The Power of F2F - Hugs or Hubris?

[Mary B.]

There have been some threads recently on Cohousing-L about conflict and "peace, love & understanding". One person pointed out that residents may have different preferred styles of communication -- oral face-to-face (F2F) or written.

This may seem obvious, but it got me to thinking ... although I can switch between the two, I prefer written for most policy discussions and that actually got me into hot water in my community. Several of us were having what I felt was a congenial, even staid email discussion about security cameras when one woman, who admitted she wasn't even interested in the topic, interrupted to digitally wail that using email was, and I quote, "sucking the life out of the community!"

An ordinary conversation subsequently turned into an emotional meltdown with repercussions that lasted for months.

And I believe, from what I've been told, that Stone Curves does not even allow email discussions on policy and issues on their internal email system -- only announcements. (I may be wrong, so I'm open to correction on that.) So other communities also intentionally or unintentionally squelch written communication.

So. Is it possible that "in community" there is sometimes resistance against those who are either multi-communicative or who enjoy written communication? That F2F is often put forth as the high road, the ideal, the golden preference to the exclusion of all other forms of communication? Doesn't this sometimes smack of intolerant self-righteousness or dreamy retrograde on the part of people who have only one preferred mode of communication?

[hesterkw]

My own preference is always for email anyway, but I do think there are some discussions where the detail really has to be written, even if the conversation is started elsewhere.

People can hear different things in a discussion, there can be some back-and-forth and uncertainty as to where the conversation ends up. Anything with lots of numbers and detail is better written down because it's just too much to take in in-person. You can then have a F2F discussion if everyone has read the prep.

But F2F has more subtlety of tone and body language, which can feel friendlier than a dry rebuttal in email, even if not intended to offend. Also, back-and-forth is quicker in person, rather than waiting 24-48 hours for everyone to get to their email and find time to respond. F2F is better when the early conversation has no idea where it's going - brain-storming, finding common ground before going to specific proposals.


We're a forming group, so a lot has happened by email already, just because we're currently not together on site! But we also have usually at least 2 face-to-face meetings a month. However not everyone can make those, especially those who don't live in the city, so only having F2F or assuming everyone can be there is excluding too. I imagine even once we're on site people will have different schedules and you can't assume participation F2F is accessible for everyone.

Also email can be opt-in or out. If you're not interested, don't read. I can't imagine anything more life-sucking than feeling you have to attend a meeting where only 1 or 2 items interest you, you don't know when they will happen, and have to hang around for hours waiting for the agenda item!

But some members do struggle with the volume of email, which I understand. I've no idea if this will go up or down on site: currently there's a lot of stuff about design, funding, legal, leases etc which will disappear when we're there, but could be replaced by day-to-day site running.

[Mary B.]

Welcome again, Hester. As a side note, if your group is interested, I can set aside a private board for your group here, which can be used for planning and discussions, in addition to email. It would only be viewable and accessible by your group. It's an easy way to keep comments archived as an easy-to-read thread, as opposed to opening one email after another, and discussion drift that happens without changing subject headers. Let me know if you're interested, and I'll get you set up.

[garyronstadt]

The whole point of committing to living in cohousing is to do things together, as a group. To make decisions together, to build a better life. If people are going to buy a home in cohousing and then just be gone, whey don't they just buy a condo in Florida and be done with it? So yeah, I think members should attend the meetings, and be granted a certain number of proxy votes per year, like three. If their absent for more than that, well that's on them.

[hesterkw]

May 18, 2016 9:09:08 GMT -8 garyronstadt said:

The whole point of committing to living in cohousing is to do things together, as a group. To make decisions together, to build a better life. If people are going to buy a home in cohousing and then just be gone, whey don't they just buy a condo in Florida and be done with it? So yeah, I think members should attend the meetings, and be granted a certain number of proxy votes per year, like three. If their absent for more than that, well that's on them.

I disagree that the 'group' is every single person in the community at the same time. Somebody who works night shifts and can't make regular evening meetings might still be gardening with their neighbours in the morning, helping prep for meals, planning in a sub-group during their free time. No meeting time will suit everyone.