From: Kay.Shapero@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org (Kay Shapero)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: some anthropology notes
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 15:45:56 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:102/524 - StormGate Aerie, Los Angeles CA

Various recent postings both here and elsewhere give me the feeling 
it's about time for a short dissertation on small group dynamics from 
a somewhat anthropological view.

Specifically, I want to talk about what may be described as subcul-
tures, 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 SCA, 
science fiction fandom in general, and furry fandom in particular.  
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 impera-
tives of the other culture, or ghettoization where members of a par-
ticular 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 (1) intrinsic interest in the 
theme, (2) social (a friend or mate is part of the group), (3) politi-
cal (membership in the group may be of help to achieve ends in the 
larger culture), and sometimes (4) out and out powerseeking; the 
search for a small enough pond in which one can be a large frog.  
There may also be a bit of overlap, especially between the last and 
the first.  But one thing seems clear - members of one category fre-
quently cannot understand, or even recognize the motives of those of 
another.  We shall now explore a few of the problems this can lead 
to...

With any relatively recently created hobby group, people of the first 
category predominate and include the people who created the hobby 
group in the first place.  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 anar-
chistic in nature, especially when viewed from the outside, or by 
people of the fourth category (about which more later).  Every one of 
the other categories at this point has potential dangers, some more 
than others.  

Category two people will come and go (case in point, the girl/boy-
friend of the roleplaying gamer who comes to a few sessions, is bored 
silly, and either breaks up with the gamer or pries him/her away from 
the game) and unless they're particularly vindictive, they will not be 
a problem.  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.  This can be a nuisance, and does not do your hobby 
group's public image any good.  Accordingly, the smart club does not 
simply sort of ignore category two members; it tries to find something 
to interest them instead.

Category three people will be kind of rare in a new group 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.  Of course what the lions are famous for may 
be the same thing as what the hobby group deals with, such as famous 
cartoonists starting a cartoonist's club.  In any case, if the group 
and the fame are for two different things, category three folks will 
act much like category two, while if they're the same thing they may 
well resemble category one.  Herein lies the danger; in their efforts 
to be noticed by the "big guns", category three people can do some 
pretty strange things and not all realize just how far it is safe to 
go.  So you get the "fanboy from hell" syndrome, to use an example 
from comics/anime/furry fandom, and before long all the "big guns" may 
be forgiven for an assumption that the average fan of category ONE is 
a fanboy from hell.  This pisses off no end of people, and again can 
really wreck the image of your hobby group.

OK, here we go with category four...  At first glance, it is tempting 
to simply award this one the G. Gordon Liddy award en masse ("The 
population of horses asses outnumbers the population of horses."), but 
that wouldn't be fair.  In fact category four people who are in this 
category because they cannot achieve the power over others they desire 
in the outside world for reasons OTHER than lack of competence, _and_ 
either also belong to category one, or are at least not bored with the 
topic may be true assets to a club.  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 keep-
ing 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, the SCA, or furry fandom 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 hobby group, or just plain too selfcen-
tered to take into consideration the feelings of the members of the 
hobby 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 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 leader-
ship 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 will-
ing 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 leader WANTS it to, the search is on for the political 
enemy who must be trying to take the club away from it's rightful 
king..er leader.  If the new leader is the only category four member, 
this can damp down pretty quickly once everyone else appoints him 
designated twit and ignores him.  But if there are any other category 
four types about THEY will all promptly start attempting to seize 
power and SAVE THE CLUB.  At this point your best bet is to sneak out 
the back, lock the door, tiptoe off down the street and start a new 
club...

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 set-
ting, is to find one or more other people who agree with your opin-
ions, 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" 
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 exam-
ple from a writer's club, and a clique within the club.  Round one - 
Individual one: "That guy puts too much sex in his stories."  Individ-
ual two: Y'know, you're right - that guy is practically writing por-
nography.", "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", though 
in the case of furry fandom this could be SF fandom in general) 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 this before.  I think I'm seeing some of it now.  I don't 
believe any of the category four folks involved are reading this, but 
if you are, it is SILLY to try to sink the ship just because nobody 
will let you be captain.

Y'know, I think there's a filksong in this.......



--  

Kay Shapero
Internet: Kay.Shapero@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Kay.Shapero@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry