Diana Kendall - Members Only: Elite Clubs and the Process of Exclusion

What is unique about elite clubs? Elite clubs operate on the assumption that their members are insiders, that everyone else is an outsider, and that club members have the right to determine who shall or shall not be allowed in their midst. As Phi1, a white male respondent, prominent attorney, and member of six exclusive Texas clubs, stated, In this country we have a God-given right to associate with whomever we please. And, frankly, this includes my right to not associate with people I dont want to. If I dont want to be around somebody, why should I have to let them in my club? Let them go start their own club. Phils perspective on club membership is in keeping with the classical sociologist Max Webers description of a closed relationship a setting in which the participation of certain persons is excluded, limited, or subjected to conditions (Gerth and Mills 1946:139).

For almost three centuries, elite clubs around the world have thrived on closed relationships. The earliest English clubs, such as Whites (established in 1736), Boodles (1762), and Brookss (1764), all of which still exist today, started as eateries or drinking halls that were open to the general public (meaning men), but before long, a select group of men decided they wanted to privatize the clubs and exclude from membership those individuals with whom they did not wish to associate (see chapter 2). Why did the men decide to turn these open spaces into private clubs? If we apply Webers idea of open versus closed relationships, the men had a greater expectation that their resources would be enhanced through the use of monopolistic exclusionary tactics in a closed relationship as compared to the greater inclusion of outsiders in an open relationship. In open relationships such as voluntary community service organizations, anyone is welcome to join as long as they desire to participate in mutually-oriented social action (see Gerth and Mills 1946:139). Although the rewards for participating in an open relationship may be significant in terms of personal fulfillment or community recognition, open organizations do not afford the same level of exclusivity and social capital as that found in many by-invitation-only, elite organizations.

What are the distinguishing characteristics of clubs with closed relationships? One of the first indicators of the closed relationship is found on the outside of the club where Members Only signs are prominently posted on the premises. Clubs across the United States have elaborate fences and ornate gates, imposing architectural facades, and well-polished-but bruskdoor attendants who discourage the uninitiated from seeking entry. Consider, for example, one journalists description of the fortification surrounding the Bohemian Grove, a campground set in 2,700 acres of giant redwoods sixty-five miles north of San Francisco, where members and high-profile guests of the prestigious Bohemian Club gather for their annual summer retreat! Signs abound: No Thru Traffic. No Trespassing. Members and Guests Only. No Turn Around. Sentries scan the paths from above with binoculars, helped out by infrared sensors (Lara 2004:A1). This level of security and exclusion first caught the attention of the sociologist G. William Domhoff (1974), one of the few sociologists to systematically investigate how elite clubs contribute to ruling-class cohesiveness. My interest in elite clubs grew out of Domhoffs research and my own interest in how social capital and cultural capital are accumulated by women and men in the upper classes and how these forms of capital provide them with social power that money alone cannot purchase.