Clique, Clique…BOOM

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….

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?

I find this post offensive and bizarre. Think I just to need to leave it at that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

I love, love, LOVE your point about the dichotomy of loathing.

Thank you thank you! Tama the term “intellectual magpie” is now my favorite term – what a wordsmith you are!

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.

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.