Brain
Athlete
Basket case
Princess
Criminal
We didn’t leave cliques behind in high school—we build them every day.
Don’t think so? Look around you. Look at whose blogs you read. Whose attention you want. Whose influence you chase.
I mean, how often do you really go outside and seek a different opinion? Or someone new? How many of your RSS feeds are about topics not associated in some way with digital or social media, branding, marketing, or PR?
While we may have had high hopes a few years back that somehow social media would be the great equalizer, that everyone would have an equal voice and therefore an equal shot, social behavior is social behavior, whether “media” is involved or not.
Or, to quote the immortal words of, um, Depeche Mode, “People are people:” you can give us new tools, but we’ll always end up doing what comes naturally.
In other words, we act, with little alteration, like we did in high school: We envy the cool kids and spend a lot of time figuring out how to be one, too. We envy those whom we perceive to have power (influence?) and spend a lot of time figuring out how to get it, too.
We also spend a lot of time wishing that the lines between us and them didn’t exist.
But let’s face it. We’re all neo maxi zoom dweebies at heart. The very fact that I’m writing and you’re reading this on a blog means we’re already all together in the high school that is social media. We’re already in one big clique that isn’t always easy to break into, despite how easy we may say it is (look, for instance, at how quickly newbies are scolded for not following the norms).
Is that a problem? Should we be trying to blow up the cliques?
I don’t think so. We’re pack animals, after all. It’s human nature to surround ourselves with those most similar to us–and human nature takes a very, very long time to change (if it ever does). Decrying their existence strikes me as disingenuous (and a waste of time).
So let’s stop it. Let’s stop talking about how to blow up the cliques and start talking about how to use them.
After all, each one of us is a brain, and an athlete, and a basket case, and a princess, and a criminal…
Are you with me? How would you start?
Sorry Tamsen, I get what you're saying but you're trying to make a clique into something that it's not by definition: open. We can argue semantics, but cliques form as an exclusionary grouping. The reason why people loathe and rebel against cliques is because they go against our fundamental reason for building relationships. If you want to actually use a clique for anything related to openness, you've effectively blown it up (and maybe there's your whole point just turned in on itself).
All interesting points, Chris. My first reaction is that exclusionary and closed are not the same thing. It's possible to become part of a clique–in fact it happens all the time, it's just not easy. The exclusive (and thus exclusionary) aspect of cliques is a means of protecting a set of relationships based on some commonality. So you could say that they are the apotheosis of relationship building, *not* the antithesis.
It seems to me the cliques we loathe and rebel against are those that we're not part of. We *want* to be part of a certain group, but haven't yet figured out how to break into it, if that's at all possible. And so we decry the existence of the group in the first place.
Perhaps the answer lies in finding the larger commonalities….
Interesting that you use the word “protecting” in this case. Who exactly are you protecting your relationships from? And as someone involved in branding, would you intentionally exclude individuals from creating a relationship with one of your client's brands? I'm just not sure that raising the Clique to this elevated status provides a true social benefit.
And yes, it's usually the people on the outside of the clique who rage against it. But there are always those individuals currently inside the clique who find themselves outside it (or wanting to be a part of another clique) one day. Sorry, you'll have a hard time convincing me that cliques are truly the apotheosis of relationship building and that's a virtue. It's an argument I just don't buy.
I don't mean to imply that cliques are social virtues, but they are social facts. My point is simply that, given that cliques do and will exist, our time and efforts are likely better spent trying to figure out what benefits recognizing their existence *might* provide, and on how individuals and organizations might find positive results from doing so.
But don't get me wrong–I'm no fan of cliques of those who are intentionally hurtful to others, nor am I suggesting that there's any benefit to bigotry or segregation.
To your question about brands, brands *do* try to foster cliques around them–coteries of dedicated advocates. I would, of course, not suggest that brands intentionally exclude individuals from creating a relationship with a brand. I don't see the creation of such groups to be a win-lose or zero-sum proposition, though. One person establishing a relationship with a brand (or being encouraged to) doesn't mean that someone else is thus denied that relationship, nor that he or she is discouraged from establishing it. Some brands benefit from an exclusivity as an attribute, for others that kind of exclusivity would be not only inappropriate, but damaging.
Ultimately, the post is an exercise in asking, “What if?” What if not all cliques are negative? What if there were ways to join cliques together or jump from one to another? What if there are benefits to recognizing–and working with–the informal power and communication structures that cliques represent?
This is something I'm starting to notice on Twitter. I'm not sure exclusion is what I'd call it more like comfort zones. Some folks are really keen to start up a conversation with someone new, others stick with those they already know. I think you are right it is human nature.
Either way I try not to worry about it and keep meeting new people.
I find this post offensive and bizarre. Think I just to need to leave it at that.
I think it's more of a time issue. I don't think anyone would willingly exclude or ignore someone who wanted to connect or converse with them, but the shear volume of conversations pointed at certain individuals makes it difficult to respond to everyone. While we certainly covet the time and attention of individuals who have the power and influence to help us all reach a larger audience, it's unrealistic to think that they can possibly read everything that crosses their path.
A clique is not created because a mass of people swarm around a topic of interest or gravitate toward a select few individuals. The nature of your post sounds more like a community to me and even the examples you use suggest that. Isn't High School more of a community than a clique?
While we certainly recognize that their are “cool kids” with “power and influence” does it have any bearing on our ability to create our own presence? As with any community, the ability to have an equal shot certainly exists for all… it just takes time and commitment.
You can get all up-in-arms about cliques and groups and exclusivity, but I have a feeling that if this post had been written from an insider's perspective and instead of “clique”, the term “niche” was used, no one would have a problem and it would be an everyday idea.
Tamsen, I think that by exploring the potential positive aspects of our pack-nature you have opened up an interesting topic of conversation: No matter what we say, do we truly want complete openness in our groups? I'd go so far as to argue that we don't.
Great thoughts here.
This post actually started as a result of a conversation with @jimstorer of the Community Roundtable–he pointed to me to a page on that site (http://community-roundtable.com/personas/) that speaks to the roles different people play within communities–and what is a clique if not a community?. Some focus their attention inward, others outward, and still others on bridging to other groups. Regardless, we're always better at the roles we're most comfortable with, so keep on doing what you're doing.
I'm so sorry you feel that way. While my aim is to challenge all of us to think differently about what we assume to be true, I certainly never intend offense.
That's my point, Chris: that, at hear, there's little difference between a clique and a community. I think it comes down to scale and openness. What I see, and some of the comments echo, is that we tend to judge certain communities harshly given what we perceive to be their exclusive (or to Chris's points, exclusionary) nature. That automatic negative judgment tends to close our ability to see how that community may be of benefit to us, or us to it.
But you're right: with any community (or clique) our ability to establish presence, and to build or wield influence, takes time, commitment, *and* an understanding of how that community works.
Thanks, Joey! I agree that we *don't* always want complete openness in our groups–in fact exclusivity is a desired aspect of much that we do (just look at all the “velvet rope” social networks that are out there…not to mention the *actual* velvet rope clubs, societies, etc. that lent their virtual barrier).
What gets people in a dither about “cliques,” as opposed to niches or communities (though I see them all as sides of the same die) is their perception of the clique's intent. People sometimes associate cliques with groups that can be hurtful in their exclusions (though it's arguable, as you point out, that folks *inside* a group may not see their actions that way).
But we are all part of cliques–we may not see the ones we're in that way, but I'd bet those not part of those groups do. Like all things, the more we're aware of others' perceptions (and therefore their reality), the likelier we are to be able to make things happen.
It may in fact just be the word “clique” that is tripping people up. Exclusivity in itself creates a desire among all of us to join. Where is becomes a negative is when the explicit rules or requirements needed to join are not rooted in value or clearly explained…. essentially, knowing “how the community works” as you stated above.
If the rules of the community dictate exclusivity but allow anyone to join once certain criteria are met, then I see no negative in that. However, if the criteria is unrealistic or superficial then we would in fact have clique behavior.
Tamsen,
It is true that the development of “social identity bias” is a strong human tendency. We look for people who share our values and naturally seek community with them. Researchers call this a “social identity bias” and it's not a bad thing. We like to pretend that we value differences but we don't really. Usually, the most we can hope for is educating people to tolerate differences. At the same time, whether it's a school, a business, a community, or a government, I believe that its most important to point out the things that make us similar. The military, while not perfect, does the best job of this – very different people, coming together because they are taught to be mission-focused.
While I agree that to spend a lot of time worrying about cliques is unproductive, I don't agree that it is disingenuous. There are many folks who talk a very big game about being open and transparent and all about community, yet they are often the ones who protect their coterie the most. There is an inherent hypocrisy in spending your days talking about about connecting with new people and the power of such connections, when you aren't actually doing that.
I agree that it is human behavior and very much like high school. That doesn't make it any less hypocritical, especially as these folks move into roles within organizations where they are tapped for the same “community building” and “connecting” skills they spend so much time talking about, but not practicing. On a professional level, it is a concern.
On a personal level, there will always be people wishing to be part of a certain group and looking to get in, just as there will always be people “within” a clique looking out, potentially unaware they're even part of one. This seems to be more about hurt feelings and less about how this translates to professional success.
Social identity bias strikes me as the interpersonal application of “confirmation bias”–where we seek out and tend only to pay attention information that confirms what we already believe to be true. It takes effort and work to reach beyond our comfort zones, but there's value in finding, acknowledging, and understanding differences.
I agree, though, that the greatest power, particularly for positive forward movement, is to find the similarities between seemingly disparate people and groups.
Great point, Kevin, thank you.
Tamsen
Great post and dead on. Clique's can be a good thing.. if I was a brand or a person wanting to leverage the power of clicks, I'd be looking to create opportunities to inject my/the brand's voice into the overall clique's conversations. But not in a smarmy way… but in a way that is invited and appreciated.
Just like in high school you had those folks that didn't really belong to any one click, they kind of floated between each — hanging with the band geeks one day, the jocks the next, and so on… there is power in being that person– the connector if you will.
Thanks for reminding us.
@TomMartin
Worrying about cliques is not disingenuous at all–I agree. Indeed, my hope was that this post would get folks to look critically at where their own words and actions around cliques might differ.
What I'm suggesting *is* disingenuous is saying they don't exist while simultaneously fostering or benefitting them (as in the situation you describe).
Check out the link I included above (http://community-roundtable.com/personas/) and read about the “structural holes.” Those are the “clique-less” folks you describe–and likely worth a post in and of themselves. Thanks for commenting!
Hi Tamsen!
“Or, to quote the immortal words of, um, Depeche Mode, “People are people:” you can give us new tools, but we’ll always end up doing what comes naturally.”
BINGO. And that explains why there are “closed/private social communities”, why people have friend lists, etc. As you say: people are people. We will continue to act as people, its only that we have “new” tools now.
Thanks for an insightful post!
Beginning with your introductory declaration and despite your use of clique, I keep seeing the word tribe and am thinking of Seth Godin.
Aren't the two of you saying the same thing?
Ari beat me to the use of the term “tribe” (which seems to be more overused than clique, or am I being too insidery and listening to my own inner cliquerati?)
I don't know, but the “Tribes” comparison does lift the conversation yup to the level that breaking up cliques, tribes, affinity groups, niches, whatever you want to call them, is not worth doing. It is worth identifying those groups that are important to you and courting them, and worrying less (or not at all?) about the rest.
As for one of the earlier commenters, I'm not sure from where the offense is derived. I prefer to get offended by stupidity (other than my own of course) than thoughts about harnessing pack mentality (yet another version of the term).
Speaking only for myself, I'd say no. A tribe, as illustrated in Godin's book (in my opinion) is a collective movement with a commonly held interest or priority driving a group momentum. It requires time, energy, devotion and sacrifice to succeed and nearly often philanthropic or intellectual in nature.
In contrast, what I feel I've read here is that social norms exist online as well as off; we often judge and evaluate people by their demonstrated behaviors and place them in certain spots so that logically they make sense in our lives. Sometimes that can be isolating (if you're excluded or on the periphery, not yet proven); other times its inclusion at its best.
I'm so stuck as to how that comment is useful. You wanted Tamsen to know she offended you, just for the sake of having her know? Knowing her as I do, she wouldn't be offended by you sharing your response and thoughts; rather, she would WANT to know why it created that reaction in you.
Expressing discontent without a “why” doesn't continue the discussion. Period.
Sorry… But I can't say I could possibly disagree with you any more than I do.
For a moment I wondered if I was just being defensive – then I laughed with relief. I was just reading my twitterstream for 20 minutes before this popped up in my inbox. Thousands of radically different viewpoints and voices. RSS feeds? I don't use them. I have a handful of blogs I email subscribe too – this being one of them – and they run the gamut. No rhyme, reason or clique involved.
I wonder perhaps if there isn't just a bit too much projection involved here. Not everyone wants to be “one of the cool kids” despite the Breakfast Club philosophy. Some of us will always be floating about finding our friends amidst all of the “boxes” or “labels” others or even they themselves put on them.
I don't care who you “hang with” – I just care if we have fun when we hang out with each other.
Lucretia M. Pruitt
Sent from my iPhone
Isn't this a marvelous example of a blog getting a conversation started?
I think we can both loathe cliques because we long to be a part of their “cool kidness” OR we can loathe them because we don't agree with their principals – i.e. one young woman can loathe a clique, say a sorority, because she longs to be a part of the perceived “popular crowd” while another young woman can loathe the same sorority because she perceives them to only be about partying and popularity and nothing about truly empowering women. And here's the irony – those two young women could be the same girl.
We are complicated creatures, we both want to belong to a group, and yet we want to be special. Social media opens up a world of opportunities for connection, but yes, I do feel Tamsen has a point that we often carry the same behaviors into the Internet. We can, for example, be trying desperately to be “cool” enough to have our writing included in a top popular blog, and frustrated we can't get a “yes” all while ignoring the people on twitter who follow us on twitter and ask direct questions.
If people this this post is bizarre, it's because they haven't experienced it themselves firsthand. The SM world is definitely a bit clique-ish. The difference between that and high school, though, is that it's not about what you wear or what you look like. In high school, you may have been pigeon-holed and there was nothing you could do about it. In the SM world, you *can* be accepted through persistence and proving yourself. Hangers-on don't necessarily get their due. You have to be willing to put yourself out there and join the conversation. It's a bit easier than high school in that regard. We at least have our computers to hide behind.
Ugh, my 25th class reunion is this year. I smell clearasil and will cry myself to sleep. I find cliques to serve as a comfort zone — professionally I usually sit by industry or organization. What I've found in SM is the opportunity to explore and engage new people and ideas. Diversity of ideas enriches my personal experience and as a closet introvert there certainly is comfort in my keyboard. Love the post, thank you.
LOL … The Breakfast Club. Must have watched that movie 10 times. These days, you could have used something from GLEE.
While it's true that we are pack animals, we must always be careful not to fall into the “mob mentality” trap. That is a uniquely human thing that has caused huge amounts of trouble and grief throughout history.
I am currently using my “pack”, my “clique”, to launch a small business consultant venture. I will be drawing on their individual specialties to assist me while I to assist those who come to me for assistance. (Ok, I should now be thrown out of the clique for using the word “assist” three times in one sentence 🙂
Lucretia, you know I love you, but I have to say: having observed you on Twitter for a couple years, I wouldn't say you're not part of *any* cliques — I don't actually know ANYONE who is totally clique agnostic, unless they don't spend time with people at all.
You run in a space with a particular group of people who share similar interests and have similar discussions and go to similar conferences, and while that may not be a choice towards exclusivity, it's the reality. Yes, those people might have radically different views on certain subjects, but as long as they continue to chat about those subjects with one another more than other people and go to places where those conversations are the goal, it forms a clique of sorts for people who are on the outside of it — not just a community, as much as that sounds more palatable.
But — and here's the key — regardless of whether or not you think of your group of friends and colleagues as a clique… I GUARANTEE someone else does. That's the other big consideration here.
Add to that the fact that you have the kind of connections that enable you to get speaking engagements at very popular conferences, and to be invited to very popular social media events. I assume you make some sort of effort to connect with the decision makers at those conferences to maintain your speaking career, too. Lots of people would like to have that kind of exposure.
Do they have your skill or expertise? Maybe not. Have they been doing it as long as you? Maybe not. Do they pursue it like you do? Maybe not. But they probably don't have ways in like you do, either — and instead of seeing it as your group of friends and associates you've built for years, they might see it as an exclusive club they'll never be a part of.
Anyway, I've never really given much thought to whether or not you are part of a particular clique, because I don't feel excluded from anything in particular you do or are involved in — and I don't think you're about that at all, anyway. But you rejected the subject matter of this post so dismissively that it gave me pause.
Brilliant post, Tamsen. I agree. There is a reason why people gravitate toward certain groups. Personally, in high school, I was a “floater”. I had closer friends and not so close friends and tons of acquaintances. I was never really part of a specific group, but saw the values of many of them. I was in the middle of my own circle, which other circles touched like a giant mess of overlapping circles in a Venn diagram. I learned a lot from “jocks” and “brains” (most of whom in my school were both at the same time), “artsy kids” and “outcasts” and “band geeks”… the thing is, none of them only had ONE label. Many of them belonged to multiple cliques. After all, even if you work in PR, you probably have outside personal interests which led you to PR in the first place and help you to do your work as a professional. i.e. If you are a runner, you know that many lessons about all areas of life can come from various parts of your workouts: there's a reason why we warm up and cool down, just as you introduce and review content. But the lessons a runner learns aren't exclusive to PR, just as they are not exclusive to running… diversity both professionally and personally is what makes any one person who s/he is and why s/he is valuable to society. I say, embrace the groups, but remember each person within that group also belongs to many others – what lessons can we teach each other from our varied interests through our common languages?
Brilliant post, Tamsen. I agree. There is a reason why people gravitate toward certain groups. Personally, in high school, I was a “floater”. I had closer friends and not so close friends and tons of acquaintances. I was never really part of a specific group, but saw the values of many of them. I was in the middle of my own circle, which other circles touched like a giant mess of overlapping circles in a Venn diagram. I learned a lot from “jocks” and “brains” (most of whom in my school were both at the same time), “artsy kids” and “outcasts” and “band geeks”… the thing is, none of them only had ONE label. Many of them belonged to multiple cliques. After all, even if you work in PR, you probably have outside personal interests which led you to PR in the first place and help you to do your work as a professional. i.e. If you are a runner, you know that many lessons about all areas of life can come from various parts of your workouts: there's a reason why we warm up and cool down, just as you introduce and review content. But the lessons a runner learns aren't exclusive to PR, just as they are not exclusive to running… diversity both professionally and personally is what makes any one person who s/he is and why s/he is valuable to society. I say, embrace the groups, but remember each person within that group also belongs to many others – what lessons can we teach each other from our varied interests through our common languages?
Thanks so much for commenting (and for finding me here)! Our first instinct is absolutely to find like minds in the people we meet, and to surround ourselves with those who make us feel most comfortable.
My challenge–both to myself and to those reading and responding to this post–is to inculcate a *second* instinct in our behaviors, one that acknowledges and challenges the first. In this case, to note how we may be limiting our worldview via the lens of the groups we're a part of, and to then actively seek out opinions that differ from our own.
It's a shared set: some cliques are also tribes, some tribes are also cliques. Either way, I see great benefit in determining for ourselves which we feel are which. There's utility, regardless of whether a group is more tribe than clique or vice versa, in understanding the dynamics of what holds that particular group together, what motivates it, *and* how those not in the group might see it…one man's tribe may be another man's clique, after all.
The first commenter suggested we might be arguing semantics, and while true, it's important to note how very differently people respond to ideas depending on which word you choose. People clearly have some very negative opinions of cliques, but not necessarily so of “tribe” or “niche” (to use examples already raised here)…but to me the points I raise apply across groups regardless of what you call them: (1) they exist (2) they always will exist (3) fighting that fact is a waste of time (4) a better use of time is understanding (a) which groups you're both consciously and unconsciously a part of (b) which of those you're not, and (c) asking, and answering to your comfort level, “Why?” to all of the above.
The first commenter suggested we might be arguing semantics, and while true, it's important to note how very differently people respond to ideas depending on which word you choose. People clearly have some very negative opinions of cliques, but not necessarily so of “tribe” or “niche” (to use examples already raised here)…but to me the points I raise apply across groups regardless of what you call them: (1) they exist (2) they always will exist (3) fighting that fact is a waste of time (4) a better use of time is understanding (a) which groups you're both consciously and unconsciously a part of (b) which of those you're not, and (c) asking, and answering to your comfort level, “Why?” to all of the above.
Well said, Meg. Than again, maybe I'm just saying that so I can bust into your clique. (Sorry, could not resist!). Seriously though, a comment like the above from “markwilliamschaefer” is the anti-useful kind. I'm really hoping he'll reply with more constructive criticism.
DJ Waldow
Director of Community, Blue Sky Factory
@djwaldow
Tamsen makes some very insightful remarks here.
We are indeed herd animals at heart. Studies with very young infants have indicated this is hard-wired in us. Social networks (or the web for that matter) don't change our fundamental nature. They may help us overcome the weaker parts of it through int elect, but it doesn't change it immediately.
Far too often we get hung up on what technology can do, when what is really important is what we do with it. A stick is just a twig till a monkey uses it to stab a lemur.
Communities drive the web. Without them, it's just one big digital strip mall with infinite parking. That being the case, it is human nature which shapes the web and not the other way around.
The great thing about all of these tools is that we do, in a way not before seen, have access to so many differing opinions, and there are fora (like this blog) where those who hold those differing opinions can learn more about those whose worldview is different and distinct. For those who look (as you do), it's an endless engine of ideas.
Popularity isn't the point. Rather, it's about finding the commonalities–and differences–and using them to understand more about ourselves.
The great thing about social media tools are they help us be the thread between all our different networks or cliques. People swarm together, it's part of nature…the art of weaving between our networks and connecting people from different cliques together is what really propels those of us in the industry that understand “The Breakfast Club” idea, Tamsen hits on here. We identify with many and can help with the big share ripple effect by being connectors. Now, if I could just get the basket case in me to be a bit more brainy ;->
Tamsen: Love the post. Thought-provoking, and very accurate. I think the negative reactions are largely from the word “clique” which can have a negative connotation (particularly to those who had a hard time in high school.
The bottom line is that whether you call it a clique, a community, a group, whatever, humans seek and crave the sense of identification that comes with joining such an… organization. Our animal nature seeks the pack. Our human nature seeks the label and the status that comes with it.
It makes perfect sense to discover ways to capitalize on the meaning of those labels and infiltrate the organizations rather than try to break it apart.
I'm not sure how I'd start with said infiltration, but it is important to realize that it could very well be a necessity for growth.
First thing to know is who you really are as a person. And I don't think many people truly know that…
I love, love, LOVE your point about the dichotomy of loathing.
Excellent point–it can be VERY easy to hide behind our computers, to push “send” (or “post”!) on something we'd never dream of saying to someone in person, both in positive and negative ways. (But aren't you fascinated how often someone in person is *completely* different than their online persona?)
Thank you thank you! Tama the term “intellectual magpie” is now my favorite term – what a wordsmith you are!
I hear you: I often refer to SM (particularly my Twitter and RSS feeds) as an “idea engine.” The more variety of inputs into my muddled brain, the more opportunity for a new idea to arise. Thanks so much for commenting–I'm glad you joined the fray!
I think your pack animal description of social media cliques is apt. Pack animals instinctively surround and destroy anything that threatens them, without thinking, feeling or caring. So why would anybody embrace that kind of behavior?
I have been through enough of these faux debates to know that any meaningful dissent will attract the attack of the blogger's pack. I have seen it happen time and again and I do not have time or energy to go back to your blog 20 times today as I am drawn into a sysiphean dialogue.
The social web is an economy of favors. When there is dissent, the favors dry up, so dissent is inherently discouraged.
I had a dozen people tweet me today saying they agreed with my comment on this post. Why didn't they want to comment directly on here? They have seen the blog pack (clique) at work too. Why bother?
Truthfully, this is one of the most small-minded posts I have ever read. I was offended enough to say so but realistic enough to know that any defense or explanation would be fruitless.
I don;t know you, and probably never will now : ) I'm sure you're a great person but this is how your post impacted me and also apparently a band of silent others.
I do not intend to be mean-spirited or disrespectful in any way but you sincerely wanted the truth so there it is.
Invoking Nixon's “silent majority” (for me at least) doesn't do much for your argument. However, I do like the fact that you've come back with something more constructive than your first comment. It suggests that you are a much more thoughtful person than your first post indicated.
When you comment on the “blogger pack”, from my POV you are basically referencing the same clique mentality that the author did in the original post. I find that contradictory, but perhaps it's late in the day and I am missing your point.
A discussion (and isn't that what the blogs and social are about?) requires different views. Even if I don't agree with every point a poster makes, I still can appreciate some gems of insight (as I do with your second comment) and say so. Try as I might, as someone who's been working with online communities since the days of BBS, I can't find anything offensive in the author's post.
Regards,
jim
I'm really glad you came back and fleshed it out, Mark. I'm sure Tamsen is, too. She's not really one to get offended. 🙂
My comment to you was based on the fact that I felt that making “half a comment” (I'm offended, but I'm not telling you why) was a bit like kicking someone and running away. You might feel like the debate or defense would be fruitless, and that you'd get attacked for it — but, in a sense, you attacked first, and didn't give her an opportunity to defend her ideas.
Then you say lots of people tweeted you to agree with you — but when I searched for their comments to you (because I wanted to know why they found it offensive) I didn't find any. Regardless, I found it fairly ironic that you justified/confirmed the truth of your statement by referring to a “pack” of people who agree with you.
It's okay for you not to agree, just like it's okay for Tamsen not to agree. What isn't okay is the assumption that someone isn't open to debate because of the behavior of others.
That said — to your comments (and I don't know if you'll come back to read this, but anyway…): you stated that the social web is a favor-based economy, that people tend to go on the attack easily in the “blogger” pack, and that you felt that if you shared your views, you'd be abused for it.
It sounds to me like you very much believe in the destructive power of cliques, and that you change your behavior because of it (not commenting, avoiding, talking to others about the negative impact they have)… yet it was small minded of Tamsen to point out they exist?
Learning to work through (and sometimes around!) human dynamics isn't “encouraging” bad behavior… instead, it's a process of acknowledging the challenges, and then seeing a way to push through them. This post doesn't assume we're all destined to reject one another and push one another out — it assumes that we are naturally drawn to some people over others, so how can we keep that from being a negative? How can we capitalize on the power of social connectivity, instead of assuming it will leave us on the outside of something?
Isn't that why we're all here anyway?
Again, thanks for coming back. I was glad to hear more.
Mark:
I can't write a reply as eloquently as Meg (or Jim for that matter), but I do appreciate you jumping back into the conversation.
A few comments back at you…
You said, “any meaningful dissent will attract the attack of the blogger's pack.”
I don't consider myself to be part of this blog's “pack”; however, I've met Tamsen face to face and been reading what she and Amber have been writing for some time now. I have a ton of respect for both of them. Do I always agree with their posts? Hell no. Do I tell them? Yup. However, I try and tell them that I disagree in a respectful way. Using words/phrases like “simple-minded” and “offensive and bizarre” just feel like they are attacking. I realize you are talking about the content of the post and not the person behind them, but either way…
Next, if you are going to write “Why bother?” – if you really believe that engaging in the conversation here is pointless, I'd ask you this…why did you “bother” to even comment in the first place? You had to know that your comments would evoke a discussion similar to this one, right?
All of that said, this is – and will continue to be – a challenge with one-way communications such as blog posts, comments in blog posts, tweets, emails, etc. Often, unless you know the person, the tone and true meaning can be lost.
Until we meet face to face someday…
DJ Waldow
@djwaldow
Wow. There's some awfully good and thoughtful writers here and that includes Mark. A tip o the hat to you Meg for some very perceptive points which I enjoyed reading. In fact, that's why I subscribed to the comments, because I've found the discussion stimulating and enlightening.
I think someone pointed this out already…Would this post of have gotten the number of comments it has if it and the following comments had been just sunshine and puppies? I think not.
My experience has driven me to some conclusions which are rather general, but I've found them to hold true. One of those is that often when people express views online, a primary motivator is testing the position for “pack” approval/response. Most especially if you have two main participants expressing fundamentally different views. The primary participants may be more interested in how the pack reacts and not the primary person they are engaging.
I'd love to see “packs” vanish completely too, but from what little I've read about human nature, this isn't going to change soon. Good or bad we take the best and worst of human nature into every new frontier an that includes the virtual.
Regards,
jim
Great examples, Randall, of how our packs/groups/cliques can serve both negative (in the mob mentality sense) and positive (helping you launch your business) purposes. Best of luck in your venture…and in finding other words for assist. 😉
The “runners,” as you call them, are my favorite. And what insight you've added here: that each member of any group is also a member of others. That's a point that's often overlooked, yet an incredibly powerful one to remember. Sometimes the best people to give us new perspective are those who can both speak the language of the group we're in AND can see (given their interactions in and within other groups) how the shared group is perceived.
Exactly. I usually define social media as a fusion of technology and human behavior. We can't be anything but the humans we are–but that includes taking advantage of the intellect we're blessed with and challenging ourselves to push past our baser instincts.
It's the connectors between groups that are the future, I think. Those people who can not only see and understand the various groups they interact with (or want to), but are skilled in finding ways to join new groups and connect others. That might be a great follow-on post to this one, actually. Hmmm…now you've got me thinking!
So let's start talking about the infiltration! I was talking with a friend of mine about this post, and people's various reactions to it, and she noted that if we see a group as closed from the get-go, then we never even look for opportunities to join. Perhaps it's part of my ornery nature, but when I see a closed door, I want to find a way to open it. Or find a side door. Or another way in entirely.
So perhaps curiosity is one of the skills needed. What others do you see?
I think you're right about that, Ann Marie. Sometimes, though. I suspect we're all very self-aware, but have different levels of denial about it.
Thank you, thank you for coming back and telling me more.
I didn't take your comment as disrespectful, though I'll admit to being frustrated by it: as I said in my original reply, I didn't intend offense and truly didn't see what you might have taken offense to. Without knowing that, I couldn't learn either from your differing perspective–and those that know me (and I *do* hope I can get to know you better…that's a main point of this post, after all: to seek out and understand those we see as different from us as a way of understanding how we are all, in fact, similar), know that I try to figure out what I can take away from any situation, no matter how uncomfortable it might make me.
Though I'm still not sure what you found small-minded about the post, I value greatly your willingness to say you disagreed with it. Too often disagreements on blogs do devolve into attacks, so I understand why you might have been reluctant to voice a dissenting opinion.
One of the main goals Amber and I are seeking on this blog, however, is a place where we can all learn from one another, which means we need to not only hear disagreement, we need to seek it out, and seek to understand it fully. We may not resolve our differing opinions–that's not the point. The point is to understand the other's point of view and to see the value in it.
I don't have the right to change your mind–your mind is your own. But I hope you grant me the opportunity to understand your views so that we might all be better for it.
So please, continue to be a dissenting voice. You are welcome here.
I too am particularly curious about what in the post you defined as “small minded”. I'm just not sure I understand what prompted that, but I think I'm hearing in your comment that you'd rather not get drawn into that, so that's okay.
But speaking as the other tack, I'm always happy to have folks here that say they disagree. That, in turn, doesn't mean that I need to change my stance, but respectful disagreement always teaches me something, and I welcome diversity of opinion here. I understand your generalizations about what can and does sometimes happen online when dissenting opinions meet one another, but I don't think that always has to be the case, and there are many of us also willing to engage in civilized discussion, even if our viewpoints differ on the topics themselves.
What's fascinating to me is the reactions that the word choice creates here. The sociological implications of “clique” versus, say, networks or tribes, are very visceral, aren't they? How we react to the idea of gatherings of like minds really depends on the *external* perception of those things: whether we believe them to be something we could be part of if we wanted to – that they're by nature healthy or nurturing to the individual or the whole of the group – or whether they're based in an exclusionary attitude that we find hurtful or damaging, either to us or to others.
It's also amazing how defensive we are about the idea that WE might be part of perpetuating something like a clique, something that has such a socially hurtful connotation in so many ways.
You've really had my gears turning about what it could mean to turn the idea of cliques into something constructive rather than destructive. Thanks for the fodder.
I think there's a big difference between a conscious clique – one you create with an exclusionary intent – and one that forms based on the shared affinities of its members. I think it's a bit naive to try and claim that we don't belong to cliques, don't create them (by design or not) or that we're above that sort of thing. As Tamsen pointed out, it's just the nature of humans to band together in groups.
The groups themselves and their intentions can be for the good or for the not so good, but you don't have to consciously seek to be “labeled” in order be so. As Meg so insightfully points out below, even without our awareness of it, undoubtedly people perceive cliques from the outside. I've been accused of it, point blank, even though in my heart of hearts I'd never mean to make someone feel unwelcome. And I'm quite sure that, by virtue of your success, someone has likely uttered that in reference to you, too.
What's interesting is that Tamsen's post is really about the basic human desire for acceptance and to feel as though we belong somewhere, as well as whether we can harness that tendency to really do something valuable. Yet there's a great deal of reaction to the words instead of the ideas, which tells me that perhaps we doth protest too much.
Word choice, as you intimate, is everything, “Clique” certainly gets a lot of peoples' hackles up, but the trajectory of societies is such that we always settle into cliques, then some kind of disruptive change happens, and in the chaos new cliques form from the ashes of the old. Yesterday's Elk's Lodge is today's #blogchat and so on. In the throes of that disruption, some eggs get broken, and I think that's what you are seeing here — either from people who used to be part of the “in” crowd and now find themselves dislocated, or from those who were on the outside then, and disappointed that things aren't different now. Far deeper thoughts on this topic than I can conjure can be found by reading Francis Fukuyama, but the short course is that norms change, but don't disappear. The denotation of clique makes it probably the right word, but the connotation likely brings back painful memories for some. (I was part of at least 4 of the 5 cliques Tamsen listed. Maybe 5. Dunno, I never broke the law.)
Still, it isn't the clique that's the problem, really, It's how people feel about the clique. But if a clique doesn't take in new ideas, a clique – like a cell – will die, and probably wasn't a very good clique to begin with.
Respect to Mark for coming back and not simply being a Disqus bomber. I'm not sure what I think about this topic yet, but I'll get there. One phrase of Mark's, in particular, got me thinking: “the social web is an economy of favors.” In the short term, he might be right. In the long term, the social web is an economy of ideas. The difference, for the individual, is backing the right horses. You are who you retweet.
T
Tamsen and all commenters, I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to witness and grow from such insightful thinking. Your observations and perspectives have given me the kind of pause that will help me develop as a member of society with a blended online/offline life. I feel enlightened while also a little more aware of my own self image with respect to this topic. Thanks for bringing up something sticky and handling it with such grace and intelligence.
This post is particularly interesting for me because just last night I stopped by a fundraiser for the reunion for the class that graduated a year before me. It was interesting that some people talked to me, and the same people that looked right through me while I was in high school and saw me as a basket case continued to look right through me.
Cliques exist and are real. Social media does level the playing field a little bit, but you still interact with people you want to interact with — who you're attracted to because of content or personality. We can waste a lot of energy trying to break them down. Or, we can embrace them and use them to our advantage. I know that if I can get connected with one person in a clique, just like in high school, that person will help spread my message in that clique.
Ironically, I agree with much of Tamsen's response to my comment – but “As Tamsen pointed out, it's just the nature of humans to band together in groups” I'm still disagreeing with.
Then again, I am consistently accused of NOT fitting into the group because I insist on my rabid individuality. Go figure.
I guess it's just a case where we're going to have to agree to disagree. I love spending time with different groups of people – but I don't want to belong somewhere – I want to feel free to follow my own star. Seldom do groups allow you to do that.
I'm not sure it's a matter of protesting too much – it's just a matter of fundamental differences in the perception of 'human nature.' I've got some really good friends who would probably agree with you – and some who wouldn't at all.
Either way, it's a thought provoking post 🙂
And because I hit “post” before I thought of it?
By thought provoking – I mean awesome. But that's what I've come to expect from this site! 🙂
Tamsen that a simply brilliant observation (pun intended). As Stephen Fearing put it: We look into each others faces and see the weaknesses so well, but when we stand in front of mirrors, we do not see ourselves.
I have a pet theory that the reason we sometimes take a dislike for someone is because we see our own faults magnified in them – in ourselves they are minor foibles, but in others, major character flaws. Turning this on it's head, you have the reason why we seek out others with shared views and qualities.
Regards,
jim
The great things about cliques are that they aggregate behavior. They give you the ability to apply a single action/reaction to a group of people and elicit similar behavior from them all. In high school they all like/dislike you based on what you say or do. Use that to your advantage. You don't have to customize your message to the individual, just the herd.
At the risk of getting philosophical, the insistence on “rabid individuality” is in itself a bonding mechanism to identify yourself as belonging to a particular type of group. As a non-conformist at heart I certainly understand that desire, but make no mistake that it's still a means of choosing an identity…which at the end of the day is really what cliques are structured for.
I can't ferret out what you've said that could possibly offend anyone. Admittedly, in school I managed to float between the nerds and the punks and the preppies (there were definitely cool kids in each clique) so perhaps I just have a proclivity for seeing the sameness in us all.
My take away from this post was that we should all be able to look past self-imposed barriers and find the shared perspectives so we can get on with our lives.
Um, no… no it's not.
You see, I don't “want to be different just like you” – I'm just me. Attempting to define others by a group doesn't mean that they automatically become part of one.
Nor is there a 'clique of non-conformity'.
Yes, I choose my identity. No, I don't need a group to reinforce it for me.
But hey – let's just pretend that I'll stay in the box you try to put me in – because it makes life more understandable and less threatening for you.
Ohhh kay. I guess I understand where the “rabid” part comes into play now. I would have loved to have had a intellectual dialog on the topic, but an argument? nah, I'll pass.
I apologize for the rabid part.
No, I don't want either an 'intellectual dialog' or an 'argument' on the subject.
I really loathe it when people presume to tell me that their label for me is one I must accept. It tends to set me off.
As should be a bit obvious.
At this point? Let's just let it drop and I'll stick by my apology for the 'rabid' reply.
Tamsen – You are dead on in saying that we've got to start talking about how to “use” the cliques. Everything that is done, both online and off, is done with a niche target market in mind. Replace the word clique with niche, target market or community and everyone would agree with your post.
While it can be frustrating to be on the outside of the clique we all just need to realize it's ok. If you look around you are part of your own clique that you can build upon and influence.
Great stuff!