I read a couple things from my old life yesterday that are pissing me off. One is a short review of a book I helped someone work on that dings the book for exactly the reasons I dinged it over and over and it never would change. The writer just wasn't made that way. It's still a very interesting book. Oh well. The other is a story on urban "tribes" that I think is a little bit specious. It's in the latest issue of Readymade, and I probably should buy it anyway because the article is about weddings and I have to keep up on that now. Basically the story is about a couple who plan a hip wedding and their friends pitch in and help. This group is defined as a kind of "tribe." But I don't buy the argument that hip people who hang out with other hip people while it's fun to do so constitute a "tribe" as distinct from a "group of friends." I think tribalhood is only tested when there's an economic or duty component -- when group members are doing more than mutually amusing themselves. I dunno. I would see a group of moms who share babysitting as more of a tribe, because they're doing something of mutual benefit that involves a little hardship and tedium and not much payoff in amusement, except as each others' kids are amusing. They manage politics and call on one another to work for the good of the group. What else does a tribe involve that differentiates it from a clique or gang? A mix of ages and interests, maybe. Members who have important relationships outside the group. Like, I don't think "Friends" showed a tribe. It showed a group of close friends at a time in their lives when their social bonds naturally formed with others like them -- not with their parents anymore, not yet with a wife or husband or kids.



I am not putting down the idea of groups of friends. They're awesome.