![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparrAlmost everyone does chores in their living environment or compensates someone else for doing them. This is a perfectly normal aspect of being a functional adult. Maybe if you live alone and have low standards you don't do many, but you still have to at least occasionally do some laundry, take out some trash, shovel some snow, etc. Maybe if you live with one other person you split the chores, or one of you does most of the them and the other pays most of the bills, and hopefully you both consider that a worthwhile trade. If both people in a couple have jobs and split the bills, most of the people I regularly interact with understand that it's unreasonable to expect one of them (probably the woman) to do all of the housework. These all seem to be well understood concepts in our society. No one is confused when these scenarios are assumed background for a conversation or piece of fiction or proposed policy. Everyone understands when divergence from these norms is assumed to be problematic.
Somehow, all of that goes out the window when discussing living with larger groups of people. Most people hear about an expectation that they do their share of the household chores in a coliving environment and respond with things like "I can't work a job AND do work at home" or "I'm not signing up for a second job" or "Are you going to pay me for all of that work?". Somehow, those same 2-5 hours a week that they would have spent on laundry, dishes, trash, snow, lawn, sweeping, etc living alone becomes "not my job" as soon as they live with other people. Oddly, they see this as somehow fundamentally distinct from the same statement made by a man who moves in with a woman, which scenario they would strenuously object to. Further, this isn't just self interest; many people still feel this way when discussing other people in the same situation. There's something about the larger group that fundamentally changes people's understanding of household responsibilities.
The situation is even worse, from my perspective, because I advocate for the economies of scale in coliving. When a bunch of people pool their resources, including their labor, everything should, and usually does, get easier. Mowing a single big yard takes less time than mowing a bunch of smaller yards. Cooking dinner and washing dishes for 20 people is significantly easier than doing it ten times for two people. This pattern continues across almost all chores. So, when someone rejects the idea of coliving chores, not only are they breaking a norm that exists even in smaller groups or for individuals, they are also somehow making it sound like more hardship despite it being less work than it would be otherwise.
It gets worse again when you consider the benefits gained by consolidating the resources behind those chores. Hopefully, they've made a good decision about the environment they want to live in. They'll enjoy that big yard more than they would a tiny yard. They'll enjoy those group dinners more than they would eating alone. They'll enjoy a larger home theater, a bigger garage, and so on across all the other experiences and amenities they'll be able to take part in that they wouldn't otherwise. So, now they aren't just complaining about doing the same work they'd be doing living alone, or even about doing less work than living alone, but they're complaining about doing less work for more benefit!
How does someone get from "Spending 30min/wk doing dishes from eating alone is necessary" to "Spending 20min/wk doing dishes from dinners shared with my friends is unacceptable"? I have never been able to wrap my head around this in a charitable way. I am hopeful that someone reading this might be able to offer some insights that will better inform my future engagements on this topic. Since I don't plan to stop founding intentional communities, I expect this will continue to be an important recurring conversation in my life.
PS: For reference, the last large scale chore system I developed for a ~20 person household required each person to do three chores per week, with about 1/3 of the available slots being cooking communal meals and maintaining our most active kitchen, and the other 2/3 covering everything else. One version of those chore descriptions is still visible online here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1797qiZ5iODelLS6oZm41gwEhtlMcttHfrG6CYM0c7Q4/preview
Somehow, all of that goes out the window when discussing living with larger groups of people. Most people hear about an expectation that they do their share of the household chores in a coliving environment and respond with things like "I can't work a job AND do work at home" or "I'm not signing up for a second job" or "Are you going to pay me for all of that work?". Somehow, those same 2-5 hours a week that they would have spent on laundry, dishes, trash, snow, lawn, sweeping, etc living alone becomes "not my job" as soon as they live with other people. Oddly, they see this as somehow fundamentally distinct from the same statement made by a man who moves in with a woman, which scenario they would strenuously object to. Further, this isn't just self interest; many people still feel this way when discussing other people in the same situation. There's something about the larger group that fundamentally changes people's understanding of household responsibilities.
The situation is even worse, from my perspective, because I advocate for the economies of scale in coliving. When a bunch of people pool their resources, including their labor, everything should, and usually does, get easier. Mowing a single big yard takes less time than mowing a bunch of smaller yards. Cooking dinner and washing dishes for 20 people is significantly easier than doing it ten times for two people. This pattern continues across almost all chores. So, when someone rejects the idea of coliving chores, not only are they breaking a norm that exists even in smaller groups or for individuals, they are also somehow making it sound like more hardship despite it being less work than it would be otherwise.
It gets worse again when you consider the benefits gained by consolidating the resources behind those chores. Hopefully, they've made a good decision about the environment they want to live in. They'll enjoy that big yard more than they would a tiny yard. They'll enjoy those group dinners more than they would eating alone. They'll enjoy a larger home theater, a bigger garage, and so on across all the other experiences and amenities they'll be able to take part in that they wouldn't otherwise. So, now they aren't just complaining about doing the same work they'd be doing living alone, or even about doing less work than living alone, but they're complaining about doing less work for more benefit!
How does someone get from "Spending 30min/wk doing dishes from eating alone is necessary" to "Spending 20min/wk doing dishes from dinners shared with my friends is unacceptable"? I have never been able to wrap my head around this in a charitable way. I am hopeful that someone reading this might be able to offer some insights that will better inform my future engagements on this topic. Since I don't plan to stop founding intentional communities, I expect this will continue to be an important recurring conversation in my life.
PS: For reference, the last large scale chore system I developed for a ~20 person household required each person to do three chores per week, with about 1/3 of the available slots being cooking communal meals and maintaining our most active kitchen, and the other 2/3 covering everything else. One version of those chore descriptions is still visible online here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1797qiZ5iODelLS6oZm41gwEhtlMcttHfrG6CYM0c7Q4/preview
Thoughts
Date: 2026-06-12 05:49 am (UTC)Then you're lucky to know better people than average. Far too many Americans still expect the woman to do the housework. And that divergence of sexual expectations has wrecked a lot of intentional communities including sharehouses.
>>Somehow, all of that goes out the window when discussing living with larger groups of people. Most people hear about an expectation that they do their share of the household chores in a coliving environment and respond with things like "I can't work a job AND do work at home" or "I'm not signing up for a second job" or "Are you going to pay me for all of that work?".<<
It depends on the context, and also how people talk about it.
One issue is that most intentional communities are bigger than one house, one person's or household's territory. That often means people don't feel as personally responsible for the public space as for their private space. In a sharehouse, it's small enough that people can grasp "clean up the kitchen" as a concept that somebody under that roof needs to do, in a way that "clean the common house kitchen" does not. Lytheria in Milwaukee was set up so that each resident was responsible for their own bedroom, and they had a list of specific house chores for the common areas that rotated among the group. This worked for them. It's a pretty good system as long as you don't have overly entitled people expecting to take advantage of others.
The bigger the territory, the less likely people will view all of it as their personal territory and thus responsibility. It's best for the community to discuss together how to take care of common areas. Some will sort things into a long-term arrangement based on skills and interests. People who are good at cooking will form a team, buy the outside supplies, cook the meals, and keep the common kitchen clean. Those good with animals will build a coop, obtain chickens, feed them, collect eggs, and clean the coop. Everyone has a task they contribute and all share in the output. Some communities have a schedule, some have a minimum amount of work hours, some are more freestyle. What works depends on how much you need to do, the skills and personality of people you have, etc.
A big problem is that most people don't live in tribes anymore. America really doesn't have commons in most places. So most folks have never developed the sense of "our territory" in a way that involves naturally observing common space and taking care of it. The commercialization of everything has largely wiped it out. That's a problem if you are trying to reassemble something like a tribe or village where you absolutely need that sense of shared ownership and caretaking.
There are still some tribes on reservations or private land who still practice that kind of custom. Some other countries also have public lands that are shared and people care for collectively. Those are examples worth keeping an eye on.
Some aspects worth mentioning:
* In a tribe, you don't need a license to hunt. Some group of people manage it in a more fluid manner. For instance, you may have elders tracking information brought in by younger hunters and foragers, then the elders discern when it is time or hunt or gather different things. You wait to start hunting deer until the fawns have separated from the does and the bucks are shedding their velvet, but -- unlike a preset season -- that happens at a slightly different time each year, and you can respond to it in real time.
* The whole territory is often a garden or food forest. Most people wouldn't even notice it. But everyone has a habit of tossing seeds to the side of the trail after eating fruit, some of which sprouts, meaning you wind up with trails flanked in useful plants. Folks pull up or cut down plants that are inconvenient to have by trails. Everyone who goes through the forest benefits from this kind of tending. Older siblings and parents teach young people to do it. Heck, my parents taught me some of it while we were hiking.
* There's often a handful of folks who aren't super busy -- older children, elders, etc. -- who make a habit of walking around the common areas to see what needs work or is out of place. They pick up, put away, and fix what they can. Anything outside their skillset, they refer to someone who can do it. When you've got a handful of those, places stay reasonably tidy -- as long as other folks respect the space and don't make a mess then just walk away. That sort of behavior is strongly discouraged. This is probably the tribal custom that I've seen most often in contemporary communities. Even some neighborhoods have folks who walk around picking up litter, not for pay, but because they want their neighborhood to look clean.
* Some large group activities, like a big ceremony, have traditional roles for subsets of people so everyone knows what to do. Creating the dancing ground is a communal effort with some folks trimming and trampling grass, others selecting a pole, another team building a bonfire, etc.
We have an Amish community not far away from us. I really admire their communal skills. In teamwork they're like ants. They hardly seem to talk about a project because everyone already knows their role. It's impressive.
In general, if they see something that needs doing, they just do it. They don't ask someone else, they don't check a rule list, they do the thing and it's done. Interestingly, that spreads. Even folks who are not Amish will, in an Amish place, pick up something that's fallen over and put it back where it belongs. Sometimes several of us will pick up a pile of things. And the Amish folks give us these big grins for behaving like community members. These are teachable, learnable skills -- if you've got role models.
The customs can be found, observed, and adapted to a given group's needs. But you have to know they existed to look for them. A lot of folks, their family has been out of the tribal or village context for so long that they have no idea how that sort of arrangement used to work.
>>When a bunch of people pool their resources, including their labor, everything should, and usually does, get easier.<<
That's true ... if your folks have good teamwork skills, plus enough time and energy to devote to it. Usually communities have a discussion about how to handle common tasks. Some require everyone to participate, which is hard on folks with limitations or obligations that interfere. Many have a work/trade option so folks with dayjobs can contribute cash instead of hours, while folks without can work on the community and not need to scrape up cash. There are tradeoffs; a rigid schedule won't work if lots of people have unpredictable job hours or other demands, whereas a wholly volunteer basis often means not everything gets done or some people do more or less than their fair share. For some groups with many working outside the grounds, it honestly makes more sense to hire a landscaper, especially for urban cohousing. You have to figure out a method that fits your folks, which isn't always easy.
>>So, when someone rejects the idea of coliving chores, not only are they breaking a norm that exists even in smaller groups or for individuals, they are also somehow making it sound like more hardship despite it being less work than it would be otherwise.<<
A key difference, aside from personal territory, is flexibility. In your own space, you decide when housework tasks really need doing. A schedule outside your personal territory, especially if it's set by someone else, lacks that flexibility and can feel like a burden in ways that make people balk. The differences can be subtle and hard to pin down, but they are real and they motivate people. Whereas someone who grew up in a place that did have a commons culture may habitually pitch in without even thinking about it -- and may find a rigid schedule awkward or distracting.
>> They'll enjoy a larger home theater, a bigger garage, and so on across all the other experiences and amenities they'll be able to take part in that they wouldn't otherwise. <<
Some communities have amenities that are the responsibility of the folks who use them. Say you've got a ceramic studio and 5 people use it regularly. They are the ones who take care of it, rather than random folks, because they know how to do it -- and subtle things like throwing a plastic bag over a forgotten chunk of clay before it dries out, even if it's not theirs. And conversely, some folks may balk at being assigned to care for a place they never use when it's a bother, like someone who doesn't like movies getting stuck cleaning the theatre with popcorn on the floor. Some things are used by everyone, like a common house, so sharing the upkeep there makes more sense. This kind of detail depends a lot on the space you have, who uses it, and how particular its care is. Most folks can manage a broom but not everyone can manage a lawnmower.
>>So, now they aren't just complaining about doing the same work they'd be doing living alone, or even about doing less work than living alone, but they're complaining about doing less work for more benefit!<<
In that case, there's a disconnect between the costs and the benefits. Talk about how much time a typical person spends on housework or yardwork if single, a couple, a community. Compare the amenities that a single person, a couple, and your community have. Discuss what kind of upkeep is required to keep enjoying the amenities you currently have.
Most especially, whenever anyone raises the topic of a new amenity, point out that it will not only cost money to create but work time to maintain. Do people want a multipurpose sport field enough not only to clear the space and sow sportgrass on it, but keep that weeded, trimmed, etc. afterwards? When people are used to thinking about the work-time commitments before creating an amenity, they are much less likely to complain about it after the fact. It can still happen, but it happens less often when the requirements are clear from the beginning. And that's exactly why some communities choose not to have certain things, because their particular people don't have the time or energy for that maintenance.
>>How does someone get from "Spending 30min/wk doing dishes from eating alone is necessary" to "Spending 20min/wk doing dishes from dinners shared with my friends is unacceptable"?<<
My bet would be they're not looking at the time, they're look at the size of the dish pile. The dishes generated by 20 people can look overwhelming, even if you are one of 5 people on a cleanup team. It just looks like so much work. Very often, it takes time to realize that a group effort may be faster and more fun than a solo effort. You have to pay attention to what you're doing and how it feels to notice the difference. And for some folks, even a shorter time and company may not get them past "OMFG what a mountain of dirty dishes!"
People still have to eat, the dishes still need washed, but it's important to figure out an approach that works for the people you have. It's not always easy. For one example though, if your folks are daunted by the pile of dirty dishes ... just don't pile them. Bring them into the kitchen a few at a time, at approximately the pace they're passing through the workline of washer, drier, putter-away.
Some other folks, especially those with good team experiences in the past, already know that communal effort is often faster and more fun than solo effort. It helps a lot if you had childhood experiences like chatting while shelling peas or shucking corn or whatever. Even if the task is different, you have the concept of sharing work to save time and make it more enjoyable. For some folks that's the point of a big family or a community.
>>Since I don't plan to stop founding intentional communities, I expect this will continue to be an important recurring conversation in my life.<<
Yep. Ideally, teach people about failure analysis. If they don't want to do a task, why is that? They don't consider it their responsibility? Then whose and why? It takes too long? How does that compare with other options? And how is their time spent? Do they have a limitation or aversion such that they'd rather do other work? If so, what? Is there a bothersome part of the job that could be fixed by changing a process or using a different tool? Then just do that. A lot of people aren't used to examining things in that much detail, but it is a very useful skill to learn that saves a ton of bother over your lifetime.
>>For reference, the last large scale chore system I developed for a ~20 person household required each person to do three chores per week, with about 1/3 of the available slots being cooking communal meals and maintaining our most active kitchen, and the other 2/3 covering everything else.<<
That sounds reasonable to me. I'd probably do fine with it, right up until my body malfunctioned or I had a tight writing deadline. Other times I could pitch in more. I like cooking; back when I was sharehouse-adjacent in college, I'd make things at home and bring them to share, which was extremely popular.
A chore system is great. The tricky part is fitting everyone into it so folks do tasks they are capable of, and you're working around limitations and heavy obligations, without crashing the whole thing. It sounds like you've done better with yours than average though. I've heard sooo many stories of work-division fiascos.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2026-06-13 03:34 pm (UTC)This stands out to me. I am very much that kind of person. I regularly interact with people who don't do this, and when we discuss it they say they don't know what they need to do. Without fail, I stand in the middle of a room and ask them to just look around and point out some things that need doing that they could do, and they succeed. They have this skill they don't even realize they have, but I've never found a way to motivate them to use it regularly.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2026-06-13 08:41 pm (UTC)It's a combination of personality (some people are more proactive than others), learned skills (not everyone has the same amount), virtue (considering it a desirable thing to do or not), and especially authority (whether someone has been in situations where it was encouraged or allowed, or they got scolded for doing anything without asking first).
>> I regularly interact with people who don't do this, and when we discuss it they say they don't know what they need to do.<<
Some may not be self-starters or just not have the habit. Some may have fewer relevant skills. Some may genuinely not know how the whole concept works or where to start, more likely among younger people. Some may feel intimidated or insecure, not sure what they are allowed to do, or worried about doing something wrong or just different than expected. These need different solutions.
>> Without fail, I stand in the middle of a room and ask them to just look around and point out some things that need doing that they could do, and they succeed. They have this skill they don't even realize they have,<<
Then you may be dealing with:
* People who aren't self-starters, but will respond to guidance. Identify them and assign a supervisor to put them on a team and manage its tasks.
* People who just don't have the habit yet, but have the skills and potential to develop it. Habits are made by doing. A community culture develops the same way. Modeling inspires people to do likewise. Here, you want some experienced folks who watch for idle people and invite them to do tasks, or who pick a task and then corral helpers for it. Make sure this person starts with modeling like, "Okay, we're cleaning the common lounge. Let's start by looking around to see what needs doing. Each of you look for one thing you can do."
* People who are insecure because they've been scolded for doing things without asking. A chore chart may work fine, or again you may need someone to nudge them into action.
>> but I've never found a way to motivate them to use it regularly.<<
Motivating them to do specific tasks is quicker and easier than developing the habit of looking for things that need attention and doing them. Activate them first, teach and model as you go along, and many of those people should catch on eventually and start doing it without being asked.
My grandmother used to do this a lot. If someone said, "I'm bored" or "There's nothing to do," she would say, "Oh good, I need a helper for (household task)" and pull them into it. If an argument or roughhousing got too fractious, she not only separated the participants but assigned them separate chores far away from each other. Even adults -- "You, we're low on milk and eggs, go buy some; and you, come put the extra leaves into the table."
You need some folks who have a good range of skills, can spot what needs doing, and have the authority to pull other people into a work team. You can fit this into a chore chart for tasks that need a flexible number of people (e.g. raking leaves, cleaning a room) or those tasks that are getting overlooked and need someone to light a fire under folks to get them done. Or you can leave these people as floaters who literally just look for available tasks and teach others to do the same.
Also look for the people who are popular in community, the ones others want to be around and seek attention from. If any of these people have the see-work-do-work skill, capitalize on this confluence to pull other folks into the work. A lot of people will put up with doing work for the sake of being close to someone they admire. Especially if they want to learn something from a more experienced person, like a cook or gardener, they will gravitate to that person even if it means doing boring work during a verbal lesson.
Generally, cultivate a culture of working together. Make a custom of people sitting in a circle and shelling peas, shucking corn, mending clothes, or any other task that lends itself to chatting while working. Set times for large group efforts like cooking a feast, cleaning the common house, or planting a garden where you not only need lots of hands but some of them can be relatively unskilled for the simple parts. Some things like litter pickup or tidying are really all around see-work-do-work so make sure you've got some folks doing these visibly and inviting everyone they see to join in. This used to be the norm for most people in most cultures; it can be rebuilt, but nowadays you really do have to put the bottom rungs on the ladder for folks who didn't grow up with it.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2026-06-13 03:35 pm (UTC)I understand this failure mode the first time, but I have trouble accepting it the tenth time. Once we've done those dishes for a week or two and effectively demonstrated how long it takes, I think the nature of the problem has shifted significantly.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2026-06-13 04:38 pm (UTC)I have observed that most people run on emotion, not logic, and don't have a lot of self-awareness. If a person feels like a communal pile of dishes is overwhelming, then it is more likely than not they will treat it as overwhelming. It's also more likely they will try to resolve that discomfort by avoiding the chore than by trying to fix the process so it is less daunting. Most people are prone to getting stuck.
I never had the patience for that. I fiddle with things, I look for ways to make them more feasible. That doesn't mean I never just avoid things, but I try to think through problems. Even if it's something I can't change immediately, I'm always keeping an eye out for a new opportunity.
My partner is the same way. We've been together for decades, we still have arguments sometimes, but we don't argue over the same things. We always try to find at least one small change we can make, so we don't keep re-having the exact same fight.
Anyhow, in order to solve a problem, you need to know its root causes. "Many people don't want to do communal chores" is a common problem that can have many different root causes, depending on the people, the community, and the chore. So while you can learn some common patterns and test for them, in many cases you'll still have to do the failure analysis in the moment, and you might have to do it several times if the reasons shift. But at least you know to do that instead of just nagging people.