The Oil Drum: Local

63 comments on The Importance of Social Capital

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Damek on June 17, 2006 - 4:35pm

All good points - and I should also acknowledge that my blame-laying just shifts the question of causes one more generation back. One could then ask the question, "what made the baby-boomer's parents choose paranoia and suburbs?"

In any case, enough with the blame, I have to say to myself. I'll focus on positive shifts in my own life. Your list is a good place to start, especially #1 which seems the toughest, since it's a number of different things that all require overcoming habits...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Glenn on June 17, 2006 - 4:51pm

I don't think they conciously chose "Paranoia and the Suburbs". I don't get very upset about the choices of prior generations (but I do get upset at the continuing obsession with the automobile lifestyle in the face of all the facts about global warming and PO). The WWII generation chose affordable housing, quiet streets, comfort, good schools, open space...all good things by themselves, but all of those together in the middle of nowhere without strong social cohesion created an isolated existance in which neighbors were alienated from each other.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Damek on June 18, 2006 - 2:59pm

I don't think they conciously chose "Paranoia and the Suburbs".

Well, of course not, that was just my own value-laden label for a broad swath of choices made by millions of individuals. I take back the whole "blame" thing - it's neither correct nor productive.

And it's not as if all suburbs are bad; just as there can be poor city design, there can be good suburb design... or maybe I'm just thinking of actual small towns which aren't really suburbs but are what the suburbs were trying to imitate?

So, yeah, they made choices based on cultural assumptions of what would bring them good neighborhoods and a good life, and every generation makes the same assumption-based choices.

Like they say, "culture happens."

I wonder if practices and habits that build social capital could be protected in society in some way? Guess I should go pick up the book!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Greg in MO on June 19, 2006 - 11:46pm

Damek wrote:
"So, yeah, they made choices based on cultural assumptions of what would bring them good neighborhoods and a good life, and every generation makes the same assumption-based choices."

You just did a great job of summing up a key part of the theory of periodic American culture change proposed by Professor Jack Lessinger in the book "Schizomania".

He labels our shared vision of the good life a 'mania'. (We usually call it the American Dream.) He shows how this shared vision alternates over time in a sequence of overlapping waves. During the time when a new rising wave (a new American Dream) starts to become as powerful as a fading falling wave (a fading American Dream) the shared vision becomes split - and another word for split is schizo. So "Schizomania" refers to a time period when our shared vision of a good life is split and in flux.

He discovered this pattern when studying the historical mass migrations of Americans from region to region and then from countryside to city to suburbs.

According to him we have already begun our fifth mass migration, though you do have to know what you are looking for to see it. The evidence is compelling...

He has nicknamed the mania that was born back around 1900 the 'Little King'. The Little King vision is centered around the individual rather than the community (like the trends detailed in Bowling Alone), it is focused on the short-term (Buy now - Pay later!), is driven by consumerism and considers it's castle to be the suburban home. (Of course this is all simplifying some complex concepts into a small message, so it may sound like stereotyping)

Here's the fascinating part: Each mania runs about 120 years with the the replacement mania being born at the height of the preceding one, and it is born to counter the excesses of it's parent mania by being an opposite vision.

So the individualistic Little King was born in 1900, reached it's zenith around 1960 (look at the peaks of those charts from Bowling Alone again...) and if the theory holds will fade into history around 2020. At the Little King's zenith was born the next mania - called the "Responsible Villager".

The Responsible Villager is driven to counter the excesses of it's parent - it is community focused rather than individualistic, it looks to the long term rather than the short, it loathes the suburbs and consumerism (though like every 'teen' still living in their parent's home they are still tied to situations and habits and infrastructure they wish to escape).

According to theory, the rising Responsible Villagers have reached a level of strength enough in balance with the declining Little Kings for each to frustrate the heck out the other (seem familiar?) and we are in the schizo-mania period right now. Around 2020 the Responsible Villagers will be the ruling mania and will be at their zenith...

It fits in interesting ways with some of the predictions for post Peak Oil culture doesn't it?

The book Schizomania can be found at:
http://www.predicting2020.com/books.html

More info on the theory can be found at:
http://www.predicting2020.com/index.html
(look for the little "NEXT" icons at the bottom of each page - IMO the book does a much better job of presenting the theory than the summary on the website, but it's a decent intro.)

Greg in MO

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

kkinder on June 20, 2006 - 11:40am

The WWII generation chose affordable housing, quiet streets, comfort, good schools, open space

I disagree -- what they were after was something different -- something we are still striving for. The goal of the post-WW2 generation was Star Trek. It was total automation through technology in a sterile environment. Have you ever seen stairs on Star Trek? Does Spock ever go on walk down a quiet street after a few beers?

Similarities between suburbs/post-WW2 and Startrek:

Alcohol: StarTrek has synthahol. Suburbs are void of dive bars.
Travel: StarTrek has beaming up and down. And turbolifts. Suburbs have driving up and down and expressways.
Entertainment: StarTrek has the Halodeck. Suburbs have TV. Society pretends that neither are used for anything more beyond than PG-13.
Militarism: StarTrek presents us with an extremely militarized society -- everyone has ranks and all ships are well-armed. You see an arms race between the Klingons and Starfleet. The Klingons are just war-mongers, and our real goal is science. Kind of like the pretense of the cold war, eh?
Personal space: Cushy, all furniture has rounded corners. And everyone has the exact same stuff. (This goes for both.)
Identity through consumption: Captain Pickard likes Earle Grey. I like double-mocha-latte. Go to Wal-mart/replicator and get yourself something that says, "I'm Ricker and I'm kind of wild."

I'm being somewhat facetious here, but my point is real. How often do we think of Star Trek has being dystopian and bad? But really, the goals of the surburbs are the same goals as Star Trek -- and they are largely REALIZED goals.

Open space? Unless unreasonably sized yards is open space, you don't see that in the burbs? Affordable housing and good schools? Debatable. The real goal of suburbia is total automation of the human experience.