The Decline of Club Culture

[Brian_Ewen]

This was an interesting and sad read this morning , because it is as relevant to todays Scotland , as it is to Australia .

Anybody else got views on this ? .

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20327340-28737,00.html

[ed_getka]

No particular view on this topic. What do you think the ramifications of what is being said are from your viewpoint?

[Brad Klein]

Strikes me as an interesting use of categories. The argument about social capital and community has to do with voluntary communities, civic space and democracy. To impart this into the realm of private golf clubs, because it helps one make a point about the decline of the golf (and sports) scene, is a bit of a misuse of a more valuable sense of citizenship and public commitment. Still, it is an interesting argument, one that's like a "Meeting of the Minds" of Karl Marx & T.E. Paul.

Prof. Carroll is taking advantage here of some basic sociological theory that derives from late 19th century regrets about the onset of mass society and industralization (Emile Durkheim, Max Weber). He yearns for the good old days, and has a nostalgic look at private clubs for the sense of culture and role that they instill.

Maybe Australian, British and Irish clubs generally are and were less exclusive than their American counterparts. This kind of argument certainly wouldn't translate as well onto the U.S. scene, where private clubs have a thoroughly exclusionary and elitist purpose. I also suspect he overstates the case of how well Australian clubs worked.

Probably like a lot of others here, I share his regrets about the effects of big business and "the social golfer." The critique comes off at one level as a bit conservative, yet it's based upon deeper, radical concerns about the whole direction of modern society, culture and industry. In that sense, it's a welcome perspective that helps explain why golf is in trouble.

[Mark_F]

I wonder how that master capitalist, Rupert Murdoch, allowed such a piece in his prize Australian tome.

He seems to be critical in particular of The National's culture -maybe the rise in share-based memberships has to do with a demise in club culture, as there is no need to be associated with a number of members simply to get in the door.  

My club has the same scheme.  

But we are all good blokes.

[Greg Beaulieu]

I see a mix of good and bad in this. The bad includes some of what the article says -- at my former club there was a sense of belonging, of having a stake in the future of the place, and the undeniable benefit of having a relatively empty facility at times that enabled one to go out on a summer evening either as a single or to take a bag of practice balls to a remote hole and just work on your game in privacy. It's a shame if these sort of things disappear.

But I think those positives only last as long as one feels the club is keeping up with the times and that the price of membership is good value. I think a lot of clubs get myopia when it comes to longer-term planning. They become captives of a segment of their members that don't want anything to change and fall behind as a result. Often this membership segment is a minority, but a loud one. In the case of my former club it manifested itself in a ridiculous situation that allowed cliqueish "groups" (informal teams) to own all weekend morning tee times, the domination of club activities by these same groups, and a lack of investment in the golf course. Over time this led to a situation where friends did not want to play at my club because of the availability to tee times and the course conditions, and I was forced to become a "social golfer". When you are paying a few thou a year to be a member of a club that your friends don't want to play then it's time for a re-evaluation of things, and that's what I did. My old club is slowly dying, but I'm not sure many there even notice.

[TEPaul]

"Strikes me as a rather complete hijacking of categories. The argument about social capital and community has to do with voluntary communities and civic space. To impart this into the realm of private golf clubs, because it helps one make a point about the golf scene, is a bit of a misuse of a more valuable sense of citizenship and public commitment."

I don't think so Brad. What you just said about this article is just a matter of the fact that the author bit off an very large and extremely broad-based general social subject---eg social capital. And that concept and ethos comes in many forms, from the wholly public or civic to the private organization. To attempt to put either in wholly separate categories denies the huge fundamental interconnection of the entire spectrum of social capital and its many forms (both private and public) in a general society or general culture.

What this man is talking about goes from the basic social concepts of deTocqueville to even Frederick Law Olmsted in his land-planning for general social benefit of "community" to inspire civilized culture, all the way to Digby Baltzell and his fundamental thesis that the world of the WASP (a term he even coigned) was to a large extent based on the social fabric of that group's "club".

The difficulty in the end boils down to the fact that in a general social context there always has been and probably will continue to be a huge dynamic between the world of public social capital in an association or organization sense and the world of the private club or association.

Just the term "free association" or "freedom of association" as a social concept whether it be public and civic open to all or private and restricted to those who associate only with those they choose to associate with has created enormous confusion and misunderstanding, it seems.

Someone like Martha Burk may've thought that the fundamental American Right to "Freedon of Association" meant that any America should have the RIGHT to join ANGC, while obviously ANGC felt that they had the constitutional "right" to refuse anyone they chose to refuse simply because they feel they have the constitutional right to accept anyone they choose to.

One of the most interesting things imaginable would've been if that "Burk/ANGC" issue had progressed all the way to the US Supreme Court at which the details and realiites of what is and what isn't "Freedom of Association" or the Right of "privacy" or private association is all about in the context of the U.S Consitution and Bill of Rights.

I doubt the US Supreme Court would've been all that sanguine about seeing a case like that land in their chambers because of the public reaction to the decision they would likely and logically have made and I'm pretty sure Martha Burk would've begged off too before that occurrence understanding that there would be little way for her to do anything but lose.

[TEPaul]

And Brad, I think the larger issue and subject here is that it's probably pretty undeniable that benefits do derive in a number of ways (social capital) for the individual to even all the way to the context of nations and national culture or national ethos if citizens feel that they "belong" (to something). There's no question that that feeling of "belonging" can be both in a private and public context. The real problem arises when nations begin to think that the two must be mutually exclusive to the point where the right of "freedom of association" in a "private" context should cease to exist.

There's no question that citizens or just people in general do have an inclination to want to "belong" to something and in some cases, probably most cases, that tends to make them feel a little bit special somehow---eg better about themselves.

If that can be accomplished in a general sense in either a public or a private context, then what could be the matter with that?

Matter of fact, to have both coexisting in a culture just may be one of human nature's greatest motivators.

[Brad Klein]

TEP, after I first posted I edited and revised my thoughts, so that we're closer than you might think. (Leads me to think you write slowly and thoughtfully, which I don't).

You are quite right to invoke DeTocqueville and Baltzell here. I think what I find intriguing is the way the critique lends itself to both a conservative and a radical turn and can go in either (or both) directions. The conservative turn would look to reinstill the culture of the old associations; the radical one would see the demise in terms of modern industry and culture. By the way, Martha Burk's response isn't part of any critique at all; it's just a liberal's assault on the right of any private association

[TEPaul]

Brad, I see you edited your first post. Thank you, thank you, thank you veeery muuch.

DeTocqueville and Baltzell in the context of this thread probably are pretty interesting but even if it may be a bit off the subject, I think some of Olmsted's fundamental beliefs about the benefits of community as a motivator of culture and civility and taste through community "landplanning" just may be more apropos to certain golf and golf architectural projects even if perhaps just a select few, and perhaps rare.

After all, who couldn't say that Tom Cousins attempt in Atlanta at Eastlake golf course and outlying community wasn't a stab at the very philosophy that Olmsted was essentially trying to achieve? In both cases the feeling of "community", of "belonging", seems to have been the goal of both.

I think one of the most important things to try to do in threads on this kind of subject is to try to put aside whatever may be our personal political beliefs and try to look at the bigger picture in an historic as well as a contemporary light. If we can do that we can probably find things in both worlds or both extremes that have some kind of utility somehow.

You may think I'm an elitist but I'm really not. I feel that there were some things that were valuable in the context of the concept of elitism at its finest---eg the concept of "Noblesse Oblige" as it once functioned at its best and purist was one of those things. Unfortunately it eventually devolved into prevalent snobbery and defensiveness on the part of those whose forebears may have practiced it best.

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of total governmental "social engineering". It has been shown to be a philosophy which has initial appeal and benefit but if taken too far becomes hugely negative in a social and culture sense.

I'm a big believer in various words and terms particularly if they can manage to convey the true meaning of the philosophy they represent. And I'm no fan at all of some of our fundamental terms or the general perception of them.

America as the land of Equality is one of those misperceptions. The United States and its unique and radical experiment in government never offered its citizens equality, and never really intended to. It only offered them "equality of opportunity". That denotes a contract, albeit it perhaps one of faith, between the government and its citizens and it requires a certain set of responsibilities on the part of both. Apparently too many US citizens have either forgotten or were never aware that they have a certain responsibility to themselves to act on their opportunities. Too many obviously think America offered them a free ride on which the government isn't upholding its end of the contract, or promise, or whatever it is that some US citizens think was offered to them by the United States of America.  

[Brad Klein]

Tom, I'm going to go back to a serious read of Olmsted on this. He was more implicit than explicit in his writings, but still more aware of the issues of landscape architecture and its moral influence on public culture than any of his predecessors (Repton, Brown). The golf architecture guys never touched the topic, but it's present in what they did and what they do when at their best in the field. I've been toying with doing this in the context of golf design for years, and at my wife's urging I'm finally on the way.

[T_MacWood]

An interesting article, it seems to me his argument has as much to do with nostalgia as it does with social concerns. Not that is a bad thing, and they are related to certain extent, most civilized people are strongly influenced by nostalgia and an appreciation for older things. They are more settling and confortable. Our interest is old golf architecture is proof of that.

Looking at the Australian Club example...who here wouldn't want the old clubhouse with its intimacy, its interesting architecture and its old panneled walls, artwork and comfy chairs. I'm certain what happened there had more to do with economic pressures than social decline, although I have no doubt that the club is not the same.

The other example of more AFL games being moved to night got me thinking about old World Series day games. Its a sunny day and I can still see Bob Gibson standing on the mound and see Roberto Clemente running around the bases, I can see the long shadows and I can hear Curt Gowdy. It was simpler, it was more quite and it was more natural IMO, but then again I'm nostalgic. Unfortunately there are no more day games....economics again. And even though I would argue for the return to day games (its a better game aesthetically) I don't think attendance suffers at night and I suspect it doesn't suffer in Australia either, and obviously TV ratings are higher.

I also suspect economics has a lot to do with the lack of young professionals joining some of these golf clubs. Money is often at the root of these changes.

Nostalgia vs Economics, nostalgia often takes a back seat to progress.

[TEPaul]

Brad:

The irony with Olmsted (the father, not the son) is he may've looked to golf as another vehicle (somewhat akin to parks) with his philosophy on some of the benefits of landscape architecture on golf architecture or landplanning on golf but he died in 1895 just about on the cusp of when golf was first arriving in this country to any noticeable extent.

[T_MacWood]

Olmsted died in 1903. On a related note he planned the village of Pinehurst. It must have been one of his final projects and one of his best.

[Brad Klein]

By the way, Frederick Law Olmsted never saw Pinehurst. His engineer, Warren H. Manning, did that famous radial / oval land plan of the town in the summer of 1895. Olmsted was last in NC earlier that year, having finished the arboretum at Biltmore Forest and suffering from the onset of dementia. Tufts went to the Olmsted office in Brookline in June 1895 and probably met with Olmsted but Olmsted was never in Pinehurst and didn't draw it. The plan is really the emodiment of the classic New England small town.

Almost all of the golf course properties done under the rubric of Olmsted (i.e. Mountain Lake) were done by the son, not FLO. His spirit and values of land live on, but they came via others who were inspired by him -- not a bad ethic, and in spirit with what Prof. Carroll's article is about.

[T_MacWood]

Brad
Are you saying that Olmsted was not the author of the plan for the Village of Pinehurst?

[TEPaul]

A great example and analogy of the nuances of what it takes to maintain and preserve an "aura" and "community of place" like the aura of some of the old buildings of clubs mentioned by this author is the phenomenon of the Brill Building in NYC.

Some on here may not know what the Brill Bldg in NYC was. It was owned by two businessmen who happened to have the foresight to use a part of it to dabble in promoting American rock and roll songwriting. Those two propietors were not songwriters and frankly didn't even know that much about music in the beginning. And that original dabbling into rock and roll songwriting became the most productive rock and roll songwriting machine of that age perhaps accounting for well over half of all the rock and roll songs written in that era.

The atmosphere was a bunch of cubicles with pianos in each and young talent from New York would come in there after school and such and they'd write songs as fast as possible and sometimes to compete in who could do the most in an hour.

Those who got their start in the Brill Bldg reads like a Who's Who of American rock and roll songwriters and other styles and famous recording artists. The Brill Bldg songwriting production machine was so strong most all the current recording artists would show up there for music and the proprietors wouldn't necessarily give them what the recording artists wanted, they would give them what they felt like giving them.

And at the height of all this the proprietors decided to sell the Brill Bldg but understanding how strong the community of those songwriters was at the Brill Bldg and how important the actual aura of the building was with its cubicles and pianos in each, they created an exact copy of it in another bldg.

For reasons no one involved with it can really put their finger on, it was never the same again and the songwriting production machine that was once the Brill Bldg began to wind down and fade away.

I guess this proves that in a fast moving culture like ours it's true to say---you can never really go home again.  

[TEPaul]

"Olmsted died in 1903."

That's true. He retired from the business in 1895. I should've said he retired, not that he died.

The last great project Olmsted was actively involved in was George Vanderbilt's Biltmore Estate in Asheville NC. That consumed practically the last seven years of his active career in landscape architecture.

[Brad Klein]

Tom MacWood, that's exacty what I'm saying, and I said it in my Ross biography, pp. 63-65. Olmsted (FLO) did not do the plan; his firm (Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot) did.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I thought you considered yourself to be a good researcher. How could you not have known that Pinehurst's land plan wasn't done before FLO retired from the business? That you don't know that is just positively SHOCKING!!!!!!!

That kind of gap in knowledge should serve to kill even the little bit of remaining credibility you have on here.

What do you think Bradley S.? Don't you think that just proves this guy is a bunch of hot air?

[Doug Braunsdorf]

A great example and analogy of the nuances of what it takes to maintain and preserve an "aura" and "community of place" like the aura of some of the old buildings of clubs mentioned by this author is the phenomenon of the Brill Building in NYC.

Some on here may not know what the Brill Bldg in NYC was. It was owned by two businessmen who happened to have the foresight to use a part of it to dabble in promoting American rock and roll songwriting. Those two propietors were not songwriters and frankly didn't even know that much about music in the beginning. And that original dabbling into rock and roll songwriting became the most productive rock and roll songwriting machine of that age perhaps accounting for well over half of all the rock and roll songs written in that era.

The atmosphere was a bunch of cubicles with pianos in each and young talent from New York would come in there after school and such and they'd write songs as fast as possible and sometimes to compete in who could do the most in an hour.

Those who got their start in the Brill Bldg reads like a Who's Who of American rock and roll songwriters and other styles and famous recording artists. The Brill Bldg songwriting production machine was so strong most all the current recording artists would show up there for music and the proprietors wouldn't necessarily give them what the recording artists wanted, they would give them what they felt like giving them.

And at the height of all this the proprietors decided to sell the Brill Bldg but understanding how strong the community of those songwriters was at the Brill Bldg and how important the actual aura of the building was with its cubicles and pianos in each, they created an exact copy of it in another bldg.

For reasons no one involved with it can really put their finger on, it was never the same again and the songwriting production machine that was once the Brill Bldg began to wind down and fade away.

I guess this proves that in a fast moving culture like ours it's true to say---you can never really go home again.  

Tom-

  To take this a step further, do you think we could draw a parallel between the lessons/experiences from the Brill Building and many older golf clubs vs. newer golf clubs?  

  And then back to the article, the culture of golf/country clubs today vs in the past?

  I am of the mind that things which evolve over time--i.e. many of the older, grand clubs and courses--became that way because of blood, sweat, and tears on behalf of the founders and architects--when you put your heart into something, there's an intangible there, a connection, which simply can't be bought.  In other words, you can buy your way in as a member, but it doesn't have the same feeling, the same soul, than if one was a founding member or had that connection to the past--and here's the start of that "club" culture.  I may be digressing here, but I saw it plenty from my six years in several clubs as part of the Management Staff--and I sometimes wonder if people today aren't looking to join these clubs for the sense of community and belonging, but just for a babysitter and other surface reasons?  

The way the clubs market themselves doesn't help--all this bullshit about "Scottish this-and-that" and "links-style design" and things, attempting to give the illusion of authenticity.  

F**K THAT.  

You can't manufacture tradition, history, and camaraderie, nor can it be bought.  Community of place evolves over time.

Would you agree?  

[Doug Braunsdorf]

As a sidebar, I sometimes wonder, as I look around and see my peers in the workplace and around town and things--where are we going to be with golf clubs 10,20,30 years from now?  I just wonder.  I don't see a lot of guys my age playing, wanting to join clubs, wanting to improve their club and carry it forward through this 21st Century the way many of the more senior guys on here have done, shepherding their club through projects related to the golf course.  

It's food for thought.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom-
To take this a step further, do you think we could draw a parallel between the lessons/experiences from the Brill Building and many older golf clubs vs. newer golf clubs?  
And then back to the article, the culture of golf/country clubs today vs in the past?"

Doug:

I don't know if we could draw any parallels between the Brill Bldg and the futile attempt to recreate its aura somewhere and what happened with the older clubs vs newer clubs, but we probably could learn something from the saga of the Brill Bldg about the prevelant inclination of some of the older American clubs who seem to redesign, rennovate or rebuild their old clubhouses at the drop of a hat. That effort surely doesn't always work that well and some tradition, and sometimes a lot of "aura" can go by the boards when some of those old and often funky clubhouses that were built back in the good old Golden Age, or before, go by the wayside.  

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Doug:

I don't know if we could draw any parallels between the Brill Bldg and the futile attempt to recreate its aura somewhere and what happened with the older clubs vs newer clubs, but we probably could learn something from the saga of the Brill Bldg about the prevelant inclination of some of the older American clubs who seem to redesign, rennovate or rebuild their old clubhouses at the drop of a hat. That effort surely doesn't always work that well and some tradition, and sometimes a lot of "aura" can go by the boards when some of those old and often funky clubhouses that were built back in the good old Golden Age, or before, go by the wayside.  

Tom-

 I understand what you're saying. What I was trying to say was that tradition and authenticity can't be bought--be they clubhouses, golf courses, or clubs as a whole.  They take time.  

[TEPaul]

"You can't manufacture tradition, history, and camaraderie, nor can it be bought.  Community of place evolves over time.
Would you agree?"

Doug:

Yes, I probably would. Tradition, "community of place", taste, style, civility, gentility, these are probably all very important human characteristics and conditons, as Olmsted surmised and advocated. He obviously thought they were all fairly essential to benefit the "human condition".  

I have this cousin who is obviously sort of some world class genius and I guess always has been. He's made a great living out of going around and advising large multi-national corporations and governments as well on what the state of the world and such is at any particular time. The guy also has one helluva devilish and dry "put-on" sense of humor. He's also more than a little eccentric in a brilliant way, if you know what I mean?

And at one of these conferences they asked him what he thought could articulate perhaps the most significant advance in the human condition?

Was it vacinnation, or the light bulb or the telephone, or the airplane or the automobile or the printing press or what?

He sat there and after a time said that the best way to articulate the most significant advance in the human conditon, were with the words;

"Madame, dinner is served."

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I must comment that I am deeply sadened by the quality of the writing in the article compared to the drivel that appears in our american newspapers.  It is literate and packed with information.

It is also rather secular in its tone in that membership in the club is discussed in terms that are often used to represent church attendance in the u.s..  Not being a church-goer and noting the addictive nature of golf many years ago it merely reinforces the overwhelming potential of good that golf offers to many individuals when practiced in a respectful way.  Unfortunately in many american clubs the talk is busines, business and more business.  Little socializing goes on although this is more prevalent in country clubs than in golf clubs.  fundamental differences exist in these institutions, but occasionally it is necessary to use a country club when a golf club is not available.

Social capital certainly takes a secondary seat to personal advancement at the former as opposed to the latter IMO in most instances.

Good read.

Dr. V.-

  One of the clubs I was at several years ago actually had rules of conduct written into the operating standards and goals for the dining facilities, and it included a specific statement that business papers, laptops, and related items were verboten within.  When you think about it, it makes sense, and takes the dynamic more towards a social environment.  This isn't to say that politics, business, sex, and religion weren't discussed, but it created a more collegial, social atmosphere.