I really love the Prosocial vs Antisocial distinction. But I think it's powerful to come at the Antisocial side from a slightly different angel.
Antisocial is a weird word as it technically refers to the sort of erratic, violent, aggressive behavior that has come to define American Cities in the minds of many Americans. But it also gets used to refer to isolated people without many friends or social interactions.
This mixing of terms isn't ideal - medicalizing shy teenagers with the same terminology we use for violent addicts - but it can also work in our favor because many of the policies you mentioned (active main streets & cycling infrastructure vs urban highways) apply to *both* interpretations of Prosocial & Antisocial.
1. Active public spaces discourage "anti social" behavior and make people feel much safer. They also encourage people to form social connections and interact with others.
2. Urban highways are "aggressive" and "violent" to anyone outside a car in ~ the same manner as a violent addict hurling slurs at a pedestrian - whereas cycling infrastructure is the opposite while also enabling kids to independent mobility that allows them to maintain in personal connections.
I really love the focus on kids having safe independent mobility.
Little personal anecdote. I spent my early childhood in Indiana, in a neighborhood with big backyards and no fences. There were ~ 15 kids in the general area and we hung out all the time, running between everyones backyards. This was great for me growing up & forced all our parents (very different people) to actually get to know each other.
We moved to TX, into a neighborhood with all fenced in backyards. No one let their kids run around (my sister and I would be the only kids roaming the neighborhood all summer, something that got my mum excluded from "polite society") so all of my friends ended up being online. Eventually I stopped going outside at all.
That sounds like an idyllic childhood in Indiana! I think that the potential for more "pocket neighborhoods" with legislation like SB684 could enable more backyard sharing. I see shared backyards as a positive, but I also wonder how many others do.
Lots to think about here, Diana! A couple of hopeful signs from my own recent experience:
- I was in Los Angeles for a few days earlier this week and attended a meeting of the Los Angeles Breakfast Club, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. Other cities, including my own (Oakland), host breakfast clubs, but I've heard that they're mostly geriatric, sleepy affairs. Not the LABC! Two hundred people of all ages, races, and income levels showed up for the 7 a.m. (!!) gathering, which included a terrific presentation on Willis Wonderland (look it up -- there's a documentary streaming now on Hulu) and a bunch of zany activities including calisthenics (the whole group participated enthusiastically), the singing of "America the Beautiful," and a completely bonkers new-member orientation. My seatmate told me that the weekly meetings are so popular that one member in her late 80s used to drive 50+ miles each way to attend every week. I totally get it!
- Closer to my own home, as in literally across the street here in Oakland, the quirky and creative Clio's -- a year-old subterranean bookstore-cum-cocktail bar in which the books are displayed in chronological order beginning with prehistory -- hosts discussions, classes, book launches, and musical events almost nightly. Even when nothing else is going on, people hang out there to browse, read, or play chess.
Tl;dr: There's a hunger for analog, in-person, fun social opportunities. It takes just a few creative and motivated people to make them happen. "Prosocial"? Not sure I'd use that word -- I agree with Lee that it sounds a bit too academic. Definitely pro-connection, though! And definitely cross-generational, which I suspect may be the secret sauce.
Quick prosocial pilot project inspired by the image of subway riders:
Make one subway car in the train a no-device zone. Attract people who want to talk and interact with other humans on their commute. Make disconnecting a desirable social activity. Could be cheap, easy, and fun.
Working my way through two weeks' worth of 'stacks... I like this framing a lot! I thought the connection to pro-natalism* was interesting. In my mind, New Right thinking seems to stem from a low-trust view of humanity, which seems to make them viscerally against urbanism. It makes me think it might be hard to bridge the prosocial gap, but I'm curious if you have a view.
*I'll also note that pro-natalism as practiced by some of these folks seems to be inherently anti-social: the view seems to be that the world needs more sperm donors, not engaged fathers.
This is a great point -- can people who have low-trust views of humanity be cured of that perspective? My guess is that they may have low-trust views of institutions, but not of people. I sort of envision prosocial though as requiring trust in other humans. Like if you don't want to connect with humans, then prosocial policy is not a positive. So, yeah, like if you're a pro-natalist who just wants babies and doesn't care about human connection, a prosocial perspective is probably not going to be appealing.
That's a good distinction, institutions vs people. I think the way this is manifesting on the New Right is that they have high trust for the in-group, but low trust for the people affiliated with the institutions. So, its politics and aesthetic become tribalistic and sycophantic, with a focus on dismantling the institutions. It's like those T-shirts that say "Anti-Social Social Club."
Whatever term one chooses has to be defined, of course, but I think there are old-fashioned words that more people can relate to. "Prosocial" sounds like something you'd only hear in a classroom, not on the street. How about "responsible?"
One reason that I liked "prosocial" is that it is already a term in research literature. There's a definition for prosocial behavior -- which I am realizing I didn't quite specifically define in the piece! Whereas fun and responsible are not really terms that are studied in sociological or biological research. Prosocial sounds academic now but maybe we can change that simply by using it more colloquially?
"Prosocial" is fine for academicians (I spent some time as one), but would take a long time to become integrated into the broader conversation that drives policy.
Also, it is a very broad term. A prosocial community-building effort could include the physical (let's build a new library), the managerial (let's keep the library open more hours), and the financial (let's increase the budget for the library). I am not objecting to broad terms in the right application. We need them, but it strikes me that this one is going to require constant definition.
I really think this is a great way of framing both the core issues and how to move towards solutions. Working in rural communities, we have many of the same issues are our more urban and suburban neighbors (transportation, housing, aging population, etc.) but often how we meet and think about these issues is different than in a more urban setting. It seems like a term and (dare I say?) movement like "prosocial" can be applicable to communities from the most rural to our largest cities. Your discussion made me think some of the work we have been recently doing looking at the Thrive Rural Framework, developed by the Aspen Institute (https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/community-strategies-group/thrive-rural/), and how we can focus our work through this framework. It is rural in focus (and definitely heavy on the economic development side of things), but I think the ideas are applicable across the board, and relates a bit to your discussion on Prosocial. Maybe there is a way to work "Thrive" into the Prosocial!
Hi Diana - great article. Really got me thinking, because I've lived in a lot of places where the problem was not enough land/housing - but this has helped me acknowledge that in other places this isn't the issue. Makes me wonder how we encourage all the people who are struggling in the 'over-subscribed' metros to move and help revitalize the metros that have space/opportunity. (or else figure out what are the barriers to this happening more)
Awesome, thank you so much for this note, Christian! I am not sure that metro people moving out of cities is the answer so much as finding ways to make it easier for the people living in those places to activate their own communities. We need policies and philanthropies, honestly, that focus on human connection as much as they focus on concepts like equity, sustainability, and other goals.
I’ve just discovered your work and like this first post that I’ve read. I think a fair amount about these sorts of things and have posted a bit about it. A term and concept I keep coming back to, because I hear it all the time from regular folks criticizing the latest developments in policy, is ‘common sense.’ People want common sense approaches and common sense solutions. They want leaders with common sense. They want to have conversations with neighbors where the topic is, ‘Finally, these people/politicians are showing some common sense.
“Common Sense for Hard Times” is perhaps one of the few great American treatises that many Americans have heard of. I think that more ‘Common Sense’ might do us well in these hard times.
Interesting point. I wonder if there’s more of a push for common sense strategies at the local level whereas national politics feels so far from that ethos.
I am only able to report on anecdotal evidence based on just my everyday experience. But I don’t think it’s limited to just local concerns. I talked to an old high school buddy the other day who is a Trump supporter and is upset that, because he has reached some threshold of income, his Medicare premiums are going up and they are being paid by a dedication from his social security checks. He repeated several times that this just doesn’t make any sense and he was supporting Trump because Trump will fix this ridiculous nonsense. (And, BTW, this is not a guy who is reliant upon social security to live out his life just fine, thank you very much . . . )
I was thinking that "stagnation" another word you mentioned-- might be at the core of what ails us. I mean we have (barely) adequate housing, food and medical, but nothing is moving forward, except certain kinds of technology. The opposite of stagnation would be dynamism or speed. It's difficult to imagine what that would look like. The entire western world seems to be experiencing the same thing, which probably has to do with industrialization moving to the East, but I don't see that being reversed any time soon. In a few generations, it will even out again, but what does dynamism and speed look like when we are essentially managing decline, especially considering the plummeting of birth rates?
I really love the Prosocial vs Antisocial distinction. But I think it's powerful to come at the Antisocial side from a slightly different angel.
Antisocial is a weird word as it technically refers to the sort of erratic, violent, aggressive behavior that has come to define American Cities in the minds of many Americans. But it also gets used to refer to isolated people without many friends or social interactions.
This mixing of terms isn't ideal - medicalizing shy teenagers with the same terminology we use for violent addicts - but it can also work in our favor because many of the policies you mentioned (active main streets & cycling infrastructure vs urban highways) apply to *both* interpretations of Prosocial & Antisocial.
1. Active public spaces discourage "anti social" behavior and make people feel much safer. They also encourage people to form social connections and interact with others.
2. Urban highways are "aggressive" and "violent" to anyone outside a car in ~ the same manner as a violent addict hurling slurs at a pedestrian - whereas cycling infrastructure is the opposite while also enabling kids to independent mobility that allows them to maintain in personal connections.
I really love the focus on kids having safe independent mobility.
Little personal anecdote. I spent my early childhood in Indiana, in a neighborhood with big backyards and no fences. There were ~ 15 kids in the general area and we hung out all the time, running between everyones backyards. This was great for me growing up & forced all our parents (very different people) to actually get to know each other.
We moved to TX, into a neighborhood with all fenced in backyards. No one let their kids run around (my sister and I would be the only kids roaming the neighborhood all summer, something that got my mum excluded from "polite society") so all of my friends ended up being online. Eventually I stopped going outside at all.
That sounds like an idyllic childhood in Indiana! I think that the potential for more "pocket neighborhoods" with legislation like SB684 could enable more backyard sharing. I see shared backyards as a positive, but I also wonder how many others do.
Lots to think about here, Diana! A couple of hopeful signs from my own recent experience:
- I was in Los Angeles for a few days earlier this week and attended a meeting of the Los Angeles Breakfast Club, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. Other cities, including my own (Oakland), host breakfast clubs, but I've heard that they're mostly geriatric, sleepy affairs. Not the LABC! Two hundred people of all ages, races, and income levels showed up for the 7 a.m. (!!) gathering, which included a terrific presentation on Willis Wonderland (look it up -- there's a documentary streaming now on Hulu) and a bunch of zany activities including calisthenics (the whole group participated enthusiastically), the singing of "America the Beautiful," and a completely bonkers new-member orientation. My seatmate told me that the weekly meetings are so popular that one member in her late 80s used to drive 50+ miles each way to attend every week. I totally get it!
- Closer to my own home, as in literally across the street here in Oakland, the quirky and creative Clio's -- a year-old subterranean bookstore-cum-cocktail bar in which the books are displayed in chronological order beginning with prehistory -- hosts discussions, classes, book launches, and musical events almost nightly. Even when nothing else is going on, people hang out there to browse, read, or play chess.
Tl;dr: There's a hunger for analog, in-person, fun social opportunities. It takes just a few creative and motivated people to make them happen. "Prosocial"? Not sure I'd use that word -- I agree with Lee that it sounds a bit too academic. Definitely pro-connection, though! And definitely cross-generational, which I suspect may be the secret sauce.
P.S. Thanks for the shoutout and the link!
I should have asked your branding advice in advance :)
Quick prosocial pilot project inspired by the image of subway riders:
Make one subway car in the train a no-device zone. Attract people who want to talk and interact with other humans on their commute. Make disconnecting a desirable social activity. Could be cheap, easy, and fun.
Love it! In Mexico City they already have women’s only cars, Amtrak has the quiet car. A no-device car could be a fun experiment.
yes, exactly - looking into it further, it seems like BART did something similar this year. Wonder what it would take to make it permanent.
https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2025/news20250204
"we never developed good strategies to combat the downsides of a globalized economy. " - Yes!
Working my way through two weeks' worth of 'stacks... I like this framing a lot! I thought the connection to pro-natalism* was interesting. In my mind, New Right thinking seems to stem from a low-trust view of humanity, which seems to make them viscerally against urbanism. It makes me think it might be hard to bridge the prosocial gap, but I'm curious if you have a view.
*I'll also note that pro-natalism as practiced by some of these folks seems to be inherently anti-social: the view seems to be that the world needs more sperm donors, not engaged fathers.
This is a great point -- can people who have low-trust views of humanity be cured of that perspective? My guess is that they may have low-trust views of institutions, but not of people. I sort of envision prosocial though as requiring trust in other humans. Like if you don't want to connect with humans, then prosocial policy is not a positive. So, yeah, like if you're a pro-natalist who just wants babies and doesn't care about human connection, a prosocial perspective is probably not going to be appealing.
That's a good distinction, institutions vs people. I think the way this is manifesting on the New Right is that they have high trust for the in-group, but low trust for the people affiliated with the institutions. So, its politics and aesthetic become tribalistic and sycophantic, with a focus on dismantling the institutions. It's like those T-shirts that say "Anti-Social Social Club."
Whatever term one chooses has to be defined, of course, but I think there are old-fashioned words that more people can relate to. "Prosocial" sounds like something you'd only hear in a classroom, not on the street. How about "responsible?"
Is "fun" too simple a term to replace "prosocial"?
Being responsible should be fun!?
One reason that I liked "prosocial" is that it is already a term in research literature. There's a definition for prosocial behavior -- which I am realizing I didn't quite specifically define in the piece! Whereas fun and responsible are not really terms that are studied in sociological or biological research. Prosocial sounds academic now but maybe we can change that simply by using it more colloquially?
"Prosocial" is fine for academicians (I spent some time as one), but would take a long time to become integrated into the broader conversation that drives policy.
Also, it is a very broad term. A prosocial community-building effort could include the physical (let's build a new library), the managerial (let's keep the library open more hours), and the financial (let's increase the budget for the library). I am not objecting to broad terms in the right application. We need them, but it strikes me that this one is going to require constant definition.
Good point, Diana.
I really think this is a great way of framing both the core issues and how to move towards solutions. Working in rural communities, we have many of the same issues are our more urban and suburban neighbors (transportation, housing, aging population, etc.) but often how we meet and think about these issues is different than in a more urban setting. It seems like a term and (dare I say?) movement like "prosocial" can be applicable to communities from the most rural to our largest cities. Your discussion made me think some of the work we have been recently doing looking at the Thrive Rural Framework, developed by the Aspen Institute (https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/community-strategies-group/thrive-rural/), and how we can focus our work through this framework. It is rural in focus (and definitely heavy on the economic development side of things), but I think the ideas are applicable across the board, and relates a bit to your discussion on Prosocial. Maybe there is a way to work "Thrive" into the Prosocial!
Hi Diana - great article. Really got me thinking, because I've lived in a lot of places where the problem was not enough land/housing - but this has helped me acknowledge that in other places this isn't the issue. Makes me wonder how we encourage all the people who are struggling in the 'over-subscribed' metros to move and help revitalize the metros that have space/opportunity. (or else figure out what are the barriers to this happening more)
Awesome, thank you so much for this note, Christian! I am not sure that metro people moving out of cities is the answer so much as finding ways to make it easier for the people living in those places to activate their own communities. We need policies and philanthropies, honestly, that focus on human connection as much as they focus on concepts like equity, sustainability, and other goals.
I’ve just discovered your work and like this first post that I’ve read. I think a fair amount about these sorts of things and have posted a bit about it. A term and concept I keep coming back to, because I hear it all the time from regular folks criticizing the latest developments in policy, is ‘common sense.’ People want common sense approaches and common sense solutions. They want leaders with common sense. They want to have conversations with neighbors where the topic is, ‘Finally, these people/politicians are showing some common sense.
“Common Sense for Hard Times” is perhaps one of the few great American treatises that many Americans have heard of. I think that more ‘Common Sense’ might do us well in these hard times.
Interesting point. I wonder if there’s more of a push for common sense strategies at the local level whereas national politics feels so far from that ethos.
I am only able to report on anecdotal evidence based on just my everyday experience. But I don’t think it’s limited to just local concerns. I talked to an old high school buddy the other day who is a Trump supporter and is upset that, because he has reached some threshold of income, his Medicare premiums are going up and they are being paid by a dedication from his social security checks. He repeated several times that this just doesn’t make any sense and he was supporting Trump because Trump will fix this ridiculous nonsense. (And, BTW, this is not a guy who is reliant upon social security to live out his life just fine, thank you very much . . . )
I was thinking that "stagnation" another word you mentioned-- might be at the core of what ails us. I mean we have (barely) adequate housing, food and medical, but nothing is moving forward, except certain kinds of technology. The opposite of stagnation would be dynamism or speed. It's difficult to imagine what that would look like. The entire western world seems to be experiencing the same thing, which probably has to do with industrialization moving to the East, but I don't see that being reversed any time soon. In a few generations, it will even out again, but what does dynamism and speed look like when we are essentially managing decline, especially considering the plummeting of birth rates?