Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Social capital and a sense of community are important because it leads to better health, higher trust and civic engagement in people. Communities and states with higher social capital are better off then states that have low social capital on nearly every life measurement. You don't have to have a sense of a community that is inherit with discrimination and hierarchies. Scandinavian countries typically have high social capital and they are pretty equal societies. Yeah we are a more individualistic then ever before but are really better off because of that? We have large swarths of individuals in our society killing themselves through suicide, opioids, and dropping out of work force and mainstream American society.
I agree that in an ideal world that you could have a greater sense of community without discrimination and hierarchy. However, its not what I observed over the years. Community means organizations and generally service clubs and organizations. They just don't work for a lot of people.
It begins in elementary school. It seemed when I was young that everywhere I was there was some sort of hierarchy or pecking order. In grade school, the boys who were athletic were anointed the leaders. Whether they should have or not, my grade school teachers reinforced this by giving them the major speaking parts in school assemblies and plays. They were the ones called upon in school when the teacher wanted a question answered or a job performed. A physically inept, bookish child, like me was not certainly not part of the hierarchy and no one had to tell me that. I just "knew".
In secondary school, I saw the same thing. The same kids were hustled into groups like the "Key Club". Other kids had access to these groups, but it took a great deal of chutzpah to try and join when you weren't invited. Somehow, everyone just "knew" who the leaders were and what clubs they were allowed to join.
I've seen this continue to some degree in my adult life. Groups like Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions, and Chamber of Commerce are fading in many communities. However, they reinforced what I saw happen in elementary and secondary education. Undoubtedly, these organizations were made up of the same clique that dominated the schools when I was younger. My own wife naively believed the PTA in our area might be different. She got a real education one day when she found a way to get the local chapter of the PTA $1,200 for a service activity and they promptly took the money, rejected every idea my wife had for spending it, and than gave her the cold shoulder. Since that day she never went to a PTA meeting again.
My father actually belonged to the Elks Club for a time. He quit after he became a judge because he felt he could not belong to a group that practiced discrimination against minorities or represented the dominant business interests in the area. He felt it would lead many to believe he could not be objective while sitting on the bench. He was the independent sort and no one could push him around. Sadly, few judges today are made from the mold that my father was.
What I like to believe is this: Those who were not in the clique (like myself) got tired of what we saw. We got tired of not being invited to join and given humiliating assignments when they deigned to let us in the door. We felt ourselves being looked down upon by the clique and we simply refused to occupy the role "in community" that they gave us. Instead, of accepting those roles, we created our own place in society. In my own case, I simply damned the power structure in my community and opened up my own law office. I never wanted to work for the power structure and I don't. I don't participate in community service organizations. I don't contribute to the United Way. I do make a good living representing fringes within the community and besides the income I receive, I will admit that I enjoy thumbing my nose at certain people.
I am not proud of it, but while I love politics and vote in state and national elections, I do not vote in local elections. Why? Because the system seems to perpetuate the same cliques and I have not found a way to get around it. I will not vote for a candidate because he leaves a brochure on my door. I will not vote for a candidate because he uses adjectives like "honest, trustworthy, and fiscally responsible" to describe himself. I would vote in a local election if a candidate stopped at my door and talked convincingly about why he was a better candidate. That hasn't happened in the decades I've lived at my current address.
That is what I think of "community". Others may think something different. I think I may speak for more people though than not.
Last edited by markg91359; 03-27-2018 at 03:43 PM..
I am not proud of it, but while I love politics and vote in state and national elections, I do not vote in local elections. Why? Because the system seems to perpetuate the same cliques and I have not found a way to get around it. I will not vote for a candidate because he leaves a brochure on my door. I will not vote for a candidate because he uses adjectives like "honest, trustworthy, and fiscally responsible" to describe himself. I would vote in a local election if a candidate stopped at my door and talked convincingly about why he was a better candidate. That hasn't happened in the decades I've lived at my current address.
That is what I think of "community". Others may think something different. I think I may speak for more people though than not.
"A typical federal election cycle now
involves at least $7 billion in campaign financing,
and billions of dollars more in corporate lobby-
ing outlays that are indirect forms of campaign
financing. Because of profoundly damaging
Supreme Court decisions, most especially
Citizens United, billionaires and large corpora-
tions are able to make enormous and essentially
untraceable campaign contributions to candi-
dates. There is a strong and correct feeling
among Americans that the government does
not serve their interest, but rather the interest
of powerful lobbies, wealthy Americans, and
of course, the politicians themselves. Political
scientists such as Martin Gilens have shown that
only rich Americans have real input into political
decision making". https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-r...7/HR17-Ch7.pdf
Local elections, while not perfect are at least somewhat immune from your corrupted state/fed system in dire need of reformation.
This country has become akin to France, circa 1770; just before Marie Antoinette lost her head.
Reading that article makes me wonder why immigrants would even bother immigrating, a sad social commentary indeed. Now I understand why I miss the 1980's, as it actually was better back then.
We believed in our country, even though Reagan lied; and we all knew it.
That's like saying it isn't the fall that kills you, its the sudden stop at the bottom. BTW Canada has lost much of its social trust and cohesion as well, particularly in areas where immigrants have created ethnic enclaves. Balkanization has the same effects no matter where it occurs.
While reading this post, I find myself thinking about my great-uncle, a Danish immigrant who lived in Michigan in a town with a well-established Danish community. They were a very insular group and wary of outsiders, but within the group, they were extremely tight-knit with high levels of social trust and cohesiveness. So in light of that I have to wonder if you would hold such disdain for a group of Danish blondes who spent their every waking hour working and socializing together (and speaking Danish exclusively while doing so) as you do for darker-skinned "ethnics" because, let's face it, my uncle's community was the very definition of an ethnic enclave.
While reading this post, I find myself thinking about my great-uncle, a Danish immigrant who lived in Michigan in a town with a well-established Danish community. They were a very insular group and wary of outsiders, but within the group, they were extremely tight-knit with high levels of social trust and cohesiveness. So in light of that I have to wonder if you would hold such disdain for a group of Danish blondes who spent their every waking hour working and socializing together (and speaking Danish exclusively while doing so) as you do for darker-skinned "ethnics" because, let's face it, my uncle's community was the very definition of an ethnic enclave.
Not the same thing....as Danish society and culture is compatible with ours, as opposed to third world cultures. Most Western, Central, and Northern European cultures, particularly Scandinavian/Nordic ones, are very similar and share common cultural mores and practices with the traditional Americans who have been the founding stock of the country - Anglo-Saxon peoples.
I don't have any disdain for them individually - except as specific reasons due to circumstance might permit. But we don't need them, they are not a good fit, and they are a destructive force within American society.
Really there is no justification at all for continued immigration...but if for some reason we actually DID need to import people, we should only import the ones the most like us, who offer the closest cultural and socioeconomic fit...anything else is going to be trouble.
I think social capital has changed forms. City-Data forums, facebook, hobby forums, Youtube are the new forms of social capital. I've been social since the 50's and people still have friends, talk on the phone and interact in person and by mail (now email). Most people have never been involved in civic organizations other than the PTA or the scouts or little league, or the church and still aren't. And how does belonging contribute to democracy? Politics serves the politicians and those who finance them. The average person has little to no influence on the process. Even our elections only accentuate that viable candidates must be backed by established parties and money. A majority of working men in the past headed to the bar after work, or drank at the bowling alley. The drinking culture has been eclipsed for the past 30 years or so. People went to the movies and local dances regularly, but the main event was the movies. Today entertainment is more costly than ever, so it makes sense to get it at home.
That's valid. Also feminism , which kicked women out of their homes and into the workforce, thereby crippling their ability to function as the "social organizer".
Who assigned women the role of social organizer? Many women hated being responsible for that crap.
Men have been free to plan all the parties they want.
Another consideration here is that the demands of the workplace have greatly expanded. A strict 9-5 schedule with evenings/weekends free is a luxury for many people who find themselves working multiple jobs or non-standard shifts, or answering emails and logging in at home after normal business hours. There's just not time or energy for hanging out with friends/neighbors, especially after fitting in what time you have left for your own family.
I think this, more than anything, is the big driver. I've seen it during my own lifetime. People would socialize, throw parties, etc. All the way through the 90s. But sometime post 2000, I've seen work dominate more and more if the daily life. Calls and emails at home. Look at all the discussion on work/life balance. If we had work/life balance, we wouldn't be talking about it. Honestly, by the end of the week, I don't really want to socialize. Just too exhausted. Saturday become chore day to do all the things you didn't get done during the week. Sunday morning is sleep in, so church, which used to be one of the great social centers of community, no longer plays the role it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
Who assigned women the role of social organizer? Many women hated being responsible for that crap.
Men have been free to plan all the parties they want.
Men plan parties all the time. Games at 7. I'll bring the chips, you bring the Bud. Of course some might not consider that as meeting the definition of a party.
Who assigned women the role of social organizer? Many women hated being responsible for that crap.
Men have been free to plan all the parties they want.
You want an exhaustive explanation of how gender roles are established? I don't think I can provide that.
It wasn't like there was a meeting though.
Women are more social than men, so you could start with the biological roots of social psychology, I suppose. Maybe the answer has some anthropological elements as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
