Virginia Ironside has done her best in the following article in today's
Independent to make something of a so-called "LAT" (Living Apart but
Together) trend -- apparently now taking place among the elite. To my mind,
the only feature that is significant about it is that, in the last half
century or so, the modern consumer society has made individuals of all of
us. However, I strongly believe that the trend has now probably reached its
limit. As more and more young people find themselves without jobs in an
increasingly specialized, hourglass-shaped, job structure then I think
we'll see some of them experimenting with more inventive ways in which they
can occupy themselves, find worthwhile roles for themselves and living
together economically even with what is likely to be much reduced welfare
benefits in advanced countries in the coming years. At bottom, we are still
social mammals -- and fairly small-group social mammals at that. I can
envisage that the many communes that were so characteristic of the late
'60s and early '70s in most advanced countries -- but then died out -- will
revive. They failed in those years of early environmentalism because they
were ideologically led and had little idea about practical organization.
This time I believe that, here and there, they will start to succeed,
informed this time organizationally by what evolutionary biology is
beginning to tell us about human behaviour, and surviving out of sheer
necessity. If this seems absurd then it's as well to remind ourselves that
the main economic and technological power houses for several centuries in
the European Medieval Ages were the monasteries. Although still belonging
to the Church and in theory at the command of the Pope -- and to an extent
validated by them -- the monastic orders kept themselves at a discreet
arm's distance. In the same way, although modern governments will not
welcome communal initiatives by the young they'll not be able to cut them
off from welfare without denying themselves the powers and validity they've
been appropriating for themselves in the past century. Furthermore, even
more absurdly perhaps, I can envisage that such communes may well start to
get to the forefront in tomorrow's technology -- bacterial and plant
genetics (making use of solar energy). More than any other technology of
the past 200 years -- even of the PC -- the development of genetics is
capable of becoming a "garage" phenomenon and remaining local in its
development, much more skill-intensive than anything heretofore. Just as
the monastic orders were frequently financed by the rich and powerful in
their early days, I can envisage some of the major multinational
corporations taking a close "paternal" interest in communes if they see
signs of a new technology taking off. Politicians may not worry overmuch
about continuing to lose the vote of the young, but multinationals are
deeply concerned to retain mass markets and any trend away from that will
be observed very closely both as a possible danger but also as a possible
opportunity to ally themselves with as a pattern for tomorrow's world.
Keith
-----
Couples together apart: We're close ... just not that close
Boris Johnson and his wife may be part of a growing trend of couples
'living apart but together', reports Virginia Ironside
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Boris Johnson with his wife Marina. The Mayor of London lives in a flat in
Islington while his wife lives just down the road
The news that Boris Johnson is living in a rented flat just yards from his
family home has raised questions in some quarters about the state of his
marriage. But perhaps there is another reason for the unorthodox
arrangement: that he and his wife, Marina, are the latest couple to become
LATs, that is to say couples who are Living Apart but Together.
It's a growing trend. Research out in 2007 revealed that one in 20 couples
chose to live separately. It's thought that more than a million couples now
keep separate properties. Of course quite a few of these must be doing it
as a way of ensuring their benefits continue. Cohabiting usually results in
a loss of benefits and it may be economic to live apart, despite the cost
of commuting from one home to another. And it's not a way of living that
would suit most people with children simply because it wouldn't be fair .
But most LATs do it because they like it, because it suits both of them to
be independent of each other at the same time as having the security of
knowing there's always someone "there" for them long-term. It means they
can get on with interesting creative lives without having either to
consider someone else's feelings the whole time or having the stress of
looking for someone to share their lives, with all their spare time taken
up in dating, falling in love, falling out of love, and so on that's
involved in being single.
Related articles
*
<http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-distance-loving-2110328.html>Leading
article: Distance loving
* <http://www.news-archive.independent.co.uk/>Search the news archive
for more stories
Now, of course it's a luxury. In the past this way of living used to be the
prerogative of grandees who would often divide up their huge statelies into
different wings and live, one in one wing and one in another, virtually
separate lives. But now, despite the recession, it's still a sign of more
affluent living. Apparently many young couples simply find they have too
many possessions, combined, to fit into one home and anyway their
decorating tastes are poles apart. In the past people would usually move
straight from their homes into marriage, but now most of us move into our
own flats or rooms, and create our our personal nests, before moving in
with someone else. And that gives us a taste of the joys of independence.
If you're used to the pleasure of having girlfriends round for cosy chats
or, if you're a man, having friends around to watch the football, it's nice
to be able to do it without having politely to recommend that your partner
buzz off for an evening. Once you've got used to being single, it's a
wrench to give up all the advantages of living exactly how you want to live.
Perhaps it's a pleasure because more people work at home and two people
working at home all day can be a stress. Even one person working at home,
with constant interruptions from family life, can be irritating,
particularly if one person has a completely different schedule either
getting up early for dawn flights, or perhaps just having a different time
clock. Many's the person who like a good night's sleep who's married to
someone who, when they wake at three in the morning, likes to potter about
and put on the telly. Snoring can drive people into separate rooms but even
better if it's separate homes. Snoring, as we all know, can penetrate the
thickest of walls. And if someone finds they can only get a job in another
part of the country when the children are settled in their schools at home,
living separately might be a good idea there are always weekends and Skype
to keep the relationship alive.
Then with more women going out to work and leading independent lives, that
rather cloying idea of togetherness is on the way out. I always feel sorry
for couples who go supermarket shopping together and who insist on sitting
next to each other at dinner parties. They seem to live on a different
planet. Then there's the question of having been once bitten and twice shy.
If living together during their first relationship ended in divorce, why
not try, second time around, to beat the jinx by marrying but never
actually living together? Then there are no rows about the toothpaste tube,
the seat being left up, or who puts out the rubbish.
Finally, there's the romantic argument. Lots of couples just find that
living apart keeps the relationship alive. "Absence makes the heart grow
fonder" and even if someone's just been living down the road, it's still a
compliment when he or she knocks on the door and asks for a date. Living
apart means that you are always together by choice. There's no " 'er
indoors" about it. And paradoxically, living apart can often bring you closer.
Boris and Marina are not alone...
Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie
Last year, rumours abounded that Pitt was occupying the main house at their
sprawling Long Island estate, rented during the filming of Salt, while
leading lady Jolie lived in one of the many annexes.
Woody Allen and Mia Farrow
In the early days of their relationship, Woody Allen and Mia Farrow lived
in separate apartments on opposite sides of New York's Central Park. "I
think it's because we don't live together and that she has her own life
completely and that I have mine that we're able to maintain this
relationship with a certain proper tension," Allen said at the time.
Margaret Drabble and Michael Holroyd
The writer of 17 novels, as well as many plays and short stories, lived in
a different part of London from her husband, the biographer Michael
Holroyd, during the early years of their marriage. In 2005, she said,
"living too close can make people unkind to one another".
Helena Bonham Carter and Tim Burton
Bonham Carter and her director partner live in three adjoining, but
interconnected, London houses, although she says that they and their
children co-exist as one happy family.
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
