Short Answer
For People Purpose Place, the term “elder” refers (inclusively) to individuals of any background who have reached an age where wisdom accumulation is part of their life experience, not limited to Indigenous or First Nations contexts.
This terminology choice addresses the discomfort many people feel during middle age (30s-70s) when they no longer identify as young but resist being labeled as old or elderly.
By using “elder” instead of “elderly,” People Purpose Place hopes to facilitate more comfortable and productive conversations about aging and life planning during a phase when many avoid such discussions.
Long Answer
This is an important conversation worth considering. Generally, in today’s society, the only time we hear the term “elder” is in reference to those of Indigenous or First Nation cultures.
But in every society, once people reach a certain age where accruing wisdom is part of the process, they are referred to as an elder.
So when you see on our website or in any of our other communications our reference to “elder”, this is anyone of any background.
Why is it important that we’ve made this distinction?
In today’s society, and in most societies, the idea of getting older is something that the majority of people are not comfortable with.
I have observed that those ages in between when you’re in your 30s and 40s to when you’re in your 60s and 70s is an uncomfortable phase for most people as they don’t want to be seen as old or elderly, but there is a sense that they’re no longer young.
This is the time we actually need to be planning for our whole life, but this is also when most people are resistant to the idea of a discussion around aging or the elderly.
So this is where we have tried to introduce the term elder as an important way to start a conversation and try to get people to feel comfortable engaging in a conversation that needs to be had.
Short Answer
Collaboration in housing isn’t about compromise but about leveraging group power to achieve individual benefits, such as wholesale purchasing advantages not available to individuals.
This approach reflects how humans have historically lived in communities and multi-generational households, which provided both practical and psychological benefits.
Moving away from extreme individualism in housing can reduce financial burden while creating the interdependence that has been shown to increase happiness in other cultures.
Long Answer
In the past five years, we’ve carefully chosen our terms to discuss new housing and living models in what we’ve always known to be a home.
We’ve found discomfort with terms like sharing and communal, as children view sharing negatively and communal has references to communism. We’ve struggled to discuss housing options. After spending time on social and economic viewpoints, we realize the benefits of housing models for small groups outweigh concerns, but cultural and social factors make it challenging.
We emphasise that collaboration isn’t about compromising, but using the group’s benefit for your benefit. The power of group purchasing achieves wholesale advantages not accessible to a retail individual. Does this clarify for the transactional masses?
Many modern societies have used this approach in various aspects of life. One aspect is housing, where affordable access in the last 100 years led us to this isolated version, overlooking the benefits of collaborative communities.
Transitioning to modern suburban life is a small change compared to the small tribal groups, villages, or multi-generational families we’ve lived with.
The Latin word “familia” referred to a household, including more than just biological relatives, but the broader community that created it.
It is important to understand that collaborative housing is not about compromising individual needs. Instead, it is about enhancing the power of the group to ensure you can have what you want without the financial burden of a large mortgage.
Understanding cultural norms is important.
In collaborative, citizen-led, community-driven housing, other than multi-generational collaborative versions aren’t readily shown and examples aren’t widely available. The reason these aren’t available is primarily because access to cheap affordable housing historically in Australia has only been broken since the 1950s. Prior to that, Australia’s sense of town and community was due to our dependency on our neighbours and family group, and local area. This dependency links to happiness. Scandinavian countries are among the happiest, mainly due to the need for population interdependence because of extreme weather conditions.
In Australia, this interdependence arose from being geographically spread out, making local support systems crucial for survival. Family connections were deeper and stronger because you needed to rely on family help, evident during Australian natural disasters.
The community is very adept at supporting each other during those events. Collaborative housing models are hard to grasp because of our culture.
Americanised cultures have evolved into higher levels of individualism and less need for collective functions. Collaborative housing models can change our culture into a collective one.
The movement towards total individualism has come at a high financial cost and has proven psychologically damaging for all its occupants.
