In-groups, out-groups and cliques

[oursin]

Thinking further about the emotions stirred up by the 'twenty anonymised statements, which may or may not apply to particular individuals reading them'* meme, one strand in my discomfort is that feeling that there's some kind of 'in-group' which is getting all the subtle allusions and jokes, and that anyone who isn't part of that is going to look

Comments

[shiv5468]

Having been accused by Certain Persons of being in a clique, and knowing fine well that the aforementioned clique was squabbling like cats in a sack, and also knowing that the Certain Person appeared very much to be a pot calling the kettle black...

I think cliques are very much a creation of someone who thinks they are on the outside of something that doesn't exist in quite the form that they suppose.

My flist and I muddle along, but I wouldn't say that we toe the party line enough to be considered a clique.

[oursin]

This is my whole problem with Huge Conspiracy Theories - it assumes that the conspirators all get along and are as one on the programme and how it must be implemented. From my experience on any project which requires people with some degree of common interest to agree on specific aims and objectives, this is to laugh.

[oursin]

Heh!

[eeyorerin]

When I was in grad school, I was briefly the travelling companion of someone who was convinced that everyone in our small subfield was cliquing up against her, and spent the entire car ride railing against all the cliques who were oppressing her.

I soon came to the conclusion that she felt this way because she would never go up and introduce herself to someone or ask a group member for an introduction (both of which are common and accepted practice at this conference), or because her desperation was radiating off of her in waves. I, on the other hand, achieved "in-group" membership through a few "hello, my name is..." statements.

[oursin]

This reminds me of Person From Hell who used to be on the listserv I ran, who was convinced that getting on in academe was not about the quality of your work but your institutional affiliation and Who You Knew, so wouldn't even submit articles to journals for blind refereeing in the assumption that if it wasn't postmarked from an accepted institution the secretary would bin it. Also believed that all their troubles sprang from Prejudice Against Demographic Group To Which They Belonged: to which one longed to respond, 'No, it's not about your being X, it's all about you being a tiresome paranoid who goes on and on about things'.

[em_h]

I've actually been discussing the clique phenomenon -- or more broadly, issues around the formation of group identity -- quite a bit lately. I've done workshops in group identity formation which were looking at it in a fairly large political way, but there's some interest in trying to apply the same kind of analysis to my small social world

[zebeej]

I think no one likes being told they are a member of a clique, but fewer object to being a member of a close group of friends, or a solid team, or of the "people who get things done".

I've sometimes been accused of it, and have always been surprised because it was my impression that anyone who wanted to be in that group just had to show up and do some work. Most of the time though, there were also other social contract things required, don't just show up, but have reasonable social skills. Don't have to flatter, or schmooze, but do have to buy into the group dynamic, and be polite while learning what that is.

In many groups, just being around log enough, and not so shy that no one knows your name is enough. As long as you have baseline manners.

Although... the more the group actually *does* do things, runs things, makes things happen, the more dues you have to pay, the more you have to do to fit in.

[oursin]

I feel thoughts coming in, so far very inchoate, about the difference between cliques and networks, and having 'connections'. Clique suggests arbitary mean exclusiveness, but the 'group who get things done' may consider themselves to be meritocratic and open to new talent (even if they are, in fact, v. judgemental about who qualifies). Must think further.

[atpotch]

There was that story of the Beatles in 1968 or so, where each one thought the other three was talking up him behind his back, and it turned out that they were all just drifting slowly apart. I tend to think that most cliques don't exist, but I think the fear of cliques is shown powerfully by the general distaste shown to the Masons.

TCH

Masonic Conspiracy!

[oursin]

See my comment above about Conspiracy Theory.
(I bet even within the Masons there are people who consider certain other Masons to be a Sekrit Kabal...)

[londonkds]

I was astonished recently to discover that a certain well-known superhero comic writer who is constantly writing stories about Evil Military-Industrial-Complex Tory Republican Conspiracies is also openly a Freemason.

[dsgood]

In science fiction fandom (the original one which began in the letter column of Amazing in 1926), there are definitely people who consider themselves to be clique members. If their clique's claim to be the elite is based on a particular activity directly related to this fandom (running conventions, publishing fanzines, etc.) the more vocal ones are likely to express outrage when someone else beats The Right People. There have also been cliques based on use of psychedelic drugs; naturally, only members of the clique do it right.

There also seem to be genuine cliques in US politics, from the Federal Government down to the local level. And many political junkies manage to simultaneously consider themselves part of the ruling clique and part of an oppressed minority.