I've been thinking about this since a friend told me he and his PMC wife are buying a FIVE bedroom house even though it's the two of them and one kid (and they aren't having any more). For nearly all of human history, humans - especially families - slept communally. But with suburban sprawl and the popularity of McMansions, white US Americans with middle incomes or above decided every kid has to have their own bedroom, and anything less is weird or cruel. Seriously, suggest to a well-off American that you want your kids to share a bedroom instead of having their own. They will be shocked at first, then do that thing where they're confused but also angry that you would subject your kids to that. It just seems like a wasteful bourgeois luxury to me.

This is entirely anecdotal, but I've known people who grew up sharing bedrooms with their siblings, and others who had their own bedrooms in large houses. It seems to me that people who grew up sharing bedrooms with their siblings are closer to each other. Which I do think kinda makes sense. Especially now with phones and laptops, a big house where everyone has their own room just makes it a lot easier for family members to go off and do their own thing all day. Even the passive act of TV watching, my home-buying friend is excited because this house has a TV upstairs and a TV room in the finished off basement. He's all like "I can watch sports downstairs while my wife watches Lifetime upstairs har har!" It's not enough capitalism isolates us from our communities, but now we are getting isolated from members of our own immediate family.

Return to shared bedrooms.

Edit: screw it I'm just gonna lean into my incredibly unpopular take...

ChaCha posters: "Americans + capitalism live ridiculously unsustainable lifestyles by taking incredible levels of resources from the environment and global poor"

Also ChaCha posters: "Don't you DARE take away my 4-bedroom McMansion!!!"

    • Wordplay [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I agree, but don't think open concept offices help to drive home the point:

      One problem with that example is that there is a huge disparity between privacy in the workplace and privacy in the household. One environment is necessarily exploitative and undignifying (in the current system), while the other is much more particular and therefore harder to characterize. With the upbringing I had, I'd be the first to want as much privacy as possible; however, in a 'healthy' household with loving and open-minded parents, architectural planning that maximizes private space is going to result in poorer outcomes with greater isolation. Under the right circumstances, having a forced shared space that functions to introduce conflicts and pressures cooperative solutions, and which helps facilitate bonding, solidarity over shared systemic frustrations, and so on, can contribute greatly to wellbeing and a sense of belonging. Workplaces simply can't, and won't function in that way, since each of those activities run absolutely counter to efficiency.

        • Wordplay [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          That sounds like a rad workplace! Worker self-determination definitely should take priority over anything as idealistic as communalization (which should arise naturally from self-determination, as you made clear). You sharing your perspective has me reconsidering my position, and you taking the time to share it is much appreciated comrade.