By Sheldon Greaves

This post appeared previously on Unexpected Leisure, 12 February 2011

An article that appears in a recent issue of Yes! magazine caught my attention this morning. The article talks about how consumerism has caused families to weaken by prompting them to turn over more and more tasks that were once the province of the family to professionals and how in the process the authors believe something has been lost.  I’ll admit to some quibbles, but it’s hard to dispute…

…that the family has lost its capacity to manage the necessities it traditionally provided. We expect the school, coaches, agencies, social workers, probation officers, sitters and day care to raise our children. The family, while romanticized and held as a cultural ideal, has lost its function as the primary place to raise children, sustain health, care for the vulnerable, and ensure economic security.

The article makes the same claim about our neighborhoods, although I do not necessarily agree that it should be laid entirely at the feet of “consumerism.” Our neighborhood, and especially the suburbs are some of the most tedious dwellings ever built. They lack places for commerce or spontaneous gatherings, public squares and gardens.  The streets are designed to go “anywhere but here.” Privacy is extended to anonymity in the dreary repetition of house designs.  But I digress.

The seed of an idea happened when a mother, Naomi, was having concerns about the behavior of her son Theron.  One day they walked past the open garage of a neighbor who had installed a metal shop in his garage.  Theron went to watch and soon the neighbor started teaching him how to make simple items.  The kid was hooked and, his bad behavior vanished.

This prompted a question, which was what other kinds of talent and skills were sitting unnoticed in the neighborhood?  Naomi and a few of her friends decided to find out, and went around visiting all the men in the neighborhood:

It took three weeks to visit all the men on the block. When they were done, they were amazed at what they had found: men who knew juggling, barbecuing, bookkeeping, hunting, haircutting, bowling, investigating crimes, writing poems, fixing cars, weightlifting, choral singing, teaching dogs tricks, mathematics, praying, and how to play trumpet, drums, and sax. They found enough talent for all the kids in the neighborhood to tap into. Three of the men they met–Charles Wilt, Mark Sutter, and Sonny Reed–joined Naomi, Jackie, and Mr. Thompson in finding out what the kids on the block were interested in learning.

Please note that this was something they did not do–indeed could not have done–using the Internet.  They made contact the old fashioned way, by walking up to the door and ringing the doorbell. Imagine. Naomi and her friends formed a group called The Matchmakers.  Since then the project has linked all kinds of people and their skills with others who want to learn and enjoy them:

The gardeners’ team shared growing tips and showed four families how to create gardens–even on a flat rooftop! Several people who were worried about the bad economy created a website where neighbors who knew about available work could post job openings…

Jolene Cass, for instance, posted one of her poems on the website and asked if there were other poets on the block. It turned out there were three. They began to have coffee, share their writing, and post their poems online.

Eleven adults and kids formed the Block Band, and neighborhood singers formed a choir led by Sarah Ensley, an 80-year-old woman who’d been singing all her life.

It’s clear from this article and the examples provided that having a village is not enough. It has to be a functional village, one where the connections are open and people know and value each other. I don’t see why this experiment couldn’t be replicated in other neighborhoods. If you have some time, do read the article. I found it incredibly thought-provoking.