March 5, 2025

Treehouses, and friends entering your 2nd-story room through the window, as tropes from the rising-harmony phase of the 50-year civil stability cycle

While preparing a post on friends vs. frenemies during the rising-harmony vs. rising-strife phases of Turchin's 50-year cycle in civic cohesion vs. breakdown, I came across one of the fondest memories that late Gen X-ers have of the peak of social harmony circa the mid-'90s -- friends entering each other's rooms through the bedroom window, rather than going through the usual doors on the ground floor.

To clarify, this rarely happened in real life and is mainly a trope from pop culture. And yet, even as a pop culture trope, it didn't exist long before the '90s, and ceased afterwards. Pop culture is dynamic, not static, and it reflects the broader zeitgeist -- not only within the cultural domains, but in the IRL social domains like families, friends, communities, and so on.

In order to pay proper homage to this cultural phenomenon, and to understand it properly, and to trace its origins or spiritual ancestors, I'm putting together this standalone post instead of relegating it to the comment thread.

First, as a summary for those who remember or as a whirlwind tour for those poor unfortunate souls who weren't part of that world, here is a compilation video of the trope from Slate's YouTube channel. It's not meant to be exhaustive, and I will add more examples below and in the comments as I come across them.

We have to clearly delineate what the trope is -- it's not the very broad definition from TV Tropes or IMDB, where it's merely entering the home through a window. That covers criminals breaking & entering, or spies and snoops, frenemies trying to sabotage each other, etc.

But more importantly, this *does not* cover an existing romantic couple, or between two people where there's already romantic tension or sexual intent -- that trope is already fairly well established. For example, Romeo observing Juliet on her balcony, serenades in the same spatial position, princes scaling the walls of a tower to reach the princess' window a la Rapunzel, and many other fairly old and pre-American examples.

The distinctly all-American 20th-century trope covers friends, acquaintances, peers, and similar relationships. They might escalate into romantic relationships, or they might not, that's not crucial. And since it's about friendship and camaraderie, it is not restricted to an opposite-sex pair -- it could be two guy friends, or two girl friends, or a mixed-sex pair.

A few further examples:

Here is a short compilation just from Clarissa Explains It All (1991-'94), to emphasize how frequently this trope appeared in that show -- just about every episode, often multiple times per episode. Whenever Sam meets up with Clarissa at her home, there's a thud of the ladder against the window, Clarissa says "Hi Sam," a leitmotif guitar chord strums, and he enters.

Here is an example from a '95 episode of Boy Meets World, where friends Cory and Topanga start to declare their romantic feelings for each other. At other times in the show, guy friends Cory and Shawn enter through the window. It's not just for mixed-sex or potentially romantic partners.

Here is an example from a '94 episode of Married with Children, where Bud is paid a visit by an acquaintance, the niece of his next-door neighbor, and things escalate from there. (In the same clip, one of Kelly's bf du jour guys accidentally climbs up the same ladder, thinking it's her room, before being told it's the next window over.)

Here is a pic from Doogie Howser (unknown year, but '89 or the early '90s) showing Doogie's best friend Vinnie entering through the window. Another guy friend example.

Unfortunately, the show that probably started, but at the very least was the first popularizer of this trope -- Saved by the Bell -- doesn't have any video clips or images of the many times that friends entered through the bedroom window. But it was common, for both same-sex friends like Zack and Screech, and mixed-sex friends like Zack and Jessie.

Doogie Howser is the other contender for first example, since it and Saved by the Bell both began airing in the fall of '89, a couple years ahead of Clarissa and Boy Meets World. I'd have to start watching my Saved by the Bell DVDs to see when the first instance was, but there's a 1st season clip of Screech being pushed out the open window by Zack in a panic. So I'm guessing the trope began in its 1st season. IDK about Doogie Howser, and won't watch episodes just to see.

In any case, Saved by the Bell was by far the more popular and influential of the two, not just among teen shows of the time, but their legacy ever since. So for the time being, I'm going to declare it the originator of this trope. Earlier examples of "entering through the window" from the '80s involved romantic couples, like A Nightmare on Elm Street and Heathers. Maybe those could be considered proto-examples.

Saved by the Bell, in fact, might be the originator of so-called postmodern TV comedy shows, with frequent and lengthy addresses to the audience (breaking the 4th wall), cut-away imagination sequences, cut-away homages / pastiches of classic and contempo pop culture, and other self-aware / meta-commentary techniques that would come to define comedy shows of the '90s and even the 21st century.

How long did the trope last? Not really beyond the '90s, except as a target for send-up and pastiche as in Kickass (2010), or as a callback to the original show during a sequel show (like Girl Meets World from the mid-2010s). The last major show to do it was Dawson's Creek from the late '90s -- the examples were frequent, involving various friends, not necessarily romantic in tone, and still participating in the trend itself, without being a self-aware reference or allusion. And that was a popular / influential teen show.

The most notable later example is not a TV show or movie at all, but the iconic music video for "You Belong with Me" by Taylor Swift from 2008. Admittedly, the two mixed-sex neighbors don't enter each other's rooms, but they do socially interact, emotionally connect, and play supportive roles in each other's lives, across the narrow gap between their homes. They start out not romantically involved, "just friends," although it does eventually escalate to romance, after the girl-next-door gets rid of her mean-girl rival (his current, then ex-gf).

I appreciate the honesty of this video for acknowledging that the peak of social harmony was over by the 2000s, so it would've been inauthentic to LARP as teens from 1993 and directly enter each other's rooms through the window. The interaction across the gap while still in their separate rooms conveys the same spirit, albeit at a lower intensity since friends, and the sexes, are no longer as close as they used to be back in the '90s. And it is still their personal rooms where they're connecting -- not their living rooms, kitchens, rec rooms, etc., so the intimacy and just-the-two-of-us-ness is preserved.

Cute. ^_^

Also worth noting that she takes the initiative in their relationship: she's the first to start communicating through notes between their windows, at the dance she tracks him down, and most importantly she is the first one to show him her note that says "I love you", and he only shows his note saying the same thing after she has already done so. Very '90s vibe -- the song could easily make a good soundtrack for a "Pete and Ellen" compilation video using scenes from The Adventures of Pete and Pete.

* * *


This is a very '90s trope, and it's no coincidence that appeared and spread around the peak of social harmony. How did it channel the harmonious social mood?

It's mainly about the directness of the friends' interactions -- they don't have to knock at the front door, then wait in the living room, then hang out for a snack in the kitchen, and then ultimately wind up in the privacy of the person's personal room. It's not as though those various checkpoints along the way always led toward a hanging-out session in the personal room -- they're all various places where the guest can be turned away.

Knocking on the front door? Maybe they'll be ignored by someone pretending not to be home, or they'll be greeted at the door, but not invited in -- "I'm kinda busy right now..." Or maybe defused by hanging out on the front porch / patio for a bit, and once the convo is over, time to head on back home, without even stepping foot inside.

Hanging out in the living room, perhaps while watching some TV? Well, that's a great big time-suck and energy-exhauster right there. You can while away hours vegging out on the living room couch in front of the TV. After getting your fill of that activity, it's time to head on back home, without going to the personal room.

Sitting down at the kitchen table for a little snack or maybe doing some homework together? Well, you can have a brief little chat there, and after the homework is done, and the meal is starting to fill your belly, might as well head on home, without going to the personal room.

Ditto for a trip to the basement rec room, gamer station, or dad's den / man cave. It diverts the social energy into an activity like playing games, and after you've spent an hour or so doing that, you're feeling a little exhausted, might as well head on home.

There's just something about hanging out in the personal room that you can't get from those other spaces -- especially those that don't even let you inside, like chatting on the front porch, shooting hoops in the driveway, and so on.

It's more intimate, more private, the door is closed and it's just the best buds in their own little world, whereas the rest of the household may show up in the other non-personal spaces in the home, like the living room, kitchen, or basement rec room. Hell, if it's an outside space, the general public might show up unannounced!

Nothing is cozier, socially and spatially defended against outside forces and surveillance, than hanging out in the personal room. There's not even a distinct and dedicated material thing there to define your activity, like the couch or TV in the living room, or the fridge and table in the kitchen, or the video game console or pool table in the rec room. It's just the person's bed -- which as friends you won't be sharing -- and their closet and clothing-related furniture, and various personal thingies strewn about.

And that's just it -- it lacks any other material purpose that could divert your attention away from just hanging out, having a convo, sharing secrets, giving advice, venting frustrations, coming up with plans, and in general opening up to and supporting each other. No distractions.

The material things that are present, heighten the sense of intimacy and personal closeness -- that's the bed the person sleeps in, that's the closet where their clothes are stored, that's their book collection they browse while bored-in-their-room-alone, and so on. The person is opening themselves up just by letting you be around these personal things, more so than by merely inviting you inside their home while remaining in a non-private room with distractions that could divert the interaction away from interpersonal bonding.

So, by entering the personal room directly via the window to the outside, all these other non-private spaces are avoided, and none of the social energy is dissipated by the room-specific material focal objects. And there is virtually no chance of just being sent away, unlike at the other checkpoints -- the visitor is taking a literal physical risk of falling and injuring themselves or dying, by appearing at the second-story window -- you can't send such a vulnerable person away!

Oh, forgot to mention -- the window is always above the ground floor! That introduces the physical risk, and what makes it a costly and therefore honest signal, of the visitor's need to come in, preventing any chance of rejection. A visitor who isn't a close friend isn't going to take those physical risks, only to appear rude and presumptuous to the resident -- so the only person who ever makes these trips is a close and trusted friend.

Aside from saving all the social energy for the close bonding space, it also clears away any sense of the two friends playing petty and pointless games with each other, to assert dominance or put the other in their place, etc. The entrance to the personal room is direct, immediate, and unquestioned. No need to jump through any hoops (other than climbing up there, of course), pass inspections, receive permission slips, or other manner of checking off boxes on an application form, as though you were being hired for a job rather than invited to hang out by a friend.

I deny the claim that it's related to doing an end-run around parental supervision -- often enough, the parents aren't even home at the time, nor are any other siblings or household members. But if you're just watching TV in the living room, supposedly all alone, those parents or siblings could show up at any moment and spoil the intimacy, given how close the living room is to the doors, and given its expectation as a non-private space, so whoever shows up won't think anything about going right to the living room where you're already hanging out on the couch. Ditto for doing homework or having a snack at the kitchen table.

If you entered an otherwise empty home through those rooms, your privacy could be interrupted before you get to the personal room. By heading straight to the personal room, you're not bypassing an existing third party in the home -- you're removing even the potential future interruption, by not slow-rolling your presence through various non-private rooms in the home, even when no one else is home for the time being.

In these various ways, it's intensifying or elevating the guest-host relationship, where guests are never turned away, but hosts are never put upon or betrayed by those guests. But it's a small number involved -- just those two, not multiple guests coming over for dinner or having a place to sleep. It's the two friends, with the rest of the world kept outside (even if they're inside the same home -- outside of the personal room, at any rate).

It's camaraderie, but also intimacy, not the bonds among a large team of people (which may be shown in other ways in the TV show).

The roles are complimentary rather than identical -- a guest, and a host. And although seemingly setting up a dominance hierarchy with a requester at the mercy of the space-controller, the unquestioned and unconditional access levels this potential hierarchy, and emphasizes the egalitarian nature of social relations when harmony rather than strife and competition is the norm. Roles are complimentary, but egalitarian.

* * *


So far, so good -- but remember, there's a cycle at work here. It's not enough to show how the social mood and pop culture were related during the most recent peak of social harmony -- ideally, we'd observe a similar match from the peak before that one (roughly the second half of the '20s through the mid-'40s). And even more ideally, a similar decline in the trope during the previous rising-strife phase (roughly the late '40s through the early '70s, tied together by the strands of second-wave feminism, African-American civil rights, and students vs. the school authorities).

Well, there's no 100% match to the Radio Days environment -- no pop culture trope of friends entering each other's personal rooms through the window. But there was a closely related one, so closely related, in fact, that the '90s trope incorporated a key element of it that was not needed for the purposes of "friends entering a 2nd-story window" -- but *was* necessary to signal its spiritual origins in the earlier trope born in the '30s and '40s.

I tried to think of what other scenarios and architectural forms the "friends entering through the window" trope resembled, so I could check their origins and cyclic popularity. At first I was misled by the "scaling the castle / tower walls" scenario -- again, that's mainly in the context of a princess and her suitor, not friends. And it also relies on the external walls being a defensive obstruction, and bypassing parental supervision, and the personal room being a prison cell rather than a sanctuary, and so on.

Then it hit me -- the rooms from the '90s were like treehouses! Then it all fell into place. But before analyzing the similarities, let's note one similarity that is not necessary structurally, and only serves as a reference to the earlier example.

Quite often, including the most iconic examples like Clarissa Explains It All and Saved by the Bell, outside the window is a huge tree, visible through the window, lying no more than 10 feet away. In the '90s trope, the tree is not typically used as the means of ascending the walls -- usually it's a ladder, as in Clarissa. Why is this huge tree trunk and large branches and abundant foliage taking up most of the view through the window to the outside?

They could have left the space blank -- blue skies, sunsets, warm sunlight, etc. could be pouring in. They could have put some remote natural landscape, like rolling hills and mountains, as is typical for California where these shows tend to be filmed. They could have made the view of the neighboring house (a la the Taylor Swift video).

Even if there was a tree in view, they don't have to make it so massive and place it so close to the window -- why, it's like the room practically sits within the tree itself. But that's just it! They're making the room look like a treehouse, and none of the other choices for "what's outside the window" would have given it a treehouse vibe.

The ladder that the visitor climbs up to the window is not a scheming mechanism used to counteract a defensive obstacle in warfare or imprisonment -- it's just this trope's version of an entry staircase that leads to a door on the ground floor, or an even grander exterior staircase that leads to a 2nd-story door. Or more to the point, like the ladder used to enter a treehouse -- and it usually was a ladder, not a climbing rope or a spiral staircase around the tree trunk or whatever else.

Climbing a ladder, 5 feet away from a massive tree trunk, to enter a residential sanctuary among close friends -- that's a treehouse. The only twist in the '90s version is that the treehouse is not attached to the outdoor tree, but belongs to the indoor section of the house. It's an internal treehouse, or a home within the home. After all, this room has its own entrance to the outside world, its own staircase of sorts connecting the ground to the entrance -- it's a smaller home, nested within a larger home.

The personal mini-home may not have a stove, sink, shower, TV set, laundry machines, and other things that are necessary to consider it a full home. Then again, neither does a treehouse. But this room is also a home of its own in its spatial and social relation to the outside world and to people who live outside the household.

Also, both a treehouse and the '90s teen room hit on the theme of social harmony in assuming a lack of paranoia by the dwellers, regarding the general public. Couldn't some random stranger, perhaps one with malicious motives, just plop the ladder against the wall, and barge through the unlocked / open window? There's no security guard or other checkpoint to ensure that this doesn't happen.

So the tropes are clearly saying that the dwellers do not expect such anti-social behavior to be common or even existent at all. Once the trope starts to fade from popularity, that is therefore a signal of the fraying trust among strangers or community members or neighbors. Suddenly, the mood becomes, "You never know who might climb that ladder into your window".

That is not connected to the crime rate, BTW, since the late '80s and early '90s were the peak of the homicide rate in America, right when this trope was born and spread like crazy. Also right around the origin of helicopter parenting. The previous trope, of treehouses, was born during a falling-crime period (the mid-to-late '30s, as discussed below). So there's no similarity between the two trope's relation to the crime rate.

And just as in the '90s teen room, the treehouse has a primary dweller or owner, and everyone else is a visitor -- potentially setting up a hierarchy, but entry into the treehouse is unquestioned, and the owner does not lord it over the requester. It's physically risky to climb up the ladder, lest you fall and injure yourself, so there's the same honest signal of need to enter.

There's a similar level of seclusion and intimacy, at least for treehouses that have a roof / ceiling and walls enclosing all the space between the floor and the ceiling. A few examples, mainly from circa 1960, are *not* houses in that sense, but more like a perch with only a floor and some low guard-rails (more on that later).

In addition to their physical / architectural seclusion, there's the presumption of social seclusion in that parents and other members of the household or the general public don't have an open invitation to just barge on in and interrupt the hanging-out session. At most, they can knock on the door, give a quick message like "dinner's in 15 minutes," and then leave them alone again.

Last but not least, the relationship among those who frequent the space is friends, peers, acquaintances, etc., perhaps same-sex and perhaps mixed-sex, not the obligatory mixed-sex pair for a "scaling the castle walls to the princess' room" trope. Even if there's a mixed-sex pair in the treehouse, it implies nothing about their romantic or sexual interaction -- only that they're close friends, acquaintances, etc., which may -- or may not -- lead to something more. It's a sanctuary for friends, not a makeshift motel for lovers -- exactly like the '90s teen room.

* * *


Having established not only the analogy between the '90s teen room and the treehouse, but the additional and unnecessary element of the massive tree right outside the window, which clearly makes the '90s teen room a revival of the treehouse concept, let's explore the origins and changing popularity of the treehouse trope.

As hard as it may be to believe about an architectural form, there is almost no history of treehouses, at least not easily available over the internet. Not even online references to books that are relevant.

In true midwit fashion, most "histories" of the treehouse lie that the treehouse has been a constant presence in human dwellings from ancient, even prehistoric times, up to the present, and universally present in every culture around the world.

That's obvious BS -- otherwise they would fill in all the gaps between "21st century America" and "Ancient Egypt" or whatever other remote example they point to. Did America have treehouses in the 19th C, 18th, 17th, 16th? Nobody will say.

Well, I will say it -- there don't seem to be treehouses in America until the early 20th C, right as we're undergoing our ethnogenesis into a new and distinct culture from our Euro forefathers, after wrapping up our integrative civil war (as always).

As for IRL structures, I can't find any references to when it began, although presumably there are off-hand mentions of them in newspapers from the 1910s or '20s or so. Unlike detached houses or apartment buildings or schools or churches, backyard treehouses were not pre-fab and did not involve architectural firms and contracted construction crews. So they were not big business, and left less of a money trail and paper trail. They were a labor of love by the father, maybe some other male relatives or neighbors.

That leaves us with pop culture portrayals of treehouses. I had a hunch that these would go back to the Midcentury or earlier, so I didn't bother with TV Tropes, which has poor coverage of that period. Instead, I went to IMDb and searched for TV shows and movies that have been tagged with "treehouse", which gives this list.

This relies on someone tagging the entry with this particular tag, so there are false negatives -- examples with a treehouse that have not been tagged with that term on their IMDb entry. But these taggers are pretty obsessive, and their range is pretty broad across time. So this'll have to be the best overview of the history of the trope in pop culture.

There are no examples whatsoever before the '30s. The first one, Our Blushing Brides, has a very elaborate full home in the treetops, for an adult bachelor courting an adult woman -- not this trope. The next one, So This Is Africa, is set on safari -- treehouse as the primitive residence of jungle-dwellers, not a modern American sanctuary for friends.

But then we hit the jackpot -- a short film in the "Our Gang" series (later known as Little Rascals), called "Hi, Neighbor!" from 1934. You can watch the full episode here. Around 1:40, several friends are rounding up their peers, and pay a visit to one who is inside his treehouse. And this has 99% of the elements that the later mature form would have.

It has a roof and walls, not just a floor and guard rails, it has a clear entrance opening to separate interior from exterior, not to mention some other openings with shades of a sort (animal hides). It's mostly made from wood planks, but animal hides as well. It's located up in a tree, with a means of getting up and down (a rope, not a ladder), and this tree is located in the yard of his house in a typical suburban residential neighborhood.

The only minor differences are the use of the rope instead of ladder to climb up, and the wooden planks of the walls being stacked vertically instead of laid horizontally. The mature form would take the "horizontal wooden slabs" inspiration from log cabins, another distinctive American building type, and equally rugged and home-made and down-to-earth (and yet up in the air), rather than pre-fab or urban or sophisticated.

The social relations are the same as in later examples -- there's a primary dweller or owner of the treehouse, but anyone is free to visit him at any time, if they're a friend. This example doesn't show the other friends climbing up there with the owner, but given their ongoing bonds of friendship, and the others' familiarity with this spot to call on their friend, it is implied that they sometimes hang out in his treehouse, without having to show it on camera.

And it fits the theme of the series overall, which follows a group of friends or peers or neighborhood kids, who feel part of a single collective social unit that is not related to each other -- "Our Gang".

Moreover, there are early hints at what other aspects of American identity the treehouse was channeling -- the owner has a pet monkey hanging out with him in the treehouse, there are animal hides as window coverings and doors / curtains, and he lets out a primitive nonsense call to announce his descent...

Much like Tarzan! That's right, the treehouse stems directly from Tarzan and the grandfather of American mythology, Edgar Rice Burroughs. American identity is that we are part caveman, and part spaceman -- perhaps cavemen traveling to outer space, or perhaps cavemen who were visited and guided by an outer space civilization. But cavemen, at any rate, and Tarzan is one of the earliest avatars of this facet of our identity.

Interestingly, though, early film portrayals of Tarzan do not show him living in what we now consider a prototypical treehouse. See this review of the changing nature of his treehouse in film portrayals. The first novel in the Tarzan series came out in 1912, but as late as the first two movies where he's played by Johnny Weismuller, from '32 and '34, his tree "house" is more of a perch or platform in the treetops, without a clear roof or walls or door. It's not until Tarzan Escapes from '36 that it becomes a proper house in the treetops.

Also, Tarzan's treehouse is not shown as the gathering-place or social sanctuary for a group of friends, peers, and acquaintances -- but his domestic space with his mate, Jane. So it's in the romantic vein rather than friendship vein. And if anything, it post-dates the "treehouse for friends," which debuted in the 1934 short from Our Gang.

Nevertheless, the parallels are clear -- the neighborhood friends, whether male or female, are a bunch of little Tarzans and Janes, so their living space must also be in the trees, and requires a roof and walls and entrances just like any house. So the makers of Our Gang were not directly imitating a treehouse from Tarzan-related pop culture, since that came a few years later in Tarzan-world. But they were channeling the Tarzan lifestyle and identity, then applying it to contemporary suburban America -- with the primitive roots being only half-obscured by modernity, and the other half proudly displayed in full view!

Wow, it all traces back to Our Gang -- why didn't I think of that to begin with?! I'm just not that immersed in pre-WWII culture, I guess. At least it clicked once I saw it, but I should've suspected it would trace back to them.

After a questionable example in the Disney animated short "Orphans' Picnic," where the house is more the tree trunk itself, with a hole bored into it and a little wooden plank platform outside, the next major example of a proper house built in the treetops -- and set in contempo America -- is also an animated short. In the Mighty Mouse series, "Wolf! Wolf!" from 1944 shows Mighty Mouse's main home being a treehouse, although we don't know if it's the focus of a peer group.

I can't find a video clip or still image, but in the live-action movie The Yearling from 1946, there's a treehouse that the protag sleeps in overnight. IDK if it's the focus for a peer group, though.

In the final major example from the '40s, and rounding out the maturation of the trope, is the Disney animated short "Donald's Happy Birthday" from 1949, with all the elements of what we now consider a treehouse. The only wrinkle is that its owners are three brothers (Huey, Dewey, and Louie), and it's shown as their own sanctuary, not necessarily one for a broader friend circle. But given that these brothers are also each others' closest friends, it doubles as a friend-based building too.

From there, the trope begins to fade in prominence, until the next major example of the TV show Dennis the Menace, which ran from '59 to '63. I used to watch that all the time on Nickelodeon in the '80s, when they still showed classic Midcentury shows. And I do remember him having a treehouse, or at least that fitting in with his world.

But it's not exactly a house anymore -- see this pic. It does have a floor, and low walls that only go up to waist height on children, but not walls that go over the kids' heads, and no ceiling or roof. It's a fairly open structure, more like a stand or perch or nest. And so, the door is more of a part of the low wall that swings open, like the gate of a residential fence, not an opening in a wall that separates an enclosed space from the outside world. It is built in a treetop and does use a ladder for climbing up. And it does involve friends (same-sex) -- that's his pal Tommy up there with him.

Still, you can see how less of a secluded sanctuary it is compared to the examples from the '30s and '40s. But then, that's only to be expected, giving the rising levels of social strife during the '50s and '60s, even somewhat beginning in the late '40s. Just cuz 1960 wasn't at the explosive peak of chaos of 10 years later, doesn't mean it was a harmonious stress-free kumbayah circle. I'll be revisiting this fact for other domains of society later. Suffice it to say that it was less socially harmonious than the '30s and '40s.

There's even an entire episode from 1960 about his tree house ("Dennis' Tree House"), which makes it into a social obstacle instead of a source of harmony. The treehouse is built right on the boundary with the yard of his neighbor, Mr. Wilson, who is upset that it might scare the birds away and he won't be able to enjoy his hobby of bird-watching. Things work out in the end, but it's part of a trend of the rising-strife phase that portrayed treehouses as sources of problems rather than unalloyed wholesomeness.

In a 1956 episode of Lassie ("The Tree House"), two friends Jeff and Porky get excited about building a treehouse and becoming blood-brothers -- seemingly off to a good start on the whole "treehouse as sanctuary for friends" theme. It's built in Jeff's yard with the help of his family. Unlike in Dennis the Menace, this is a proper treehouse with a roof, walls, doors, ladder, etc.

But then when they both spend the night in it, they bring their dogs along, and Porky's dog won't stop howling, keeping Jeff awake all night and making him so angry that he kicks out both the dog and his supposed blood-brother and guest Porky. When Jeff goes to apologize the next day for being a poor host / blood-brother, he finds the interior of the treehouse has been trashed, and assumes Porky did it as revenge -- more anti-social paranoia and suspiciousness and bad faith.

Later, there's a loud noise coming from the treehouse, and when Jeff goes to investigate -- there's a bear inside trashing the place even more. So that's what trashed the place before, not Porky -- but still, setting up the treehouse as a space that's vulnerable to roaming nomadic outsiders, including animals. Jeff's mom says no more treehouse. But it turns out the bear was escaped from the circus, not a wild one, so the mom says it's OK again. That makes no sense, there could still be wild bears or other troublesome animals roaming around that could climb up the ladder -- but the paranoid point has already been made. Beware! Caution! Risk!

The last of these problematizing examples is from 1970, from The Brady Bunch ("What Goes Up..."). In it, there's another proper treehouse, but it is still portrayed as a source of danger -- Bobby tries to climb up into it, but falls and sprains his ankle, leading him to develop a fear of heights on top of it.

What happened to treehouses just being wholesome sanctuaries for friends? Well, '56, '60, and '70 were all part of the rising-strife phase of the cycle. It wasn't the harmonious '30s and '40s anymore. So anything that might bring people together socially, like a treehouse sanctuary, had to be cast in a more negative and threatening light, as though it might introduce more strife than it would relieve. Not just physically, like scaring away the birds or posing a risk of falling injuries, but sowing the seeds of suspicion and resentment despite the promise of bringing camaraderie and appreciation, like driving a wedge between supposed blood-brothers.

* * *


It wasn't until after the peak of social chaos circa 1970 that that wary attitude began to wane, and treehouses regained their wholesome innocent pro-social connotations. Only a few years after the Brady Bunch episode, there was a renaissance of rural-themed TV shows, epitomized by The Waltons and Little House on the Prairie.

In a first-season episode of The Waltons (from '73), their treehouse makes its debut and would become a familiar fixture in their environment for years. It's a proper treehouse, not problematized, and since the show is set in the Depression, it revives the original wave of treehouse-mania from the '30s and '40s.

Our Gang was renamed Little Rascals, and given an animated format in 1982, which not only included a treehouse as a gathering spot for the friend circle, it was emphasized by being included in the intro sequence, to set the premise and sense of place and tone.

And from there, treehouses began to explode in popularity, although more so in movies that were set in the past, like Stand by Me and The Sandlot. Both of those are set in the early '60s, and so a proper treehouse and thriving friend circle would've been anachronistic for that time -- it would've been more appropriate for a movie set in the '30s or '40s. But still, by that time they were starting to swirl together all sorts of "pre-1968" periods of 20th-century America. A little bit of the '30s, a little bit of the late '50s or early '60s, always an unintended dash of the year in which it was made, it's all good.

Dennis the Menace was made into a movie in 1993, and it upgraded the treehouse to a proper one, again unlike the era in which the original TV show was made. Little Rascals was made into a movie the next year, although without a prominent treehouse.

The Simpsons had a treehouse in their backyard as a gathering spot for friends, and although I don't know when its first appearance was, the "Treehouse of Horror" series for Halloween began in 1990. The only episode from '89 was the very first one, so unless it's in that episode, it first appeared sometime in '90.

The revival of the wholesome and non-threatening treehouse trope during the '80s and '90s reflected the rising-harmony phase of the cycle, before merging with or enhancing the new trope of "teen's room as treehouse within the home itself".

After the '90s, the treehouse trope begins to fade once again, not to mention picking up the connotation of danger and threats, right back to Lassie and Dennis the Menace and The Brady Bunch. But that's only natural, as the social mood swung away from harmony and toward strife once again, and anything that would cement social bonds among friends would have to come under suspicion and then get eliminated altogether.

However, now that the pendulum is finally swinging back toward harmony, as of the past couple years, maybe treehouses, teen's room as a treehouse within the home, or some new variation on this perennial American theme will emerge -- assuming we still had a thriving pop culture production sector, which we do not at all. American culture -- meaning, all-American, appealing to and paid attention to by all -- has been extinct since 2020.

But in whatever fragmented niche-demo remains of American-ish culture that remain going forward, we're likely to see a gradual revival of this theme, likely peaking in the early 2040s.

Maybe in video games? Minecraft is still thriving, despite coming out in 2010, so perhaps treehouses will become the hot new thing to build. Mumei made a cozy little one for herself a couple years ago, Fauna made the huge sun-obscuring World Tree during that time (which was not just a tree, but had home-like architecture at the top), so... maybe it's the start of a new trend?

It'll probably be more visible in new games, where there's a prominent treehouse built into it, but it'll be some niche indie thing that not the whole world knows about, or something. But the urge to hang out with friends in treehouses -- or their present-day descendants, perhaps in a form not yet invented -- will become overpowering in the next two decades. Plenty of time for it to find some kind of realization in the cultural realm.

Look forward to seeing what it is, while still knowing in advance it won't top, as it were, the examples from the '30s and '40s or the '80s and '90s. ^_^

28 comments:

  1. I searched Ngram -- Google's digitized book archive -- for "treehouse" and "tree house," and they're basically non-existent during the 19th C. They start to make occasional blips starting around the turn of the 20th C. But they don't start a rocket-like ascent until the 1930s, confirming the IMDb list of movies / TV tagged with "treehouse".

    What these examples in Google's archives are referring to, we don't know. Are they about cavemen, or shipwrecked people on a deserted tropical island, Europeans going on safari in Africa, etc.? Or building treehouses in the contemporary Western world, in someone's suburban backyard? It doesn't say how they're used, only when they show up, go up, or go down in frequency.

    However, even if those earliest references from the early 20th C are about cavemen or jungle dwellers, that shows that the concept of those people living in treehouses is not an old trope, but only back to roughly 1900 at the earliest.

    And like I said, there are only occasional blips that early. The sustained growth in the trope for cavemen or jungle dwellers or primitives only goes back to around 1930, including safari movies and Tarzan movies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wait, that's crucial -- Ngram's books are not only fiction, they include non-fiction too. So that gives us at least some view into the building of IRL treehouses. If that went back into the 19th C or earlier, it would show up as a common term in Ngram -- but it doesn't.

    Ngram and IMDb show basically the same timing of its upward trajectory. Meaning there was some new fascination with treehouses, and that led to culture-makers including examples in their works, and to some people building them IRL.

    Like I said from the other evidence, treehouses were not built in America before roughly 1900 (maybe 1890, but around the time when American identity started becoming its own thing -- ragtime music, Chicago School architecture, and the whole rest of it).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sadly, Adventures of Pete and Pete was not tagged with "treehouse" in IMDB... hopefully just an oversight, but I just finished the first season, as well as the dozens of shorts from before it was its own show, and no treehouse so far.

    Plenty of communication between someone down on the ground, and someone at a 2nd-story window in their personal room.

    Crossing my fingers...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe later I'll look into the "lounging around on the rooftop" trope. Preferably in the domestic setting, not skipping school to go to the roof of the school building or whatever. And especially doing so at night.

    Just speaking from my personal experience -- I used to do that somewhat regularly in the mid-'90s, so it must have been channeling the same spirit, somehow.

    On a weekend night when you didn't already have plans, climb out the room of your personal window, in my case first onto the roof of the carport, then another 2-3 feet up onto the roof of the house.

    And right behind the brick chimney, too! Such a cozy spot to get all nestled in between the chimney and the sloping roof. Made it feel somewhat safer, like you weren't going to slide all the way down the roof and fall onto the ground -- not with a brick chimney in your way.

    You can stargaze, you can let your mind wander, meditate (was not my thing, but would be a good place), read a book by flashlight (did that a few times), I even brought a nice warm mug of tea out there sometimes (no flat surface to rest it on, so I held it with my hands, or rested it on my leg, until I was done drinking it).

    Social harmony is always framed by the bitter haters as a miserable straitjacket of conformity. But really it's liberating, and we never felt so carefree -- unlike the psych-med-addled minds of rising-strife times.

    In 1995, though? Sure, just crawl out onto the roof, make sure it's in a place where you won't plummet to your death (duh), and just chill out and elevate your consciousness and replenish your spiritual energy or whatever. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  5. I jumped off the carport roof once, too, in high school, during an unbelievably windy day -- like, Wizard of Oz windy. Carried an open umbrella to help slow my descent, put on some elbow and knee pads just in case, had extra layers of clothing, and laid down a layer or two of couch cushions / pillows over the concrete.

    It was about a 10-foot drop -- and I survived! Didn't even get hurt. It wasn't like Mary Poppins, I did land hard and had to tumble to avoid absorbing all the impact like a pancake. But no harm, no foul, Mr. Weather.

    I knew I'd never get a chance like that any time soon, maybe ever again. I had to jump off the roof while holding an open umbrella!

    Such wholesome times, I really can't believe where we've gotten to by now... though hopefully as of the past couple years it's swinging back in the right direction.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BTW, how to measure the final year of the recent peak of social strife? I think it was 2022. That was the year of Will Smith slapping Chris Rock live, and on-stage, at the Oscars, after already shouting from the floor. Talk about being a thin-skinned hyper-competitive weirdo...

    The libtards also kept up the masking mandates through the spring of 2022. Although these mandates were widely ignored by people who didn't want to wear the pointless masks, the laws did enable social strife to explode if some libtard wanted an excuse to express their anti-social strife desire -- look at that guy without a mask! Let's start a conflict over it, entirely interpersonal, no higher authorities are even aware of this altercation, we just need to keep beefing forever IRL.

    After the mandates were over, so was the libtard conflict-provocation toward unmasked people.

    Although when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the summer, libs didn't protest at all, let alone burn down cities, assassinate randos on live TV and get immediately set free by lib DA's.

    So it wasn't as bad as 2020, but there were still enough salient markers, like the Oscars blow-up, that made it still part of the recent peak.

    In 2023 and 2024, and so far in 2025, there hasn't been anything that crazy and widespread. Only the assassination attempt on Trump in 2024, but it was a LOT crazier than that throughout 2020 and early 2021. And that example was strictly political, there wasn't the broader craziness and strife like one black actor blowing up at another black actor during the Oscars.

    Cancellations are less common, less powerful, and targeting less visible people. I can't say who the last major example was, though, to fine-tune the sense of when the last year of the 2020 peak was.

    Family drama, whether overtly political or not, also exploded from 2015 to the early 2020s. I haven't noticed it much in the past year or so, though.

    But at any rate, we're certainly past it by now, and during 2024, and I don't remember the peak-explosion vibe in 2023 either, but maybe it bled into '23 somewhat.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Watched the first episode of Dawson's Creek tonight. I never bothered with it during its original run, thinking it was a sappy or sentimental kind of show, but it's not at all -- it's much like Buffy the Vampire Slayer of the same time, and I *do* remember the exact same kids in my school being obsessed with both of those shows.

    Hyper-self-aware dialog, anti-naturalistic dialog, high schoolers talking with adult vocab and syntax, high schoolers using adult convo mannerisms (no awkward pauses, "like", and other things teens do while talking)...

    Not quite to mumblecore just yet, but the abstract and self-commenting dialog is delivered in fairly deadpan speech, compared to early-mid '90s teen shows. I haven't watched it yet, but I believe Buffy was heavier on the proto-mumblecore delivery, given how signature the emotionally uninvested monotone was for Sarah Michelle Gellar in whatever role she played, e.g. in Cruel Intentions of the same time. Her raspiness is verging on vocal fry as well -- again the late '90s being the proto-2000s rather than the final echo of the early or mid '90s. But back to Dawson's --

    Obsessive pop culture references for their own sake -- not to suggest that some scene in the episode is like some iconic movie, which is how Saved by the Bell, Clarissa Explains It All, and others played their pop culture references, as homages and tie-ins to the episode, not as an obsession that one or more of the characters have, not necessarily related to the events unfolding around them...

    Very obviously gay screenwriter (show creator and producer Kevin Williamson), insane number of references to penises, penis size, male masturbation, and other 5 year-old boy attempts at humor. Won't bother watching any of season 2 and after, when an openly gay character shows up, and there's the first gay male kiss in a primetime show. Not surprisingly, one of the actresses, Michelle Williams, starred in a later and also defining fujo-bait movie, Brokeback Mountain from 2006. But even without the openly gay characters, this first episode comes off very gay.

    The lead actor, James Van Der Beek, is also gay, though semi-closeted. Blind Gossip spilled the beans awhile ago, possibly having deleted those posts from the good ol' days (early 2010s). And it shows -- he has zero chemistry with either the childhood friend or the new girl at school.

    The childhood friend is played by Tom Cruise's future beard, Katie Holmes, who is forced to mouth all sorts of gay-brained dialog throughout the episode. Being of normal sexuality, she's better able to convey the tension of having been childhood friends with someone of the opposite sex, including regular co-ed sleepovers, and now potentially having romantic or sexual feelings for each other.

    But Dawson's actor being gay, and the openly gay screenwriter making Dawson semi-autobiographical, keeps Dawson from realistically feeling the same tension. Sam from Clarissa does not come off as gay, nor does his dialog, or his screenwriter. He's normal, likes girls, just not Clarissa in that way (and vice versa). Dawson, though, immediately gives off the gay BFF / gay eunuch vibe during the sleepover and visits-through-the-window with childhood girl friend Joey. There's no potential attraction he's pulling back from.

    At least in this episode, Joey doesn't come off as a fag hag, deliberately choosing a gay BFF in order to separate herself from the entire gender that she despises. More like the normal hormonal girl whose guy friend is, unknown to her, gay. IDK how their relationship evolves yet, though.

    ReplyDelete
  8. On the plus side, the cinematography is great for a teen show. It's getting toward the end of the neo-Impressionist style of the '90s, most evident in outdoor nature scenes during the daylight. Nice motivated chiaroscuro lighting in Dawson's room while Joey is sleeping over. Great seaside small town locations (Wilmington, NC). Nice set dressing, especially Dawson's room.

    And of course the iconic use of the ladder to enter a friend's personal room through the window. This trope is almost as common as it is in Clarissa, but with the sexes reversed -- Joey is the one who's always climbing up into Dawson's window.

    I just would have DIED if my girl best friend had shown up unannounced entering my personal room window, in high school. I totally would've left it open for her, too. And my room was located on the 2nd floor. Alas, it was only a pop culture trope...

    The music selection is good, although a little too intrusive -- another aspect of the creator being obsessed with pop culture per se, not just as a way to set the mood within the episode. The choices all work, they're just too frequent.

    Saved by the Bell and Clarissa and Pete and Pete avoided contempo pop music soundtracks, to their credit. My So-Called Life used popular rock of the time (and earlier songs that were still popular, like "Blister in the Sun"), but not as intrusively and overly eagerly.

    The best use in this episode was "As I Lay Me Down" by Sophie B. Hawkins, while Dawson and the new girl Jen are lounging on a dock or bridge, legs dangling over the side, watching the water flow, and getting over the anxiety of getting to know each other by doing so in such a relaxing setting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Also, they make the childhood friend into a mean girl / frenemy with the new girl. I never liked that character type, and now that I'm reliving the culture of the peak of social harmony, from only a few years earlier, it leaves an even worse taste in my mouth.

    Joey is not even a clique gatekeeper like a senior member of the cheerleader squad (a la Bring It On), she's not the Queen Bee (a la Mean Girls), or anything like that. She's pretty low on the totem pole in school, and in the neighborhood. Yet even she is leading the way away from the peak of social harmony, and toward cattiness and bitchiness and competitiveness -- another facet of it being a gay script.

    And to reiterate, not just bitchiness across cliques, like tribalism -- but toward those within the same clique, AKA frenemies. After the most recent peak of social chaos that we just lived through, I think we've had enough of frenemy behavior for the rest of our lives -- IRL or in culture.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Overall, didn't love it, didn't hate it. There are much better '90s teen shows to watch, and this is more of a proto-2000s show anyway. I'll probably watch a few more episodes of the 1st season, before it starts getting really bad.

    I really wanted to like this, and went into it having discovered that it made such extensive use of the "friends visiting rooms via ladder at the window" trope. And expecting it, as I did in high school, to be a sentimental show like Party of Five or My So-Called Life or others that got their start several years earlier.

    But it's really more like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, except not supernatural, and set in a vintage-y small town, rather than suburban L.A.

    I think Buffy also erred on the side of yuri-bait rather than fujo-bait like Dawson's is setting up to be. So maybe I'd like Buffy more, or hate it less, than Dawson's Creek. Also it debuted a year earlier, in '97, so it may have a lesser degree of "proto-2000s-ness" that I dislike about Dawson's.

    I'll probably watch that show's first episode next, and decide which to investigate further.

    Still enjoying Pete and Pete, and Clarissa Explains It All, more than the late '90s stuff. I've already gotten absorbed into My So-Called Life so many times from the original run onward. Maybe Party of Five, for another mid-'90s show? I wonder if they had a friend entering the personal room window in that show? I never watched that when it was originally on, and it is definitely a sincere and sentimental show, not hyper-self-aware. We'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Also, Jen is a confrontational atheist type, from the get-go. She's staying with her grandparents, the grandfather becoming an invalid, and the grandmother being a caring and concerned surrogate mother -- but who is socially conservative and church-going, although not in a fiery Bible-thumping way. Just your typical conservative normie grandma.

    The grandma wants Jen to join her in church every Sunday, again not in a threatening authoritarian way -- just like, "This is how we live around here, so you'll be harmonious and join us in the church-going lifestyle every Sunday, like a good acquiescent guest."

    Oh no, Jen is having NONE of that -- she snarkily dismisses the possibility, using the term "atheist" to describe her individual identity, which is more important than social harmony. Any atheist can humor their well-meaning and caring grandma, whose husband is slipping away from life in the next room, by going to church once a week.

    But no, Jen has to make it all about herself, introduce conflict where none should exist, act in bad faith, assume the worst, and be as anti-charitable to the other side as possible. As with the frenemy phenomenon, this isn't even toward some out-group rival -- it's her own loving grandma!

    It could be a tiny little wrinkle that they smooth over through compromise on both sides, like "I'll go to church, but won't pray -- okay, I'll sing the hymns, but I won't really mean it internally" or something. Instead, Jen makes a mountain out of a molehill -- and that's a common and pervasive behavior during the rising-strife phase.

    Taking a small conflict and amplifying it and blowing it up, deliberately, enjoying the drama and strife and competition and one-upsmanship. Rather than trying to dampen it, smooth it over, either compromising or just agreeing to disagree and letting bygones be bygones.

    I noticed that like crazy while browsing clips from Married with Children -- it's a typical dysfunctional family atmosphere, and yet the parents don't get divorced, kick their kids out of the house, or even blow up yelling and screaming and belittling their kids, or the kids doing so in the other direction.

    They just accept the fact that they have their differences with each other, and "Whaddaya gonna do about it, y'know?" Just let the matter drop, bury the hatchet, and ignore conflict or let bygones be bygones. "Family -- can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em".

    And sure enough, there are several episodes where the otherwise dysfunctional family bands together as a team, like when some girl at school humiliates Bud, and Kelly gets revenge against her on her little brother's behalf, despite normally not wanting to be associated with him cuz he's annoying and lower on the totem pole (at home and in school, where she's hot and popular).

    By the second half of the '90s, writing off interpersonal differences, in the interest of smoothing over contradictions, gets abandoned in favor of amplifying those differences so that the social fabric will be torn to pieces -- just collateral damage in the more important war of every man for himself, and having to gain the upper hand and notch a W / hand someone an L.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jen is not a rationalist skeptic fedora proto-Redditor kind of atheist. It's more about bristling at a social imposition and having to bend to social pressure. Given the gay background of the writer and producer, it comes off more as a rebellion against being told that who you are is wrong.

    But she's not portrayed as a lesbian or some other identity that Christianity says is unnatural, wrong, etc. So her rebelliousness and bristling is not motivated in the characterization. She's not a metalhead, biker slut, wiccan, or anything else like that.

    Just the typical pretty popular new girl that all the boys are noticing. Too big of a clash between her character's background and the kneejerk "fuck church" attitude, especially as it's splitting up her family rather than an innocuous thing like doodling an upside-down cross on her school binder or something.

    Even worse, in a derisive fake attempt at compromising with her grandma, Jen agrees to go to church -- if the grandma will say the word "penis". Again with the gay-brained attitude. The grandma is shocked, and obviously won't say it (against her attitude, plus she'd be ceding authority to an anti-social brat newcomer). Jen uses her grandma's unwillingness as a sign of lack of compromise on the other side, so why should Jen herself compromise?

    It's completely insane anti-social corrosion -- obviously it's harmless for you to just go to church, but scandalous and authority-mocking for the grandma to say the word "penis" just cuz you commanded her to.

    Jen sadistically enjoys making her grandma uncomfortable and trying to humiliate and disrespect her. Typical mean-girl behavior, and again within a social unit that's supposed to be guarded against that -- her own grandma, not some wicked stepmother who doesn't share her blood and is shutting her out from her father. A perfectly harmless and caring grandma -- that's who must be disrespected, humiliated, and cast out from her social circle.

    Typical gay-brained severing of family connections for those who don't accept you taking loads up the butt or chopping off your dick / tits, as though deviance were sacrosanct. Insane. And totally unmotivated by her character's background, so even worse in the context of the narrative.

    Needless to say, there are no main characters like this in the good ol' early and mid-'90s teen shows. Not even Jessie, the one who's the most liberal and activist-inclined from Saved by the Bell. Nor would Rayanne Graff, who's quite the wild-child. And certainly Clarissa would never. And Ellen from Pete and Pete would never. It's mind-blowing how anti-social and mean-spirited and hyper-competitive (socially) people became by the late '90s.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If there's a fedora Reddit atheist from the late '90s, it's probably on Buffy, since that was written by the bitter male nerd type (Joss Whedon), rather than the "how dare you tell me not to take loads up the butt?!" angsty gay type like Kevin Williamson.

    Needless to say, there were no fedora Reddit atheists in the early or mid-'90s teen shows. Screech could've been one if he'd debuted closer to 2000. Or Brian Krakow -- he fits the profile even better, but did not actually become a fedora skeptic atheist.

    He's also the profile for a bitter girl-hating incel, but did not actually behave that way -- he did fumble the ball by disrespecting the only girl who made a move on him, by selfishly trying to chase after his long-time delusional crush instead, but he still wasn't a bitter incel in his behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oddly enough, it looks like the actor who played Bud on Married with Children is gay. Image search David Faustino -- he's sporting a flaming severe sideways undercut, the distinctive gay whoosh hairdo of the 2010s. Nobody but homos had that haircut.

    He also has gay rictus smile -- sideways corners of the mouth, revealing the lower teeth, like a small child who's still psychologically -- and in this case, physically -- stuck in the "ewww, girls are yucky!" stage of development.

    He has no chemistry with his "wife", and is more like the gay BFF or kid brother.

    Bizarre to see -- he didn't come off that gay on Married with Children, although they frequently roasted him about making it with a girl instead of a guy. Perhaps during the rising-harmony phase, gays were better able to rein in their gayness and put on more convincing straight-face performances.

    Beginning with the Village People in the late '70s, whose whole novelty was adopting normie masculine stage personas to appeal to normie all-Americans, rather than the weird, gross, taboo-violating, shock-the-squares personas of homos from the '60s and early '70s (most notably in Andy Warhol and John Waters movies of that time, but also the Stonewall bar types).

    Tim Allen is also gay, and he was an icon of early to mid-'90s man's man characters from TV (Tim the Toolman Taylor, from Home Improvement). That peak of social harmony made them better able to straight-face their behavior. Nobody suspected he was gay at the time, not until the 2010s when they dropped all attempts to disguise themselves, as the social mood became strife-riven rather than harmonious.

    Since Bud was portrayed as unlucky in love, and not having a steady gf throughout the series, the actor being gay didn't impede the performance -- just the type of guy who *would* be fairly unnoticed and untouched by the girls.

    With Dawson, the actor being gay makes it unbelievable cuz the character is supposed to be popular with girls and experiencing sexual tension with his girl best friend, yet he comes off more like the gay BFF.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think a major sign of post-wokeness and the return to rising-harmony intead of strife, will be when the American president's leadership circle doesn't have any gays, whether out or closeted.

    Clinton was notoriously heterosexual, with Monica Lewinsky. Hillary being a lesbian mitigates that somewhat -- but she wasn't in an official leadership position, just the First Lady. Al Gore is likely gay, but could straight-face it pretty well in the mid-'90s (maybe not by the later '90s and early 2000s when he tried to get a leadership of his own).

    Bush Jr. and Cheney were not gay, despite the 2000s climate allowing for it. But the 2008 nominee was -- McCain. So even in the 2000s, albeit toward the end of the decade, there was a flamer as the top contestant from the Republican team.

    Of course, the other choice in 2008 was gay, Obama, who's all but come out of the closet since leaving office.

    Trump seemed to be a return to normal Republicans -- but he promoted his closeted gay son-in-law Jared Kushner to leadership positions in a variety of areas, especially Mid-East foreign policy. Ivanka is his beard.

    Biden was not gay, although a sex pest type, neither was Harris, although a good share of their cabinet probably was.

    Now with Trump back, Kushner has returned to influence, and J.D. Vance is the next closeted-gay-in-waiting for leadership, similar to McCain.

    By 2025, the vast majority of Republican influencers and media figures are gay, whether mainstream or edgelord. And unlike the '90s or 2000s, that now includes a handful of trannies on top of it.

    The Reagan era's dominant party has been the GOP, so realignment will swing that to the Democrats (or other left party that succeeds them). That won't happen unless they clear the leadership free of fags and trannies, signaling a post-woke -- perhaps anti-woke, but at least post-woke -- commitment to the electorate.

    That should've happened with Bernie, the post-woke left realigner from 2016 who was first thwarted in 2016, then shut out of the voting in 2020. He's a straight white man, and not a notorious sex pest either like Biden.

    Obviously it's too late for him specifically to play realigner, but his successor will also be a straight white man (non-sex-pest variety).

    Enough of the AIDS-ridden Republican party of the 21st century.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Returning to shows from the peak of social harmony, they often had episodes overtly criticizing hyper-competitiveness -- usually in the most obvious narrative context, sports.

    Ladybugs from '92 has this theme, which the coach makes explicit at the end, admonishing the "win at all costs" sponsor who wants his own daughter kicked off the field just cuz she's not a good player. "What's the point of being the best, if it brings out the worst in you?" Damn... And all sides eventually agree to pull the boy-in-a-wig off of the field, so that the girls soccer team wins on their merits.

    The Pete and Pete episode I watched last night, "Field of Pete" ('94), is the same, where a protoypically sinister yuppie Boomer (as in Ladybugs), who has "JUST WIN" tattooed across his knuckles, stoops to whatever low he can in order for his teen baseball team to win.

    Although some of the boys enjoy winning at any cost, eventually they decide that it's only worth winning if they play fair, and drop the hyper-competitiveness. They lose the championship game, but feel like they're still winners for having transcended the hyper-competitive yuppie Boomer grindset.

    At the opening of the decade, the 1990 episode of The Simpsons, "Dead Putting Society", pits Bart and the neighbor kid Todd against each other in a mini-golf competition. The hyper-competitive Boomer parents, Homer and Ned, decide to raise the stakes by wagering on it -- the losing side has to mow the lawn of the winning side while wearing their wife's dress. Ned doesn't like the term "loser," and they change it to "the boy who doesn't win".

    Although getting into the competitive spirit for awhile, eventually both Bart and Todd decide to dial down the temperature and bad blood, opting for an outright truce and forfeit the game, on both sides. Since neither side wins, both the fathers have to undergo the punishment of mowing the other's lawn in a dress. A send-up of the "win at all costs" attitude.

    I'm sure there are a zillion other examples, these are just a handful I came across recently. The social mood being near the peak of social harmony was not only pro-harmony, it was overtly anti-competitive.

    I'll add more examples if I remember them or stumble upon them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I've mentioned it before, but trash-talking among video game players used to be non-existent, even in direct player-vs-player contest kind of games like Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat.

    Maybe the occasional razzing or chuckle, but the arcade mood was so pro-social and anti-anti-social, you Millennials and Zoomers from the "screaming NIGGER / FAGGOT at some rando in an Xbox Live lobby in 2006" era, would not believe it. It was such a laid-back, good sportsmanship, too cool to get worked up like some hyper-active spazz, kind of environment.

    Not to say we didn't get invested in the competition, didn't try our best -- but not losing our cool, not being a sore loser or a poor winner. You would've gotten ostracized by the other kids in the arcade, or not invited back over to someone's house if it were on a home console (or if you were invited back over, he'd never want to play video games with you again).

    The whole "toxic gamer" type is just standard Millennial hyper-competitive, me-first bullshit. There were no toxic gamers from the late '70s through the mid-'90s. It's just a male-coded version of the mean-girl, another prototypically Millennial character.

    The attempt by woketards to ban toxic gamers from lobbies, on a woketard basis -- you can't say the gamer-word cuz that'll bring back chattel slavery for black Americans -- was insane, stupid, and ineffective. It was just a different form of hyper-competitiveness and winning at all costs, stooping to any low -- just hijack the moderator-and-above levels of the hierarchy, and shut out your ideological enemies.

    We'll know that the pendulum is swinging away from strife for real when the typical cool kids playing video games start to ostracize the tryhards, malders, and other toxic types. Not in a power-tripping, "I must win, you must lose" way, which is what hijacking the moderator role was. But in an egalitarian, peer-enforced way, where you just don't get invited to lobbies, or if there's no social credit score to warn them, the normie players just leave the lobby when you start acting like a spazz, and you never find anyone to play with.

    Game players have to start overtly making fun of the tryhard hyper-competitive types, too, to really enforce the new norms. And when they sense the temperature getting too hot, making efforts to dial it down, declare a truce, etc.

    I think that might have happened in the arcades in the good ol' days -- like a little handshake or "slap me some skin" gesture, to say "it's cool, let's move past it" if there was a friendly-fire incident in a co-op game, or if you accidentally violated some shared rule in a PvP game. Trying to put a lid on it, not crank up the gas.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Now I remember -- we went out of our WAY to apologize if, in a co-op game, we accidentally picked up a health recovery item, when the other player had a lower life bar and needed it more.

    Well, we also tried to avoid that by always checking the life bars and deciding who needed it more. As in, we spoke up verbally, not leaving it to an unspoken understanding. It was like calling a play -- "you need it more, you take it".

    But if we goofed and forgot to call it, or if it couldn't be avoided cuz an enemy hit us and we landed on top of the health item, or if the "pick up" and "attack" actions were the same button, and we accidentally picked up the health item while spamming attack nearby -- then we had to verbally apologize, say it was an accident or a brain fart, it won't happen again, etc. Maybe even a promise that "you can get the next two health items to make up for it".

    And with that, we moved on from the accident. The aggrieved party didn't stew in resentment, and the accidental offender didn't stew in "don't judge me" paranoia. We quickly made amends, and continued the joint task at hand -- killing the bad guys.

    I'm sure that in co-op games these days -- which are rarely played, due to hyper-competitiveness, but to the extent they are played -- gamers have a system of apologizing and making amends for such accidents against their teammates.

    However, I'm equally certain that the attitude is more anti-social, where the aggrieved party stews in resentment more after the supposed bury-the-hatchet moment, or gets angry or explodes at the offender when it first happens, or is the first to angrily demand that "you let me get the next two health items" -- whereas it would've been the offender to make that offer in the good ol' days, like begging forgiveness rather than having some demand barked out against them.

    And I'm sure the offender is more defensive and paranoid when they make a mistake -- "Goddamnit, now they're gonna think it was on purpose and hate me or punish me! Why can't they not be so judgemental, why can't they treat me nicely and assume the best instead of the worst???!!!" Or is more callous in agreeing to let the aggrieved party get the next two health items -- "yeah yeah yeah, obviously you'll get the next two items, I'm not an idiot, so just shut up about it already".

    Such a toxic attitude, even among supposed teammates -- let alone between members of rival teams. Just like with frenemies on the girl side, on the guy side there are gamers so toxic that they act that way toward supposed in-group members as well.

    Sad, pathetic, and by 2025 -- over it! The multiplayer setting will gradually return to the good-spirited camaraderie of the '80s and early '90s, and toxic gamers will become as reviled and ostracized as the freakshows of the late '60s and early '70s, by the '80s and early '90s.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To sum up the change in behavior when there's an accidental wrong, in the '80s and early '90s, the offender was first to speak up, and they made an offer of generosity -- "I'll let you get the next two health items," or "Let me pay you back for what I cost you". The aggrieved party accepted it. Generosity and acceptance. Everybody comes out a winner somehow.

    These days, well maybe changing now but as of the 2010s and early 2020s, the first to speak up was the aggrieved party, and they made a me-first demand or ultimatum -- "Let me get the next two health items, or else," "You better pay me back what you cost me". The offender acceded to this ultimatum. Demanding and folding. Scores must be settled, you dealt me an L so I must deal you an L as well. Everybody comes out a loser.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Final vignette of pre-toxic gamer culture. In the accidental friendly fire context, sometimes the offender would offer the aggrieved party to "hit me back" in order to equalize the harm, but in a spirit of generosity rather than vindictiveness -- as if the aggrieved party didn't wait for that offer, but chased after the offender and dealt them as much friendly fire damage as they'd been dealt, to settle the score.

    Note that this lowers their ability to take on their common enemy, the bad guys. One person has lower health due to friendly fire -- why try to take on the enemy with even less healthy characters, by letting the aggrieved player deal some friendly fire damage to the offender?

    If the main goal were to defeat the enemies, this strategy was not usually taken -- both sides can see that settling personal scores weakens their collective team vs. the enemy, so they just make do with apologies and promises not to do it again and letting them get the next two health items, etc.

    But if they weren't that invested in beating the game, or if it were only a matter of time and quarters before they beat the game, then having the optimal health status of the team wasn't so important. You were going to beat the game no matter what, why try to minmax your collective health by preventing the "hit me back" strategy. So in that case, they might decide that defusing a potential interpsonal beef was worth it, and go for the "I accidentally hit you, I'll let you hit me back" approach.

    It's a quick way to equalize the situation, bury the hatchet, and leave no cause for resentment, moving past it and letting bygones be bygones. Maybe an occasion to chuckle about it, equally, since both sides had to take a little hit from the other player.

    But not continuing the cycle in a vindictive feud. That was pretty rare, and only happened if one of the players was an annoying immature little brother, playing on a home console. Oh God, Double Dragon II in friendly-fire mode, with a bratty immature little brother -- that could've easily descended into the two heroes beating each other up and getting a game over, well before the bad guys could have wiped them out.

    But in general, that was not the climate of co-op gaming where friendly fire was possible. And like I said, it would've meant ostracizing the poor sport -- "No, I'm not playing Double Dragon II with you anymore, cuz you always get vindictive and we just end up killing each other off faster than the enemies can!"

    Ah, the good ol' days...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Agent Dana Scully -- Manic Pixie Dream Girl? Just watched the pilot of The X-Files, and couldn't help but wonder if Gillian Anderson was born during the manic phase of the 15-year cultural excitement cycle. Sure enough, she was -- late '60s. The X-Files debuted during the restless phase, early '90s.

    This sets up the possibility of an MPDG role for her, and I got the hint of it during this one episode. We'll see how it progresses, or does not.

    I was struck by how different she is from Jodie Foster's portrayal of Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs, from 1991, who the Scully character is clearly inspired by.

    And yet, Scully is a lot more spontaneously smiley and giggly than Starling. She really picks up Mulder's spirits here and there.

    OK, so it's not in the context of his love life. It's more about his career and crusade -- he starts out down in the dumps, persecuted / wrangled / dismissed by his superiors. She's initially sent to further debunk his wild-eyed beliefs and claims -- and yet she starts to semi-believe his views herself.

    She has to write down these confirmations, pieces of evidence, and so on, in her official field reports. That confirming 2nd opinion is just what Mulder needs to feel vindicated, taken seriously, and appreciated as a true investigator who she encourages -- or at least, doesn't discourage -- and not as some crank who needs to be shut down.

    You can really see his smile light up when she appears to give him the benefit of the doubt, or humor him during some crazy chain of speculation. He's beaming because *finally* someone is taking his worldview seriously, indeed someone who's supposed to be inclined against those views -- making her humoring of him all the more validating and encouraging.

    As in many MPDG movies or TV show episodes, the man is full of boyish wonder deep down, but gets beaten down by the grown-up sensible world. She seems to be part of that conspiracy to crush his boyish wonder -- the cold clinical schoolmarm. When she begins going along with his views, even just for the sake of argument, that's like the schoolteacher humoring the fantastical views of one of her elementary school students.

    Wow, she seemed like she was gonna be just another wet blanket martinet kind of teacher, but she's really letting me use my imagination and pursue my own interests!

    The MPDG role fits better with their age difference, too. If she's the supervisor / tard wrangler, why is she 8 years younger than him? They should've sent somebody who could project more authority and seniority.

    But if her role -- as determined by the screenwriters, not by her bosses' wishes within the show itself -- is to be an MPDG, then her being 8 years younger, good-looking, and at least occasionally smiley and giggly, makes total sense.

    I can sense where their relationship is going to go -- she's no longer a tard wrangler, but more of a guide or nurse or encourager, an earthly guardian angel, boosting his confidence and strengthening his resilience, to keep him from wallowing in the depths that she found him in.

    Maybe they will, maybe they won't -- although regardless of that, the sad sack and the MPDG rarely stay together through the end of the movie.

    Lots of other things to say about this episode, but much of it's probably already been said about a hit show that's had 30 years of commentary.

    But I'll bet no one's ever noticed how much of an MPDG Agent Scully is before -- that's why you've made the trek up the Cliffs of Wisdom in the ruins of the blogosphere. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  22. To reiterate a crucial part about the MPDG (you can browse through my whole series on the topic, starting in 2019, IIRC, and going through 2020, with various later comments):

    It's not about her personality, personal style, etc. It's not an individual trait, like eccentric personality or off-the-wall fashion sense.

    It's about her relationship to the protag, and how they interact, or what role she plays in his life to advance the plot.

    There are MPDG's who aren't eccentric off-the-wall types -- like Kirsten Dunst's character in Elizabethtown. Or, going back to iconic sci-fi TV of the early '90s, Famke Janssen's character in "The Perfect Mate" episode of Star Trek: TNG.

    So, no, it doesn't matter that Scully doesn't have a quirky bohemian fashion sense, or that she isn't a perpetually bubbly free spirit, or that she doesn't spell her name with alternating upper and lower case letters with a great big heart drawn around it.

    It's the role she plays in the sad sack's life, and how that advances the plot and drives his character development, going from sad sack to confident achiever, after her caring and thoughtful and sincere encouragement.

    And at least so far -- could change, we'll see -- she is totally set up to serve as an MPDG for Mulder, whatever her other roles in the show may be.

    So many wonderful MPDG's from the 1990-'94 restless phase -- Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, Sarah Jessica Parker in L.A. Story, Famke Janssen in TNG, and perhaps after the right commentator notices her, Agent Scully from X-Files! ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sevina Sevus3/8/25, 5:33 PM

    How does the harmony V chaos cycle relate to the outgoing V cocooning and dangerous V safe cycle you articulated earlier? I think those posts are absolutely brilliant, so I’d like to know how this fits with that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well for one thing they're separate cycles, and they have different periods. The harmony cycle is 50 years long, while the crime / cocooning cycle is 60 years (30 years in each direction).

    So they don't always sync up with each other. When they do sync up, you can't tell which one is causing the pro-social or anti-social behavior. They both led in the same direction, maybe even reinforce / add / multiply / compound each other.

    Like the '80s -- it was both an outgoing phase of the crime / cocooning cycle, and a harmonious phase of the harmony cycle. One of the most carefree times ever.

    Or in the other direction, the 2010s -- it was both a cocooning phase of the crime / cocooning cycle, and a chaotic phase of the harmony cycle. One of the most neurotic times ever.

    Some periods are pulled in opposite directions, like the first half of the '90s -- cocooning had already set in, yet it was rising toward the peak of social harmony.

    Or in the other direction, the first half of the '70s -- outgoing (beginning in the '60s), but plunging into the depths of social chaos.

    Which cycle is more influential than the other? IDK, you'd have to look domain by domain and see if there's a consistent answer. Maybe in some domains, the harmony cycle's phase matters more, in other domains, the cocooning cycle's phase matters more.

    But it is important to keep in mind that there are multiple forces at work in social and cultural outcomes. The first half of the '90s was cocooning, yet it was a socially harmonious form of cocooning -- the 2010s were a strife-riven form of cocooning. The first half of the '70s and the '80s were both outgoing, but the former was a strife-riven form of outgoing-ness, while the '80s was a socially harmonious form of outgoing-ness.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As for specific domains, trust-based high-energy dances seem to reflect mostly / only the harmony cycle. It really is shocking to see such acrobatic and frenetic dance styles coming out of the '30s and '40s, since that was mostly a cocooning phase. But it was a rising-harmony phase for the other cycle.

    And then, boom, declines like crazy during the '50s, and is all but gone during the '60s. The '60s had tons of dance fads, but they weren't trust games, and not very high-energy like the swing-related dances of the '30s and '40s. Not even necessarily partner dances -- solo dances became popular, too.

    The trend toward acrobatic, trust game, high-energy dancing didn't really erupt again until disco in the late '70s, and the seminal Xanadu, whose music and choreography revived pre-rock / pre-'50s styles. What a heady reminder of how things used to be!

    That continued throughout the '80s and a good part of the '90s, although mainly in new styles that were still increasingly acrobatic and trust-game-like, but sometimes reviving the good ol' days of swing.

    Then by the late '90s, and certainly during the 2000s and 2010s, those crazy dances just went up in a puff of smoke. Dancing retreated to being low-trust couples dances (like grinding -- no chance of anyone falling off their balance), or solo dances (twerking, akin to '60s go-go dancing). No more group dances like the conga -- or the "freak line" from the '90s.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I still can't find any documentation about the freak line dance, but it was real. Maybe that was just from the single middle school that I went to, during that one exact year. Would've been... fall of '92, 6th grade, in suburban DC. But I doubt it was that narrow in time and place.

    How was it done? It was like two conga lines that faced each other, so that the two people in the center were face-to-face instead of facing the same direction, and both sides were stationary rather than walking / dancing around the floor.

    It started with a guy and girl facing each other, with their hands on each others hips, keeping their feet mostly planted, maybe swaying back-and-forth with their upper legs or hips. More movement than a slow-dance embrace, less movement than a conga.

    Then when someone else wanted to join, they just got in behind someone who was already there, with the sexes alternating. As with the conga, maybe there could've been two girls adjacent -- they don't mind that, but two dudes being adjacent -- no way. Same movement as the original two -- hands on the hips of the person in front, feet mostly planted, just kinda swaying to the rhythm while standing in the line, waiting until someone gets in behind you.

    We didn't get close enough to actually be grinding on each other, but we didn't have our arms fully extended as though we were our own chaperones. That's the other benefit of the hands going on the hips -- since they're lower than the shoulders, even fully extending your arms means they don't go as far away horizontally, when they're on the hips.

    And our arms were bent at the elbow, knees were a little bent and bouncy too. Just relaxing kind of posture. So that ended up placing us within 1 foot of the people in front and behind us, roughly.

    I don't know who made this dance up, or if we borrowed it from an older sibling, or the older students modeled it for us, or what. All I know is that it's clearly modeled on the conga, as part of the society-wide conga craze of that time. It's just making two lines meet face-to-face, and keeping both lines fairly still -- since they're facing opposite directions and can't follow the same lead anyway.

    This was all the rage, the thing we were most fascinated by, the most anxious to jump into, and the biggest rush we felt once we swallowed our pride and took the plunge!

    The fuh-REAK line... ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  27. We also did trust game dances like "stage" diving at middle school dances in the early '90s. This would've been fall '92 through spring of '95, sometime in there.

    Well, sometimes we would even do it when there was *no* school dance at all, just for the fun of it, heheh. But it was REQUIRED at a school dance -- how could we not?

    Since the dance was held in the cafeteria, there were some cafeteria tables along the perimeter of the room. The stage diver climbed up onto the table top, probably just 3 feet off the ground. Then a group of at least 4, ideally 6 or 8, form two side-lines, facing a partner, whose hands or arms they reach out and hold tightly, creating a safety net of arms for the diver to jump onto.

    Then, blammo! Dive off the table and get caught by your friends' safety net of arms. ^_^ Naturally they would get dragged down somewhat, we weren't Olympic athletes in upper body strength. But nobody ever got hurt. And there were girls among the catchers, too, and even occasionally among the divers -- the baddie type, the same type that would later go crowd-surfing at concerts.

    Actually, girls being among the catchers -- don't they do that at those gymnastic types of cheerleading these days? Well, you didn't have to be a cheerleader back then, you could've been any ol' girl who wanted to break the fall of a daredevil friend.

    Those were always the highlights of the dance for me -- stage-diving (in either role), and the freak line. Couple dances were nice, but not as nice as the freak line. And then there were solo dances like headbanging to the hard rock / grunge songs. We could never get a mosh pit going there, though -- that would've been a social trust game kind of group dance. That was more for concerts.

    What if we took turns catching each other's fall while stage-diving inside the middle school dance...? haha... jk... unless...? ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  28. OK, I'm gonna cheat and give you guys a sneak-peek at one of the iconic examples I'm going to highlight of crowd-surfing from the early '90s, before the full post goes up.

    Fans of actual rap will remember this, it was in constant rotation on MTV, as was the song on the radio. I had the tape of that album!

    "Slam" by Onyx (1993):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ADgCeYJMN4

    Every member of the group is shown crowd-surfing during the entirety of their verse, staring up at the bird's-eye camera. And there's plenty of stage-diving shown as well.

    Other rap songs showed stage-diving or crowd-surfing, but I think this was the first, and the other were following its lead. As Onyx themselves mention, they were taking their cue from the music video for "Smells Like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana. Something badass, while still maintaining that camaraderie among the fans, which crowd-surfing embodied.

    There's nothing rock or metal or alt or grunge about the music, beat, or lyrics -- it's a straight-up rap song. And yet due to the video, it crossed over like crazy to the headbanging audience (metal band Biohazard makes a cameo in the video, not just fellow rappers). Also, sub-cultures were not segregated back then, everyone was familiar with everything, even if they had a favorite scene.

    Whenever that song came on during a school dance, it was us headbanger types who got riled up the most, jumping around, headbanging, trying to get a mosh pit started, never getting taken up on that offer, so making a bee-line for the tables to indulge in some stage-diving!

    Rap used to be pretty badass, and favoring group trust games for their "choreo". But then, it was only natural in the good ol' days...

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."