Social Clubs & Norms

I read this fascinating book by Ed Stringham a while ago called Private Governance, which talked in detail about the importance of emergent order in anarchic, or situations without political authority. It’s a great read for people interested in economics, and challenges the prevailing view that order and rules come from an ex machina style of government.

I’m actually in a couple social organizations back where I live, one of which is a men’s club which aims to argue about politics, philosophy, and other interesting topics. Being a club entirely composed of men, the rules are 100% different than an organization composed of men and women. Richard Hanania has written in detail about how men and women tend to act differently within the realm of politics.

I think one can extend his analysis a lot more broadly to what groups think and value. Since men tend to be less conflict averse, it may be easier to find truth, as a result of the fact that comparing different value systems comes with a bit of tension. Yet, these groups are almost inevitably crude as a result of the composition. Further, topics that guys are interested in tend to be more singularly focused, viewed as individual events, rather than a pattern or a relationship. Insofar as guys are more systems-thinkers as opposed to relational thinkers, you’re probably going to see more abstract topics covered, that have more to do with the specific rules being built, rather than interactions within the rules.

Robert Putnam’s argument rests on the idea that social capital has decreased significantly in the United States. Bowling alone, the name of his book, is quite literally an argument that groups that held communities together are falling apart. Yet, it’s not often that we see women bowl competitively. I’m not sure the harm to social capital is symmetric however. It may be the case that men are more harmed by not being part of a social network to socialize and build skills. We’ll see