Thoughts on multi-generational living?

[Basman]

Historically the norm, but since post-war there has been a period where it became the norm to move out as soon as you gained financial independence and for the general population to atomize, but now it is becoming more common again for adult children to live with their parents due to the economy and all. Historically, independent living is a luxury to a certain degree.

I find this exciting because it feels like nature is healing in a way. The atomizing of society has had certain negative effects and eroded much of its community. There are a number of important and significant things that multi-generational living can provide, such as stronger bonding, stronger financial and social resources and support for raising children, taking care of elderly, etc. Divvying up responsibilities can get those people really good at their responsibility, like a traditional housewives in the old days could be extremely good cooks (not saying that we should go back to traditional gender roles by the way or to the same capacity). Apes together strong basically. When everyone has to survive on their own as independent units, we're overall less effective socially compared to communal cooperation. My hope is that multi-generational living could help prevent certain social issues, such as the mental health crisis, the elderly crisis, and preventing overstretching healthcare, housing and other social goods. Overall, people will be effectively more self-sufficient which frees up more resources.

In our modern age, we have forgotten how to survive without relying on faceless institutions. Historically, we survived communally by pooling our resources and assigning responsibilities. A degree of communal living could make society much more effective, healthier and happier and help insulate against institutional failure/collapse, like elderly neglect at big senior homes or economic downturn. Communes is how humans survive in the absence of a government taking care of their survival after all.

Western and especially American culture is very independent though (America also has a lot of land) and it's no longer a given that work is locally accessible, a big reason why people move away from their families. We don't exactly build houses for multi-generational living and we have higher standards than Cambodians. We're not all going to be sleeping in one giant bed in a tiny living room if we can afford otherwise. It would demand greater interpersonal and communication skills and certain personalities are not built for it or get along with their family like that. If you don't want to play the game you shouldn't have to.

Culture is probably the biggest barrier to accessing this social strategy in the absence of economic restraint.

[aurum]

I think it's more problem than healing.

Calling it "multi-generational communal living" is a stretch. It's really younger adults dependent on older ones. The dependency is asymmetric and reflects the fact that younger adults in particular are struggling to provide their own survival. This creates resentment, stifling and lack of groundedness in younger adults.

 

[LordFall]

I agree with @aurum that it's more reminiscent of codependency rather than powerful interdependency.

It's important for young people to have the independence and sovereignty to be able to survive in the world without the help of their parents and family. They should still hold ties with their community but in a voluntary fashion not because the global economy is collapsing for middle class and lower class folks. 

[Basman]

15 minutes ago, aurum said:

I think it's more problem than healing.

Calling it "multi-generational communal living" is a stretch. It's really younger adults dependent on older ones. The dependency is asymmetric and reflects the fact that younger adults in particular are struggling to provide their own survival. This creates resentment, stifling and lack of groundedness in younger adults.

 

6 minutes ago, LordFall said:

I agree with @aurum that it's more reminiscent of codependency rather than powerful interdependency.

It's important for young people to have the independence and sovereignty to be able to survive in the world without the help of their parents and family. They should still hold ties with their community but in a voluntary fashion not because the global economy is collapsing for middle class and lower class folks. 

That's just the economic reality of it currently and a bit besides the point. Being able to afford your own house is a luxury. It's a cultural expectancy based on post-war economics that made it normative to buy your own home. The more time passes, the further we move away from the economic golden age of the boomers. You expect and value independence maximally like it's a given. There's a good chance that's your culture speaking.

Just try to consider the benefits for second. A lot of our social problems are due to a lack of social connections. 

Edited 20 hours ago by Basman

[Basman]

To clarify one of my arguments, I think too much social atomization is dysfunctional societally and politically. It strains resources and makes people lonelier. It's antithetical to how humans are built.

[aurum]

5 hours ago, Basman said:

You expect and value independence maximally like it's a given.

What's expected is that a younger generation of healthy adults should not be asymmetrically dependent on their aging parents.

The parents are still independent and in control. Why do they get to own their own home?

5 hours ago, Basman said:

A lot of our social problems are due to a lack of social connections. 

This does not solve that. It just creates enmeshment. 

Edited 15 hours ago by aurum

[LordFall]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

 

That's just the economic reality of it currently and a bit besides the point. Being able to afford your own house is a luxury. It's a cultural expectancy based on post-war economics that made it normative to buy your own home. The more time passes, the further we move away from the economic golden age of the boomers. You expect and value independence maximally like it's a given. There's a good chance that's your culture speaking.

Just try to consider the benefits for second. A lot of our social problems are due to a lack of social connections. 

I don't understand your point and who it's speaking to. You're saying if you can't afford to move out good and take it as an opportunity for community building? I mean sure but also work on a business and empower yourself economically so you're not codependent and lacking independence. 

[Basman]

13 hours ago, aurum said:

What's expected is that a younger generation of healthy adults should not be asymmetrically dependent on their aging parents.

The parents are still independent and in control. Why do they get to own their own home?

This does not solve that. It just creates enmeshment. 

I'm not arguing for economic codependency but for cooperation and intentionally building a community. 

What I am questioning is if the economic and social independence that we have now since the post-war is sustainable or even desirable. If atomization causes social and financial strain, both personally and societally, then greater cooperation could not only help solve that but also prevent future issues.

[Basman]

12 hours ago, LordFall said:

I don't understand your point and who it's speaking to. You're saying if you can't afford to move out good and take it as an opportunity for community building? I mean sure but also work on a business and empower yourself economically so you're not codependent and lacking independence. 

I'm speaking from a top down kind of perspective. I'm myself a young adult dependent on my parents due to economic circumstances.

If something dysfunctional is crystalizing into bad results then we have an opportunity to seriously discuss the solutions.

You should become more economically strong personally, but why do you assume that independence should be the end goal of that? Consider that independence isn't inherently a virtue and that there is a lot of social goodies that comes from an intentional multi-generational living situation that provides society a lot of value that can't be provided by simply dumping resources into some institution or organization.

The underlying principle that I'm trying to communicate is that the populace should take a greater degree of responsibility for their survival and that being wholly dependent on the government isn't sufficient for survival or for happiness. Greater independence on a societal scale just means that your dependent on the government for social resources to help you survive to a greater degree, like childcare, education, elder care, health care (to a certain degree), social development, etc. 

Another underlying principle that I base my idea on is that nature tends to be functionally superior to technology and bureaucratic practice. A lab meat factory requires expensive machines, maintain constant sterility and hire a bunch of skilled experts to produce what pigs do effortlessly while eating trash and rolling around in the mud. Artificial processes tend to be more expensive and complicated than natural ones. The idea of intentional multi-generational living is that it reintroduces some human nature, based on the assumption that it works.

[soos_mite_ah]

I think it's a case by case basis and that we shouldn't romanticize multigenerational living OR getting kicked out at 18 to start your own life away from family. 

The pros of multigenerational living is that you have a built in sense of community to help you out. It can foster closer emotional bonds, helps people save money, and can be good for the environment because you're sharing resources rather than having to get a whole new place for each person. I think child rearing in these situations are healthier because the giant responsibility doesn't fall on one or two people and everyone can pitch in and the child also have multiple role models and people who are actively in their lives. In an ideal world, I would want my kid to be brought up in an environment like this. . 

However, these pros are under the assumption that you have a more or less healthy family dynamic. If anyone is abusive, doesn't understand boundaries, or is out here creating chaos and dysfunction, living in a multigenerational household can get really messy really quickly to where people are feeding off of each other's toxicity. Unfortunately, with my family's dynamic, since I don't live in an ideal world, I have decided to get my own space.

The pros of living in a more nuclear and atomized fashion is that you get more independence to assert your own sense of individuality. Because you are less reliant on people, you are less likely to get emeshed. Boundaries becomes MUCH easier to employ and maintain. It forces you to learn a lot of important life skills since you're responsible for the whole thing. Also, if you have a sense of self reliance, economically, emotionally, and other wise, you're less likely to stay in circumstances that aren't healthy for you since you have the means to fend for yourself. 

However, these pros really do flourish if you still have a sense of community and regular socialization outside of your home. Otherwise, you kind of turn into a hermit with not a lot of social skills and that can cause you to stagnate in a lot of ways in life. And even if you are independent, it's still important to know when or where to ask for help and also return the favor. 

[aurum]

2 hours ago, Basman said:

I'm not arguing for economic codependency but for cooperation and intentionally building a community. 

What I am questioning is if the economic and social independence that we have now since the post-war is sustainable or even desirable. If atomization causes social and financial strain, both personally and societally, then greater cooperation could not only help solve that but also prevent future issues.

I understand that's what you're arguing for.

It's fine to want those things, but the question is how do you actually achieve it?

You cannot just assume kids moving back in with parents = solving atomization. Because in this case, that's not what is happening.

[Basman]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

I understand that's what you're arguing for.

It's fine to want those things, but the question is how do you actually achieve it?

You cannot just assume kids moving back in with parents = solving atomization. Because in this case, that's not what is happening.

Can only happen if you have the culture for it. The west is too independent minded to even consider it without interpreting it as a kind of failure. 

[Basman]

1 hour ago, soos_mite_ah said:

However, these pros are under the assumption that you have a more or less healthy family dynamic. If anyone is abusive, doesn't understand boundaries, or is out here creating chaos and dysfunction, living in a multigenerational household can get really messy really quickly to where people are feeding off of each other's toxicity. Unfortunately, with my family's dynamic, since I don't live in an ideal world, I have decided to get my own space.

People on this forum are overall going to have a greater bias and need for independence and avoid conformity. It's correct then to be more autonomous. 

[LordFall]

@Basman When you put it like that I agree with you, humans should be more in touch with their survival and also help other nearbys and create strong intentional communities.

Really sad that people end up homeless in modern cities. 

[aurum]

48 minutes ago, Basman said:

Can only happen if you have the culture for it. The west is too independent minded to even consider it without interpreting it as a kind of failure. 

There may be some western bias towards independence. But that does not prove your solution is correct either.

Your solution must stand on its own merits, not simply because the west resists it.

[soos_mite_ah]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

People on this forum are overall going to have a greater bias and need for independence and avoid conformity. It's correct then to be more autonomous. 

Is independence way to avoid conformity? If anything, I believe that living by yourself in America is the conformist take and that living intergenerationally is going against the post war norms of this country. 

[Basman]

2 minutes ago, soos_mite_ah said:

Is independence way to avoid conformity? If anything, I believe that living by yourself in America is the conformist take and that living intergenerationally is going against the post war norms of this country. 

True, but generally you need autonomy to not be subject to conformist pressure. Good luck breaking from religion on your parent's money.

[Basman]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

There may be some western bias towards independence. But that does not prove your solution is correct either.

Your solution must stand on its own merits, not simply because the west resists it.

Communal living is how humans have survived for thousands of years, since before humans where recognizably sapien. It's the norm and it is social atomization that is the exception. Communal living is how humans survive in nature when they don't have a big government taking care of them. And it's clear atomization has certain issues and limitations that are dysfunctional, like increased loneliness, lack of purpose, poorer health and a society that is overall more fragile and dependent on institutional resources. Like when the housing market is in a bad place, it more readily stagnates and loses it's ability to give people dignified lives. In the middle-ages people had to be nearly completely self-sufficient with the exception of military, which was what the role of the king amounted to essentially (in simple terms). Middle-age people knew how to survive. 

And it absolutely is a matter of culture. Where did the notion that moving out or becoming completely financially self-sufficient are basic milestones of adulthood? Multi-generational homes are common in Italy and that is not a poor country. If there's no baseline appetite for valuing connection over independence, then the idea of multi-generational living becoming normative will never take off in a way that has cultural staying power. For a similar reason, you can't introduce western style feminism and democracy in the middle-east. Values determine what your willing to open your mind to, if at all.

Survival ultimately decides what works and atomization is a survival strategy in a globalist economy. If the assumption that atomization is substantially dysfunctional then you'll see people opting into the alternative out of necessity, which is partially already the case right now in my opinion.

Indians immigrants are a great example of a successful demographic which is strong in big part to strong family ties. That is a culture with family values (to borrow a historically misused term). Though granted it comes with downsides with pressures to conform. My vision of multi-generational living would minimize toxic conformity, but of course it is only realistically possible to maximally transcend conformity through autonomy. This whole thing is not meant for people who are trying to awaken.