A Cohousing is a Space (or a Funnel)
Living together is not following a plan
Joe Edelman, a renowned philosopher and social designer, has developed a critical approach to how we design social environments — be they digital platforms, organizations, or shared living spaces. At the heart of his thinking lies a fundamental distinction between two paradigms: the “funnel” and the “space.”
According to J.Edelman, a “funnel” is an environment designed primarily to channel people’s behaviors toward predefined objectives. A supermarket is a clear example. Other examples could ba a conference, an airport, a movie theater, or a work meeting.
In contrast, a “space,” as defined by J.Edelman, is an environment designed to allow for the flourishing of multiple possibilities and individual expressions without expectations of specific outcomes — except perhaps for enabling the creative expression of its occupants. In a space, interactions are valued intrinsically. Examples could be a coworking space, children’s playground, café, public swimming pool, or a forum.
A quick way to distinguish a space from a funnel is to ask oneself: “In this environment are the goals known and set in advance?” If yes, then it’s a funnel — we’re being led somewhere. If not, it’s a space — we’re free to set our own goals.
In intentional communities — whether a coliving space, ecovillage, or a cohousing — the way these places are created and managed can fundamentally shape the lived experience of their residents.
As a Funnel: A reduction approach
When a cohousing is managed like a funnel, residents are treated as units to be “processed” or “trained” to meet predefined objectives. This approach presents several problems:
- Exploited Relationships — Interactions between residents are valued only for their ability to produce measurable outcomes, rather than for their intrinsic value. In this funnel approach, most gatherings are work-related (e.g., meetings, chores), which hinder the development of deeper connections.
- Excessive Standardization — Rules and processes are imposed uniformly, without regard for individual needs, creating a system where adapting to the structure takes precedence over personal fulfillment (e.g. upfront compliance to stated values, rigid participation frameworks, mandatory training, etc.).
- Rigid Hierarchy — Despite appearances of shared governance, decision-making power often remains concentrated in the hands of a few — typically the project founders — thus limiting other residents’ agency.
- Metrics Focused — Success is primarily evaluated using quantifiable indicators (e.g. activity reports, participation rates), sidelining qualitative aspects such as well-being or sense of belonging.
As a Space: The liberating approach
On the other hand, designing an intentional community as a space means treating it as a dynamic ecosystem where residents can flourish on their own terms. This approach, championed by J.Edelman, relies on radically different principles:
- Valuing Agency — Every resident is seen as an autonomous being capable of contributing to the shared space’s evolution.
- Flexibility and Adaptability — Structures and rules are tools that serve the people — not the other way around — and can be adapted as new needs arise.
- Embracing Diversity — Different ways of living, contributing, and participating are encouraged and celebrated rather than standardized.
- Focus on lived experience — Success is measured primarily by the quality of relationships and the residents’ sense of belonging.
Its important to point out that a space is not a chaotic zone without rules. A public pool is a good example. While it’s a space that values free interaction and lacks any predefined goal, it still has rules and lifeguards to ensure safety and maintain boundaries.
Why the Funnel approach doesn’t work
Managing an intentional community as a funnel brings several challenges that threaten its long-term viability:
- Progressive Disengagement — Residents reduced to functional roles lose the intrinsic motivation to contribute to community life.
- Structural Conflicts — The disconnect between residents’ real needs and standardized processes leads to recurring tensions.
- Loss of Collective Creativity — Rigid structures stifle spontaneous initiatives that could enrich the community experience.
- High Turnover — Chronic dissatisfaction results in frequent member turnover, weakening group cohesion.
Toward a More Human Approach
Following J.Edelman’s insights, rethinking intentional communities as true spaces requires:
- Truly democratic governance structures — Adopting collective decision-making models that genuinely distribute power and responsibility beyond surface-level participation.
(Note: Sociocracy, with its mission-objectives-indicators orientation, follows a funnel model and is therefore not recommended. See my article on why sociocracy doesn’t work in intentional communities.) - An evolutionary mindset — Viewing the community as a living organism that adapts to the shifting needs and aspirations of its residents.
- Balance between autonomy and interdependence — Creating conditions that allow individuals to preserve their uniqueness while participating in a collective (Again, sociocracy imposes a single, rigid mode of participation.)
- Focus on relational processes — Investing in the quality of interactions rather than just the efficiency of the systems in place. For example, creating dedicated moments and spaces that foster intimacy and connection.
The challenge of transitioning from Funnel to Space
A fundamental issue in cohousing projects is the shift from a collective construction project to a living environment. This transition — from funnel to space — can be particularly delicate. At the beginning, the group is often organized around a strong shared vision (eco-construction, resource sharing, shared governance…), with concrete milestones: finding land, securing funding, designing plans, signing legal documents. This generates a project logic — with deadlines, expectations, and leaders.
Get Damien Douté’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
But once the foundation is laid — sometimes literally — the group must transition from goal-oriented organization to a living space with real people, different rhythms, and varying levels of commitment and priorities. This shift is crucial. It confronts the community with the complexity of living together, the need to let go of control, to welcome the unexpected, and to cultivate a shared space where intentions can be continually redefined. It is no longer a project to complete, but a place to bring to life. That’s why a complete rethinking of the organization is often necessary to meet this new challenge.
Funnels within a Space: A fertile coexistence
Seeing the community as a space does not exclude the possibility of funnel-like projects — quite the opposite. A space allows targeted, time-bound initiatives with clear goals to emerge, exist, and thrive — without imposing their logic on the entire collective.
A subgroup might, for example, decide to renovate a building, start a farming activity, or organize a public event — with a plan, defined roles, and deadlines. The difference is that these initiatives are understood as specific projects within the shared space, not as its defining framework. They don’t shape the group’s entire identity but instead form part of a rich mosaic of overlapping energies. In a vibrant space, funnels become temporary pathways that some choose to explore, while others tend to different areas of the collective landscape.
Spaces within a Funnel: a structural incompatibility
On the contrary, trying to cultivate a space within a structure built as a funnel quickly becomes problematic. In an environment where everything is geared toward a single goal with fixed steps, there is little room — if any — for improvisation, divergence, or the plurality of desires. Any initiative not directly advancing the group’s “success” is seen as a distraction, a waste of time, or even a threat to efficiency.
Relationships become exploited. Contributions are ranked by utility. And non-aligned forms of expression are stifled. In such a framework, members who simply want to inhabit the space, explore alternative forms of presencing, or propose unexpected initiatives find themselves marginalized. The funnel, by nature, constrains a space. It shrinks and filters it until it disappears altogether.
Conclusion
Whether we manage an intentional community as a funnel or a space is a fundamental choice that shapes the very nature of the lived experience. By following the insights of J.Edelman, we can create places that do not merely “process” their inhabitants, but instead allow them to thrive and co-create resilient, authentic communities.
In a world where cohousing presents a potential response to many challenges we face today, it is crucial to move beyond the utilitarian and conformist logic of the funnel, and to embrace the more human and liberating vision of the truly creative space.
