Nordic Ideology: A Metamodern Guide to Politics, Book Two

by Hanzi Freinacht

Today’s “one-villa-one-family” housing system leads to unnecessarily large resource consumption, to loneliness and to social, economic and physical precarity in old age, to distance between the generations, to psychological pressure on the nuclear family, to distance between neighbors and diminished local community, to smaller support networks more generally—and of course to higher living costs, which in turn pressures people economically. It would make more sense to have housing systems which are hybrids between private homes and shared spaces. These would form medium-sized communities with a variety of different apartments. Elderly citizens could move to shared spaces that are safe for frail and weak bodies, letting families with children move into their houses rather than the seniors holding on to them, partaking in shared gardening projects, sharing some burdens of cooking, baby-sitting and so forth. There would be a facilitated framework for democratic decision-making and partly shared ownership—with relevant training offered to key people. Social isolation would drop, psychological health would improve, social skills and intelligence would go up, and people would live more sustainably. The economy would be stabilized. People would retain personal freedom but still have a communal context. The degree to which such housing projects are possible does not only depend upon the knowledge and perspectives of the people who create them, but also—and perhaps primarily—upon th...