Chapter 6
CONCLUSION
In this study of a live-aboard community in the Bay Area, I found that the tendency among people to congregate with like-minded people "who accept and to some extent mirror [their] own experiences, values, behaviors, and preferences" (Orbach 1977: 272) occurred among the live-aboard population. I discovered that the members of the community had distinct cultural and linguistic characteristics which set them apart from mainstream America, that these qualities stemmed directly from living in a small shelter, and that they became a part of each individual's identity soon after moving aboard. The shared common experiences, including pleasures and hardships, drew the live-aboards together as a group, and although residential proximity was one reason for social exchange, the choice of alternative housing also created social bonds and friendships between people in different marinas.
During the course of research, I also discovered that most people moved aboard, and remained there, for more than economic reasons. BCDC's statement in 1983 (p.12) that "housing should be accommodated on land" was an ethnocentric assumption that failed to consider the whys and the benefits, for society as well as for the individual. It is a lifestyle that needs to be further examined.
From the outside, live-aboards appear to be either (1) deprived, because they can't engage in unlimited consumption or (2) less than worthy citizens because they are reneging on their obligation to consume. Outsiders sometimes think that "live-aboards" must be getting away with something. They are frequently made to feel like they are non-contributors to society (in fact, many cannot vote because of the difficulty in establishing residency status - even if berthed in the same marina for years) and as a result are put into the same category as "transients" and "urban nomads" who are limited by circumstance and have no choice about consuming. This occurs despite the fact that most live-aboards are well-educated, hold (or have held) professional jobs, and pay "live-aboard fees" for the privilege of occupying their vessels.
Although living aboard is one example of an alternative lifestyle where people are living more simply, it is also becoming more complex. In the Bay Area, it has attracted a large number of middle to upper-middle class people during the last five to ten years. The increased number and quality of boats produced during that time frame have probably contributed to this phenomenon.
Regulation, whether desired or not, may be required in the future. A forecast of continued growth in the numbers of people wanting to live aboard will mean that live-aboards, harbor management, and BCDC will continue to be involved in disputes about regulation. How should the "authorities" deal with the growing number of people who want to berth their vessels in the Bay Area and use them as residences? What can the live-aboard do to protect the quality of his or her environment, and to protect his or her right to live how and where s/he wants? Some of my informants felt no regulation was necessary, that the numbers were "self-regulating" (G.L.) due to the eccentricity of the lifestyle, and that all regulation was an "infringement of personal liberties." (T.P.) Others felt some regulation might be necessary: "I suppose I like the idea of a certain number per marina, if only to totally selfishly keep the marina quiet and not feeling like a condo complex!" (M.S.) "If every slip has people living in it that would be too many. Every other slip would be max." (M.Z.) One of my informants felt that the numbers should be regulated by individual marinas which "should provide basic regulation based on general state-specified guidelines (i.e. state-specified minimal environmental standards for water/air quality)." (R.C.) Unfortunately, it appears that the live-aboard lifestyle may remain a "privilege" for the few who persevere or "sneak-aboard" and not an "inalienable right".
What can we learn from studying this lifestyle from the insider point of view? It shows that it is possible to be satisfied under self-imposed conditions of limited consumption. All my informants emphasized a conscious enjoyment of living aboard, and most could not envision returning to a land-based society. It shows that we can live with a measure of austerity which is perhaps more aesthetic than ascetic. It shows that it is possible to have a dream, set a goal (to go cruising or own a boat) and to see tangible evidence of progress towards it. Goals of acquisition (of goods or money) with no limit can never be achieved. But the conscious choice for simplicity and limited consumption seems to allow the live-aboard a greater potential for setting and attaining life goals and for being satisfied.
Live-aboards have evolved a distinctive sub-culture vis-a-vis other residential groups of middle-class people simply because of their alternative choice of residence. Because of the limited space within the vessel, and because of their love for being on the water, they share certain complexes of skills, have a community of interests, strongly identify as a group, and practice voluntary simplicity and limited consumption.
In contemporary America, simplicity and limited consumption are not valued. Yet these are the core values essential to the live-aboard lifestyle. Therefore, the only people who can appreciate the hardships and benefits, as well as the achievements of the live-aboard, are those within the sub-culture or those who have chosen or are sympathetic to a life of voluntary simplicity.
In a world characterized by waste and complexity, excess and bankruptcy, it is important to study communities and groups within a contemporary context that have found a way to successfully live more simply, i.e. to live with less, and where there is less emphasis on accumulations of goods and more emphasis on material simplicity and quality, a human scale of existence, personal growth and self-determination, and greater ecological awareness.
GO TO - BIBLIOGRAPHY