I can’t stand most bars. They drive me crazy. Maybe it’s the detached clumps of three and four people who, lacking the courage to merge in any meaningful way, perpetuate the anonymity and loneliness of big city living, holding alcohol-fueled conversations that slosh around, never staying on one topic for too long, never really getting to the heart of the matter, postponing reality.
Can solid connections and warm, meaningful conversation be expected from this environment? What other social settings that really foster a community spirit? Where and when do you have social interactions that allow you to bring your whole creative self to the table (or pew, or stoop)? Occasionally we all have group experiences that just work out perfectly, that transform our mood, our perspective, maybe our whole life. All of the parameters come into alignment somehow, and we feel so good; we feel a deep connection with others, with the experience, and with the space and time, though maybe we don’t even notice how powerful it all was until it’s over. This experience—I’ll call it a “conductive experience”—has all the ingredients for lasting connections with people. It’s a space and time where everyone feels safe, comfortable, and respected, and where the full value of community is exemplified, not commoditized.
Look at the spaces we inhabit around town: Apartment buildings full of people living together who will never meet, who will never have a deep understanding or an enlightening disagreement. Or bars, clubs, coffee shops, and other commercial establishments that have only a vague interest in building community, that provide space for consumption but ultimately impede or, at the very least, do no harm to social conductivity. Bringing people together in a meaningful way is nearly impossible when conductive experiences are not actively pursued.
What do these places lack? Is there anything they could do to bring people together in a meaningful way? How do we make up for their shortcomings?

Comments
Nov 12 02004 4.24p
#
phredx
This is an issue to which I devote a lot of thought. I don’t have a lot of great answers, yet. An idea I’ve been discussing with Mary is the concept of intentional dinner parties. This doesn’t necessarily extend a network by default, but if a core group of people participated on a regular basis, it would be possible to explore ideas important to a smallish community with more depth and greater frequency. And guests should be welcome.
One of my hobbies now is a concept that is an addendum to a Ron Suskind comment about “reality-based community”. I’m trying to engage in reality-based community building. This involves an ongoing discussion of the world around us. I guess I have a secularly humanist bias. As in, I’d prefer most of the community to be able to base the discussions on life experiences rather than faith and belief, though certainly an entire series of discussions could be had about the intersection of faith and fact.
Anyway, I would hope for a mix of both the political and philosophical.
Social networking, while an interesting phenomenon, hasn’t yet seemed able to sustain anything more meaningful than helping those who are loosely tied bind themselves just a bit more tightly. I never connect via Friendster or orkut to people a degree beyond those to whom I’m already connected.
And informal email lists of friends and acquaintances seem unable to sustain meaningful discussion for long at all. Is this because so many people receive so much email as to feel overwhelmed and unable to respond effectively and efficiently? I know this is often my problem.
And when I get into intense email discussions with people, they usually taper off over time. This is probably just a function of getting to know people better.
Finally, blogs don’t really seem to be much more helpful than email lists.