The nuclear family — with or without an attendant extended family organization — and the harem remain the dominant forms of family organization in nearly all present societies. Polygyny and various forms of communal or cooperative family organization are the rule in a few societies and are present as a minor counterculture component of many Westernized nations. In most Western societies, where the traditional extended family organization is often lacking or geographically fragmented, single adults with children, and loosely adherent extended families formed through serial polygamy (divorce and remarriage) or by two or more divorced same-sex adults and their children living together, have become important adjuncts to the nuclear family.
Anarchists traditionally have advocated “free associations.” between the sexes with minimal contractual obligations. However, such issues as property, liability and income, rights and obligations, and parental responsibilities are often poorly delineated in such relationships. Also, many people would feel unduly insecure with such a tenuous hold on a partner. Some anarchists have instead opted for various forms of the communal family. Although anarchist communes often try to minimize the common problems experienced in more collectivist communes, in practice this is often difficult to achieve or creates its own problems.1
In some Western nations, greater acceptance of living together without a marriage contract and easy divorce have considerably reduced the contrast between how mainstream society actually operates and how anarchists think it should operate. In addition, less generally accepted options such as extramarital affairs, long-term mistresses, mate swapping, and spouses working in different cities or living in different apartments provide at least part of the familial variety of opportunity for auxiliary romances and feeling of partial independence that many adults desire within a traditional nuclear family structure.
Again, these options serve to partially remedy those limitations of the nuclear family that strike fear in the hearts of many anarchists. Given enough time, imagination and open-mindedness, is it possible that the nuclear family can and will be patched up with enough escape clauses to allow it to function as a reasonable facsimile of the anarchist’s ideal? Perhaps for some. However, I propose that there is a better way for many people, for at least part of their life — perhaps better than “free associations” or communes, under the right circumstances. That way is what I call the roundhouse co-op and closely related forms. To my way of thinking, the roundhouse co-op has the potential to achieve most of the desirable features of the “naked” nuclear family, the extended nuclear family, “free associations” and communes, while minimizing most of their respective potential shortcomings.
The “naked” nuclear family is heir to the “extended” nuclear family, just as today’s mobile individualistic societies grew out of largely stationary clannish societies. The “naked” version has lost some desirable as well as undesirable influence of the extended version. The latter often has served as a buffer against some of the internal and external vulnerabilities experienced by mates in “naked” families. On the other hand, an extended family may hinder individual expression and technological progress, especially when older members of a clan exert a domineering authority over younger adults. The roundhouse co-op, unlike some modern communal organizations, is designed to replace much of the lost buffering function of the extended family with a minimum of group interference in individual freedom. Of course, friends and family often partly serve this function in “naked” nuclear families and “free associations” However, additional intimates are likely to be the most effective for many buffering functions.
In general, it is expected that roundhouse co-ops will consist of four to eight people. More than eight is likely to be undesirably unstable in personnel composition, awkward to accommodate in the orthodox roundhouse living arrangement, may give the group the appearance of being too powerful, and may provide too dilute a commitment to and understanding of the individuals with whom one is intimate.2 In the most orthodox version, equal numbers of each sex are included, in the case of purely heterosexual groups. If only four people are involved, a variant of the roundhouse living arrangement, the shuttlehouse co-op, may be a simpler design. In this arrangement, each person has his or her own section of the overall residence. A moveable partition between each two sections allows an individual to close off direct contact with either or both cospouses. In general, it is expected that one partition will be open most of the time and that the two partitions will alternate after an arbitrary time period. When the group is feeling especially cosy, the may want to open all partitions. This type of physical arrangement cannot be extended beyond four people without some compromises. It is possible to have a larger network shuttlehouse co-op, with overlapping shuttlehouse units. Also, a larger communal organization might consist largely of shuttlehouse or roundhouse units.
With more than four people, the co-op may want to go to the orthodox roundhouse type of living arrangement, which consists of an outer and inner set of apartments arranged in a circle. The inner set can rotate, whereas the outer set does not. This arrangement may involve the entire apartments or just an upper bedroom section. In both the shuttle and roundhouse living arrangements, the idea is to provide conditions that encourage each person to live temporarily as a pair with each cospouse, while having their home base close at hand. The rotation periods need not be even, as some pairs may be more compatible than others at a given time. Especially in the case of larger, relatively less cohesive co-ops, the short-term pair or nuclear family setting may provide individuals with the psychologically rewarding illusion of being more than isolated individuals within a group. Also, each potential pair within the co-op is “forced” to assume the identity of a pair (unless strong objections are voiced). I think this will help to discourage the development of factions and jealousies which could threaten the integrity of the co-op. It provides an obvious cue as to “who’s whose” at a given moment in those co-ops where the temporary pair is given strong emphasis. (Of course, it is not expected that this cue is to be slavishly obeyed at all times!) Presumably, this will tend to reduce the time and hassles often involved in negotiating sex in a more unstructured group setting. Thus, I see adequate emphasis upon the rotational nuclear family within co-ops as a stabilizing influence for many co-ops, as well as being desirable psychologically for many people. Certainly, I expect the importance of these factors to vary from one co-op to the next, and through time within a given co-op.
The simpler arrangement, where the co-op members occupy a series of separate apartments or bedrooms within a dwelling may serve adequately or even better than the roundhouse arrangement for some. Especially, co-ops that tend to function as a tight-knit social group may “get by” without a special physical arrangement to pair the various combinations of spouses. However, I believe the long-term stability and personal satisfaction within most such groups would be significantly increased by the roundhouse or shuttlehouse design.
The individual in a “naked” nuclear family can be in a very vulnerable position with respect to his or her own spouse. If that spouse becomes temporarily incompatible, violent, permanently disabled, alcoholic, workaholic, unemployed, financially bankrupt, mentally ill, wants to move far away, dies, engages in criminal activities, etc., these can completely dominate one’s life in a negative way. In addition, the nuclear family can (but need not) be a prison to those who either have or develop close physical or emotional relationships with others of the opposite sex. Some people commonly suffer “burnout” with one legitimate spouse, especially if the spouse is overly possessive. Friendships with either sex may be limited by their appeal to one’s spouse. Easy divorce has reduced the potential magnitude of these negative influences, but still there is often a reluctance to leave when it appears one is leaving purely to escape the spouse’s bad luck. Others are reluctant to leave because they feel they have no realistic alternative, or fear retaliatory bodily harm by their spouse.
With communal ownership of property and money in nuclear families, there is the opportunity for constant bickering over finances, gold digging, communal liability for debts and negligence, etc. The nuclear family tends to promote overpossessiveness3 and competition between rival lovers and families. Children are also vulnerable to the weaknesses, abuse and ill luck of their parents. Nuclear families are, of course, generally more readily mobile than larger groups, an important factor in highly mobile societies. However, larger groups are not necessarily expected to be less stable in personnel composition than nuclear families if the group structure helps to stabilize satisfaction within the family.
Communal family arrangements serve as one alternative to those who are turned off by the real or imagined problems with the nuclear family format. Thus, vulnerability to the present or future quirks, abuses and weaknesses of one spouse or set of parents is much reduced. Presumably, overpossessiveness and envy are discouraged. Income and wealth is often put in a common pot. People may choose to have children or can be sterile while allowing otherwise very compatible mates to have children. Legitimate variety in sex or platonic romantic partners is often provided, eliminating the problem of burnout. Also, one is unlikely to find her- or himself alone as the head of a household of kids. Children can be reshuffled to allow the most compatible combinations to interact the most.
But as a good anarchist, maybe you don’t want to completely surrender your individuality, privacy, wealth or your freedom to work outside of a communal framework. Maybe it’s good to have a degree of possessiveness toward certain material goods and personal accomplishments outside the commune. Many people would not want to relinquish these freedoms or luxuries, once tasted. Also, some communes are ruled by an informal elite based on seniority or aggressiveness (see Whole Earth Review 51:78, and 53:139), even though equality is supposed to reign. The danger of rape or VD spread in large communal groups and the possible hassle of constantly having to negotiate romance may discourage many from communal families.4 The fact is that even in most long-lived communes in North America, the commune is only a transient stage lasting perhaps a few years in the lives of most of its members. Perhaps that is all some of them expected of it. Many others leave because of disillusionment.5
The roundhouse co-op is designed to promote most of the buffering and group comradeship functions of communes while minimizing most of their too-frequent traits that many consider undesirable, if not intolerable. Thus, even between the sexes there is no communal money or property (unless such is agreed upon), although some income redistribution between the sexes would probably be standard. It is important (for peace of mind) that members of a co-op not be liable for the debts and negligence of other adults in the co-op. Such matters should be spelled out in detail in the marriage contract. An important potential function of the co-op would be for wealthier members to provide low-cost working capital for poorer members to get started in a business or career. The latter may otherwise lack a source of sufficient starter capital at a reasonable cost. The members of the co-op can have work lives independent of each other. Individuals can move to another area for an extended period as a job or schooling dictates without placing excessive child rearing burdens on the remaining members, and without the need of dragging along spouses who would rather stay where they are. As in the case with most communes, there would be group responsibility for children.
Roundhouse co-ops may be more prone to certain problems than nuclear families or free associations. Greater instability in personnel composition due to a greater number of people is intrinsic. This instability seems a small price to pay for the added security and variety of multiple mates. Hopefully, the greater choice of possible partners in the co-op may be a stabilizing factor. Jealousies may be more frequent, especially with extreme contrasts in wealth and other measures of career success, popularity, etc. This is probably the single most dangerous factor likely to threaten the success of roundhouse co-ops. Possible conflicts in child rearing principles, dwelling design, etc., are more likely with more adults involved. More confusion and stress caused by having to adjust to the idiosyncrasies of more people and parents would bother some people; but others would thrive on the increased variety. In general, these problems are expected to increase in severity as the size of the roundhouse increases.
In summary, the roundhouse and shuttlehouse co-ops are proposed as plausible, workable approximations of the social anarchist’s ideal of the family as a “free association” of consenting adults. It is argued that for many people they may promote “the greatest individual development with the greatest communal unity.” By insisting upon a high degree of individual autonomy and upon living arrangements designed to foster the experience of each person being part of several nuclear families in rotation, it is anticipated that these co-ops will be broadly applicable even in highly mobile, individualistic societies in which some form of the ideal nuclear family is preferred by most people for a least part of their adult lives. These co-ops are designed to provide most of the buffering functions of traditional extended nuclear families and communal groups with fewer attendant sacrifices in individual autonomy. By resisting the temptation to communalize wealth and property, the separation of members from the co-op is facilitated, bickering over finances and property use should be largely eliminated, and the danger of a “laissez-faire” approach to work developing within the co-op is reduced. These co-ops would seem most likely to succeed among small groups lacking extremes in individual wealth, fame or popularity; among people with a minimum of overposses-siveness and jealousy, and with a certain tolerance for sharing their private life with a group; and among people who have settled in one geographical area for an extended period. Co-ops lacking these characteristics may, like too many communes and nuclear families, serve only as a transient refuge or battleground for many of its members. In their most orthodox versions, these co-ops do require specially designed dwellings. The shuttlehouse and related network co-options do not require a radical departure from conventional housing, although more constraints in design details are involved. The roundhouse design will require some adjusting to odd-shaped rooms. Also, pipe and wiring systems would have to be specially designed for a rotating dwelling.
Small cooperative family units living in dwellings specially designed to encourage each adult to share, in rotation, a common sub-dwelling unit each potential mate are considered as a plausible alternative to nuclear families, communes and “free associations” or pairs. These co-ops, termed roundhouses or shuttlehouses, are designed to facilitate the attainment of an optimal balance of individual identity, nuclear family living and extended family buffering. Each adult member has an individual section of the group dwelling in which most of their personal possessions are kept, and each retains their autonomy with regard to wealth, legal liability and employment. As a group, they are responsible for any children, engage in some income distribution and provide emotional, financial, and other support for each other. The roundhouse and shuttlehouse arrangements are designed to help stabilize interpersonal relations within the co-op by: (1) providing an obvious cue as to who’s whose at a given time, and (2) “forcing” each potential pair of adults to live as a unit periodically, thus creating the illusion of each person being part of several nuclear families in rotation.
1 For some recent firsthand discussions of bad experiences in anarchist and other communes, I suggest: Jim Campbell, “Anarchy Down on the Farm,” Kick It Over 17:15; “Backscatter About the Farm,” Whole Earth Review 51:78; C. L. “Cory” Koral, “A commune that doesn’t really work,” Whole Earth Review 53:139.
2 The international community in Auroville, India, has experimented with various group sizes in one dwelling, and concludes that eight to ten adults is the maximum desirable size (Auroville Review 6:13).
3 Here defined as possessiveness to the point of unduly interfering in the freedom of one’s lover to lead an independent existence and to flirt or engage in more intimate behavior with other persons.
4 See David Talbot’s discussion of this problem in “Unspeakable Pleasures: Erotic Adventures in the ’80s,” New Age Journal, Feb. 1986, p. 27.
Caroline Estes’ article serves as a brief introduction to the use of consensus decision-making in organizations of varying sizes. With several decades of experience using consensus models on a regular basis (as a Quaker, and as a member of an intentional community), Estes offers concrete examples of its effectiveness as well as counter-examples of “strategic mistakes” that resulted from not using consensus. In the second half of the article, she outlines a number of practical tips for implementing consensus decision-making into a group.
Originally published in issue 10.