II've been thinking about frugality in a communal sense, how it's easy to recycle and avoid wastage in communal scoieties compared to individualistic ones? while evryone in individualistic society is managing their recycling and wastage for themselves, I bet its easy for communal societies to do this since almost evrything can be used differently and severally throughout the community. Do communal cultures actually save more in the long run, or is it just a different type of tradeoff, like less privacy and more obligation?
Is frugality easier for communal rather than individualistic societies?
byu/SlightlyWilson inFrugal
Posted by SlightlyWilson
8 Comments
constantly reject non-generous members, or have strong enforcement and consequences for poor behavior, like the Amish does
Outside of the Hutterites (and the Amish to some extent), there are few truly communal societies–just gradients of community. In some communities, your neighbors know you well enough to offer you free garden produce, rides to work if your car breaks down, free snow removal in winter, tool loans, etc. Other communities, such as the Amish, will provide free community labor on occasion. A barn raising can save a farmer hundreds of thousands of dollars. On the other hand, some “communities,” such as the typical suburb, are merely archipelagos, where every man is an island.
The more a community helps its members, the more everyone is up in everybody else’s business, generally speaking. And the more a community helps its members, the more it expects from each member in return. You don’t want to be a moocher in a close-knit community. Social obligations (and gossip) can be intense in tight-knit communities (but there are more people who genuinely care about you, too…).
I think the tradeoffs are worth it. You may not get rich just by being in a good community, but you’ll have a slightly easier life and a safety net beyond government programs.
yep totally. having lived in such society I can say yes.
the food scraps were donated to the neighbours that had animals
some women (in general) would collect old clothes to make rag carpets
if you had more food you’d share with the neighours or friends
people would buy maybe a whole animal for meat and then split with others, so you’d always find someone to eat every part of it. the skin would also be taken to be tanned
kids would be warned by adults not to waste stuff or food (nicely not in a rude way)
people usually borrow stuff instead of oh it’s cheap I can just buy it or buy paper or plastic plates.
such as for wedding all acquaintances and neighbours would let you borrow their kitchenware and come help. some food would be donated. the leftover distributed and the things that can’t would go to someone’s goats, sheep, chicken , rabbits or whatever.
people would tend to share more and cook more so less waste and premade stuff.
I think you’re onto something, OP, about frugality being EASIER in more communal cultures. People in the suburbs aren’t overconsumers cuz they hate the planet, it’s cuz it’s clearly easier to buy their own whatever rather than borrow, and that’s not just about neighbors being up in your business and expecting reciprocity. It’s the infrastructure of suburbs which is so spread out, like someone else said, “archipelagos”, with few shared public well-maintained spaces, and the architectural design of houses/apartments for maximal privacy rather than interaction. Also SCHEDULING, people are overscheduled and not home at the same time as other households, so you literally have to make an appointment to interact in person. That’s caused by increasingly exploitive workplaces and a lack of safe communal spaces for kids, so they have to be watched, inside, for a cost. I could go on. I think there’s a lot of logistical barriers to sharing communal resources that didn’t always exist, not just cultural/emotional ones like “then you’d have to actually talk to people”.
Everyone is probably different, but I’m way way way more likely to be frugal with things that _aren’t_ shared.
Maybe I’m a bad person.
I’m selfish. I’m frugal mostly because I want to be and to give my kids more of the stuff that I think will help them. In a communal situation, the resources I save wouldn’t be ‘mine’ and wouldn’t be reserved for my kids.
Yes. I used to work for a nonprofit that had both a strong sense of community and a strong commitment to waste reduction. We had designated places for people to leave things, either work stuff or their personal things, for others to take if needed. We frequently had all staff emails going to help with moves, see if anyone wanted a piece of furniture, asking if anyone has an xyz they can borrow. Sometimes you’d see requests for the weirdest things get fulfilled in minutes. It was great. And as much as people are reluctant to put too much personal commitment into a workplace and for good reason (believe me, I know firsthand), it actually works out really well practically, because you have so many people traveling to the same physical location on a regular basis.
communal living is frugal *ascension*.
Just curious, but wouldn’t collectivist be a better term rather than communal referring to communism as in socioeconomics? The reason is because I currently live in South Korea, which is a collectivist society and everyone has to follow the strict waste disposal and recycling rules here.
You have to buy separate general waste and food waste disposal bags, which are unique to each province and city, so they can’t be reused to my knowledge if you move to another city (maybe some are more lax). They cost more than just regular, clear plastic bags used for all recyclables and they pay the city for disposal services.
You also have to sort recycling by material: paper, PET plastic, vinyl (soft/thin) plastic, styrofoam, metal, etc. Sorting can be a noticeable time sink depending on what/how often you purchase and if you have to clean dirty recyclables.
There are online Korean news articles that state that most recyclables in South Korea aren’t even recycled into renewed products and just go to landfills. Personally, I think the problem is that so many companies package their products so wastefully that recycling is almost meaningless here since we don’t reduce our consumption in the first place.
Also, the clothing that’s placed in public donation boxes here are actually sold overseas as long as they’re not too tattered.