Urban communes as an alternative to families

[TC]

Marx and Engels viewed Capitalism as the beginning of the end for the family and communism resulting in its eventual deconstruction as the institution that we know it. The personal may not be inherently political but political awareness can inform the range of personal choices.


Maybe I'm getting older (ha!) but I've been thinking lately about what kind of living and social arrangement would make me happy in the long term.

I can't imagine replicating a cookie cutter nuclear family that the bourgeois ideology promotes as ideal. The bourgeois love it because it reproduces the next generation of workers while helping to create the responsibilities required to enslave the current one. The patriarchy loves it because it makes some people (i.e. old men) 's lives relatively comfortable in a way they likely wouldn't be in an egalitarian living arrangement. I don't see the need to do something just because people think its something they ought to do to please their parents and meet social expectations without questioning them. This is of course to say that, hypothetically, some people might not be truly fulfilled by it, however the social conditions make it difficult to tell how much is due to expectation, fantasies fulfilled or not, social pressure and the desire to avoid cognitive dissonance by denying the shortcomings.

I don't see retreating from the world in a rural intentional community, or living on your own indefinitely, as particularly appealing alternatives though.

What I think seems like an appealing alternative formulation might be an 'urban commune.' An extended family of unrelated people, either with or without (I should think, without, for me) polyamorous relationships, either with or without children and shared child care (again, for me I'd say no but that might work for some people).

I've seen social centers whose residents have had a lifestyle that could be described that way. Grad student shared housing, artists collectives, and similar arrangements of young people in group living sometimes have characteristics like that, but they're rarely intended to be permanent or indefinite, and rarely seen as a new and alternative norm for the long term.

What do people think about the family and alternative equivolent arrangements for living and relating to people on an intimate social level. Whats emotionally appealing, whats politically appealing, what would you like if you had the option, what would you prefer politics aside? What do you see as your real options?

[BobKKKindle$]

There are, as you point out, different possible arrangements, and it's likely that in a society without social pressures, there would be multiple arrangements in existence at any one time, as a reflection of the diversity of interests and preferences in a given community. However, one key feature that all of these arrangements would have to involve in order to be genuinely liberating, especially from a feminist point of view, is the socialization of household tasks, such that no individual or section of the community would be forced to engage in tasks which limit their ability to pursue wider and more meaningful projects. It is also likely that, when given the opportunity to enter into new social arrangements orientated towards individual freedom and wellbeing, individuals would choose to live alongside those who share the same interests as them, so as to maximize opportunities for personal development and self-realization, and this is something we can already see emerging under capitalism, albeit only in an embryonic form, as students generally choose to live with those who are doing the same subjects as them, or at least share similar interests. We also have to be aware of the ways in which the family is supported ideologically under capitalism. This occurs partly through the fact that almost all individuals are born into and raised within a nuclear family structure, which socializes us to believe that the family is a natural form of association, or the only way in which humans would ever be able to live happily together and provide a suitable environment for children, but in addition to these basic mechanisms, the family is also supported in the media, and through the ideological statements of politicians - in particular the increasing trend to identify single mothers and other individuals who defy the family structure as the source of social and economic problems, such as welfare dependency, juvenile crime, and so on. Homophobia is also a reflection of the need to reinforce the legitimacy of the family, because a key component of the family as a symbol is two adults of different sexes. These statements appeal to our understanding of what is natural despite the fact that the family is a relatively recent component of human societies, in that, prior to the emergence of class antagonisms, and the creation of patriarchy (which occurred first? Is there a causative relationship?) human societies exhibited a high degree of sexual freedom and fluid social arrangements.

[Glenn Beck]

What I think seems like an appealing alternative formulation might be an 'urban commune.' An extended family of unrelated people, either with or without (I should think, without, for me) polyamorous relationships, either with or without children and shared child care (again, for me I'd say no but that might work for some people).

That is pretty much my ideal. I live in a long term monogamous sexual relationship but neither me nor my partner is interested in marriage and have often discussed how such an arrangement would be far more satisfying. Some adherents of polyamory have written interesting things on the topic but so much about intimate relationships rests on the material basis of society. I honestly have no idea how family and relationships will change under advanced capitalism but I am certain that under socialism, where every individual is both independent and responsible to the collective the family will ultimately wither away. For instance: there doesn't seem to be a fundamental need for children to be so attached to their mothers after they are weaned, they could just as easily be supervised and socialized under a more collectivized arrangement. When children are ultimately independent of their parents, when there is no physical need for both parents to necessarily even be together and when every persons physical welfare is separate from their intimate relationships I have trouble seeing how the family would not "wither away" just as the state. If anything we will probably see the end of the family under socialism long before the end of the state.

People talk about how the nuclear family is somehow natural or ingrained part of human nature, but I simply don't believe it. The extended family and/or tribe structures are far more ingrained into human beings and I feel that communist society will ultimately end up repeating them on a higher level. Some of the most mentally healthy people I know were raised mostly by their extended family, and some of my best experiences growing up were under the care of my grandparents, aunts and uncles.

Under the current mode of production of course, we do the best we can as always.



I found this work by Alexandra Kollontai to be fascinating and it really helped me articulate my ideas about family relations and human liberation:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/theses-morality.htm

[black magick hustla]

people should live in whatever arrangements they want.

[Pogue]

The above, basically. You can't impose anything, people'll do what they want.

Also, I think its determined by whether or not emotional expectations in terms of family units are determined by society and socialisation or by humans naturally. I think the former has alot of relevancy (i.e. the nucleaer family is promoted by capitalism, as is patriarchy, and has existed as long as class society has), but I think alot of it natural, simply because of how other animals work and whats emotionally viable.

I think whatever suits you best is important but you have to remember that some things are just natural, i.e. any kid needs parents there to value them and give them worth, and its best to have both a positive role model in life (although single parents can raise their kids fine if they're good parents). That doesn't exclude gay couples obviously, because if you had two dads or two mums and they brought you up right, you're not gonna be messed up in the head like alot of (mainly dad) deprived children are. It'd be nice for everyone to have role models of both sexes though, because thats important, so you understand and respect both sexes. But as I said that could mean having a single male parent or a single female parent and then an storng role model uncle or aunt, and the same with having two male parents and two females parents and having a strong role model of the opposite sex, like an aunt or uncle or friend or something.

You have to be careful with deviant primary socialisation, i.e. changing peoples family relationships, because it fucks people up. I know I wouldn't want to have about 10 carers none of which are my actual all-loving parents.

Simply put, you need to bring children up stably and lovingly and I don't think a commune lifestlye with multiple parents is best for that, nor can I see things changing (as under communism we wont all live under one big roof, we'll just have different local adminstration) and theres no need to change. As long as there isn't partiarchy, domestic violence, abuse, etc, nuclear families are the ebst way to bring up a child.

Fundamentally: 2 parents, positive role models, doesn't matter if they're a gay couple or whatever as long as they're positive, good values and stability, positive role models from both sides.

[Pogue]

As an side note to elaborate, I don't see how communism will do away with traditional families. It may happen eventually but I doubt it and don't really see the link to what the social/economic system is.

[proudhon10]

I really don't think communes can replace families.

[StalinFanboy]

This may have already been touched on, but I think the ideal family situation is somewhere between the nuclear family, and the communal family. A lot of early human tribes raised children as if it were just one big family, and I think that this style is extremely beneficial in that children are exposed to many different viewpoints and such (not to mention it also gives couples a little more time to themselves). But I can also see where parents would want more a direct hand in their kids' upbringing (at least in the early staged - kids ain't property, dammit).

[Plagueround]

Fundamentally: 2 parents, positive role models, doesn't matter if they're a gay couple or whatever as long as they're positive, good values and stability, positive role models from both sides.

I believe it's been proven that children do just fine with only one guardian, and any negatives from doing so are mostly a product of having to live within a system where that parent is also responsible for their financial situation. Again, it goes back to the capitalist promotion of the nuclear family as being the "only acceptable" way of living.

I'll write more on my own family and my thoughts later.

[StalinFanboy]

I believe it's been proven that children do just fine with only one guardian, and any negatives from doing so are mostly a product of having to live within a system where that parent is also responsible for their financial situation. Again, it goes back to the capitalist promotion of the nuclear family as being the "only acceptable" way of living.

I'll write more on my own family and my thought later.
Tru dat. My mom was single most of my life, and my dad wasn't there. And then I was at the other extreme: my dad came back into my life, got married to someone else, and my mom also married someone else. I went from one parent to four. I have a ton of problems due to this, but it's only because I was raised in a society that says that the two parent model is the only way.

[Killfacer]

I think i would like to live in a nuclear family, as in one private unit (not as in i want to treat my partner like crap and make her cook me food etc). Like others have said, each to their own, as long as any minor is well cared for.

[black magick hustla]

I am not going to make an argument of what is natural or not because those arguments reek of reaction and dubious pseudo-science. Ive been in all sorts of living arrangements, from hippie collecives that reek of pot, to average family life etc and I can tell you that while i find the whole youth collective thing really fun i see myself mostly living with a few people, i.e. my partner. the whole issue of elucidating about "radical" ways of living sounds really forced to be honest, and reminds me a little bit of lifestylism or at best, some sort of silly utopian thought. i do think however, that any sort of future socialist state must guarantee children a place in society if they do not want to live with their family.

[NecroCommie]

I dont know whether it is the future or not, but it is what I would like. An urban commune I mean. I just cant stand the nuclear family idea. I find it repulsive.

[Blackscare]

Maybe I'm a freak, I'd like to fall in love with someone and raise kids some day. FAR in the future, no doubt, but I'd still like to do it.

[Killfacer]

Maybe I'm a freak, I'd like to fall in love with someone and raise kids some day. FAR in the future, no doubt, but I'd still like to do it.

That's exactly what i want to do. Although we seem to be in something of a minority.

[Blackscare]

Not saying what form that would take and all, but I'd like to have an actual FAMILY, people I can have a deep personal connection with. I don't want to live on a commune with a bunch of smelly teenagers I don't like until I'm 90 :(

[Blackscare]

I think some people take it too far and say that EVERYTHING has to be changed in a revolution, no matter it's actual relevance to anything. Sure, the NUCLEAR family concept is strange, but I'd still like to live with my actual flesh and blood (or adoptive kids perhaps), whether it's the form of a nuclear family or not (which would be up to whatever the course of events of my personal life dictated I guess) rather than some impersonal collective.

[Herman]

I don't want to live on a commune with a bunch of smelly teenagers I don't like until I'm 90Nice going there, using a stereotype and a generalization.

Apart from the fact that those "teenagers" would stop being teenagers by the age of 20.

It's obvious to assume that if you don't get along in the "family" arrangement TC mentioned you'd obviously have the freedom to leave it and live alone.

[NecroCommie]

Dudes, dont get me wrong!

I have no intention of enforcing communes on anyone. Its just a personal wish of mine. And even when living in a commune, you would still have personal space so you dont have to put up with arseholes if you dont want to.

My idea of a commune is like living in a (relatively) luxorious cell-apartment thingy. ( I have lived in some shitty cell-apartments) Except that the cells are flats or buildings instead of single rooms.

[Blackscare]

Nice going there, using a stereotype and a generalization.

Apart from the fact that those "teenagers" would stop being teenagers by the age of 20.

It's obvious to assume that if you don't get along in the "family" arrangement TC mentioned you'd obviously have the freedom to leave it and live alone.

I was kinda joking, I am a teenager after all.

Chill out :rolleyes:

[Blackscare]

I like the idea of towns (or neighborhoods, in larger cities) organizing communally :D

[Bright Banana Beard]

What about for people who wanted to live the way of the hermit? I am talking about the one who is being fair and reasonable on zone and location, not some lunatic.

[Plagueround]

I originally wrote this in another thread. It was more geared toward children, but I think it applies here as well:

Children are not capable of being fully autonomous early on and need guidance and help. This is not to say they are unthinking robots, but they do need to be taught how the world works. I am entirely comfortable with "violating my child's autonomy" by grabbing him if he's about to run out into the street, (politely) taking things from him in a store and placing them back on the shelf, or not allowing him to play with the large assortment of chemicals people keep under their sinks. What should be discouraged is the authoritarian and demeaning parenting that many people use, approaching their duty as a parent as a prison guard or police figure. There will always be a need for a certain amount of "authority" over those that are not yet capable of taking care of themselves. The problems the family unit faces these days is more a lack of respect for a child's ability to process these situations and grow to understand them without talking down to them, yelling at them, or hitting them.

As for the notion that children should not be influenced by their parent or guardian, but rather society...I think that ignores the diversity of human thought. A communal society does not mean the end of different approaches, thoughts, and attitudes toward living. If anything I would agree with Oscar Wilde and say a society under socialism would be more diverse and individualistic. You are not going to have a set standard for society to raise a child by. Certainly the consensus society has on certain matters would deter most people from abuse, as it does now, but the notion that doing away with family units would eliminate the complex relationship between guardians and children ignores human diversity too much.

I have a feeling that a society under socialism or communism would not see the end of the family unit so much as an extension and furthered development of it, where we view more and more people as part of our family or community. Simply because children are not confined to one style of guardianship does not mean that some won't choose to primarily live with one person, and others may prefer to "bounce around". Again, children are every bit as diverse as the rest of us.

[Pogue]

I believe it's been proven that children do just fine with only one guardian, and any negatives from doing so are mostly a product of having to live within a system where that parent is also responsible for their financial situation. Again, it goes back to the capitalist promotion of the nuclear family as being the "only acceptable" way of living.

I'll write more on my own family and my thoughts later.

I refer you to what I said:


although single parents can raise their kids fine if they're good parents

I think two parents is preferable though.

[Pogue]

I like the idea of towns (or neighborhoods, in larger cities) organizing communally :D

Yeh, we call that communism.

[Reuben]

Definitely an interesting post. I just wonder, though, how far the developement of emotional bonds is dependent upon the value that our culture at large places on them, and as such whether such an environment could present a viable alternative to the family.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have a feeling that a society under socialism or communism would not see the end of the family unit so much as an extension and furthered development of it, where we view more and more people as part of our family or community. Simply because children are not confined to one style of guardianship does not mean that some won't choose to primarily live with one person, and others may prefer to "bounce around". Again, children are every bit as diverse as the rest of us.

As long as the economic family (contracts and generally male-determined division of labour in the home) goes the way of the dinosaur, I don't care what social fancies concerning "families" arise, as long as they aren't the product of "bourgeois feminism" like that of some posters on this board.

[YSR]

I think TC asks some really good questions and I think some of the responses are interesting.

Rather than responding to anyone though, I'll raise a different, but related point. (:D)

The thing that communal living as a long-term situation brings to my mind is the use of the current family structure to enforce social rules. Of course, Levi-Strauss's work on the incest taboo comes to mind as an important example of a social regulation that exists to encourage certain types of behavior (exogamy and the control of reproduction). So for me, I think the advantages of living communally would not be simply to not reproduce bourgeois ideology, as TC correct points out, but it could also fundamentally transform the forms of relationships in society.

Again bringing in an anthropological perspective, it occurs to me that families are even more fundamental to society than the economy or politics. Or, better said, the family is a building block upon which are build most other systems. Kinship and family are/were more important to the functioning of primitive societies than abstracted concepts like money. So if we fundamentally changed the form of the "family," intentionally and voluntarily, I think it opens up a wide range of possibilities for different kinds of socialization. Like TC suggests in her OP, collectives of different needs/desires could fit people better than living as they do now. I think they could also engender exactly the kind of solidarity-based relationships that are necessary to maintain a communist society without enforcement from above by a repressive apparatus.

Someone who's talked about this in a more strategic way, as opposed to the theoretical discussion we're bringing up, is James Herod (http://www.jamesherod.info) in his hit-and-miss book Getting Free. I'd suggest that folks check out his sections about collective living and how it can, with really not that much work, be attempted today on a wider scale than the cooperative movement is undertaken. I think that, as an added strategic bonus, in my experience with housing cooperatives, the solidarity and cooperation that are required for collective living engender an added focus on organizing and a springboard for action. Be it simply more frequent discussions of theory/strategy/tactics or the more concrete benefits of having a space where meetings can take place and collective materials can be kept, collective housing helps us today. In this way, maybe we could see it as prefiguring the different socialization that I mentioned by being an active mechanism to promote solidarity.