# When did the "decline" start, and are we still in "decline"?



## BryanMaloney (Jun 4, 2013)

Most of us are already aware of the Masonic Service Association of North America's (MASANA) informative date. Web sites and publications have referred to it in order to show the decline of membership for Freemasonry in the USA. I have also posted on this data, specifically to point out how interpretations change depending on how deeply one delves. First, the simplest look at the data is the image that most people who look at the issue of Freemasonry membership are familiar with.




The total number of Master Masons (Fig. 1) appears to show that Freemasonry in the USA reached a high point in 1959 and has been declining ever since. Such a presentation, although popular, is quite deceptive, since the US population was also increasing at a great rate in the decades immediately after the Second World War.



Thus, when adjusting for population (Fig. 2), the result presents a different picture. Freemasonry had its highest population-adjusted membership (within the years surveyed) in 1927, with a temporary reversal of losses that ended in 1959 but never made its way back up to former levels. This difference between raw counts and population-adjusted counts may, in and of itself, be important, since it suggests that nostalgia for â€œglory daysâ€ of the 1950s may actually be ill-founded. What is more informative than counts if we are looking at membership trends is how membership changes. That is, the slope of the membership curve.



Differentiating the population-adjusted figures finds rates of change (slopes of the curve) in membership (Fig. 3). The differentiation result is particularly informative. 



The various inflections, combined with more raw membership data, suggest the possibility of dividing 20th and early 21st century Freemasonry in the USA into five periods (Fig. 4). The first of these I call the "Great Collapse". Freemasonry in the USA had its fastest rate of loss, without exception, at least for the period covered. This was followed by the "Great Recovery", in which the losses of the Great Collapse began to be reversed almost as fast as they had occurred. The next period I call the "Great Complacency". On the surface, merely looking at raw counts of Master Masons, things looked great. There was nothing to worry about. However, looking a little deeper showed that Freemasonry's penetration into the population of the USA as a whole had never returned to pre-Great Depression levels, and looking at the rates of change for Master Masons per population showed that much of the "golden age" was actually a time of loss of growth that linearly slid into decline almost as extreme as the decline of the Great Collapse. The long period after the Great Complacency I call "Moribund Stagnation". That is, while Freemasonry was in a state of decline, the rate of decline was at least constant instead of getting progressively worse, year after year. Finally, the possibility of a "Recovery?" may be present in the data. Although counts of Master Masons and of Master Masons per population still drop annually, the rate at which they drop has been growing less severe.

To look at these phases in more detail, It is true that freemasonry in the USA has been in unremitting membership decline (slope less than zero) for several decades, but actual decline (slope less than zero) in terms of Master Masons vs. population began in 1955, four years before the highest raw count of Master Masons was achieved. What is also noteworthy are four inflection points in the slopes, occuring at 1933, 1946, 1961, and 1993. In 1933, the Great Decline reversed itself. Matters improved from 1933 to 1946, when membership decline rapidly slowed and then reversed to growth. However, in 1946, the trend underwent another drastic reversal.

The year 1946 had the greatest increase of Master Masons, but things went downhill from that point, onward. The trend sharply declined, even if the numbers and population-adjusted numbers still increased. In essence, the â€œglory daysâ€ of 20th century Freemasonry were actually little more than a few years, 1941â€“1946, when numbers were growing and the growth trend was not plummeting. What is interesting is that this does not mesh well with many current hypotheses to explain changes in membership. The conventional explanation for membership drops and gains in Freemasonry of the early 20th century has been that the Great Depression drove men away from the Craft, and this was reversed when GIs coming home after the war sought to continue their military comaraderie. In actuality, watever early-century decline in Masonic membership began before the stock market crash of 1929 and had reversed itself after 1933. Freemasonry had already been recovering for several years before the USA entered the Second World War. Growth was almost explosive throughout the war, but the the trend catastrophically reversed by 1946. Residual effect produced gains in both numbers and population-adjusted numbers, but growth had begun to decline before the 1950s had even started and slipped into decline by 1955. Thus, whatever had driven the amazing resurgence of American Freemasonry in the middle of the 20th century was already half a decade gone when the 1950s had started.

In 1961, the precipitous collapse of Freemasonry essentially ended, replaced by a relatively constant state of decline, in which the Craft essentially coasted downhill. It would not be unreasonable to propose that nothing done between 1961 and 1993 had any significant effect for good or ill on Craft participation. Freemasonry in the USA had settled into a state of steady decay, as constant as a radioactive half-life. Around 1993, the trend appears to have once again reversed, although far more moderately than before. Instead of the constant rate of loss that had been the regime for the previous generation, nationwide rate of loss of Master Masons (population adjusted) began to ease. By 2010, the rate of loss had dropped to about one third the loss rate of the stagnation generation (1961â€“1993).

Conventional models of â€œwhat workedâ€ for Freemasonry in the 20th century may very well be entirely wrong. First, the period of greatest growth began before the USA had entered the Second World War. This period ended a year after the war. By the time the majority of GI Generation Master Masons had been elevated, decline had already set in, even if it was not superficially apparent. The 1950s was not a golden age, it was merely gilded. While Freemasonry became â€œlargerâ€, under the surface it was drastically already in decline. By the time the 1960s appeared, the Craft in the USA had essentially entered a holding pattern, sustained in a constant downward spiral.

Whatever brought men into Freemasonry in the early 20th century was already in place in the USA before any enforced camaraderie of the Second World War. Large numbers of men were also inducted into the military for the Korean and Viet Nam conflicts, but these eras did not see even tiny spikes in Master Masons. The â€œGI hypothesisâ€ simply does not fit deeper analysis of the data. It is not doubted that shared hardship can create fraternity. However, it is also an unfortunately common presumption that nothing in history is important except warfare. Thus, we are taught to classify American history by our wars, as if nothing else important ever happens in the USA other than warfare.

Shared American hardship in the early 20th century did not begin in December of 1941. An even deeper shared trauma began in 1929. This refers, of course, to the Great Depression. This was a shared experience that overturned our entire culture and led to mass cooperative efforts that essentially set the stage for what the USA was able to do during the Second World War. Thus, in opposition to the â€œGI hypothesisâ€, a more prosaic social and economic hypothesis could be considered. The year 1933 marks the low point of the Great Depression in the USA. In terms of both gross domestic product per person, employment, and real-dollar wages, the USA improved from 1933, onward. More men were working and more men had money.

The popular depiction of the Great Depression has been that it was â€œendedâ€ by the Second World War. The recovery for the USA was actually nearly complete by the time America entered that conflict. Likewise, it is almost a truism that shared hardship can bring forth fraternity, but the Great Depression was, itself, a trauma, one that spread throughout the USA. While Americaâ€™s World War experience in the 1940s certainly cemented matters, the Great Depression likely had as much of a social effect as did the war. That is, the â€œGI hypothesisâ€ overstates the effect of military service and ignores other economic and social factors. This is not to deny any effect of shared military service. Without the war experience, the collapse of 1946 may have happened earlier.

Alternatively, while bonds forged during economic and social rebuilding from the Great Depression may have been stabilizing, the effects of the post-war economic boom were highly destabilizing for the USA. That is to say, the economic recovery of the USA essentially required building communitiesâ€”restoring the daily business of life. The World War experience threw men together in crisis, then removed the crisis. Once the crisis was gone, the primary motivation for camaraderie was also gone. The daily business of life quickly assumed more importance than did the military experience. Even contemporary entertainment of the day noticed this post-war trend, such as Irving Berlin's White Christmas.

The Great Recovery is followed by the Great Complacency. During this era (1946â€“1961), things looked excellent, but only on the surface. The number of Master Masons was increasing to unprecedented levels (so long as one ignored the total size of the USAâ€™s population). Membership levels only improving (so long as one ignored the fact that rates of change were already in extremely steep decline). Freemasonry in the USA was building ever-larger institutional charities and having an unprecedented social impactâ€”this time free of the strident anti-masonry of the Know Nothings era. However, as has already been mentioned, decline had set in before it was immediately visible. The rate of membership change started dropping after 1946, and it fell nearly as rapidly as at any other time in the period studied. 

The model I present precludes many hypotheses to explain the decline in Masonic membership. First, if the â€œrot at the rootâ€ actually began before the 1950s, any model based on social changes that occurred in that or a later decade cannot be valid. Post-1950s cultural upheavals may have contributed to the decline (but see the â€œMoribund Stagnationâ€, herein), but they could not have initiated it. The cause of a disorder cannot occur after the disorder. Thus any hypothesis to explain the Great Decline will have to look at Freemasonry and society in the late 1940s and early 1950s, right in the middle of the conventially-accepted â€œgolden ageâ€. What did Freemasonry do at that point that it had not done before? How did it change, and how did it respond to changes in American society. Such questions require more in-depth knowledge of the history of American Freemasonry than I have, but other authors with the requisite knowledge have proposed potentially workable hypotheses, although their hypotheses are based on the more conventional chronology.

The Great Complacency is followed by the Moribund Stagnation. This period (1961â€“1993) is the era in which Freemasonry visibly declined by any measure of decline. Total Master Masons declined; Master Masons vs. population declined; and the rate of change was relentlessly negative. However, it was also relentlessly constant. That is, while membership was in constant decline, the rate of decline did not change. This calls into question those models that indulge in denunciation of the 1960s as a time when all things good were destroyed, an unfortunately popular pastime among men over a certain age. Freemasonry did decline, but it appears to have coasted in decline. Whatever mechanisms that harmed Freemasonry were already strongly in place by 1961. If the 1960s truly were such a time of disastrous upheaval for Freemasonry, then decline in numbers should not have been so constant. Instead, it would have been marked by ever-snowballing collapse, as was seen during the Great Complacency of the 1950s. If anything, the 1950s was when any dysfunction would have entered the Craft, since it was when the second collapse began.

What happened in the 1960s is more reminiscent of a lingering illness rather than a catastrophe. However, since the decline is superficially visible starting in 1960, the 1960s and later eras are, somewhat blindly, given the blame. No consideration is made of the possibility that what happened on the surface in the 1960s and afterwards may be the product of earlier deep trends.

The final period, â€œRecovery?â€ could be viewed with cautious optimism. While both absolute and population-adjusted numbers of Master Masons still is declining, the rate of decline has slowed and continues to slow on an annual basis. Indeed, if this trend continues, the possibility exists that numbers of Master Masons could begin to rise by as early as 2022, although this would be an optimistic extrapolation. In essence, something appears to have happened in the early 1990s that may have reversed a generationâ€™s downward spiral, although any reversal is very modest.

Where to go from here? I am not a mover or shaker, but my model is something that others with far more knowledge and influence could potentially use for the good of the Craft in the USA.


----------



## crono782 (Jun 4, 2013)

Thanks for this excellent post! Very informative and well thought out. 


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 4, 2013)

Wonderful analysis Bryan!

Before I petitioned I looked for demographic data going back as far as I could find.  What I found was well over two centuries of data New Hampshire.  When I dived the population of Masons by the total population I saw a trend of rising and falling popularity that lasted about a century.  Unfortunately I've since worked the same with Illinois and the result was not nearly as clear.  The curve resembled what you reported not what had happened in New Hampshire.

I took my degrees in 1992-3 thinking that the previous peak had been roughly 50 years before.  So I expected that most Masons had seen decline their entire masonic lives.  I did not worry because I thought I knew about the century long trend.  I figured I would see decades of steadily increasing petition rates and more and more degrees.  Any lodge that survived the bottom would eventually flourish.  My first time through the line (in California) we absorbed several failing lodges.  My second time through the line (in Illinois) we struggled to stay functioning.  We ended up being absorbed by another lodge.

A shake down is happening on a scale of decades.  Some lodges fail to get candidates and have to consolidate.  Some lodges get many candidates and thrive.  We are seeing more and more degrees.

Why is the trend happening?  Being a data guy I see the data but the data does not explain itself.  I think decades from now the current generation will be called the "life balance generation".  They grew up seeing guys in my generation be workaholics and rarely joining lodge.  They don't want that.  So here they come in their droves.  Whatever it is they want at lodge work to serve them by supplying that.


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 4, 2013)

crono782,

I love your avatar.  I like to say "On the one hand a mind is like a parachute.  It only works when open.  On the other hand please not so open you brain falls out onto the sidewalk in front of you".


----------



## chrmc (Jun 4, 2013)

Good analysis. The one thing I however would caution about is to equate high membership numbers with good masonry, or masonic success. 
Personally I'd rather take a small number of true masonic brethren any day, than a large number of men that should never have been admitted. 

But the analysis is interesting to at least see what attracted previous generations.


----------



## jwhoff (Jun 4, 2013)

chrmc said:


> Good analysis. The one thing I however would caution about is to equate high membership numbers with good masonry, or masonic success.
> Personally I'd rather take a small number of true masonic brethren any day, than a large number of men that should never have been admitted.
> .




You may most definitely ... say that again!

Ancient initiates were never more than a few in number.  But, man oh man, did they every pack a punch.


----------



## JJones (Jun 4, 2013)

Very interesting!



> Where to go from here? I am not a mover or shaker, but my model is something that others with far more knowledge and influence could potentially use for the good of the Craft in the USA.



May I ask what part of Texas you're in?  If you're ever close by I would love to ask you to give a presentation on this at our lodge.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Jun 5, 2013)

In regards to the original post, yes we are still in a decline. In my Jurisdiction (Texas), I believe that a significant loss of membership will occur over the next 5-10, not to mention the numerous Lodges that will eventually demise. That being said, it may be a good thing. I've been to a handful of Lodges that were an embarrassment to the Craft. One in particular was so run down, the meetings were held around a small table in the kitchen!


----------



## widows son (Jun 5, 2013)

*When did the &quot;decline&quot; start, and are we still in &quot;decline&quot;?*

Great stuff Brother. From what I've been told by numerous experienced brethren, my jurisdiction is on the increase and my lodge alone has had 9 guys including myself get initiated.


----------



## dew_time (Jun 5, 2013)

*Re: When did the &quot;decline&quot; start, and are we still in &quot;decline&quot;?*



widows son said:


> Great stuff Brother. From what I've been told by numerous experienced brethren, my jurisdiction is on the increase and my lodge alone has had 9 guys including myself get initiated.



The lodge I'm going into just initiated 17 men. Its not in Texas but it counts just the same, lol.

Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## Tx4ever (Jun 5, 2013)

Texas counts dual members twice, I know a  Tx mason who is a member of 52 lodges . so the actual number of Texas Masons will be quite smaller. My lodge has dropped in numbers from around 500 members in 1960, to around 200 today. We are seeing a steady influx of younger men interested in masonry , But sadly not keeping up with the brothers we are losing to death.


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 5, 2013)

JJones said:


> If you're ever close by I would love to ask you to give a presentation on this at our lodge.



Bryan,

Please submit this as a paper at Texas Lodge of Research!


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jun 6, 2013)

Blake Bowden said:


> In regards to the original post, yes we are still in a decline. In my Jurisdiction (Texas), I believe that a significant loss of membership will occur over the next 5-10, not to mention the numerous Lodges that will eventually demise. That being said, it may be a good thing. I've been to a handful of Lodges that were an embarrassment to the Craft. One in particular was so run down, the meetings were held around a small table in the kitchen!




I'm currently doing a demographic model of the MASANA numbers by Grand Lodge for the year 2010 (because it's the latest year for which accurate numbers for religious adherence in the USA are available from another source). Texas is actually doing better than the baseline model. What that bodes for Freemasonry in the USA in general, I can't say.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jun 6, 2013)

jwhoff said:


> You may most definitely ... say that again!
> 
> Ancient initiates were never more than a few in number.  But, man oh man, did they every pack a punch.



If we just look at the USA, "ancient" goes back no more than a few centuries, and it seems that they were often more than a few in number.


----------



## cemab4y (Jun 6, 2013)

What an excellent presentation. (FYI: I used to work for the US Census Bureau in statistical data collection and analysis). The "raw" numbers look just awful. And the larger Grand Lodges show the largest declines (California, Texas,etc). When 48 out of 51 Grand Lodges show a decline, then it is safe to say that Freemasonry is in decline in the USA. (And Canadian Grand Lodges are shrinking fast as well!). I have belonged to two lodges in the past, that had to close and consolidate. Gone with the wind, never to return.

What frightens me, is that the average age of Freemasons, is advancing. When the average age of an organization is 68, and the human life span in 73, then in five years, you are in a world of hurt.

I have discussed this topic here, and on different boards for many years. Most masons just "pooh-pooh" the whole concept, and say that Masonry is just fine, and everything is just "peachy-keen". They often say "My lodge had two new EAs last year, so Masonry nationwide is fine, and there is no need to worry".


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jun 8, 2013)

I'm not planning on submitting this to any formal journal very soon, since it is only one of three models that I am making. The first is what I have posted. The second is an ANCOVA followed by hierarchical and k-mediods clustering of individual Grand Lodge data for 2002-2010. The third model is a demographic regression for Grand Lodges in 2010. The comments here have helped.


----------



## Roy Vance (Jun 9, 2013)

JJones said:


> Very interesting!
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask what part of Texas you're in? If you're ever close by I would love to ask you to give a presentation on this at our lodge.



Brother Jones, I believe he is in Rockport, Texas, which is located on the coastal bend, just Northeast of Corpus Christi.


----------



## BillyWaltmon (Jun 10, 2013)

A lodge must offer the Brethren something more than just a place to meet once or twice a week to eat and visit with one another. The memory work is something good for the new members, but when that is complete you better offer them something new or within a year another Brother will fall by the wayside. I know this to be true because I am one.


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 10, 2013)

BillyWaltmon said:


> A lodge must offer the Brethren something more than just a place to meet once or twice a week to eat and visit with one another. The memory work is something good for the new members, but when that is complete you better offer them something new or within a year another Brother will fall by the wayside. I know this to be true because I am one.



The most successful lodges have a social/charity/service event every month.  Lodges building towards that goal tend to become more successful.  Lodges not building towards that goal tend to supply members for appendant bodies that do have such events.


----------



## BillyWaltmon (Jun 10, 2013)

Brother Doug, agreed, agreed and So Mote It Be !  ;-)


----------



## cemab4y (Jun 10, 2013)

One idea I have proffered, is involving new Masons in the "life" of the lodge right away. Each new Mason should accept a "calling", that is some way to contribute "sweat equity" to the lodge, and to Masonry in general. Most men will be flattered, to learn that the lodge needs their participation as much as the lodge needs their dues.


----------



## chrmc (Jun 11, 2013)

cemab4y said:


> One idea I have proffered, is involving new Masons in the "life" of the lodge right away. Each new Mason should accept a "calling", that is some way to contribute "sweat equity" to the lodge, and to Masonry in general. Most men will be flattered, to learn that the lodge needs their participation as much as the lodge needs their dues.



I agree with that, but would almost rather say that instead of involving them, we should set expectations. It should be expected that you show up well dressed, that you work on your proficiency, that you join at least one committee and that you take part in the stated meetings. Far to often we let people slide, because we don't want to be to hard on them. 
Younger people come to masonry seeking structure and light. Much of that will come by having them live up to something and better themselves. Engagement will come if you ask people to be engaged.


----------



## jnjones86 (Jun 11, 2013)

Good post.


----------



## rhitland (Jun 28, 2013)

Wow Bryan that was some hard work bro nice paper.  
Education is the cure if a cure is needed. To me we have wondered so far from creating an enviroment that promulgates our zeal for knowledge that most think we are a charity.  The men coming to 148 are hungry for self improvement and Masonry should provide that venue and motivation to encourage men on the pursuit of knowledge.  As much as I love a good pancake breakfast or helping out the comunity with charitiable acts this in my opinion is not why men are attracted to our fraternity and our micro-focus on charity to save us money is hurting us badly. Then again I am new to the craft and can only speak from my small experience in my own lodge.


----------



## Stallion (Jun 29, 2013)

Hello, i'm from Lebanon; unfortunately I have no idea if there's a near lodge next to me.
I'll be thankful for every assistance delivered to me.


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 29, 2013)

Stallion said:


> Hello, i'm from Lebanon; unfortunately I have no idea if there's a near lodge next to me.
> I'll be thankful for every assistance delivered to me.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry_in_Lebanon

There seem to be an assortment of lodges in Lebanon.  They will likely need to get to know you well before giving you a petition to become a Mason so start showing up every month to spend time with the brothers.


----------



## Mac (Jun 30, 2013)

cemab4y said:


> One idea I have proffered, is involving new Masons in the "life" of the lodge right away. Each new Mason should accept a "calling", that is some way to contribute "sweat equity" to the lodge, and to Masonry in general. Most men will be flattered, to learn that the lodge needs their participation as much as the lodge needs their dues.



I agree wholeheartedly!  During my year as master, I tried to get/keep my EAs and FCs as involved as possible. They made their progress in the degrees in due time while also taking ownership in "their" lodge. 


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## cemab4y (Dec 10, 2013)

*Re: When did the "decline" start, and are we still*

I have not found many men who would agree with my idea of involving masons in their lodge. I am flattered that you find the idea worthy. Have you been able to implement it?


----------



## Mac (Dec 11, 2013)

*Re: When did the "decline" start, and are we still*

My lodge saw our junior members helping with lodge maintenance, dinners and cleanup, and setting up our web presence. I feel that providing ownership opportunities like these is more effective than treating new members as second-class citizens until they've completed the arduous task associated with becoming a proficient Master Mason. 

It's entirely possible to be active while working on the proficiency requirements. 


Sent via mobile app (Freemason Connect HD)


----------



## Thulsa Doom (Dec 11, 2013)

*Re: When did the "decline" start, and are we still*



Mac said:


> ... I feel that providing ownership opportunities like these is more effective than treating new members as second-class citizens until they've completed the arduous task associated with becoming a proficient Master Mason.
> 
> It's entirely possible to be active while working on the proficiency requirements.





Well stated.


----------

