Information and Exclusion, Applied

When I was reading the book, I had, initially, the same reaction Asher did. Mine was perhaps elaborated in another form: I thought as I read, that all the book was doing was articulating in academic language, at a high level of precision and compartmentalization, things that we already do every day, know to be occurring at least subconsciously, and take for granted. As I read though, I found that there is great value to this articulation of everyday events and decisions, as they provide the analytical tools for analysis, reflection, and application of the results through tailoring our behavior, whether we want to achieve less exclusion or more socially conscious exclusion. 

I live in a co-op, and have had the chance to visit several others over the past year, I would like to use my home as an example to illustrate what I mean.

An interesting idea raised in the book is that of non-rule based exclusion, mainly through the avenue of social/interpersonal signaling. The book references such examples as housing co-operatives, which, renouncing explicitly exclusionary rules, and avowedly—almost militantly—inclusive, still manage to exhibit demographic homogeneity similar to fraternities. 

I would like to explore this kind of signaling more deeply: 

My co-op system is called Qumbya (not Qumbaya because at some point years ago, members thought that Qumbaya signaled an exclusionary intent, and that by taking out an “a”, we would make ourselves more inclusive, to say, individuals who did not subscribe to absolute world peace.), there are three houses: Haymarket, Bowers, and Concord. The system has its own website, containing auto-biographies of each house: http://www.qumbya.com/

The system was formed by a bunch of extremely committed hippies and generally very left wing people over a decade ago. Haymarket was the first to be purchased, the system then expanded to include Bowers, and finally Concord, in which I reside. Each house has a set of standardized policies that ensures the houses’ efficient and amicable operation. We all share our food costs by paying into a monthly food group, there is a rotating cook schedule that ensures every day someone cooks for the whole house, chores are clearly assigned and enforced. There is a very rigorous application process with a long form and a dinner interview, followed by voting, before anyone can be admitted to live in the house. Housemates have been extremely friendly, open, accommodating, and considerate. They value each other’s views, and do accept differences heartily and openly. While there are sometimes friction, it is never to the point of acrimony. It is the best living arrangement I have ever experienced. The co-op system thus offers vast amenities that are extremely attractive, but somehow signals are sent that deter a large portion of the population from attempting to take advantage of these extremely desirable advantages. Many people react to the co-op’s website by feeling compelled to apply, others are instantly and utterly put off.

Of the three houses, Haymarket is the most politically left wing, Bowers number two, and Concord the most conservative. This can be discerned by a simple visit to each house, the political/sociological inclinations show themselves in the décor, the composition of residents, and the layout.

If we were to explain this living situation by the book, it would seem that the websites themselves signal directly to potential applicants what type of communities these co-ops are, and potential residents that do not see themselves fitting in are deterred. There is also a highly competitive and rigorous weeding out process, where individuals who the house do not feel fitting are not voted in. Of course, being a co-op, we never reject based on protected traits like race, income, occupation, and a whole host of other superficial criteria. The houses therefore do not in any way explicitly deny any socio-economic group admission. The rejections then, are always in the end due to personality preferences.

The result of these two above processes then, should be the production of a certain type of community in each house. Indeed, we see that over multiple generations of residents, Haymarket has produced the most left-wing community, essentially organically. While the next oldest house, Bowers, a slightly less left-wing community, and so on. I would attribute this to the dilution of the original ideological foundations of the progenitors, with each new house purchase.

Ideological homogeneity fails though, when we reach my house, Concord. Which contains a very wide range of political opinions and backgrounds. There are professionals from a wide range of fields and industries and students from a wide range of academic specializations. The political positions of the house, though leaning left wing, is much more centrist than the other two houses, and exhibits a much wider spectrum. Concord then, it would seem, bucks the trend of signaling, and has an extremely diverse population, demographically, sociologically, and politically. Why?

I would claim that our co-op system shows several characteristics of signaling in community creation. First, the signaling is difficult to overcome within a self-contained community even over generations of residents (House), but is eroded by extension of that community into a separate, self-enclosed community, even though all the policies and originators remain the same (the co-op system collectively decides to acquire new houses). This would explain the fact that Concord, the newest house, is the most distant from the progenitors of the system, and therefore experiences the least ideological influence from them, thus allowing political centrism. Note, this is not distance in time, but rather literal distance.

Second, signaling can occur across a spectrum, while overt signs such as the name “Qumbya” must deter many people, it does not outright deny any group as a whole, as social sub-groups are too large to be specific, and all sub-cultures contain overlap. “Qumbya,” while specific, does have extensive overlap with many sub-cultures. It is thus difficult, if not impossible, to determine what kind of people are excluded simply from one overt signal (for example billboards with exclusively one racial group).

Finally, communities can send signals through specificity, that overcome initial, introductory signals, if one is willing to look beyond it. Concord’s signals apparently attract people who do not immediately subscribe to whatever signals sent by the name “Qumbya.”

 

Comments

[Lior]

That's very interesting! You might not have known this, but the original Qumbya House started up with a six figure loan from the U.C. Berkeley student co-ops (which are described in the book.) I remember voting to approve the loan for Qumbya as a member of the Berkeley Co-op's Board of Directors. There was some concern at the time that we'd never see a dime of the loan repaid ("a housing cooperative at the University of Chicago?") but the Qumbya founders made a very persuasive case, and everyone felt good about doing our best to help our fledgling comrades.