Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Fluffybull · F
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Many clubs or events, but how many times did you attend each?
If you only went once or twice to each you have not given anyone any chance to become friends with you.
Were you joining things [i]ad-hoc[/i] rather than from genuine interest in their activities?
Even if you do find something that suits you, and become a regular member with a circle of friends within it, it does not necessarily bring connections beyond the gatherings themselves.
I am in several clubs of different interests and sizes, and by chance a group of us in one did discuss this not long ago.
We realised there are many members we don't know, because people attend on different days, or only intermittently, or we follow its interest in our ways.
Most members are friendly enough but tend to form small circles of closer friends. Further, even within our own circles we don't really know each other outside, during the week. We know if each other is married, has a family, falls ill. We know a bit about their work, or if they are retired; perhaps each other's other hobbies. That's all though. We don't normally see each other outside of the club and its activities.
I will say these societies are not in the middle of a city, and many of their members live a long way apart geographically, but I don't think that makes any difference.
So why do people join a club?
For the interest it covers first and foremost. They do not expect to form close friendships beyond its activities. It can happen, and very occasionally even leads to a marriage, but it is rare and not the point of joining.
Also, what you gain from membership both in its interest and socially depends very much on [i]you[/i]: on the time and effort you commit to it. Bouncing from club to club, or event to event, in a vague attempt to form close bonds will not work because society does not work like that.
That's clubs and societies. One-off events are even more individual, unless you are one of the organisers.
........
You may also need consider national traits. I do not know but guess from some of your comments and your spellings ("thru", "theaters") that you are American, but have evidently spent a long time in many cities in what you call the "EU".
The "EU" is [i]not[/i] a nation, nor a culture. Nor is "Europe". The EU is a political [i]bloc[/i] of many highly-individual European nations each with its own, distinct culture and social norms, and you might find some cultures are much quieter and more reserved than others. This is so not only towards visitors from abroad but also within a country's own population.
For example, although we can't rely on stereotypes, many English say of their own country that Northern English people are more outgoing but also blunt in their speaking, yet those in the South all of two or three hundred miles away are generally more reserved. Either trait can deter people who are not aware of it and do not realise it is not necessarily a sign of unfriendliness.
......
Regarding your experiences as being in cities, are you sure that is not co-incidental? Yes, a major city offers a huge choice of interests, entertainments, etc. of which some are unavailable in many small, provincial towns; but any given person has only a limited range of own tastes and interests anyway.
Some say living in a city can be lonely but they would probably be lonelier still in if they live somewhere much smaller offering locally nothing that attracts them. There have even been city dwellers in Britain who think they would be happier living in bucolic idylls they imagine small rural villages to be, but find it a mistake and move back to the city.
It is not what cities have or do not have that is the problem.
What counts is what you, or I, or anyone else puts into our lives, and into our social groups and events, and for what purpose.
If you only went once or twice to each you have not given anyone any chance to become friends with you.
Were you joining things [i]ad-hoc[/i] rather than from genuine interest in their activities?
Even if you do find something that suits you, and become a regular member with a circle of friends within it, it does not necessarily bring connections beyond the gatherings themselves.
I am in several clubs of different interests and sizes, and by chance a group of us in one did discuss this not long ago.
We realised there are many members we don't know, because people attend on different days, or only intermittently, or we follow its interest in our ways.
Most members are friendly enough but tend to form small circles of closer friends. Further, even within our own circles we don't really know each other outside, during the week. We know if each other is married, has a family, falls ill. We know a bit about their work, or if they are retired; perhaps each other's other hobbies. That's all though. We don't normally see each other outside of the club and its activities.
I will say these societies are not in the middle of a city, and many of their members live a long way apart geographically, but I don't think that makes any difference.
So why do people join a club?
For the interest it covers first and foremost. They do not expect to form close friendships beyond its activities. It can happen, and very occasionally even leads to a marriage, but it is rare and not the point of joining.
Also, what you gain from membership both in its interest and socially depends very much on [i]you[/i]: on the time and effort you commit to it. Bouncing from club to club, or event to event, in a vague attempt to form close bonds will not work because society does not work like that.
That's clubs and societies. One-off events are even more individual, unless you are one of the organisers.
........
You may also need consider national traits. I do not know but guess from some of your comments and your spellings ("thru", "theaters") that you are American, but have evidently spent a long time in many cities in what you call the "EU".
The "EU" is [i]not[/i] a nation, nor a culture. Nor is "Europe". The EU is a political [i]bloc[/i] of many highly-individual European nations each with its own, distinct culture and social norms, and you might find some cultures are much quieter and more reserved than others. This is so not only towards visitors from abroad but also within a country's own population.
For example, although we can't rely on stereotypes, many English say of their own country that Northern English people are more outgoing but also blunt in their speaking, yet those in the South all of two or three hundred miles away are generally more reserved. Either trait can deter people who are not aware of it and do not realise it is not necessarily a sign of unfriendliness.
......
Regarding your experiences as being in cities, are you sure that is not co-incidental? Yes, a major city offers a huge choice of interests, entertainments, etc. of which some are unavailable in many small, provincial towns; but any given person has only a limited range of own tastes and interests anyway.
Some say living in a city can be lonely but they would probably be lonelier still in if they live somewhere much smaller offering locally nothing that attracts them. There have even been city dwellers in Britain who think they would be happier living in bucolic idylls they imagine small rural villages to be, but find it a mistake and move back to the city.
It is not what cities have or do not have that is the problem.
What counts is what you, or I, or anyone else puts into our lives, and into our social groups and events, and for what purpose.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
My sense of ideal city size is like 150K to 250K, for the entire metro area. Also the city should have a college or university.I think what helps make a place great is wherever you go someone will likely see you as a familiar fave, and likely you will recognize a face or two. Once you are surrounded by a million plus people there’s more a sense of being alone so less a sense of being connected to others. I think that sense of being recognized helps us behave ourselves, smile more, act friendlier.
Ynotisay · M
Well stated. But I don't if it's about allowing ourselves to become a certain way as it navigating big cities. I think that happens organically. It's why people walk by panhandlers without looking at them because if they were to stop every time it would be untenable. You need to have a protective shield living in a huge city. And it carries over to human interactions. I've lived in massive cities and now very rural and the difference in interactions is mind blowing. I didn't know my neighbors in cities. Now I chat and help them if they need. Cities have a lot to offer to certain types of individuals. And for others, it's void of the things that makes them happy. So it might be more of a "different paths up the mountain" thing. The important thing is finding our own path. And having the guts to take it. The worst thing is being someplace you hate and not doing anything about it.
ArtieKat · M
I found what you wrote to be interesting but I totally disagree about the impact which the [i]size[/i] of your habitat can make. How one interacts with other people is the issue, not how many other people there are around you. Cities are broken down into neighbourhoods, no different in many ways to villages - you'll see the same people out on the street at the same time each day as they're on their way to work etc, the same staff in your local grocery store etc. You say [quote]People become commodities. If I don't fulfil your needs perfectly, you are seeking after someone else who will[/quote] That's not my experience of friendship.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
That's what capitalism uses our cities for. Americans killed the alternatives in 1991 and now there's no hope for anything but this.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
One thing that practically all big US cities have in common: Democrats.
Some people like / love city life, other don't; some even like both equally
It's like any other subjective thing, such as a preference of season or topography
But from a government / public administration perspective, rural life is objectively inefficient, particularly funding of rural infrastructure
[u]https://www.vox.com/politics/24128478/white-rural-voters-politics-trump-biden-2024-election-polling[/u]
[quote]It would take an enormous amount of social engineering to stop ambitious young people born into declining rural areas from migrating to cities and suburbs. Making rural life sufficiently appealing to retain around 20 percent of the US population already requires massive subsidization of inefficient rural infrastructure and health care systems. [/quote]
It's like any other subjective thing, such as a preference of season or topography
But from a government / public administration perspective, rural life is objectively inefficient, particularly funding of rural infrastructure
[u]https://www.vox.com/politics/24128478/white-rural-voters-politics-trump-biden-2024-election-polling[/u]
[quote]It would take an enormous amount of social engineering to stop ambitious young people born into declining rural areas from migrating to cities and suburbs. Making rural life sufficiently appealing to retain around 20 percent of the US population already requires massive subsidization of inefficient rural infrastructure and health care systems. [/quote]
Ynotisay · M
@BlueGreenGrey Thanks for sharing that. It's true. I've lived in both and it's interesting. There's no question that 'fending for yourself' is much more applicable in rural areas. What I've found is that the older people are much more inclined to just roll with it. And a lot don't want it to change. But a lot of younger people want out. I think a lot of that is due to the internet. When you can see other lives it creates an option that's more appealing.And the political bent is pretty obvious. People tend to group together differently in rural areas. A singularity of thought. It's trippy.
SandWitch · 26-30, F
That's why it is always easier to hide among the masses in a big city than it is to hide behind the fattest person in a small town.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment