How lives became "lifestyles".

Once upon a time, people's life choices were mostly determined by the traditions of one's place in the world and family.  People learned their father's and mother's work or trade.   People lived in parents houses or one's like them.   Architecture was about protection from the elements and enemies but for a very few who could make their dwelling an expression of their own interests and world view.   When did Americans begin to live "lifestyles" instead of "lives"?   Historians will debate this after the debate over the difference.   Living seems pretty simple and direct: you wake up,  get ready,  go to whatever you do for the day,  etc.   What makes living a "lifestyle"?  Choices.   Each moment of the day is filled with personal choices.   What to wear,  how to live,  what to eat,  what work to do,  etc.   How are these choices determined? What was the start of the "lifestyle"?

    Perhaps the first indications of change were in clothing,  personal appearance, and haircut.   It is likely that traditions of personal appearance have been a method of personal expression for nobles and courtiers through history.   But it is certainly sometime in the early 20th century before this became an option for more everyday people.   How did everyday people learn to become "stylish"?   The answer is the movies and tabloids.   For the first time,  in the 20s, there was a visual unifying experience for a broad range of the population to measure its style against that of a "higher standard".   The movie industry was augmented by fan magazines with very high quality promotional photography,  and style consciousness could be transmitted to a much broader range of the population.   Women and men began to adopt styles which they saw being worn by their favorite actors,  and this led to intense stimulation of sectors of the clothing industry.   Its true that individuals are still making choices about their lives,  but now the choices reflect "quoted experience" of others, instead of idiosyncratic personal commitment.   (This can be observed in watching old newsreels:  the people in the crowd do not seem to have an awareness that they are subject to being observed.  They are oblivious.   While modern news "man on the street" individually or in a crowd has carefully crafted a "look" for external review.  Indeed, the absence is often taken as a sign of mental illness.)

    WWII seemed to reverse much of this.   There is not much choice in a military uniform,  and those left behind appear to have been too busy and too constrained to innovate new styles.   But soon after the end of the war,  the process restarted with renewed intensity.   But now a new phenomenon also emerged.   Differences in personal and ethnic style,  which had been minimized and ignored in the "melting pot" process of the late 19th century,  suddenly re-emerged.   There were African American styles,  Chicano styles,  including the famous Zoot-suiters,  and there was also a return of a film inspired sense of "glamour".  

    The transition to recreation came next.   For most of our history,  people did what was available to do around them:  if they lived by the water,  they did things related to water,  if they lived in the mountains,  they did mountain things,  and etc.   Now stories,  films,  and other promotions made some of these activities:  skiing,  surfing,  backpacking, deep sea fishing, etc,  seem to be especially appealing,  and people began to envision themselves engaging in activities not very proximal to the location of home.   This came to the rich and upper middle class first,  because they could more easily afford the travel costs,  but eventually the craze to try these activities spread across the society.   People were deciding to make such activities the primary interest of their lives,  and their material support of secondary importance.  The ski-patrol (or ski-bum) lifestyle became the archetype for this change.   Yes,  men had always gone fishing or played golf (not quite always),  and women had sewed or knitted or quilted together,  but these were usually part of personal family and local traditions.  Now they became part of a country wide zeitgeist.   You could decide to become a skier.  Get "into" the lifestyle,  then move to a skiing region and make it the focus of your life.   Or even continue to live in the flatlands and take all your vacations skiing,  or even own a second apartment in a ski area to vacation.   All these could be valid personal choices,  but they invariably became associated with certain constraints of style:   there were the proper outfits to wear,  the proper places to go to vacation (within one's economic level),  the proper talk about what you were doing.   You became part of a community of interest,  a lifestyle.   And the structure of this lifestyle was driven by marketers and developers,  just as promotional experts had driven interest in style and clothing.  Why do all contemporary skiers (or recreation bike riders)  look similar?  Because marketers have convinced them that certain clothing,  equipment,  and locations are essential to be included in the selected lifestyle.  The magazines, movies,  and TV shows all contributed to marketing this way of living.

    To the person,  it appears that the individual is still selecting  his or her life choices,  but in aggregate it is clear that the range of choices have been significantly reduced in order to compel participation in the "lifestyle"  for mostly economic,  and social identity reasons.   In the process,  much of the original charm of the lifestyle is lost!   Surfers now fight over who is entitled to surf a given territory,  in contrast to the formerly "laid back" surfer image.   Skiing was once a way to "get away from civilization" into the mountains,  but is now so crowded with condos,  cars,  and choked lift lines that there is little difference from urban experience in major ski areas.   And the restaurant chains,  stores,  etc,  remind us immediately that skiing is about economic choices as much as about ski trails.

    The ultimate transformation of life to lifestyle is in housing.   For much of history,  the cost of housing was such a significant component of one's income that the driving forces were convenience and affordability,  along with adequate space for one's family.   Housing took the form dictated by the structure of the land on which it sat.  In Manhattan the limited space gave rise to dense vertical housing with incomprehensibly small spaces,   in order to have proximity to features of the city.   Outside of dense cities,  suburban development permitted larger lots,  bigger homes,  and the evolution of one and two story house plans.  Somewhere in the evolution of housing,  the transition from 2nd homes around resort areas,  to living around a resort as a primary residence emerged as a possibility.   The rich had always had multiple homes in different locations,  to exploit the opportunities of different activities.   Middle class people desired this option but could not afford multiple homes.   The first solution was condos and time shares at resort locations:  a smaller size of ownership,  perhaps rented part of the time,  or a smaller unit of time ownership would allow less wealthy people to feel like they had multiple homes,  but without the greater cost.  Now you could LIVE your ski resort lifestyle,  or coastal beach lifestyle,  or golf resort lifestyle,  if only for two weeks a year.  It was really just a vacation,  but developers were selling it as "your life" at the beach.  It was "your home", and your chance to enjoy this special place (if only for a week a year).  

    Of course,  each individual is choosing how to live his (her?) life,  but now the choice of clothing,  equipment,  activities,  and even shelter are all structured around ways to sell the individual on these activities,  as a package,  a "lifestyle".   And there could be a package for every economic level,  each person could envision the fantasy of how they were living the "golf resort"  or "ski resort" or "beach resort" life.  Meanwhile, of course,  these packaged lives were looking less and less like the idealized worlds their choosers had envisioned and more and more like prepackaged dreams manufactured by marketers and developers.   Where is the line between choosing to live your life,  and being structured to live your lifestyle within the defined parameters of a developers package?  And does anyone care?   As long as I get to go skiing  (golfing, beaching,  etc) (with everyone else) what does it matter how I chose it?

Charles Bronson (November 3, 1921 – August 30, 2003)

Where is Chas. Bronson when we need him?   The death of this actor years ago was a big story at the time.  In his peak years he created a screen persona which endeared him to many Americans.  This was the ordinary guy who is unfairly treated by the “higher ups” or the “bad guys” or the “evil terrorists” and virtually single handedly, he reverses the tide, comes out victorious, and saves the rest of us as well. 

We can think of other actors, like Clint Eastwood or Sylvester Stallone, who portray a similar screen persona.  But Bronson was unique in his ability to do this with an apparent absence of personal narcissism.  He was everyman, just the average guy, who confronts the evil of the world and triumphs, but without any fanfare or  attitude. (Compare the ridiculous persona of the James Bond character.)   The mythical American Hero is often seen as the lone avenger of the injustices of the world, but probably never so succinctly as Bronson managed it.  Whether it was violent criminals in the street or sleeper agents suddenly brought to life to cause WWIII,  he took care of the problem.

His characters helped overcome the fantasy fears of the average man, but also set a dangerous precedent.  Here finally was someone who “really could” terminate all the bad guys.  Here is the mental model for those in the current and previous administrations who visualized our most specialized forces as capable of charging into the heart of danger, and decisively vanquishing the foe.

The incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, like all wars, give the lie to hero fantasies and the "lone ranger complex".  No matter how brave,  or well trained or equipped a cadre of warriors, the enemy when overwhelmed does not stand and fight but withdraws to find circumstances more favorable to him for the confrontation.  And no modern country has the human resources (except China ?) to commit a significant portion of its young adult population into the task of conquering and subduing another country.  It is not clear that any country ever survived this delusion.  Certainly Greece did not tolerate the expeditions of Alexander without deteriorating, nor Rome, Caesar, nor France, Napoleon.  The lesson of history is that any nation that tries to dominate others through the expression of dominant military force is endangering its fundamental resources.  

Bronson could single-handedly take on all comers,  because he was in a movie.  Americans in the battlefields of Asia are dealing with reality.   When the world's nations come together to vanquish a common enemy,  it so far has succeeded.   When a single nation proposes to overpower another,  most often it squanders its resources,  while the opponent awaits its moment of diminishing returns.

How many times must US leaders learn this basic lesson?