Generational political subjectivities shape how members practice commoning in housing cooperatives.
Evidence
In one housing cooperative (Community 1), members felt that those who formed their political subjectivities in the 1970s often had a “maximalist” vision of the commons, which involved some aspects of members lives beyond housing, and also favored a more informal approach to commoning that blends business with socialising. Younger members who grew up in the 1980s had a more minimalist vision and a more professional approach to managing the cooperative. All members agreed that this clash of cultures was the result of difference in subjectivities (Arbell, Middlemiss and Chatterton, 2020). These differences were played out as disagreements over a range of commoning practices, from the desired level of interaction with other members to investment decisions. — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 51
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to my existing interest in how historical cohort outlooks (like 1970s vs. 1980s formations) persist and collide within institutions - parallels cross-cultural dress-panic intergenerational rifts. — connects to: Members’ class and racial identities shape how communities do commoning. — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 57; Shared identity underpins commoner formation and collective action. — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 133; Commoning communities vary with context and adapt over time. — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 95 (+3 more)
- SEED: Angle for an essay on how ‘maximalist vs. minimalist’ commons visions map onto political generations - a generational fault line visible well beyond housing.
- corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning:…, 51
Related
- Communal housing visions shift from maximalist to minimalist across generations and wider societal change. (similarity 0.87)
- Macro political shifts reshape how commoners understand their needs and practices (similarity 0.87)
- Members’ class and racial identities shape how communities do commoning. (similarity 0.83)
- Housing policy biases who can form intentional communities toward privileged groups (similarity 0.81)
- Commoning practices vary with each commons’ unique context, aims, membership and culture. (similarity 0.80)
- Commoning communities vary with context and adapt over time. (similarity 0.79)
- YAEL ARBELL — The Circle of Commoning Conceptualising Commoning through the Case of Community-Led Housing (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- Members’ class and racial identities shape how communities do commoning.
#corroborates(0.92) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 57 - Communal housing visions shift from maximalist to minimalist across generations and wider societal change.
#exemplifies(0.85) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 68 - Shared identity underpins commoner formation and collective action.
#expands(0.78) — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 133 - Commoning communities vary with context and adapt over time.
#expands(0.75) — Yael Arbell, The Circle of Commoning, 95