Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale/Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso/Dr. Doyle/Re Hobby group dynamics

Text File | 1994-11-11 | 12KB | 211 lines

                 A FEW OBSERVATIONS ON HOBBY GROUP DYNAMICS
                                   by
                        Kay Shapero @ 1:102/524

Recent events in Fidonet in general and FidoNews in particular suggest
the following, while originally meant for a different audience might
be of some use.  Accordingly, here follows a short dissertation on
relatively small group dynamics from a somewhat anthropological view,
based on personal observations of such phenomena including various
literary fandoms, college organizations, gaming clubs, and computer
nets.

Specifically, I want to talk about what may be described as
subcultures, or hobby groups - groups of individuals bound together by
a common interest or theme, in which membership is voluntary.  Such
things as chess and bridge leagues, folk dancing clubs, the Society
for Creative Anachronism, ham radio clubs or the various nets and
zones of FIDOnet.  This as opposed to cultural enclaves, where members
from a completely different culture can be found living inside of the
territory of another culture but paying as little heed as possible to
the imperatives of the other culture, or ghettoization where members
of a particular culture are forced into a subculture by some
characteristic or characteristics which are seen by the larger culture
as forming an obvious bond, and as being strange at best, unsavory at
worst.

Now there are all sorts of motives for joining a hobby group, but they
can be divided rather loosely into four categories
(1) intrinsic interest in the theme,
(2) social (a friend or mate is part of the group),
(3) political (membership in the group may be of help to achieve ends in
the larger culture), and sometimes
(4) out and out power seeking; the search for a small enough pond in
which one can be a large frog.  Now these motives are not exclusive and
frequently members can be found who embody several of them.  But one
thing seems clear - members whose motives fall entirely, or nearly
entirely into one category frequently cannot understand, or even
recognize the motives of those of another which they do not share.  We
shall now explore a few of the problems this can lead to...

With any hobby group in existence for less than a decade or so, people
primarily interested in the theme of the group predominate and include
many of the people who created the hobby group in the first place.  In
the case of FIDOnet, that would be the sysops of the original net
structure, and most of the ones who have joined over the succeeding
years.  If there are any recognized leaders at all, they are of the
first group, but unless there's some overwhelming reason for a rigid
formal structure, they tend to be somewhat anarchistic in nature,
especially when viewed from the outside, or by people primarily
motivated by power seeking (about which more later).  Every one of the
other categories at this point has potential dangers, some more than
others.

Folks with category two motives don't tend to linger unless they also
develop motives of one or more of the other types (case in point, the
girl/boyfriend of the wargaming enthusiast who comes to a few
sessions, is bored silly, and either breaks up with the player or
pries him/her away from the game) and unless they're particularly
vindictive, pose more of a nuisance than a threat. If they are, and
can't pry the friend/mate away from the hobby, they go forth and give
interviews of the "Golf ruined my life!" variety or go on talk shows
explaining why Dungeons and Dragons is a tool of Satan.  Which can do
bad things to your group's public image, which is why the smart group
does not simply ignore folks who drifted in for category two reasons;
it tries to find something to interest them instead while the primary
member is doing whatever it is the club does.  If possible - in the
case of something like FIDOnet benign neglect probably IS the way to
go, for anybody further away from the social member than their local
sysop.

Category three motives are relatively rare in a new group (one less
than 10 or so years old, such as FIDOnet) unless the other members are
politically important already.  For example, a golf club started by
professional movie makers might well attract wannabe actors; a fishing
league begun by Congressmen might attract anyone who wants to
influence one.  Sometimes what the lions are famous for may be the
same thing as what the hobby group deals with, such as famous authors
starting a writing club.  In any case, if the group and the fame are
for two different things, category three motives cause folks to act
much like those of category two, while if they're the same thing they
may well resemble those of category one.  Herein lies the danger; in
their efforts to be noticed by the "big guns", lion hunters can do
some pretty strange things and not all realize just how far it is safe
to go.  So you get the "fan from hell" syndrome, and before long all
the "big guns" may be forgiven for an assumption that the average
individual who is in the hobby purely for the fun of it must also be a
"fan from hell".  This upsets no end of people, and again can really
wreck the image of your hobby group.  (Comics fandom is a prime
example.)

OK, here we go with category four...  This motive can be of immense
value, or prove a serious nuisance.  First off, people who are
attempting to find power in a small group because they cannot achieve
the power over others they desire in the outside world for reasons
OTHER than lack of competence, _and_ are interested in the intrinsic
nature of the group (category one), or are at least not bored with the
topic frequently prove serious assets to the group.  Witness the
caliber of staff many a volunteer charity club has gained in the past
from people who for reasons of sex, age, or race were actively
prevented from wielding any authority.  A true benevolent dictatorship
can be wonderful for keeping the rest of the world out of the hair of
the vast majority of the club (category one) while they enjoy their
hobby.  After all, one gets enough aggravation in the "real world",
and despite rumor, most folks who partake in any hobby, be it bridge,
little theater, the Society for Creative Anachronism, or FIDONet  DO
"have a life" besides their favorite pastime.

The real trouble comes when you get someone who is either not QUITE
competent to run even a small group, or otherwise potentially
competent, but just plain too self centered to take into consideration
the feelings of the other members of the group.  It is from THIS
category that most direct challenges to the original leadership of the
hobby group tend to come.  And this confuses the heck out of the
category one motivated folks, who can't understand why this newbie
seems to think that they are running some sort of Horrible
Dictatorship.  It's actually fairly easy to take the leadership away
from someone who doesn't really want it in the first place.  Which
means you can wind up with someone nominally in charge who doesn't
quite know what he is doing, and worse, is unaware of this fact.  This
doesn't necessarily mean disaster, if the newbie is willing to learn.
If, however, he isn't, doesn't realize he simply doesn't know
everything he thinks he does, and is also of the mindset that assumes
that all people everywhere are primarily actuated by power seeking,
and that all actions must be explained in that light, Katy bar the
door!  As soon as it becomes obvious that the group is not running in
the style in which either it did, or in which the category four
motivated leader WANTS it to, the search is on for the political enemy
who must be trying to take the group away from it's rightful king..er
leader.  If the new leader is the only power seeker, this can damp
down pretty quickly once everyone else appoints him designated twit
and ignores him.  But if there are any others about THEY will all
promptly start attempting to seize power and SAVE THE CLUB/ECHO/NET.
At this point your best bet is to sneak out the back, lock the door,
tiptoe off down the street and start a new group...

Continuing on, let us consider power struggles and power seeking in a
bit more depth.  One classic way to gain power in a small group
setting, is to find one or more other people who agree with your
opinions, and start up a clique.  For examples of this, consider the
stereotypical handful of highschool kids (as seen in everything from
the movie "Heathers", to a recent Dinosaurs episode) who set up the
"in group", in which members must wear the "right" clothes, go the
"right" places, shop the "right" stores, and think the "right"
thoughts.  Now most folks have a small group of friends with whom they
are comfortable and have fairly similar outlooks, but in a classic
clique, conversation among the "in group" tends to focus on the (vital
to it's existence) "out group" and why they are "out".  With one of
these cliques found within a hobby group, discussion between the core
members and their hangers-on may consist heavily of what's wrong with
the hobby group, which, however it's stated REALLY boils down to the
fact that includes the "out group".  All members of the "in group" are
of course constantly reinforced in their opinions of the "out group"
FidoNews 9-52                  Page 14                     28 Dec 1992


by sheer repetition.  (You now know why I avoid "war boards".  But I
digress.)

Mind you, the opinions are not stated directly as "they're not like
US", but usually follow characteristics that exist OR ARE ASSUMED TO
EXIST in the "out group".  The net result, should the clique be left
alone for awhile, can be a lot like a cyclotron - let's take an
example from a writer's club, and a clique within the club.  Round one
- Individual one: "That guy puts too much sex in his stories."
Individual two: Y'know, you're right - that guy is practically writing
pornography.", "Individual three: "Yeah, I never did like that guy's
writing."  Wait two days while individual one talks to individual
four, individual two talks to individual five, individual three talks
to individual six.  Round two - Individual two: "That guy's latest
story is a bit steamy don't you think?"  Individual four :"Yeah, I
heard somewhere that he writes pornography on the side."  Individual
three: "Hey, that's just what I heard too!"

Keep this up for a few more rounds and you'll have all parties firmly
convinced that the guy in question is a professional pornographer, and
that EVERYBODY knows it.

Mind you, this can happen by accident - if someone's TRYING to do that
it can get even worse.  Especially if he decides that the only way to
get control is to convince everyone else in the whole hobby that
they're all in Terrible Danger from the Outside and only following His
Plans will Save The Hobby From Destruction.  And figures out the
easiest way to do this is to create rumors about the hobby group in
the next cultural group up the stack (aka "the outside world" usually,
though this phenomenon is even more concentrated in hobby subgroups -
say a local net vs FIDOnet, or a local bbs vs the local net) and about
how horrible it is because of certain factors and people, then tell
everyone to clean up their act so the outsiders will not think bad
things about them any more.  Mind you, this almost never works - what
this approach usually does is, if sufficiently successful, kill off
the group.  I've seen it happen.

The fact is, like it or not, there are really not that many, if any
positions of real power in FIDOnet.  Essentially everything we do
depends on the willing cooperation of others.  This will not change
regardless of who is theoretically "in charge".  So, like the
proverbial dog who chased cars, I would suggest that the Man (or
Woman) Who Would Be King, first SERIOUSLY consider what you mean to do
with your objective if you achieve it.  And remember - the more people
you annoy on the way up, the higher the probability that if you reach
the top at all, you will find that the entire pyramid has shifted out
from underneath you...

===== END OF ARTICLE =====
--
                                       Andrew McNamara
                                       [e-mail]

--- News/Import v1.0