I will leave a bundle of presents–essay backups–today.
Are the circumstances that promote material well-being the opposite of those that promote tight social connection? My take-away from listening to this fascinating discussion between Russ Roberts and Sebastian Junger is that such a trade-off does exist. Their conversation centers around Junger’s book Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging.
By tight social connection, I mean that individuals have a strong sense of belonging. They care for others. They feel appreciated when they work and sacrifice for the benefit of the group. They are confident that in turn they are cared for by others. They feel that their lives have meaning and purpose.
Junger argues persuasively that tight social connection is most likely to be found in a small group enduring hardship. The canonical example is a small military unit fighting a battle. As he puts it in Tribe,
Humans don’t mind hardship. In fact they thrive on it. What they mind is not feeling necessary. Modern society has perfected the art of making people not feel necessary.
But if you want material well-being, you want the opposite. You want to be embedded in a large-scale society, which is conducive to specialization and trade. And you want minimal threats from natural or human enemies, so that people have the freedom and comfort to engage in scientific exploration and innovation.
Junger notes that during the many centuries in which humans evolved, we lived in small bands that frequently encountered hardship. He makes a number of points about the emotional inclinations that proved adaptive under such circumstances.
— The appeal of group connection is shown by the fact that early settlers in America sometimes willingly left “civilization” to join native tribes, but the reverse rarely happened. (I would point out that the material conditions were not so dramatically different. It’s not as if the European settlers had antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and electricity.)
— We evolved to sleep in groups. Only in the past few hundred years and only in England, Northern Europe, and their offshoots do we put children to sleep in dark rooms by themselves.
— Movies about societies in crisis are popular. They also follow a stereotypical formula: a male hero confronts a physical threat; a female associated with him helps with group dynamics; a man who fails to help the group and instead looks out for himself dies gruesomely; and a man who was sent away by the community before the crisis for his troublesome behavior comes back and redeems himself.
— During the second World War, citizens felt a strong sense of common purpose.
— When you are restricted to a small community, you learn to get along with people you don’t especially like. You depend on everyone else in the community.
— The phenomenon of mass shootings in America does not come from the poorest, high-crime areas. Instead, it comes from young men who live in relatively comfortable material circumstances.
Best of both?
Roberts and Junger agree that we do not want to return to the poverty and mortality associated with primitive tribal existence. Is there a way to somehow enjoy the benefits of modern, large-scale society while also experiencing the sense of belonging and meaning that are more readily available in small groups experiencing hardship?
Junger mentions a few experiments in living arrangements. One example is placing nursing homes next to primary schools and having the populations mingle often. Another example is dormitory style living, where people have their own sleeping rooms but share cooking an other communal activities.
I am afraid that the trade-off puts limits on what we can achieve. We want social connection, but we do not want some of the conditions that help provide it. We would rather live comfortably than face war and privation. We would rather choose carefully the people with whom we spend time, rather than be thrown together with a random assortment of folks. And we would rather associate ourselves with major sports teams, political movements, or lifestyles than with the people in our neighborhood.
I don’t think that a market economy forces us to always adopt the behaviors that undermine social connection. But with the prosperity we have gained, the choices we are making appear to entail some unfortunate consequences.
I wonder about this and don’t see a good solution. The two that come to mind are 1) Promotion of Social Groups- This is not a real solution but a band-aid. Promotion of the use of the Neighborhood Association, local rotary club, etc brings locals together to bond and look out for their community. The best option as it’s organic but at the same time, it’s not likely to work.
2) Zoning – If as in the past, the residential neighborhood had walkable retail, neighbors are more likely to meet and chat. If single family zoning allowed for live/work along avenues and even corner lots, the chance for locals to meet and chat increases and so the likelihood to create those community bonds. This is real-time experience for many locals in urban environments.
The trade-off is real, inevitable, and should induce conversations on how to increase social connection and meaning in life.
Social connection is built on shared oppression, or shared opposition to injustice, or shared positive goal, itself often a way to end some injustice.
A prosperous society is one with little or no group oppression or injustice. In team sports, one can get both the shared positive goal of winning, and the shared oppression of training hard.
For most normal people thru the industrial revolution, the “shared goal” was to make more money, so your family could live better and especially your kids could have an easier life. If the “easyness of life” was measured by suicides, it’s likely less easy today than in the past. With prosperity, more of us are further along the spectrum of selfish, spoiled brats, not nice to others, not grateful, much more looking out for themselves than for others.
I think of my grandfather’s Elk Lodge, which he got involved with when he was able to help others AND they were able to help him AND he sometimes needed help. With prosperity, he stopped needing help.
My father didn’t join any such service org, but I was helped in school by Rotary, by men who were virtually never needing a little help from others in the org, but were willing and able to help “those less fortunate”. Sometimes they needed BIG help, like a job, which was not so easy to get. When you have a “good job”, you get enough money so you don’t need the help of your peers.
Most folk don’t want to be among “those less fortunate”, and don’t want to be needing help from their friends. But giving help is one of the important ways of getting a connection.
The union organizer in “Of mice and men”, would often ask for a cigarette, which made those who gave him a smoke feel more connected, and protective.
Changing the zoning a little to allow more corner stores and mixed use building would probably be a good step towards more connection, with more real life interactions. Both of the small changes suggested seem good: have nursing homes near schools; have dorm living places with communal kitchens.
We want to feel needed — but don’t want to be needy. It’s better to be the superior giver, than the inferior receiver; this is a sad truth about the aphorism: It’s better to give than to receive.