|
|
|
wo
years ago, Ethan Watters proffered one of the politest "fuck
you's" to conservative commentators in recent memory. It took the form of a New York Times article that coined the term "urban tribes." Then
single and in his late twenties, Watters wrote the piece partially to refute
the assumptions of
marriage "experts" and right-wing pundits that his was a lifestyle fueled
by solipsism and self-indulgence.
Like most of the thirty-seven
million young Americans who are choosing to postpone marriage for their
thirties and beyond,
Watters belonged to a tight-knit group of friends that were, as he wrote, ?struggling
to do something creative and support each other as they lived life between
the families they grew up in and the families they might someday start for
themselves.? Did
they have extra free time on their hands? Certainly. Did they embrace hedonism?
At times, like it was their best friend. But to Watters, these groups had
value far beyond the guarantee that someone would be around to pass the hallucinogenic;
that value suggested
the
urban
tribe
could
even revitalize marriage.
Almost instantly after the article was published, Watters became the spokesperson for "never marrieds," one of the fastest-growing groups in America. Apparently, he wasn?t the only one dissatisfied with reductive
portrayals of his generation. Watters received hundreds of phone calls and
emails from people eager to tell him about their own friend groups, be
it a New York tribe that described itself as "the incest club," a group of
"ultimate Frisbee-playing MBAs from Boston," or an L.A. tribe so racially
diverse it "looked like the UN." In his new book, Urban Tribes, Watters
relays many of these stories, along with comical memories from his own
tribal days. He recently spoke with Nerve about the redemptive value of friendship (and
Friendster). Tobin
Levy
Is the urban tribe a new phenomenon, or have you simply given a name to something
that's been around for generations?
It's not new in the sense that this is an organic, natural thing that human
beings do. In previous generations, people who lived in a city outside of a
[traditional] family would
form groups like this. It's exactly what you see in gay and lesbian cultures
over the last century. In fact, the people
who write about gay and lesbian culture have thought a lot more about the meaning
of friendship and groups of friends than heterosexuals have.
How has the relative importance of friendship groups changed in recent
years?
The difference with
our generation is twofold. One is that many more people are living their
lives outside of a family — particularly many more women. The second,
and most important, distinction is that we're doing this much longer
than any other generation. The difference between a group of friends that
will exist
for three years after college, and one that exists for thirteen years after
college, is dramatic. With every additional year that you live within a
social group, that group has a tendency to become
more distinct.
The roles people take within that group become more defined. The rituals
become more ritualized and more meaningful, and the more likely the group
is to continue into another year.
"Don't let culture
tell you that you're any less of a person because you're
in a 'holding pattern.'" |
Can the internet be credited, at least in part, for the rise of the urban tribe?
I'm a good example of why the answer to that question is probably ?No?. Most
of my tribe years were pre-internet. I know it seems crazy to imagine that, but
this thing happened in my life long before those [friend] connections were facilitated
by e-mail. However, there's
a potential for larger communities to be created from these smaller, individual
groups because of this technology.
Do you ever look at Friendster?
I do, and if Friendster had come into my worldview before I finished the book,
I certainly would have written about it.
The site is an exact visual representation of what you're writing
about. You must feel gratified.
Absolutely. I immediately sent an advance copy of my book to [Friendster founder]
Jonathan Abrams, and he was gratified that I was identifying [on paper] the phenomenon
he was creating through the internet. Abrams has literally illustrated one of
the points I make in the book about the importance of the weak ties ? the friends
of the friends you haven't met just yet — in our lives. It's the weak ties
that
make us feel connected to the city we live in. It's
the friend of a friend who is going to pass along a job tip that will eventually
make its way back to you and change your life next year. I think understanding
how your group connects to other people, how it can help this larger community,
is important to be conscious of.
Friendster was created as a civilization-building game and as a dating
site. What do you think about this instant conflation of potential sex partner
and tribe?
You can make the case that Friendster — and urban tribes in general — are not
the
best
way to meet the person of your dreams. You're fundamentally bringing your friends
into the selection process. You're allowing them to be more influential than
they
might otherwise be. And you don't necessarily want to enter a relationship with
a
whole
lot
of
information
flowing
from
your friends to the new potential partner.
Which leads us to my favorite part of the book, ?Queen Bees and Cockblockers.?
The Queen Bee is a woman in the group who wants to have all the flirtatious
energy directed toward her. It seems to be a common thing. But like I say in
the
book,
this is not simply a negative role. If you're a single guy and you don't have
a date one night, the Queen Bee is likely to give you this fantastic
flirtatious attention that's going to make your evening great — even if
it doesn't
lead to sexual activity. But if you're bringing a new woman to the
group, you can generally count on the Queen Bee to say something along the lines
of, ?Well, she's not good enough for you.? Meaning,
"I want to remain the central person people flirt with."
And who's the Cockblocker? I love that word.
He's the guy who tends to throw himself at any potential new romantic partner
that
comes into the group's orbit. He does so regardless of whether or not he actually
has a shot at becoming involved with that person. And it
tends to get in the way of other guys in the group, who might
like to take a longer path in getting to know this person.
It's interesting that even though there's a familial quality to most
tribes, sexual tension seems to be a prevailing theme.
I did notice a latent sexual energy among most urban tribes. There's a lot
of touching; people go skinny-dipping together; they give each other massages.
They go on road trips and sleep in the same hotel bed. On paper, this is all
platonic, but if you look at it emotionally you see there's an ambient
sexual charge. All these people are young; all these people are the same age.
There's going to be sexual energy there regardless of whether the people in the
tribe actually act on it or not. And I think that may actually grow over the
years if you stay single and are without a romantic partner for a significant
amount of time.
It makes you wonder if in ten or twenty years the urban tribe will have transformed into the urban polyamorous tribe.
This may be the seed of something that will be the next generation's
new thing. That they'll make less of a distinction between friendships and people
they have sexual lives with. It would be fascinating
if it was.
"We're
more romantic about marriage than previous generations." |
Sex and romance is a primary topic of conversation among tribe members.
I'm curious how forthcoming people were with you.
People were extremely forthcoming. I had a survey up [on my website],
asking people to email me information about their group. I got more than a thousand
responses. People told me everything about their tribes, including very
intimate information about the sexual lives within the groups; whether they dated
within the groups, fooled around or didn't fool around. I didn't even ask
them for the dirt. They simply offered it up.
What was the most surprising group position on inter-tribal dating or fooling around?
There was a wide spectrum.
There were groups where dating was not tolerated. In other groups, fooling around
was
not only tolerated, it was one of the reasons the group existed! People tended
to
end
up with each other at
the end of the night.
All the groups you surveyed were unique in terms of size and makeup,
but
did any patterns emerge in terms of romance?
No real pattern said the average urban tribe is one thing
or another. But in the groups where people aren't allowed to date,
I think that inevitably someone breaks the rule. Hopefully, one of the unwritten
rules of
those groups is, if you're going to date make sure you're serious
about it. Make sure this is worth the risk to the group. You're going to put
us in this situation where we're potentially going to have to choose sides if
things go badly. Make sure it's not just a one-night stand. Make sure it has
the potential to go the distance.
It's interesting that you say ?go the distance.? It surprised me that
marriage was something that most of the people you talked to not only wanted,
but also held in very high regard.
That is definitely true. I think the vast majority of them
are interested in children and long-term loves, and many — I think most — are
interested
in marriage. I'm very much like my generation in that way. We're hard realists.
We've gone through a number of relationships and know that they're difficult,
that they change over time, so we're cautious about marriage but not about love.
You could even make the case that we're more romantic about marriage, that there's
a higher marriage ideal than in previous generations. We don't simply want to
find a spouse who can fulfill his or her role as a husband or a wife; we're
looking
for someone who we're
deeply connected to.
And even though tribes often hinder new romantic pursuits outside the
group, you suggest that a person's tribe can ultimately help them have a better,
more
successful marriage or life partner?
I fundamentally believe so, but for a reason that's not particularly obvious.
I think tribes are really good at helping you become your best self. That
typically makes you more valuable in anything you do in life. Whether professionally
or romantically, it makes you a more solid person. In my case, it made me into
the person [my wife] Rebecca was interested in marrying. I was a person in and
of myself, and I was confident in and of myself, and I think the best way to
enter a partnership is not by looking for someone to ?complete me.? I think that makes a marriage much more likely to
succeed.
Do you consider yourself an advocate of marriage?
Just because my particular story ended with me getting married doesn't mean I'm
encouraging people to get married. In fact, the fundamental text of the book
is: look for
the value in your single years and your single relationships. Don't let culture
tell you that you're any less of a person because you're
in a ?holding pattern.? There's a value in the urban tribe that goes beyond not
being lonely. It's
valuable to my career and to my sense of self. That is the message of the book.
How do you envision the future of marriage?
Marriage has been stripped of its meaning in terms of a bridge to adulthood,
a way to establish your financial life, and the only way you end up having
children. When you strip marriage of those meanings, you're encouraging more
people
not
to choose it. And I imagine that's what's
going to happen.
Are fewer people getting married now?
Yes. Our generation has delayed it the longest, so we may be forging
new
ground. But does that mean that, in the end, there will be fewer marriages?
Probably,
when
all
is
said
and
done.
But
how
big
that percentage is,
is kind of an open question.
In your two years
of research, what was
strangest group you encountered?
One person e-mailed me saying, ?I'm an urban tribe of one.? And I kindly
tried to e-mail him back and say, ?You know, I'm glad you're happy, but if I'm
going
to be the arbiter of what's an urban tribe and what isn't,
I want this definition to be inclusive but not so inclusive as to narrow it down
to one." n°
?2003
Nerve.com.
|
|