Clubbability: What does it mean?

A contested term, highly relevant today

Joshua Reynolds hosts “The Club” at his house in the late 18th century; an 1850 engraving after Edmund Doyle. (Picture credit: Wikimedia Foundation.)

Clubs often describe the idea of “clubbability”. Yet it is a term which can mean very different things to different people.

Etymology

The idea of “clubbability” is actually older than the idea of a “club”. (I am not including within that the word “club” when used to describe a stick with which to hit people - that dates back to the middle ages, but apparently has no overlap with the use of the word to describe clubs in a sociable sense.)

In the mid-seventeenth century, the word “unclubbable” was the first version to emerge. Against the backdrop of small, highly informal coteries of friends drinking together in the back rooms of taverns, someone was berated as being highly “unclubbable”, and displaying “unclubbable” behaviour, if they did not pay their fair share, and if they were thought to be selfish when it came to reliably taking their turn to buy a round of drinks.

From the notion of being “unclubbable”, this evolved by the 1660s (in the era of the Restoration) into the idea of being “clubbable”.

And while being “clubbable” originally had a purely financial meaning - a member of the group who could be depended upon to settle their bills in full and on time - later in the seventeenth century, it broadened out to describe the ideal attributes of good fellowship; embodying everything from conviviality, to good company.

And from the seventeenth century notion of being “clubbable” came the notion of a “club” - a grouping which embodied all of these terms.

In the Anglosphere, it was in the 1730s that the term “club” was fully fleshed out to a more shared understanding. While clubs, and club-like gatherings, stretched decades (or arguably centuries) earlier, the 1730s saw several major developments in London, including (but not restricted to):

• the formation of the Royal Society Club, circa 1731.

• the formation of the Society of Dilettanti in 1732.

• the formation of the Sublime Society of Beef Steaks in 1735.

• the reconstitution of White’s, after the fire of 1733, as a club from 1736

None of these constituted “clubs” in their final form - they would evolve considerably as institutions in the 19th century, and continue to evolve today. Yet they were a turning point in “clubs” becoming a widely-understood phenomenon; though not necessarily clubbability.

Differing interpretations

Of course, once “clubbability” had expanded as a term to describe the positive attributes of a club member, the precise check-lists of worthy attributes may vary wildly from one club to another, or even from one member to another within the same club. Some may value members who are introspective and thoughtful, others who are hale and hearty. Others may value both - or neither. It is an entirely subjective term.

Historian Amy Milne-Smith - author of a previous (and admirably detailed) study entitled London Clubland - described how the idea of “clubbability” was inherently subjective:

“this fantastic ineffable term that they came up with to describe ‘the right sort’ of fellow . . . The great thing about exclusivity is that you define it how you want, and that’s kind of the purpose; it should be a little mercurial. They would define a ‘clubbable’ man as who they want to spend an evening with, but who we want to spend an evening with is different, from person to person.”

And this is reflected in everyday manifestations like club elections. They are rarely fair to outsiders - arguably, they cannot be. One well-known candidate in the candidates’ book may immediately attract seventy supporting signatures from existing members, while another candidate who is no less worthy but is less well-known may struggle to attract more than five. The experiences are different.

But clubbability within the club may also vary hugely. One member’s view on everything from table manners to acceptable dress may vary considerably from another’s. And because “clubbability” concerns the very grammar of using a club - how one conducts oneself in a shared space - it can be at the centre of sharp disagreements, often involving markedly different views about the ethos of a given club. (And just because one club has an ethos, it does not mean that another follows suit - this is why the culture of clubs can be so singular.)

Relevance today

Because “Clubbability” is so contested, it can either unite or divide members.

An emphasis on what binds club members together, and on their shared interests, mannerisms, conduct and conversations in a shared space can create a powerful appeal to a sense of unity and belonging.

But David Putnam’s work on social capital (and particularly its principal types “bridging versus bonding capital”) is relevant here. A club cannot simply draw on itself, or it becomes a sect. It requires stimulation, both from new members, and from the outside world - even if different clubs will take a very different view of how to navigate this.

Applied to “clubbability”, this can have some far-reaching implications. It is often assumed that “clubbability” means blithely nodding along in agreement with every opinion aired by one’s dining companions, no matter how ignorant or uninformed; but this is patently not so. Little would be more boring. Conversely, no-one seriously suggests that club members should be in a constant state of agitation and opposition to one another.

Clubbability today, therefore, needs diversity in opinions. It needs questioning and dissent. It needs an instinctive mistrust of groupthink - which any cosy, comfortable establishment with its own marked culture (like a club) may be particularly prone to developing.

Yet it also needs to provide a space which is welcoming of good-natured disagreement; in which members (even if they do not always like one another) can respectfully disagree - preferably with self-mocking humour - and in which they may seek to explore conversations in a spirit of inquiry. This goes back to the very roots of the earliest clubs - with early newspapers and pamphlets being read in coffeehouses, as members discussed current affairs. Yet its relevance could scarcely be more topical.

At a time of so-called “culture war”, with less understanding of contrasting viewpoints, greater personal vilification, and greater misrepresentation, the value of a club setting in hosting such discussions should not be underestimated.

And as people have found through the ages, pairing such discussions with a meal is optimal. While acquaintanceship over a drink can be short and abbreviated, dining requires commitment. It requires sitting down over multiple courses, with plenty of time to outline and compare contrasting arguments. And that, I would suggest, is the height of “clubbability” today.

---

You can view the full and varied backlog of Clubland Substack articles, by clicking on the index below.