How To Make A Culture
I've watched people establish norms in their communities and organizations. I've done some of it myself. Here's what I have seen work: Never leave, never shut up for long, keep questioning yourself and looking at the viewpoint of others, and make sure to contribute. The first person to take their ball and go home loses. Those who remain define the culture of the organization or community.
A community always belongs to those who act like "this place belongs to me as much as anyone, and I'm not going anywhere". If you don't act like that, you automatically define yourself on the outside. What will happen will surprise you. You can oppose practically anyone this way-- founders, eminence gris, it doesn't matter-- and win just by wearing them down. Just make sure to contribute value, make sure you are fair, make an effort to be visibly fair, to make sure people feel you are listening to them. Other than that, it's just an endurance competition. You can make the world the way it should be, one piece at a time.
To the atheist feminists right now, I would suggest you keep going to atheist conferences. Instead of you being so uncomfortable being around Richard Dawkins that you give up and concede that social space, contemplate the idea of making Richard Dawkins so uncomfortable that he leaves. (Or apologizes. I wouldn't put that past him.)
I don't know, what do you think?
Comments
amanda_lodden on Jul. 13, 2011 7:44 PM
I have to agree with you. As much as I would like to see the entire world wake up one day and treat each other with respect and dignity and a recognition that different views and experiences aren't automatically evil, it's not going to happen like that. Social progress is made one agonizing step at a time. When you throw up your hands in disgust and leave for greener pastures, what you teach the rest of the world is that they can make you leave, and then they'll get to define "social progress" the way THEY want to.
Crap. I'm going to have to start going to atheist conferences now, aren't I?
nicegeek on Jul. 13, 2011 11:39 PM
The first person to take their ball and go home loses. Those who remain define the culture of the organization or community. [...] You can make the world the way it should be, one piece at a time.
You're not changing the world here...you're just pushing your way to the front of the room and shouting louder than anyone else. If people disagree with you, but don't feel like fighting with you about it, they're likely to just leave. While you might call that a victory by default, it's a Pyrrhic victory if you end up defining a community that only contains yourself and a few others who had similar beliefs to begin with, while everyone else goes and makes a new club without you.
Effecting real change is much harder than that. Real change requires changing others' opinions, not just browbeating them into silence. To change opinions, you have to get people to respect you and your views enough that they'll listen with an open mind. And often, the more forcefully you present your views, the less open-minded those listening become.
matt-arnold on Jul. 14, 2011 5:22 AM
Definitely don't browbeat. Like I said, listening and fairness are key. That's how to avoid this outcome.
nicegeek on Jul. 14, 2011 11:18 PM
For some people, listening and fairness might suffice to open minds, but for many, it also requires empathy and respect. This can be difficult, since when you think a person's views are idiotic, it can be hard to show them the respect necessary to enable open-minded discussion.
matt-arnold on Jul. 15, 2011 1:13 AM
What do you do when dealing with someone whose views are, in fact, idiotic? Let's find something we agree on. Say you're talking to the guy who lived downstairs from me a couple of years ago, and he expresses dismay at having to live only a few miles from black people? Or the kid who I went to class with last year, who is convinced Jews are secretly running the world and conspiring to ruin families?
nicegeek on Jul. 15, 2011 1:56 AM
First, I'd ask myself what my goals are, and evaluate how the person I'm talking with fits into them. I need to decide what there is to gain by changing this person's views, and what the risks are if I try and fail. If the person is, say, an apartment-mate, I need to live with them, and calling them an idiot is not worth it when they have access to my toothpaste. It also depends on how harmful their views are to others. If they believe the moon landings were faked, they might be an idiot, but I don't really care because it doesn't hurt anyone else; I can just not talk about the moon around them. If, as in the case of bigotry their views are actively hostile or dangerous to others, that's a stronger reason to oppose them.
If the cost/benefit says it's worth trying to change them, I'd need to figure out what tactic to use, which is going to depend on the personality of the person, how they came by their opinions, and whether they're the sort of person who responds best to rational argument, empathic understanding, or (rarely) confrontation.
matt-arnold on Jul. 15, 2011 1:59 AM
I would take third party observers into account. It has been found to be a consistently tendency, that if people observe someone making statements in a group and no one is heard to disagree, they assume the group agrees.
That is the type of goal I am taking into account in the particular blog post under discussion.
nicegeek on Jul. 15, 2011 4:22 AM
It may be that there's a tendency to make that assumption, but I suspect that it's very often incorrect; most of the silent listeners actually disagree, but just don't feel it's worth the time, trouble, and stress to get confrontational about it. I'm on a mailing list where there are a couple of people who forcefully argue their views on certain topics every time they comes up. Eventually, people stopped arguing with them. While some might take the lack of response as acquiescence, the actual reason is that many of the list members now filter all messages from the confrontational ones directly into their trash, unread.
Again, I think it depends on the importance of the issue and its probability of causing harm. Confronting racism ranks high on the importance list, but if someone really wants to believe in astrology, I don't feel compelled to become a self-appointed rationality policeman to try to change their mind.
Unless they actually try to convince me to share their beliefs, of course; turnabout being fair play.
matt-arnold on Jul. 15, 2011 4:40 AM
I am quite convinced that the silence is not at all indicative of consensus. The illusion is created by a psychological glitch. However, I do think that, because most of the group members will succomb to this glitch, then de-facto, that is now a new expectation of what behavior is acceptable in the group. You're right that it can be an incorrect expectation (in fact, I think it usually is), but that psychological glitch still works to shape behavior.
The only way to subvert this glitch is to give voice to one's own part of the silent, invisible diversity. This is really all I'm saying, so there doesn't seem to be much disagreement there.
Your separate topic about holding people close and caressing their hair and cooing and telling them how validated they are is duly noted.
matt-arnold on Jul. 15, 2011 4:43 AM
(Joking, by the way. You are talking about picking your battles and possessing a sense of proportion.)
atropis on Jul. 13, 2011 11:39 PM
never leave and never shut up, eh? well, sounds more or less exactly correct, if maybe also sorta simplistic.
the thing about taking one's ball and going home is that there's no real option on that, short of suicide. leave one culture, chances are you're gonna find yourself in another. when that happens, one is likely to find oneself contributing to the life, health, and growth of that recently-adopted culture from within, rather than trying to fight a structure that doesn't fit well on the grounds that doing so is likely to change it.
that being said, there's also the whole cost/benefit analysis thing. if most of what a culture is made of works for an individual, the issues that come with it may still add up to being a better overall deal than flipping to a different culture. similar to the idea that it's often cheaper and more convenient to fix the car one has than go and get a new one. and, of course, that idea only goes so far in terms of both cars and cultures.
matt-arnold on Jul. 14, 2011 5:24 AM
Right. For instance, if a group or organization is centered around promoting something I oppose, then I can't change that from within.
atropis on Jul. 15, 2011 11:08 AM
heh, yes. 'i'm gonna join the kkk so that i can change it from the inside!' does not sound like a good plan.
sarahmichigan on Jul. 14, 2011 1:20 PM
This is really good food for thought, because I am the "take my ball and leave" type. I just don't like conflict. It feels SO yucky and terrible that I'm only willing to do it for causes or groups I really, really, really.... really, really, really value and believe in.
If it's something I'm only half-heartedly interested in, there's no reason for me to stay and fight to change the internal culture. I've left many online groups for just this reason - I felt the stress over arguments or flame wars or the condescension I received as a newbie were such large drawbacks that they overcame any benefit I got from being in that space.
*goes off to ponder some more*
jodybrai on Jul. 15, 2011 12:02 AM
Right up to the "atheist feminists" part, I felt like you were talking right to me.
I've been trying to decide what to do about someone who feels like a troll invading a community I've been a part of for a few years. I've been operating on the idea that if I just ignore him, and convince others to ignore him, he might go away. This doesn't seem to be happening. Worse, since this misguided misanthrope is posting more often, the community is becoming defined by his rantings.
I think I will take your advice to heart and work on taking the community back from the twerps and trolls. Thanks for the pep talk.
Oh, and good luck to the atheist feminists, too.
infowidget on Jul. 15, 2011 2:08 AM
Sometimes leaving is a means of self-preservation. I cannot abide by high school drama within a group and sometimes walking away can be the best thing.
atropis on Jul. 15, 2011 11:12 AM
yes.
i kinda think that would fall into the category of 'groups whose cultural ideals i oppose', since it's pretty hard to engage in jerry-springer-ing without promoting that even more than whatever idea is supposedly being discussed.
mrblue92 on Jul. 17, 2011 5:03 AM
But... I *like* being on the outside!
Leave a Comment