There may be a more plausible explanation. Both dglenn and Paul Fussel notice that there are some groups that arrange themselves homo-socially and others that arrange themselves hetero-socially. The question each tries to answer is why does this occur. Paul Fussel posits, from his observations, that it occurs as a result of one's position on the "social ladder". Possibly he means economic social status, badmagic didn't say.
Humans are social animals. We gather together in groups to fend off the evils of the world. I personally am a member of a number of "social groups" some of which are homo-social and some of which are hetero-social. To qualify my remarks I should also state that I'm a heterosexual married male. We are also in an upper income bracket and in the upper percentile in terms of intelligence.
In each of the groups of which I am considered a member, it is more important to think of what the group members have in common than what generation they are in or what their social class is.
Families, for example, would be, on average, a hetero-social grouping. It would contain members from both sexes, both married and single, from multiple generations and income levels all of which gather together occasionally for no other reason than that they are all related in some way. Some social groupings tend to lean more toward homo-social arrangements, simply because of the interest or activity involved. An auto club, or sports fans tend to be homo-social simply because the opposite sex isn't interested in the conversation or the activity involved. Anonymous states that this is the case with married couples because singles and couples tend to have different interests and activities.
I think you need to look at the social group's "reason for being" rather than other social markers such as education level, or economic status. In a sense what I'm suggesting is that all social groups, in a sense, are "fannish" in some way. If the activity or interest that brings the group members together is "gender neutral", then you're more likely to find a hetero-social grouping. If the activity is "gender charged", that is, if it is associated in the particular culture with a certain gender, then you'll find homo-social groupings. In the cases of "gender charged" activities you'll also find social pressure to remain homo-social. This is, unfortunately, a function of culture.
An auto club, or sports fans tend to be homo-social simply because the opposite sex isn't interested...
You mean car clubs and sports fans are mostly comprised of women? Because I'm not interested in either of those activities, though my girlfriend is. I'd be more likely to join a sewing circle than a basketball team.
I think all your examples are pretty suspect. The distinction isn't purely functional like extended families being heterosocial and soccer clubs being homosocial. I don't think you're even talking about the same thing. Especially when you talk about "gender charged" activities; the subject is more about your social circle as a whole, not a specific hobby.
The homosocial/heterosocial divide, if there is one, definitely relates to sociocultural distinctions of some kind. From my experience, it's mostly about educational differences, though economic status may also be a factor. You could say that they divide along the same lines as traditionalist/conservative versus progressive, but that's also a bit of a stretch. There are clearly other contexts where these apply, but just because they can't be defined by one or two simple factors doesn't mean the distinction isn't there.
I find this homosocial/heterosocial concept pretty interesting, and personally relevant. I see that it causes problems in my current relationship that I'm accustomed to being more heterosocial and she's (mostly) homosocial. She's more likely to try arranging a "girls' night out" to watch hockey, and I'm more likey go to the movies with a mixed-sex group, or one woman friend. Going out with other couples isn't really a compromise, either.
There may be a more plausible explanation
There may be a more plausible explanation. Both dglenn and Paul Fussel notice that there are some groups that arrange themselves homo-socially and others that arrange themselves hetero-socially. The question each tries to answer is why does this occur. Paul Fussel posits, from his observations, that it occurs as a result of one's position on the "social ladder". Possibly he means economic social status, badmagic didn't say.
Humans are social animals. We gather together in groups to fend off the evils of the world. I personally am a member of a number of "social groups" some of which are homo-social and some of which are hetero-social. To qualify my remarks I should also state that I'm a heterosexual married male. We are also in an upper income bracket and in the upper percentile in terms of intelligence.
In each of the groups of which I am considered a member, it is more important to think of what the group members have in common than what generation they are in or what their social class is.
Families, for example, would be, on average, a hetero-social grouping. It would contain members from both sexes, both married and single, from multiple generations and income levels all of which gather together occasionally for no other reason than that they are all related in some way. Some social groupings tend to lean more toward homo-social arrangements, simply because of the interest or activity involved. An auto club, or sports fans tend to be homo-social simply because the opposite sex isn't interested in the conversation or the activity involved. Anonymous states that this is the case with married couples because singles and couples tend to have different interests and activities.
I think you need to look at the social group's "reason for being" rather than other social markers such as education level, or economic status. In a sense what I'm suggesting is that all social groups, in a sense, are "fannish" in some way. If the activity or interest that brings the group members together is "gender neutral", then you're more likely to find a hetero-social grouping. If the activity is "gender charged", that is, if it is associated in the particular culture with a certain gender, then you'll find homo-social groupings. In the cases of "gender charged" activities you'll also find social pressure to remain homo-social. This is, unfortunately, a function of culture.
Re: There may be a more plausible explanation
You mean car clubs and sports fans are mostly comprised of women? Because I'm not interested in either of those activities, though my girlfriend is. I'd be more likely to join a sewing circle than a basketball team.
I think all your examples are pretty suspect. The distinction isn't purely functional like extended families being heterosocial and soccer clubs being homosocial. I don't think you're even talking about the same thing. Especially when you talk about "gender charged" activities; the subject is more about your social circle as a whole, not a specific hobby.
The homosocial/heterosocial divide, if there is one, definitely relates to sociocultural distinctions of some kind. From my experience, it's mostly about educational differences, though economic status may also be a factor. You could say that they divide along the same lines as traditionalist/conservative versus progressive, but that's also a bit of a stretch. There are clearly other contexts where these apply, but just because they can't be defined by one or two simple factors doesn't mean the distinction isn't there.
I find this homosocial/heterosocial concept pretty interesting, and personally relevant. I see that it causes problems in my current relationship that I'm accustomed to being more heterosocial and she's (mostly) homosocial. She's more likely to try arranging a "girls' night out" to watch hockey, and I'm more likey go to the movies with a mixed-sex group, or one woman friend. Going out with other couples isn't really a compromise, either.