Luke Lea writes:

I’ve just discovered your site and am enjoying it immensely.  You limn a world view — I guess that’s what you’d call it — that I find highly attractive.  Still there is a certain “you can’t get there from here” feeling about it all which, if I were in your shoes, would cause me despair. Not that my shoes are so much better. But I do want to show you something that might appeal to a person of your sensibilities, if only as a “second best” solution to the dilemmas you pose.

Lea, a retired lanscape contractor from Chattanooga, sends this recent article about his vision for restoring the American family to a more sane way of life. It involves a shorter workweek and small towns built around local industry.

Laura writes:

I thank Mr. Lea very much for his comments and for sending his article. I like the emphasis on industry in his proposal. America was once a country of producers and makers. The loss of so much of our industrial economy to the world has cemented the economic difficulties of the middle class and the low-skilled. We do not owe it to consumers to provide them with the best deals on the world market. We owe it to workers to protect jobs and our industrial independence. I hope future generations will see “Made in U.S.A.” on everything they buy. We have a long way to go before we get there. 

I also like the design Mr. Lea sent in a separate e-mail for a small town with a public space or village green in the center and houses built around it. I cannot replicate it here, but it is reminiscent of New England villages. Most of us are nostalgic for that. Those sort of towns are more likely to evolve out of healthy local economies.

While Mr. Lea’s emphasis on family-centered activities, such as the growing of food in gardens and caring for children, is important, I do not see the practicality in shared workweek, with both men and women working 20-hour jobs. There are several reasons for my objection to that.

First, I think most people, except those lacking in all initiative or of very low intelligence, want to have some sense of mastery in their work. Some factory jobs provide absolutely no opportunity for this, but then those sorts of jobs are the most prone to automation and are probably destined to die out. In general, 20 hours is too short of a time to really gain much from a job or to develop skills. It seems to make more sense to have one person working 40 hours and the other person remaining in the home.

The management of a home involves more than just a series of discrete tasks. It calls for thought, concentration and the coordinating of multiple duties. For two people to split this evenly gives neither that sense of mastery. It’s difficult, though not impossible, to split the care of several or more children between two people. That’s because childcare is more than just babysitting; it’s a bigger project that involves managing their health, their behavior, their education, their social lives and their characters. When one person is spending a great deal of time with children, she notices subtle things that are difficult to communicate to others but that may be important. For example, she may notice that a child looks unwell and make a mental note of it. Often children don’t complain about being sick until their well on their way into some illness.  It’s tedious for spouses to have to communicate every little thing because they are evenly splitting duties. It’s better for one person to be in charge of child care and domestic tasks, with the other serving as an important source of help when they are free.

Even preparation of meals is difficult to evenly split between two people without a lot of meetings about who’s doing what. It’s easier and simpler for one person to do the planning and shopping, with the other offering help if they want or if they are able.

The labor-saving devices Mr. Lea mentions, things such as washing machines and dishwashers, have reduced the amount of hours needed for domestic tasks. But what this essentially means is that they’ve reduced the need for servants not for a full-time domestic worker. The care of a middle class home with children and no servants remains a full-time job despite automation. There’s no question about that. It’s a myth that women suddenly didn’t have enough to do in the home and therefore had to seek work outside. There’s plenty to do and then somein a fully-functioning home. Those wonderful labor-saving devices are often breaking down. They need to be cleaned and maintained. (Sometimes, I think they actually need to be loved.) Processed food is unhealthy and home-cooked meals are time-consuming. Children still get sick despite the advent of vaccines and the decline in child mortality. Moreover, homes still need to possess some charm and beauty in order to be realms of peace and civility. That takes work, thought, and one person’s devotion.

Mr. Lea’s proposal recognizes that families do need more time and that homes are time consuming. But, I think the egalitarian ideal is for practical reasons unsustainable.

Lydia Sherman of Home Living writes:

Mr. Lea speaks of something that used to be called “The Village System,” where houses were grouped around the market area, and each settlement had its own village. The shops were within walking distance of the homes, and were owned by local people.

We desperately need the village system in our country. Our economy seems to be based on the sale of the motor vehicle. Neighborhoods are built away from the things that people really need.  How much sense does it make to travel 20 miles to stores? Houses are built within walking distance of each other, but not within walking distance of the market, which would provide the things that enhance their lives at home.

In old books from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, drawings are shown of plans for houses and land, that have plenty of room for gardens and small farms behind the homes. The houses are arranged in a loose circle so that people can keep an eye on each other and know what is going on.  Yet, there is plenty of privacy and plenty of land for everyone.

The book, Christians on the Oregon Trail describes the towns being as close together as every seven miles, where the horses had to stop for watering. Our distances are so great, that if a person was left without a car, they would have very few supplies to get them through a week.  I hope the architects and city planners of the future will keep the family in mind, when designing neighborhoods and towns.  Families would not have to be so far-flung if they could survive financially in their own villages and neighborhoods.

Laura writes:

The suburban design disaster was caused by overzealous zoning that separated retail from residential areas. The idea was that there would be less noise and activity to disturb residents, but it really was an inhuman concept. I don’t know anyone who thinks this is an ideal way to live, but those who do should talk to children who live in neighborhoods where you can’t go anywhere on foot. Children hate it. Once they’re above the age of five or so, they want to venture off safely on their own. The ideal way to do this is to run a few errands at a local store.

If zoning were changed to allow for small, independently-owned retail businesses in residential neighborhoods, we might see the rebirth of the type of small store or village-y zone that simultaneously serves as a place of casual and spontaneous interactions among neighbors. I live in an area where there are about six large supermarkets within a ten minute drive. I almost never run into anyone I know in these places because the likelihood of us being in the same store at the same time is rare. The big box store, which has so crushed local enterprise and necessitates acres of parking, has been a disaster for community. These places serve the needs of the consumer and large corporations, not the community. Most of the goods sold in these stores aren’t made in America and a third of the produce in the supermarket comes from foreign countries. We destroy our neighborhoods while feeding economies that are not our own.

However, I don’t think mere design changes can cure what ails American communities. There needs to be a profound spiritual revival that reclaims the sense of family autonomy and community independence. This will not happen as long as the modern mass school so dominates community, usurping the natural functions of family and contributing to the soul-killing ugliness that causes women to flee.

Lydia writes:

Amen to all you wrote.  My son-in-law is studying architecture at the university and he tells me there is something more sinister afoot in regard to the inhuman way neighborhoods are planned: It destroys family and community. Why are we not in walking distance of the grocery and shoe store, and fabric stores, and yet we are in walking distance of fifty neighbors?  We don’t need to be.  We need a village system.  Even in the book Pride and Prejudice,the Bennett family, who lived on a small estate, were able to WALK into Merritown to visit the shops and eat out.  Americas live like homesteaders in their own neighborhoods, because they have to drive so far to get anything. As a result, they have to make HUGE grocery trips and stock up as though there was going to be a famine, and then hole up in their houses til payday. Its very, very isolating. No wonder new homemakers find it lonely and frustrating.  The 20thcentury architects wanted everything new and modern, and missed the point as to why towns were built the way they were. The town was down hill and the houses were behind the town, sort of uphill or at least facing the town. That way from a house, you could see what was going on in town. Today, who knows what is going on anywhere? We feel locked up in our houses, withno views and no enterprise to watch. Twentieth century designs for neighborhoods and business areas arguably caused increase crime, due to the way it is arranged so that no one can actually see what is going on.  Look at the older neighborhoods in comparison.

Lydia adds:

I forgot to comment about your observation about not knowing anyone in town. I still can’t get used to that. I looked forward to going to the stores and seeing people I knew. The big corporations shift their employees around and you do not get to know them over the years. I do not know who owns anything in my town. I do not know the merchants. I feel like a foreigner.  I USED to know people that had shops and gas stations and businesses. Now I know NO ONE that owns anything like that.  In a town in Texas where I once lived, practically every member of the community owned some kind of shop or business and we knew who they were and where their business was. Now, it is all a big mystery. It is eerie to notice some land being cleared for something and not know whose it is or what they are going to build. There is a big feeling of disconnection, like we aren’t Americans. It has been a LONG time since I have felt at home in America, and it is partly due to the way business and homes are built, that completely alienates people.

Mr. Lea responds:

I figured you would disagree about the two part-time jobs part instead of one full-time.  However, I have lived that life myself, and have found there is much to be said for sharing the child-care and other domestic doings.  Of course we probably don’t have such a well-kept house as your own!  It comes down to a matter ot taste I suppose, though there is the argument that part-time workers are more efficient, which is important from the business owner’s point of view.  

Laura writes:

I think that shared way of life can work for some and don’t look down on those who live it. I’m thinking simply in terms of what works best as a model for society.

Rose writes:

I agree with everything written here, yet you will find many conservatives ready to defend big box stores and suburban sprawl and pin the ‘elitist’ label on those who find them aesthetically offensive. Aside from this misguided populism, I think numerous people on the right view prosperity as the highest human good and communities, families, trees, and beauty acceptable sacrifices for attaining it. I am as laissez-faire as can be but ‘with freedom comes responsibility’ and many large corporations have demonstrated that they have none. It upsets me especially because this is one of the few areas where I end up butting heads with conservatives.

Laura writes:

‘Conservatives’ typically react with mocking derision when someone criticizes the sterility of suburban design and the take-over by mega-retail, as if any critic is an elitist, an enemy of laissez-fair economics and of the people.

On the one hand, you find liberals with their belief that pure design can cure what ails the anomie of sprawl and on the other you find conservatives who deny there is anything wrong. Big Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America’s Independent Businesses by Stacy Mitchell is an excellent look at this issue and at what communities have done to reclaim their economic independence. There are some extremely inspiring stories in there, especially about communities that have formed retail cooperatives rather than see their business districts destroyed. The passivity of the American people as local retail has been destroyed in community after community is a result of the erroneous belief that mega-retail somehow represents the epitome of free enterprise. 

Please follow and like us: