Cliques, hierarchies etc

[oursin]

Have been seeing a number of posts re Wiscon claiming that it was cliquey, that there were various hierarchies of who you were etc. And okay, I think I tend to be at least slightly dim about this sort of thing. (I think my lj and other mates whom I saw there are Coolest People Ever, but have no idea how this would map onto the apparent hierarchy of

Comments

[desayunoencama]

One of the ways Wiscon is very clique-y is the readings track. Readings are supposed to be themed and presented BEFOREHAND by a group of readers. So, if you are not already part of a group ("clique") it can be very hard to be an outsider, singleton, loner, whatever.

I also was susprised at how many women said things in my prsence like "well, I'm not a writer, but I'm working on a novel" (or "I've written a novel") and hey seemed not to grasp that yes they are a writer, even if not yet (or even ever) a published one. Some of this is, of course, their own self-esteem problems, but some of it is I think the change in the overall feel of Wiscon as it has grown beyond being a feminist science fiction convention into something slightly different.

[wild_irises]

Cliques are very easy to perceive from the outside, very hard to perceive from the inside, both when they do and when they don't exist.

All I know is: on Sunday night I invited a total stranger with a WisCon badge to eat with a group that included me (co coordinator) and Julie Phillips (Tiptree biographer). This is not proof that cliquishness does not exist, but it is indicative of something that does not happen in clique-defined spaces. We all had a great conversation.

[takumashii]

I perceived it as a little cliquey; I also perceived that as a completely natural and normal thing, like when you transfer to a school in February and everyone's already made their friends and you can't expect to just fit into that social environment immediately. Like, no one had some obligation to be my special friend, you know? (And I should qualify that by saying that some people did go above & beyond in being friendly to a complete stranger).

[awelkin]

On the other hand, I had the most open going from group to group Wiscon I've ever had in my whole life! Cliquey??? My aunt Fanny's--er--you're British, so I'll skip the rest.

Catherine

[redbird]

It didn't feel particularly cliquish to me, but it's possible I overlooked things. Certainly, it wouldn't occur to me to say I'm "a nobody" because I don't write fiction, even at a con other than Wiscon--and at Wiscon, I'm an insider in some senses, as a program participant and former Tiptree juror. (At a Minicon, I dodged the question of not having official/plausible credentials for a subject when the other panelists did with "I'm redbird, and I'm your moderator," followed by signaling the panelist next to me to introduce himself. That isn't self-promotion, but it's not self-deprecation either.)

It's also possible that some people consider "they didn't actively invite me into their conversation" as cliquishness, when it can also be catching up with someone I haven't seen in a year, answering a friend's request for information on an emotionally difficult subject, or simply not noticing the person standing a few feet away because one is focused on the people one is talking to.

[badgerbag]

I do try to keep that in mind -- that people are in their own little worlds, as you say, catching up or in an intense conversation -- and not to get offended.

And from the possibly cliquish-looking side - there were some moments this year where rather than feeling my normal extroverted self, I needed to cling to people who knew me already and who were close friends. So that too could look like cliquishness - social exhaustion.

[oursin]

Yes, there's that whole thing of the fluctuating extent of comfort zone.