(raphic: John McCann/M&G
A while back, I joined a social club. The 1926 Club, to be precise. Founded in September 1926 as a scion of the Rand Club, The 1926 Club (originally known as The Political Research Club) was established as a monthly forum where members of the English-speaking business community in Johannesburg could invite speakers to gain insight into the politics of the day, dominated, as it was then, by the Afrikaner elite. Today, membership of The 1926 Club is open to all and it recruits members mainly from previous invitees.
Part of the appeal of The 1926 Club is its ability to attract a variety of notable speakers. Such speakers have, in its more recent past, included presidents Nelson Mandela, Kgalema Motlanthe and FW de Klerk, opposition leaders such as Julius Malema and John Steenhuisen, and a variety of ambassadors, business personalities, authors and members of the scientific community, who have spoken freely under the protection of the Chatham House Rule, which the club observes.
As the name implies, next year will mark the 100th anniversary of the existence of The 1926 Club. Talk, therefore, naturally turned to how to mark this occasion. The question was raised as to whether the activities of the club should be recorded in a centennial book? During this debate, the suggestion was made that the club’s activities were not suitable for such a book as they consist simply of meeting monthly over a dinner and listening to an invited speaker on a topic of political or socio-cultural relevance — and then we go home.
While The 1926 Club is not an activist organisation with measurable outcome from its activities, through exposure to informed opinion, as well as meaningful and vigorous discussion, my own opinions are often changed or consolidated. So, the challenge got me thinking about what purpose social forums such as The 1926 Club serve in today’s world, dominated by social media and artificial intelligence (AI).
The irony of living in an age of social media is that we have become less “social”. In his article in the February 2025 edition of The Atlantic titled The Anti-Social Century, Derek Thompson points out that, because of social media and streaming services, “Americans are now spending more time alone than ever” in “self-imposed solitude” enabled by technology, which means never having to leave home to work, eat or go shopping.
He points out, further, that from 2003 to 2023, socialising among Americans fell by 20% overall and by 35% in people younger than 25. Even after the forced isolation of the pandemic ended, the surveys indicate the trend continues.
Thompson also advances an interesting, and germane, conceptualisation of three rings of societal influence. The inner ring of family teaches us love, the outer ring of “tribe” (for example nationality) teaches us loyalty, and the middle ring — the “village” —is essential to social cohesion and teaches us tolerance. This middle ring usually consists of common, physical public spaces where we encounter those who are “familiar but not intimate”. Think of the school parking lot, social clubs, the gym etc.
It is the middle ring of social interaction where increased solitude is having a negative effect. Tolerance comes from interacting with people who neither love us nor identify with us as part of our family or tribe. It is here where we can expect to encounter challenges to, or “friction” with, our ideas and beliefs.
In contrast, social media is designed to eliminate any friction by heaping constant praise on everything we do from eating lunch to going on holiday. It also eliminates any challenges to our world view by algorithmically directing us to media that serve only to enforce or confirm our beliefs. However, we need friction to moderate our thinking, introduce us to different viewpoints and avoid sinking into the evils of tribalism that are exploited by politicians.
Compounding our isolation from exposure to the moderating influences of the “village” is the fact that we now live in the era of artificial intelligence. In a sense, AI represents one of the most significant challenges facing humanity today. In a previous article, published in the Mail & Guardian, (M&G 22-28 August 2025, p18), I took the position that we needed to be mindful of surrendering what is human i.e. inter-personal contact and engagement, to that which is not, even if it was created by humans.
Consider the fact that many are resorting to AI companions in favour of actual human contact. In the same issue, Katinka Strydom wrote about embracing our humanness in the age of AI (M&G August 22-28, 2025, p18). Both articles dealt with the same fundamental issue — that AI forces us to think about what it means to be human. This comes at a time when technologically driven hyper connectivity has witnessed, in certain settings, the emergence of increasing social disconnection and isolation
While there is no question that technology has improved many lives, mediated disconnection and isolation has led to a significant increase in mental health issues and a significant number of people live lives that are not fulfilling
So, what does all this have to do with The 1926 Club? Many studies have found that a greater “sense of community” was associated with less reported depression, anxiety and stress. A “sense of community”, comprises four components: a perception that there will be a fulfilment of needs through belonging, that being a member of a group contributes to sense of belonging, that one has the ability to influence insofar as mattering and being able to make a difference and, finally, having an emotional connection related to a shared experience.
One might argue that social club membership encompasses each of these components. Hence, there is an opportunity to influence those who attend and share acquired perspectives. Although this is not readily measured as an outcome metric, it is powerful. However, what the club can do is something equally, if not more, powerful — it provides social interaction, in person, in other words, a “sense of community”, promoting tolerance.
In a world of increasingly vitriolic utterances, political violence and literal assassination of those who do not agree with us, we need tolerance and a return to rational discussion, respectful disagreement and debate in a space that facilitates rather than divides.
If ever there was a time to join or return to a social club, or similar such community structure, now may be that time.
Christopher Paul Szabo and Shaun Read are members of The 1926 Club. They write in their personal capacities.