Domestic Realism or Something Worse?

The article "Domestic Realism or Something Worse?" is authored by Helen Hester and published by Weird Economies. It critically engages with the concept of capitalist realism as initially explored by Mark Fisher, examining how societal norms around domesticity reflect and perpetuate capitalist values. The discussion centers on the idea of "domestic realism," which posits that the owner-occupied single-family home has become seen as the only acceptable form of living, while alternatives are dismissed as inferior.

Hester highlights that capitalist realism has historically discouraged imagination of alternative living arrangements, leading to the belief that home ownership is the only viable option. This notion persists despite the growing challenges many face in achieving home ownership, with domestic realism framing non-ownership as a failure. The author references Alva Gotby’s work, which expands on the idea of domestic realism to include the emotional desirability of current domestic arrangements, coining the term "domestic romance" to explain the widespread acceptance of these norms.

The article further explores commercial co-living as a response to traditional domestic realism, particularly in urban settings like London. Co-living is characterized as a high-density, commercially driven housing model, where small managed apartments share communal facilities. This housing typology is gaining traction across Europe, with London housing 20-25% of the continent’s co-living beds. The Collective Old Oak is cited as a prominent example, emphasizing shared amenities such as libraries, cinemas, and cafés, promoting an image of public luxury.

Hester raises important questions about counter-imaginaries in the context of co-living. While it offers an alternative to conventional single-family homes, the author warns about the problematic aspects of commercial co-living. Instead of fostering genuine community ties, co-living often commodifies social interactions, reshaping community into a service that prioritizes professional networking over authentic relationships. Thus, the concept of "community" becomes a tool for extracting value rather than fostering meaningful connections.

The article critiques the vision of community in commercial co-living spaces, emphasizing that these developments often curate a homogenous resident experience that excludes diverse family structures. Many co-living arrangements cater primarily to young professionals, reinforcing a model that privileges transient, single-occupant living. This raises concerns about the sustainability of such models in addressing broader housing needs and the gentrification effects they may induce.

Despite the critiques, Hester suggests that commercial co-living could inspire new approaches to social housing. By reimagining council housing to incorporate elements of co-living, it may be possible to create more inclusive and diverse living environments. This could involve integrating communal amenities and services that extend beyond mere shelter, infusing residential spaces with public luxury concepts that address a wider array of community needs.

In summary, Hester's article provides a thought-provoking examination of domestic realism and the emergence of co-living. It highlights the tensions between capitalist norms and the quest for alternative living arrangements, raising important considerations for sustainable housing in contemporary urban contexts. While commercial co-living presents challenges, it also opens avenues for rethinking housing models that could better serve diverse populations.