Bonding vs. Bridging
It bothered me when people chatting with me at Cookhouse said “this is so good for the community.”
No shade meant towards the people that said this to me, as it was meant kindly; it’s just that it never quite sat right in my mind. The disconnect, once I deconstructed it, stemmed from the conflict between these two observances:
The word community is such a broad, unnuanced word that at first that I had no idea what they were trying to say. But when they elaborated, I found that the speakers were usually referring to the people in the local neighborhood, city of San Francisco, or wider Bay Area — a geographically-defined community.
I hosted only private events, due to a confluence of factors such as licensing limitations and my own preferences (which, of course, vary from one business owner to another; I just didn’t love putting myself in a position where anyone could assume access to my time and attention). Cookhouse hosted private events, so it was not a place you could wander into spontaneously, casually, and hang out for as long as you wanted to. It was designed to fit more guests than an average city apartment, and fewer people than once-in-a-lifetime kinds of events like weddings, funerals, or 50th anniversaries of anything. So, if there was community being serviced, it was the curated collection of relationships that our clients and event hosts wanted to invest in, plus a slightly extended network. In other words, the community was socially selective and based on a different kind of community. Events that are private in nature are usually geared more towards deepening or maintaining selected relationships, not for creating ties with a wider range of people in your geographically-defined “community.”
This illustrates the difference between bonding and bridging.
Ross J. Gittell and Vidal Avis introduced a distinction between bridging and bonding social capital in their 1998 work Community Organizing : Building Social Capital as a Development Strategy. Bonding deepens connections, while bridging creates connections with those that may be different or unfamiliar to you.
Bonding
Exclusive
Within demographic or socioeconomic groups
Like-minded people
Examples: Team picnic, family barbeque
Bridging
Inclusive
Between demographic or socioeconomic groups
Not necessarily like-minded people
Examples: MMORPGs, networking events
As described by Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone, bonding is good for getting by, and bridging is needed for getting ahead. (There’s also another type of social capital, called linking, having to do with building bonds with people of higher power or authority level, which often is an agenda item at events, but let’s focus for now on bonding vs bridging to stay more on the topic of social connection instead of connections in business or politics.)
No social event or interaction is completely bonding or bridging; it’s a degree of each. And preferences, again, vary according to any individual’s needs, goals, and preferences at any given time in their life. But the contrast between them may help us understand what’s needed in designing services and spaces that allow different types of socializing.
First, another definition: “Third Places.” As described by Ray Oldenburg (author of The Great Good Place).
Think of home as the first place.
Think of work or school as the second place.
Third places are places outside of either that one regularly spends time.
The need for bridging is often felt more as people in any given geographically-defined community have fewer and fewer third places where they could converse with others, outside of any existing interest, activity, or religion-based communities. It’s a hard-to-define need, and the subjectivity of each individual’s experience around this desire makes it difficult to build something like a crispy, crunchy, satisfying market research report around it. Further complicating the situation, online third places have both created limitless virtual options for third places while also supplanting time people spent at IRL third places.
-
Here are the key elements of third places, as defined by Ray Oldenburg.
Neutral Ground: The space is for anyone to come and go without affiliation with a religion, political party, or in-group.
Level Ground: Political and financial status doesn't matter there.
Conversation: The primary purpose of the location is to converse and be social.
Accessibility and Accommodation: The third place is open, available, and physically proximate. The author’s words describe it best: “Third places that render the best and fullest service are those to which one may go alone at almost any time of the day or evening with assurance that acquaintances will be there. To have such a place available whenever the demons of loneliness or boredom strike or when the pressures and frustrations of the day call for relaxation amid good company is a powerful resource.”
Regulars: On a nightly or at least weekly basis the same cast of people rotate in and out, contributing to the sense of community.
Unassuming: Third places aren't regal or imposing. They're home-like and serve the function of a home away from home for the patrons.
Lack of Seriousness: Third places are a place to put aside person or political differences and participate in a community. Joking around and keeping the mood light is a big part of the "public house" experience.
Third Place as Home: A third place must take on multiple elements of the home experience including a feeling of belonging, safety, coziness, and a sense of shared ownership. A successful third place has visitors saying "this is our space and I feel at home here."
But have the extent of each of the above characteristics (such as accessibility, level ground, and lack of seriousness) been reduced to such an extent that social interaction becomes increasingly focused on bonding than bridging?
Colleagues and I read and discussed topics around third places (especially the post-covid landscape) starting in January 2023, and collected research on evolving needs for third places. Measurements of certain social benefit dimensions from third places are difficult in a still-changing economic, political, and technological environment, and so, this is a difficult topic to make useful for individuals, governments, organizations, and businesses of all sizes. Given this, I’m organizing them in a one-page collection of research, including signals of change, examples and inspiration, existing research, and ideas and needs. The format will continue to evolve according to needs, but the scope will largely remain consistent.
A few observances so far:
The demand for third places is unmet by current supply in many places (so far, we focused on urban areas).
The goals of third places continue to shift to fit economic constraints, creating more opportunities for bonding and productivity-oriented activities, but not as many opportunities for bridging or creating the kinds of spaces that enable bridging activities.
These are concerns primarily because high bonding activity with little bridging activity may have societal and individual consequences with regards to physical health, mental health, belief entrenchment, and quality of life, among others. Here are a few readings I found interesting.
Most of the decisions that make third places available are currently left up to government (which makes places like parks and libraries available) and private businesses (which operate cafés, bars, and activity centers, which tend to be more effective third places for social connection). But this puts the responsibility and opportunity in their hands only if no one else can make a third place available.
I started wondering how, given the high demand, places could more flexibly accommodate different types of gatherings and also serve as a place to just be, and relax, and maybe talk a little.
Could more private venues open to the public during off-hours, allowing more bridging? Especially in diverse environments? And could more public businesses allow event organizers to form casual events that allow both bonding and bridging? This was the start into my inquiry about flexible third spaces - spaces that could hold space for people who want to create communities of their own, whatever that community is based on and however small or large, maybe expanding upon the concept of a third place to gatherings or casual meetups even if at different locations, without a permanent lease or property purchase. The organizer a different kind of third place, similar to how Discord is a platform to multiple communities on servers.
After all, community as a way of sensing a type of belonging is only created between people, whether two or more; as an event venue, we only created a space to facilitate bonding and a little bit of bridging. Now, I want to find aways for more bridging to happen, even with the economic and other constraints we currently face.
I was inspired by creators of such things (not necessarily official businesses, but not exactly parties — perhaps something in between) as traveling pop-ups, garage jazz jams, chats with authors, and performances in small settings. Cookhouse didn’t only do business at Cookhouse, so we had the privilege of seeing many different types of gatherings in many different settings.
None of this is new, of course; I want to collect and build upon ideas, then help apply learnings more effectively to a current situation where there is a lot of underutilized space and a lot of demand for a place to relax and be with others outside our homes.