Totally agree with your points and perspective Gillian and Phil! Why do we have to be so nitpickingly exclusive when we’re trying to build something inclusive?
Nonetheless, there is an important, significant distinction.
I think moderns tend to be rootless, transient, hypermobile.
Rootedness and groundedness would require going back to feeling an identity with and a commitment to a particular place-on-earth.
Stability . . . in a community of familar others. Enduring commitment to a particular place over time, ideally even over generations. "My family, my extended family, my neighbors-in-community, love this place, we come from this place, we care for this place." A bioregional sensibility.
Transient co-living, which provides support and home for a period of life, is great. It's just not the same thing as what I've described above. What I've described above would constitute a significant cultural shift.
If I’m interpreting your comment correctly, you’re saying ‘rootedness’ is better and more desirable than ‘moderns’ who are ‘rootless’. If so I respectfully but strongly disagree. I have seen many coliving situations where a large part of not all of the community is ephemeral, but the house has a tremendously positive impact on its wider neighborhood. I’ve also seen long term cohousing situations that were toxic, and entrenched established wealth.
If we’re falling back on natural metaphors, we should remember migratory animals are as necessary to a healthy ecosystem as rooted plants.
Humans lived in real communities (stable groups of familiar others who all related together to a particular place-on-earth) for 99% of our species existence until the craziness of urban-industrial modernism led to our current hypermobile mass society. I think we'd be happier (and more ecologically responsible) if we got back to living in real communities again.
Totally agree with your points and perspective Gillian and Phil! Why do we have to be so nitpickingly exclusive when we’re trying to build something inclusive?
Thank you.
I am, and I believe you are, on a beautiful and complex journey to question and shape living arrangements.
👏🏻 thank you for this!!
> All should be applauded.
Sure.
Nonetheless, there is an important, significant distinction.
I think moderns tend to be rootless, transient, hypermobile.
Rootedness and groundedness would require going back to feeling an identity with and a commitment to a particular place-on-earth.
Stability . . . in a community of familar others. Enduring commitment to a particular place over time, ideally even over generations. "My family, my extended family, my neighbors-in-community, love this place, we come from this place, we care for this place." A bioregional sensibility.
Transient co-living, which provides support and home for a period of life, is great. It's just not the same thing as what I've described above. What I've described above would constitute a significant cultural shift.
Steven Welzer
East Windsor, NJ
If I’m interpreting your comment correctly, you’re saying ‘rootedness’ is better and more desirable than ‘moderns’ who are ‘rootless’. If so I respectfully but strongly disagree. I have seen many coliving situations where a large part of not all of the community is ephemeral, but the house has a tremendously positive impact on its wider neighborhood. I’ve also seen long term cohousing situations that were toxic, and entrenched established wealth.
If we’re falling back on natural metaphors, we should remember migratory animals are as necessary to a healthy ecosystem as rooted plants.
Humans lived in real communities (stable groups of familiar others who all related together to a particular place-on-earth) for 99% of our species existence until the craziness of urban-industrial modernism led to our current hypermobile mass society. I think we'd be happier (and more ecologically responsible) if we got back to living in real communities again.