America used to be awash with grassroots social institutions. I know an elderly gent who belonged to the Lions _and_ two similar organizations. When my mother was young, there were dances and dinners multiple nights a week. Which, for me, raises the question why weren't these things passed down? Why weren't the young a kind of apprentices to the old? That seems like the natural progression. But we see this generational rift in many areas of American life, including on the job training or something as practical as home cooking. It's like gazing into the past across a cataclysmic divide.
Armchair historian AT BEST but...a lot of grassroots social institutions formed in the period between the Industrial Revolution (mass migration to the cities) and the invention of the radio. There were all of a sudden a LOT of people close together, some were even starting to get newfangled leisure time, and there wasn't a ton to do. On top of that, a lot of the institutions were ethnic because of the mass immigration that was happening at the time.
From there, the track downhill is death by a thousand cuts: radio, melting pot, television, suburbs, Internet, etc.
So in a sense one might mourn the loss, but I think it seems worth pointing out that they were enabled in the first place by a particular set of conditions that weren't some baked-in human default.
Staying at home is as entertaining as it’s ever been: video games, Netflix, don’t even get me started on short-form content.
It's trite, but I think a part of it is "because the internet happened" - and I don't mean just today's enshittification era but also the "good old times" everyone seems to remember fondly here. At some point, the internet was full of that kind of community spirit that you described, but of course this meant that people were more likely to direct their energy to online community building than to real-life stuff. And unfortunately online communities didn't always teach the skills that offline communities required, and also probably contributed a lot to the "consumer mindset" the OP warns against...
I suspect there are a lot of reasons. You don't have men and their housewife for the most part. So the typically male Lions, Elks, etc. clubs don't fit as well with modern lifestyles for that reason in part. Bowling nights went out of fashion. People are less likely to to be clustered in a town/small city for work. There are just a lot of reasons why routinely heading down to $PLACE with all the guys after work just isn't that popular any longer.
As someone who was growing up during the period where the Internet became mainstream...
This was happening before then. The Lions, Rotary, etc clubs in my area made very little effort to reach out and invite younger members. Aside from the Rotary exchange program, I couldn't have named a single event they were putting on that was genuinely aimed at people under the age of 50.
And the few times that they did try to talk to some of us young people about the club, the very, very strong impression I got of the pitch was "you can pay significant monthly dues to come to meetings with old people and occasionally go do volunteer activities out in the community." I already did some volunteering without having to pay for the privilege, and I didn't see the draw of going to meetings with old people.
The downfall of social institutions was well on its way by the Boomers.
> Why weren't the young a kind of apprentices to the old?
this question could explain almost everything about american life right now
I really feel this comment. The most tragic part to me is that these older type of organizations, I’d actually argue would be great for what people like me would benefit from. People are so isolated and lonely and “third places” are known to be a good thing for basically everyone. And it’s not like I couldn’t, with some effort, attend a few events and probably make a few acquaintances to get sponsored to join one. But the age chasm that’s already happened means most of the people down there are in their 60s at the youngest which makes me as a younger (than that) person feel nervous that these guys might not feel they have a lot to talk about with me (or even that I don’t belong). And with membership being so static, a new member would find themselves the only ones who hasn’t known everyone in the room for 30 years. Of note, a similar phenomenon can be seen in early Internet communities: a coupon years ago I paid to join The WELL just to see what it was like. It was interesting from an Internet Archaeology point of view, but most of the people there are older Gen Xers or boomers. Basically no millennial ever joined The WELL, because the Internet had moved on before we got online. The community has only shrunk from attrition, so everyone there has known the other members since the 90s.
There used to be a lot of disdain on HN against people who were "just partying". While the geeks stayed home, learned for school or job yadda yadda. People who socialize were always maligned here, their socializing was supposed reason why they earned less money.
And that attitude is one part of the answer. Second is that home entertainment became easier and more fun, so people stay home watching movies, browsing internet, what have you instead of going out. And overtime, dance places became emptier and organizers demotivated.
You can party sometimes. If it's all you do, you might have a problem. Berlin is a cool place, eh? (I swear that techno is targeted at autistic people)
On "just partying", while I get what you're saying, I have a hard time to believe they ever cared about what HN thought about them or that our opinions had meaningful impact. TBH I am/was more jealous of people with truly advanced "people skills" than anything, especially as they still earn pretty decently.
Lots more money is still made by networking or potentially mild grifting than through sheer innovation or technical excelence for instance.
I think that HN was reflection of real world attitudes. And yes, people care about what their real world contacts think.
> Lots more money is still made by
That has nothing to do with community, friendship, company and socializing as entertainment article is about. You using dance hall to build business contacts destroys all of these. It turns them into another worlplace - and pushes people elsewhere if they want to actually rest.
Yeah, now everyone glued to their phone
crazy how 20 years different changes human life forever
The stigma is pure cope. Most nerdy types I know wasted a ton of time on some stupid hobby. If not video games, it was some other dumb geek thing like anime, comic books, or furries.
I think a big part is the decline in organized religion.
Interestingly, I always guessed the opposite.
That modern American Christianity obsoleted the old clubs and "secret" societies - most of which were no longer very secret, more ritual than societal, and at some point had to define what "higher power" meant to its members - a topic that easily takes over the municipal development discussions - to not only the younger men but to the women (who were largely barred from such organizations).
90s television and the "role model" movement helped Christianity unify and sweep the attention of the youth, reflected in "youth group" programs across churches in the United States and also the rise of indie televangelists (some became millionaires, along with thousands of pastors).
By the early- to mid-2000s, Christianity had figured out how to put on a much better show (for the kids) and, especially in California, again had evolved into something new, more palatable, entertaining, and far more inclusive than you could ever get from something like a Masonic order or even a Rotary Club.
90s-00s Christianity was a massive movement that I wonder whether or not would be possible without the advent of TV. To me, those old clubs where grandpas met and discussed things was a way of the past. Like comparing newspapers to social media - just an obsolete way of sharing information.
All organized things started going down in participation no?
In the United States tradition that arose in the early nineteenth century, religious bodies were spiritual families with "brothers" and "sisters" that assisted in each other's lives outside of services. Descriptions of just how involved in daily life churches were can be found in e.g. Boles's 'Religion in Antebellum Kentucky.' Much unofficial societal organization flowed from there. Granted this was not the case, or not as much the case, in churches that predate that period, say, urban Episcopalians.
While the root may have been religious, Lions and Rotary were things in other parts of the world, shorn of their religious connection. I know that my grandfather was a Lions club member, and that was in India.
Generally clubs of that nature have seen their membership drop, have they not?
[dead]
>Which, for me, raises the question why weren't these things passed down? Why weren't the young a kind of apprentices to the old?
Because at that time, the younger generation outnumbered the old. And today, the older generation outnumbers the younger. They grew up in a growing world, and you have grown up in a shrinking world. Not shrinking quite so quickly that you can't help but notice... not yet. We're not Japan, not yet. When you read that heartwarming story about the Japanese train line that stays open until that one Japanese girl finishes high school, that happened because she was part of a shrinking society. Do you think they had dances planned multiple nights per week in her prefecture?
It was technology. With greater efficiency, came also greater separation and distance at home and with family and community and our initiatory rituals/rites.
We used to use community to pass those down, but now the average American family gets divided from each other at an early age as soon as the distraction and ideology from technology like screens and things social media comes into play.
Edit: Before internet, there were other forms of "social media" at play attempting to extract the attention of the individual units of the family and community, but they weren't as effective. With the internet they are more effective.
What was the social media before social media? TV?