communes

[jazzactivist]

Today I read a really interesting article in the Saturday Guardian on the Wild communes in the 1970s. These were communes set up across the UK by women, and a few men, who wanted to challenge the isolation of the nuclear family and raise children together. In the communes none of the children had a primary parent, as all adults had an equal role in caring for them. The children didn't have their parent's surname but were all given the surname "Wild" to show their independence, and this became the name of the communes. There are comments from the mums and their children today and all say that at the time it was a very positive and liberating experience and all of the children have kept their name.

I find the idea of communal living very attractive and, to me, the idea of people sharing household responsibilities and the raising of children seems a healthy way to go about it. I would be interested in joining a similar community for our retirement years, but there either aren't many about or they are now very expensive to buy into.

I was brought up in a conventional family where my dad was a professional and spent long hours at work and my mum was a housewife who stayed at home. I am sure that my decision not to have my own children was influenced by seeing how isolated my mum was and how small her life became. She didn't see anyone except family members and women who were in the same position as she was, and the one friend that she had who was different was frowned upon by the others. My mum was an intelligent and well-educated woman who hated the limitations of her life and took her frustrations out on her children. My dad died in the mid-70s when I was a young teenager and my sister younger, but by then the damage was done. My mum didn't have the confidence to seriously go out to work and make her own independent life and always depended on others. I think that if she could have joined a commune like the Wild one at that stage she might have thrived instead and the responsibility of child-rearing would have been less of a burden. What do you think? Do you know of any communes from that era? Were you or anyone you knew a member? Would you consider joining one for your retirement?

[sheddie]

I do remember them Jazz but didn't know anyone in one.But an interesting subject. X

[jazzactivist]

It is funny how all these exciting experimental things were going on in the late 60s and 1970s, but most people didn't seem to know that it was happening. I am sure that my mum wasn't aware of any of it, and it may well have helped her situation. When I was a young woman I was very curious and keen to read up on all alternatives and did go and live in a rural commune myself for a short while, but found it hard going as I was the youngest there by a long way and the other members were very set in their routines. I got on better then sharing houses with other people of my own age, but these weren't communes with a shared ideology, just young people sharing the costs.

Later on I lived and worked in a couple of intentional communities, and even set one up for young homeless people that is still going. After spending many years living with just OH I think that living in an intentional community with people of all ages would be a nice way to live again, especially when we get older. I think that socially things have gone backwards and we now live in a much more rigid society where the nuclear family is the most important way to live and people don't care much about anyone else outside of it. Some of the communes / cohousing projects are now recruiting for new members as their founder members are needing to go into nursing care and children born into them are going away to university or have married people who are not part of the commune scene. However, none of these are near here, and some can be mightily expensive to buy into. I nice co-housing communty with affordable housing would be good.

[Primrose]

Morning Jazz

Just a very quick reply. I know there is something started up near where we live but I am not sure if it has religeous conetations. Anyway found an article

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/buying_and_selling/article4356015.ece

Not read it but you may or may not find it interesting. I am interested to read more about your experiences later.

Have a good day and I hope you are putting that mill through it's paces. I love silver jewellery so looking forward to seeing your new business advertised.

[Crocus]

A commune or co-housing community for retirement I think can work very well Jazz. Especially taking into account that the elderly will still feel useful in helping out with whatever, or whoever, needs help of some kind.

[dragonfly]

I would have considered it when young before I had a family but definately not now. I like my own home and own things around me and I like possessions. I enjoyed rearing my own children and would not have liked to share the responsibility with anyone else especially someone with different views to me and would not have liked them interfering with how I did it. I'm not saying everyone should have my views just that everyone should do things their own way. I would not be good at sharing. My mother had 10 children which kept her busy and fullfilled, it was her choice as she was a clever woman who had had a good education but chose to have a lot of children. I think it was the culture when our parents were young to just get married and have children, thankfully it is not like that now. I was not satisfied to stay at home with 2 children but as my children came first I just worked part time which I think is the best of both worlds. I am active in my community and get on well with neighbours and there are lots of activities and community things going on in villages all around here. I would like to live in a retirement village where all the people are my age and have views similar to me but where I can have my own home and garden to do with as I please.

[Crocus]

I don't think I would've liked it to share my children's upbringing etc. with 'strangers' so to speak. I think we are so used to this way of life, getting married, having children, doing what you think best regarding your children and family, doing your own thing, while still sharing in other ways. Living in a commune as a family sharing everything may restrict creativity and being unique in what you do, prefer to do as a family. It will also restrict privacy and perhaps too universal in general I think. xx

[sunflower]

In the early 70's Hubby and I were involved in the movement called 'the Jesus people' and we belonged to a community here in the UK. We were involved..in and out approx for six years. They were exciting times, lots of stuff happening. After the birth of my twins when I came out of hospital I remember during a communal meeting our babies being passed around the room of about 70 people. As I anxiously looked on in case they were dropped, one of the women said to me, 'now remember, they are not yours, they are ours' The set up worked quite well. People who had Professions continued to work and supported those who stayed at home cooking, gardening, child rearing etc.
After six years we decided to leave for a variety of reasons. I went through a time of grieving for that life. We also found that we had to adjust to 'civvy street' We found that our openess in conversations and offering to share...lawmowers, cooking equippment was met with suspicsion. Being in community, it was important to be honest and open to keep good relationships. But outside the community we learnt to guard how much information we gave people, and stop offering to help when people needed something because this led to people keeping their distance from us. Strange is'nt it?
We're glad that we had this experience but I do'nt think I could return to the intensity of these relationships...where everything that was said and done was under constant scrutiny.

[jazzactivist]

That's really interesting, sunflower. I know what you mean about intensity of relationships in an intentional community, as the house meetings can go on a bit and there is always someone who is very emotional about something! Like any family really, but on a bigger scale. I think that this often seems to be more the case when community members share houses and don't have any private living space of their own, or when the community has a leader. Like you, OH and I are very open and honest people. We also offer to help whenever anyone needs something, as it is no trouble to us if we are in the position to help. We also find that people can be suspicious of our friendliness, but we now just think that it's their problem. If you think about it, living 'in community' is more like recreating the traditional lifestyle in other countries, where there is much more of a sharing bond than we are used to in the 'west'. I like the idea of it, and my experiences of living in a group with others have also been positive, but I also like quite a lot of personal space and quiet, so perhaps a co-housing arrangement where each person / couple / family has their own house or flat, but there are also shared areas for recreation, laundry etc would be best at the later stage in our lives.

[Crocus]

Just for interest, doesn't it take away one's individuality in most aspects of life? Having to share everthing with everyone? As Sunflower has mentioned when her twins were born, they weren't their's but everybody's babies like the lady said? It will work when help is needed of some kind, but not on a permanent basis, in everyday living. That wouldn't have worked for me, but I can see it working in old age. We've got retirement villages here in S.A. where the elderly live in their own accommodation in the complex, but they can take their main meal of the day together with others in an communal dining room. Frail care is also available on the premises unless someone has to be hospatilised, of course. It's quite expensive but it's safe, they are looked after very well, and usually there's transport to the nearest shopping centre as well. xx

[jazzactivist]

It's only an intentional community if there is a common ideology or way of thinking behind setting it up, though, crocus. A lot of people living in the same complex, even if they share meals and leisure activities doesn't make a community, unless there is a stated intention to do so and everyone is equally involved in decision-making. The idea of intentional communities is that like-minded people come together to try to create a shared way of living their lives that is beneficial for everyone who lives there. Generally they enhance the aspects of life that they do like and reject the aspects that they don't like, and all have an equal say. It can be hard to reject the status quo on your own or as a single family unit, but it is much easier when there is strength in numbers.

People living in proper communes or co-housing always retain their individuality and they agree what to share. If there is a dominant leader / deity whose ideas inform everyone then it would be a Cult. I think that it is good for children to have the equal influence of a number of different adults in their lives, both family and non-family, otherwise it can be very hard for them to develop their own ideas that may be different to their family's. Being able to grow-up in a community where all of the adults have the same basic ideas about child-rearing, and are willing to share the care and responsibilities in a safe environment must be good for both children and their parents. There are lots of examples of this type of child-rearing around the world from the Kibbutz system in Israel to the African saying "it takes two parents to produce a child, but a whole village to rear it". In sunflower's example the women commenting were probably only stating that they were willing to share the care for her children as if they were their own. Living this way also means that older people don't become isolated and their knowledge and skills remain useful too. I think that the 'western' way of the individual nuclear family creates a 'rod for our own backs' in many ways, making life harder rather than easier.

[Crocus]

I agree with you Jazz that kids do benefit having different people than only parents 'available' to them. If one takes into account that, in general, there's two sets of grandparents, possibly aunts, brothes and sisters, and friends available to help out when an emergency comes up, this is also the case without living in a commune. Whilst I don't see anything wrong with living in a commune, I don't think I would've been able to do it. Perhaps if I were born and bred into it, but not how I know and live life now, which is living together as a family in our private space, but do have contact with lots of people, and reaching out to others as much as we can. xxx

[jazzactivist]

I agree with you, crocus, I think that nowadays families are more cosmopolitan than they were, so there is a better chance of children being introduced to different ideas, backgrounds and ways of life. Now intentional communities tend to be based more on alternative lifestyles eg environmental, rather than on childcare, although some still create their own schooling. Up until the 60s / 70s, when I was growing up, extended families tended to be much of a muchness - nearly all coming from the same country (same few streets even), same racial ethnicity, and with similar values and experiences, so it was very difficult for a child to find other influences, even in the nicest families. And if an adult wanted to change their lifestyle away from the expected norm, well... they had to find other people to do it with and it always caused big ructions in families. In the UK there aren't many 'traditional' communes left now, but the biggest have been going since the 1920s and there are one or two new ones too. In the next village to where I live there is a lot of community action between the residents, with a community owned shop, pub, village hall, school and woodland. They always have something interesting happening. I pop over there quite often, but people are so happy living there that houses very rarely come up for sale! The village that I live in is nice, but not so community spirited.

[dragonfly]

I think the isolated families have only happened recently. Until then there were often 2 or 3 generations living in the same house and most people went to church. Also many people went to pubs and clubs and took their children. All the neighbours knew each other and helped out in times of need and were much more neighbourly in general. Neighbours were always looking after other peoples children or like us we were always in someone elses house or they in ours. So I think children did get a varied idea of life and people or at least that is how it was when OH, who lived in a terraced street, and me, who lived on a brand new estate, lived.

I grew up in a very large family and it took a lot of getting used to being a couple so at that time I could easily have joined a commune for the company and sharing. Now I love my privacy and own way of doing things so would not like it at all.

[Crocus]

I wonder if where one lives perhaps have anything to do with it? I remember when living in a big city until 9 years ago, you knew the neighbours directly next and opposite from where you lived, and then friends you made along the way. The community feel gets lost a bit in a big city because of people relocating a lot, but in the country things I feel are different. There's more care and concern towards others I think. In our particular village people also relocate quite a bit, but because it's a smallish town and in a way isolated we pull together when there's some kind of problem, no matter who or what. xx

[jazzactivist]

I think that it is the same in rural villages now, crocus. I have lived in three in the UK and, although you know your neighbours by name and greet one another in the street, it is unusual to know them really well and share items and responsibilities. Also, there is generally a lot of movement with people moving out and in. In the city it is rare to even know your neighbours' names though, and greetings are very restricted. I think that it is a shame, but unless you live in a very cosmopolitan place, where people stay for a long time, most people are very similar. In the next village there seems to be a core of residents who are making a real effort to create a proper community and, in doing things that are beneficial for the whole community, they are making it a really nice place to live. So much so that no-one moves out anymore and all of the houses are permanent homes rather than holiday homes. That is quite some achievement nowadays.

I was brought up in the 60s and 70s in a newly built village in the Cotswolds and then in the suburbs of Cape Town and both places were quite anonymous. I suppose that was the start of people separating from their wider families, but there still wasn't much difference between the families who lived there. Everyone had similar jobs, similar houses and similar lifestyles, but people were also quite competitive and isolated. I hated the hollowness of it when I was young and have actively looked for alternatives in my own life. I have managed it to a large extent, but I would still feel quite lonely in my old age if I don't have more of an ideological purpose to living and a mix of people around me whom I could share it with.

[Crocus]

Perhaps communal living, similar jobs, similar houses etc. you've mentioned Jazz, was a sign of the times they were living in? The stage a country was at that moment, taking into account the economic situation, etc.? Or perhaps their own financial and social situation at a given time? xx