the religious character. Ideally the community should be composed of friends in the highest sense in which Aristotle understood friendship: as a shared judgment about the good life. I did in fact live in something like this in the 1990s and enjoyed it greatly as a single person. I'd love it even more now with other Orthodox and Catholic Christians and their families. They do require a lot of work and very careful thought, but they can work. I have a friend living in something very similar (a "covenant community") in Phoenix called City of the Lord (Google them). It's far too "charismatic" for me to tolerate, but they are very solid, humble people who serve one another in a deeply impressive way. I wish there could be something like that but with Byzantine liturgics (etc.) instead of Pentecostal-cum-Catholic.

armchair pessimist: Can you elaborate on your constitutional debate about the militia? We are entering strange times and would-be Benedictines should not assume that their communities will always be safeguarded by the civil authorities.

The general consensus was that no militia was needed, nor even desirable. This was the heyday of the anti-Vietnam war movement and there was an element of the perversely idealistic that pervaded the discussion. The problem was not that an isolated community would need protection by the civil authorities, rather against the authorities. (Cops were pigs and all that rot.)

We agreed in true Athenian tradition to avoid the subject of a militia altogether and in the event of the local sheriff's taking an interest in the herbicultural practices of some of the residents, we would abandon the acropolis to the invader and his deputies. That we had not figured out how to build an suitable acropolis on flatland was not considered a showstopper.

With Themistoclean clarity, I foresaw the need for a naval defense but this was vetoed down. We had no money for ships and besides, we were about two hundred miles from the nearest water. We pretty much broke up in abject disillusionment after that.

My girlfriend Freya Thorsdottir and I left for her home in Iceland where we planned to marry or, in good countercultural style, at least noncontraceptively mate, and breed a race of anachronistic maritime warriors who would harry and plunder the Benedictine monasteries of Europe. She died shortly after catching a chill rolling in the snow during a sauna. I was inconsolable for hours and to this day do not mix sauna and snow.

There is an organization investigating how to set up Catholic communities based on the social teachings of the Church that may be of interest to this group. The premise is is that there is a great wealth of information about living in community, both lay and religious, upon which to build. The Benedictines have been doing it successfully for more than 1500 years. And while some might balk at living under a Rule, consider that the Benedictine Rule is very livable. It is a mix of common sense and spiritual insight.

In Great Britain in the 1930's there was a widespread effort to move back to the land called the Catholic Land Movement. It was supported by the Church and had widespread appeal. Because the Industrial Revolution began in England, this country was the first to suffer the consequences of this Revolution. Thus, the Catholic Land Movement took root there to counter the effects of rampant industrialism.

The movement was premature as too many people believed the false promises that industrialization offered. Today, we know all to well the ill effects of our present form of social and economic structure. Part of the answer is to be found in Distributism, promoted by Belloc and Chesterton. Look this up to read more about this. Also read the book "lee to the Fields:" to learn more about the Catholic Land Movement.

I would suggest checking out a website that is concentrating on these topics. Go to: www.BuildingCatholicComunities.org for more information.

Maybe someone could start planning something in rural Pennsylvania along these lines. Call it something like "The Society of St. John" or somesuch. Oh wait, never mind...

So I picture a long porch with half a dozen rocking chairs facing out in the common building. It will be called the Lodge, and in log cabin or exposed beam style, because my whole idea of this is inspired by summer camp, which has been the zenith of my existence on this earth so far.
It will have a workshop/woodshop/laundry on the lower level, a gathering area, an office, and mail boxes. The Christmas tree will go here every year. There'll be a flagpole and the flag will be raised and lowered everday. We will have vegetable and herb gardens, a woodfire pit/outdoor kitchen and a little pond, and wall tents out on the back perimeter for the kids to hang out in, or for when you feel a little too close to your neighbors. There should be some sort of cottage industry, I think bicycle repair, if life does go all peak oil.

I don't know if I have enough relatives to support all of that, but it is what I imagine. It's something to mull over, though, living close by our neighbors and sharing resources, chores, and childcare. Even if oil holds out for now, I foresee life being more difficult than it has been. The prices as they are will have a long-term impact on all the cheap "stuff" we are used to. This is really not such a bad thing, from a mental health view.

Roland.

Ah, the sorrows of liasions with foreigners. My one experience there was when I worked at a chicken plucking plant. A swedish anthropologist and her bastard todder came to town on some sort of university grant, an exploration of darkest America, or something. Very brilliant and perfectly stupid, a combination not unknown among academics. Anyway, for all her mushy, one-alarm hot leftism, when the brat wanted and wanted to go to Disneyworld, she made it known that I'd have no peace or piece until I delivered. Telling the lady that she was about to experience the true, in the raw Disneyworld, I took her &young master jumpin jiminy to the plant, and told them that it was where donald duck lived. The kid took one look at the conveyor belt of dead Hueys, Deweys and Loueys headed for the vat and ran out of there screaming, with my anthropologist close on his heels. Had it not been for her mulish gullibility, she would have dumped me then and there . That was to be for another day.

Mr Evans,
I liked your description of consensus decision-making. You have someplace else I can read more about it?

The Army doesn't dwell too much on "consensus building" in its leadership training, because for the vast majority of jobs in the Army, it really isn't the most efficient way to get things done. An Infantry patrol attempting to secure a building would not get very far using the consensus model, though it'd be a hilarious comedy routine to watch.

We're different though. As I've mentioned, we've all served together through thick and thin, are of similar seniority, are fairly bright, nearly half of us are female. Our general tendency is towards consensus decision-making, though this may seem ironic in a military unit.

It really is the best way to tackle the daily problems which confront a tiny band of analysts in the face of a deluge of data, obdurate superior officers, over-enthusiastic Infantry types, and things (and people) constantly blowing up in the night. Things get done, but it's kind of hard to explain HOW to your average Army sergeant. We all specialize in particular skills, nobody pays much heed to rank structure, and folks tend to follow the lead of whoever approaches the latest problem most logically, and can present it clearly enough for us all to understand. Also, the war would be lost utterly without Excel Spreadsheets. Don't tell the terrorists. ;)

I'd be interested in learning more about the most effective methods to foster consensus.

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.

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.