Clique, Clique…BOOM

Comments | Add yours

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?

Image credit: Shirts That Say Things Meg Chooses

Find more like this: Communication, Culture, Self Improvement , , , , , ,

By

Tamsen McMahon helps people get from where they are to where they're going. She's also the Vice President of Digital Strategy at Allen & Gerritsen, and a Weight Watchers leader. She writes on individual change at PersonalCartography.com.

← Older Comments
  • http://socialbutterflyguy.com/ DJ Waldow

    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

  • Jim

    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

  • http://twitter.com/tamadear Tamsen McMahon (@tamadear)

    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. ;)

  • http://twitter.com/tamadear Tamsen McMahon (@tamadear)

    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.

  • http://twitter.com/tamadear Tamsen McMahon (@tamadear)

    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.

  • http://twitter.com/tamadear Tamsen McMahon (@tamadear)

    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!

  • http://twitter.com/tamadear Tamsen McMahon (@tamadear)

    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?

  • http://twitter.com/tamadear Tamsen McMahon (@tamadear)

    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.

  • http://twitter.com/tamadear Tamsen McMahon (@tamadear)

    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.

  • AmberNaslund

    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.

  • AmberNaslund

    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.

  • AmberNaslund

    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.

  • http://twitter.com/webby2001 Tom Webster

    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

  • http://twitter.com/heatherrast Heather Rast

    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.

  • http://www.sueannereed.com Sue Anne Reed

    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.

  • http://thesocialjoint.com/ Lucretia M Pruitt

    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 :)

  • http://thesocialjoint.com/ Lucretia M Pruitt

    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! :)

  • Pingback: Is The Social Web An “Economy Of Favors?” | BrandSavant

  • Jim

    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

  • http://twitter.com/froidianslip Fred

    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.

  • http://www.techguerilla.com/ Matt Ridings – Techguerilla

    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.

  • http://www.superdumbsupervillain.com/ superdumb

    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.

  • http://thesocialjoint.com/ Lucretia M Pruitt

    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.

  • http://www.techguerilla.com/ Matt Ridings – Techguerilla

    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.

  • http://thesocialjoint.com/ Lucretia M Pruitt

    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.

  • http://lifenickel.com/ LifeNickel

    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!

  • Pingback: 8 New Link Types That Exist On The Web

  • Pingback: SMEDIAM – The Social Media Channel for Growing Your Business Online » 8 New Link Types That Exist On The Web

  • Pingback: The Most Important Ability You Can Have Today | Brass Tack Thinking

← Older Comments