Eva Sandstedt

Beyond Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Cohousing Life in Contemporary Sweden

Abstract The idea of cohousing is alive in many industrialized countries today. It is seen as an interesting alternative way of living in late modern cities, where a majority of people live in families, couples or single households, but since there is a general lack of knowledge of what it means to live in a cohousing unit there are also prejudices. In cohousing units, the members are bound up to each other not by family ties but as separate persons with different relations. The inhabitants are living in different households and flats and with common spaces. Architecture is important as well as the organization of cooperation and everyday life. This article presents results from a study on “cohousing for second half of life” in the capital city of Sweden. The main question is: What does it mean to live in a cohousing unit and who is living here? Through in-depth interviews, we found that the residents in this type of dwelling underscore the possibility of both autonomy and dependency, privacy and togetherness. Theoretically, the relations in a cohousing unit can neither be characterized as Gemeinschaft nor Gesellschaft but at the same time it could be both/and. This evokes a third social relationship of the Bund – a theoretical concept beyond the dichotomy of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft.

Environmental health problems indoors: A comparison between the 1930's and 1990's

This article is inspired by Ulrich Becks risk theory, which helps researchers raise new questions about environmental problems. The environmental problem in focus here is poor indoor air quality, ...

On the borderline of “sick” and “healthy” buildings and schools: the concept of sustainability problematised

Indoor air in our homes, workplaces and schools is a global concern, an issue in policy and science, and part of the World Health Organizations programme on environmental awareness. In the present article, the official discourse on sustainable development in Sweden is related to a specific problem of the indoor environment, namely sick-building syndrome (SBS) and the notion of “sick” buildings. This health problem will be analysed here from different perspectives: political, scientific and practical. In the context of sustainable policy, Swedish authorities are taking measures to ensure that citizens can breathe good indoor air in “healthy” buildings. With regard to scientific evidence, SBS is not a clear-cut risk, and there is no known cause–mechanism–effect chain. It is a diffuse risk, and in society, it is also typically associated with social conflicts and mass media interests. In practice, the conflict confirms the difficulties inherent in defining sick and healthy buildings. Different societal interests and different professions are competing with each other to take the upper hand in defining the situation.