|
|
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004, 06:38 am
musing on the subject of discomfort as a guide
we use discomfort to guide us. For instance, I'm not-too-shabby when it comes to spelling and grammar. I usually turn off automatic spellchecking and grammarchecking processes because my natural instincts seem more accurate and the automatic stuff gets in my way. One part of this is that looking at something that isn't 'spelled right' is actually uncomfortable to me. (I'm not slamming anyone here, in case that isn't clear. This is just a handy example) so it's easy for me to know when a little work on my part could easily 'improve' a particular bit of text. Other people are not automatically bothered by spelling issues. (ok, for fairness's sake another example. It takes a lot of untidiness for me to become uncomfortable with it. I'm also _really_ bad at cleaning up. ) I think a lot of acculturation-type issues can sometimes be boiled down to sharing the same things to be uncomfortable about. If it makes someone's life easier for all the people around him to have a glyph on their forehead that has something to do with their occupation (or favorite color, who knows), makes that person's life more difficult when the people around him don't have the right glyph, don't have a glyph at all.... It's gonna make him uncomfortable to be around people who have the 'wrong' glyph or don't have one at all. Suddenly, he is a yardstick of what the 'right' glyph is. It's instinctual to him. Writing down the rules on what glyph to wear are just abstracting out what makes him more or less comfortable. If someone lives in a culture where the default is that people wear the 'right' glyph, then people who do _not_ feel uncomfortable when someone is wearing the 'wrong' glyph are going to have to work harder to know what the 'right' glyph is in any situation.... (such people may find themselves thinking "What's the big deal about this glyph business anyway? Is it really _that_ important?") People who _are_ good at knowing what the 'correct' glyph is might find themselves confused by the idea of someone who doesn't.... "But _everybody_ knows what the right glyph would be!" "He just must not be trying hard enough." Ok.... pulling it all together time.... I guess.... if one finds a (sub)culture where some particular thing seems to be seen as important to members of that (sub)culture.... and one is trying to get along better with members of that (sub)culture..... and one doesn't see the point to that particular 'important thing'.... and there's too many total members (or maybe 'members you might want to interact with') of that (sub)culture to really just convince them all that that 'this particular thing you think is important.... isn't really' (or it just seems like, because of the level of importance that it would just take way way too long to change the mind of all the relevant people) then one way to approach getting along better with that (sub)culture would be to think "Ok.... if I _wanted_ to make it so I'd be uncomfortable with the 'wrong' choice in this context, how would I go about doing that?" I think that's a question that doesn't get asked for the things that end up being more difficult to understand.... because most people really aren't looking for _more_ things to be uncomfortable about.... (vague feelings/thoughts about cost-benefit analysis here. ;) Oh... but you also have to be careful how you apply that discomfort thing.... if you're aiming for getting 'the right glyph' and you just end up making yourself uncomfortable with people who have foreheads of an unusual shape... an unhelpful rather than helpful guide has been developed (a problem I ofen run into. correlating the wrong things) thoughts?
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004 08:09 am (UTC)
 cellio
Thanks for an interesting post. One way to become attuned to the subculture is to change yourself to be uncomfortable with the same things, as you suggest. Another is to make deliberate efforts to fit in -- and you might find yourself automatically becoming uncomfortable as your attitudes shift. If I were going into the subculture you describe, then beforehand I would talk to a friend who's part of that subculture and ask her to give me "glyphs 101" so I can come armed with the correct assortment and an understanding of when to apply which to my forehead. It takes a certain degree of sensitivity to realize you need to do something like this, of course, so it's entirely possible that I wouldn't notice that there are also rules about sock color in that subculture. You do the best you can. (A corollary is that I find it very, very difficult to enter new subcultures if I don't have a friendly contact within the group already.) If I didn't actually care one way or the other about glyphs but wanted to fit in, this would be sufficient. It would be harder to take this approach if I thought glyphs were just plain stupid; I'd have to choose between playing along anyway or not joining that subculture, because attempting to persuade them that I'm right and they're wrong is not only impractical but rude. It's their subculture and I'm the visitor; if I don't like it, I shouldn't try to enter. (Obviously if it's a joint venture -- we're all there from the beginning -- that's different, but that's not the situation you describe.) A mistake that some people make when entering new-to-them subcultures is angsting about it too much. Most people will recognize an imperfect attempt as an attempt regardless, so if you (as the visitor) are open to gentle correction, you really don't have to get it completely right from the start. In fact, attempting to get it completely right may come across as uppity to the subculture members who have only achieved 90% right themselves. When I'm a newcomer I try to mostly fit in, just standing out enough to be recognized as a newcomer in need of some guidance. I don't want to be a putz, of course, but I'm also not trying to be perfect. That's just my approach, though; I'm not saying it works for everyone.
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004 12:14 pm (UTC)
siderea
It takes a certain degree of sensitivity to realize you need to do something like this, of course, so it's entirely possible that I wouldn't notice that there are also rules about sock color in that subculture. Out of curiosity, did you make up that example from thin air, or is that a reference to Johann von Narrenstein's great sock-color-in-civ-war-re-enactor-subcult ure story (from his research for his PhD in folklore)?
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004 12:18 pm (UTC)
cellio
Wow. I made it up. I was trying to pick something that I thought would be about as real as forehead-glyphs. Guess I missed. :-) What's the nature of the sock-color thing among civ-war folks? Is this a case where there's conflicting evidence and different groups have different strongly-held views, or what? (I guess I'd always assumed that if civ-war folks can document uniforms down to button styles in individual years, they'd also know about socks.)
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004 12:25 pm (UTC)
siderea
No, it's better than that. As I recall the story: He showed up at a muster with perfectly documented, perfectly authentic civ-war sock. Red socks. His unit commander took him aside and explained nicely that, even though red socks were, in fact, perfectly period for them, they did not wear red socks because it conflicted with the portrayal. I don't recall if he came out and said "because moderns aren't used to seeing red socks on their civil war soldiers", but that was the point. John's point to me in telling this story (at Pennsic) was "Heh, they're 'Not as it was but as it should have been', too!"
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004 12:21 pm (UTC)
siderea
A mistake that some people make when entering new-to-them subcultures is angsting about it too much. Most people will recognize an imperfect attempt as an attempt regardless, so if you (as the visitor) are open to gentle correction, you really don't have to get it completely right from the start. Well, I must point out not all subcultures welcome new members; what you describe is one which wants new members and so in inclined to acculturate them. A subculture which is using it's shibboleths (e.g. glyph knowledge) to keep out strangers (e.g. a small town which sees newcomers as yuppie invaders) won't be as tolerant. That said, in my travels, the two most ingratiating traits a person can have -- the two traits which get one "in like flynn" in most human groups -- are: (1) openly soliciting correction and (2) willingness to work hard.
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004 12:27 pm (UTC)
cellio
True. I think most subcultures are actually indifferent to newcomers, neither minding (if they behave right) nor objecting. Some actively seek new people, and some, as you say, try to keep people out. There's very little you can do to insert yourself into a group that doesn't want you, of course, and you'll have to work harder in a group that's indifferent than in one that's recruiting. (1) openly soliciting correction and (2) willingness to work hard.I agree with this analysis.
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004 12:49 pm (UTC)
siderea
Hmm. I honestly have no sense of whether most subcultures are indifferent/objecting/welcoming. I wouldn't even know how to go about counting them. A subculture which is too hostile to converts is going to die out unless it is also coupled to a strong childbearing imperative and an excellent youth-inculcation tradition. Durable subcultures necessarily have figured out how to replace their membership, because humans wear out.
Sun, Mar. 14th, 2004 08:02 pm (UTC)
cellio
I don't know how to measure it either. I could be wrong. This is just what I observe. Most self-selected communities -- clubs, religions, perhaps even neighborhoods in some cases -- seem to be open to the idea of newcomers, but they're not out there on street corners making the pitch. Or, at least, I'm aware of the existence of a great many groups that have never solicited me for membership. I assume, but do not know, that if I sought them out most of them wouldn't tell me to get lost. A subculture which is too hostile to converts is going to die out unless it is also coupled to a strong childbearing imperative and an excellent youth-inculcation tradition. Or has finicky standards and a willingness to pursue specific converts. But yeah, mostly what you said.
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004 12:35 pm (UTC)
siderea
I think cellio is right that if you just learn the system the discomfort shows up on it's own. But I think you are on a useful path, in that at the very least one has to be open to that discomfort. I sometimes hear people sneer, about joining a subculture, "I don't want to know the differences between those things." Well, then they have marginalized themselves. I have this anthropology hobby. Some anthropologists are interested in the specifics of which (sub)cultures have which shibboleths, "glyph systems", etc. I'm in a related camp which is interested in the abstract layer right above that: How are these systems used to mediate the idea of "membership"? Ignoring the specific glyphs, can we find commonalities in the forms of these systems? Most people take their system of glyphs absolutely for granted. Those few who see them as arbitrary often jumpt to exactly the wrong conclusion that because they are arbitrary they are unimportant. The really socially powerful realization to have is: Every human group has shibboleths, has norms. All it takes to be accepted by a group is to learn and manefest their shibboleths and norms. Those indicators of in-ness and out-ness may seem arbitrary. Passwords often are! That, after all, is what a shibboleth is -- a sort of password to be allowed "in". Learning to wear the right color socks is precisely like memorizing the password to a new MUD, and should be no more objectionable.
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004 12:49 pm (UTC)
dmnsqrl
thanks!..very.helpful.insight..:)
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004 01:11 pm (UTC)
siderea
Furthermore... One of the capacities a human can have is for picking up on and internalizing glyph systems. The same way that some people are really phenomenal at remembering vast profusions of passwords, some people are really great at picking up on an internalizing social norms. It's a trainable skill. I'm terrible at memorizing arbitrary strings, but as a programmer I'm constantly being given access to systems with assigned passwords, so I've gotten a lot better at it. Similarly, an army brat who finds himself in a new school every two years might begin to pick up the skill of learning the local norms, even without a lot of talent for it. The skill has several components. You have to have that capacity for discomfort. If you don't feel uncomfortable when a norm (of your internalized culture) is violated around you, you don't have a necessary component of the feedback system to go learn others' norms. But, on the other hand, if you are hypersensitive to norms -- you feel that discomfort too strongly -- it will be very hard for you to get over your own culture's norms and accept another culture's norms. I tend more to the latter (too sensitive to violations); I am guessing you tend toward the former (not sensitive enough to violations). These are issues for which one can compensate, through being conscious of it. So it takes both a perceptiveness, and a flexibility. To move from culture to culture, you have to be able to turn on and off which things matter to you (e.g. in this culture, sock color matters, in that it doesn't.) Most people don't have this skill; there's no call to develop it. You'd be astonished at how many people express shock to find out that I [am knowledgeble about|enjoy] [filk|traditional Irish music|contra-dancing|role-playing], since I won't do them in the SCA. They have trouble with the novel idea that someone might have a sense of appropriateness which says "This thing is good in this context, and bad in that context." Most people think their social norms are reality itself; they take them totally for granted. There's great social power in understanding that what is good is separate from what is, and seeing that what is and is not acceptible is not carved into the very atoms of matter.
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004 06:08 pm (UTC)
dmnsqrl
You have to have that capacity for discomfort. If you don't feel uncomfortable when a norm (of your internalized culture) is violated around you, you don't have a necessary component of the feedback system to go learn others' norms. But, on the other hand, if you are hypersensitive to norms -- you feel that discomfort too strongly -- it will be very hard for you to get over your own culture's norms and accept another culture's norms. I tend more to the latter (too sensitive to violations); I am guessing you tend toward the former (not sensitive enough to violations). These are issues for which one can compensate, through being conscious of it.
It might be that I have very very few norms which have rarely until now had an opportunity to be violated. I've had to work to figure out what those "flashing red lights" were and what the heck they meant. But other than that, I'd say you had made a fair assessment.
Sat, Mar. 13th, 2004 05:30 am (UTC)
dmnsqrl
So it takes both a perceptiveness, and a flexibility. To move from culture to culture, you have to be able to turn on and off which things matter to you (e.g. in this culture, sock color matters, in that it doesn't.) Yeah, that "turn on and off" part is the one I think I'm having the hardest time with right now. I think one part of the problem may be that I have always associated my "turn on and off" stuff with particular _people_ "Dad doesn't like to talk about {blah}" or rarely, particular _locations_ "Don't be rambunctious in a sacred space" (that one's a lot harder for me because my 'location context identification skills' aren't the greatest. I'd say it takes me a couple of years at least of being immersed in a new location-related context for me to 'get it' without reminders) I'm now occasionally finding the uber-confusing-to-me situation of "I was in this room, with this person yesterday and {foo} was ok... now it's not. What happened?" complexity :)
Sat, Mar. 13th, 2004 11:44 am (UTC)
dmnsqrl: after some discussion with <lj user="tim_">
I have concluded that I apparently find it far easier (it happens without requiring anywhere near as much interaction/observation/explanation) to internalize an understanding of what is accepted by an unfamiliar (sub)culture (or a representative thereof) than to internalize an understanding of what is rejected by an unfamiliar (sub)culture (or a representative therof) This may not be the case for all people :) The more different people I meet the more things I find it is easier to think of as being acceptable. It's harder for me to remember the 'not acceptable'/'required's
Sat, Mar. 13th, 2004 01:37 pm (UTC)
siderea: Re: after some discussion with <lj user="tim_">
That is a really profoundly interesting insight. So, do you think it is you work from the assumption that all things are rejected until demonstrated otherwise? Or is it that you naturally tend to presume things are accepted? Or something else?
Sat, Mar. 13th, 2004 07:53 pm (UTC)
dmnsqrl: Re: after some discussion with <lj user="tim_">
I think since college I have tended to assume that the people I would like to hang around with/are worth hanging around with are usually accepting of a lot of things and if something specific is rejected it will be mentioned at some point and possibly even explained. (I tend to assume if a rejected thing isn't worth having attention drawn to it and possibly a discussion entered into about it, it's not _that_ rejected) (that goes for me, too. If I'm not willing to tell someone I'm bothered by something and entertain a discussion of why it bothers me, I don't get to penalize that person in any way for doing something that bothers me. The most I allow myself to do if I'm not willing to talk to that person about it is to try and find someone I trust who might understand why it is being done and have a discussion with the trusted person to get some perspective) I am examining the proposition that there are people that it would be worthwhile to interact with who have specific things they reject enough to affect their interaction with me but who would never want to comment about them. I'm aware there's probably normy stuff reflected in this....
Tue, Mar. 16th, 2004 06:04 pm (UTC)
jducoeur
They have trouble with the novel idea that someone might have a sense of appropriateness which says "This thing is good in this context, and bad in that context."Heh. I have to admit that I find it kind of fun to stretch the minds of the people who are weirded out when they see me doing Modern American Wiggle Dance (decently well, if I do say so myself), despite the fact that I won't do anything post-1700 in the SCA. And BTW, nicely stated point about shibboleths. I was making a closely related one in a different journal earlier today, on why so many people are so deeply bugged when folks try to do away with jargon like "Troll". Folks don't give up their shibboleths easily, especially when they don't consciously realize that that's what they are...
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004 01:50 pm (UTC)
ask_tiresias: because most people really aren't looking for _more_ things to be uncomfortable about....
Oh come now, do you really think so? Fundamentalists condemn the outside world not because they fhink the world should change, but in order to define themselves in relation to it. Jon for instance is exceptionally guilty of looking for things to be uncomfortable about in order to better define where he is. It works like triangulation, distance between points, etc. Better, because condemnative discontent is communicative. Often groups behave like individuals in this respect, defining themselves in contrast to the norms they reject. It's unfortunate that human nature contradicts the much more constructive practice of defining your group by what it accepts. It could be a function of our language, that we define ideas more easily in negative terms rather than positive ones. I.E. "Don't be gay" vs. "Since the purpose of romantic love is procreation, act accordingly." (granted that argument is much more complicated, given the problematic nature of the assumptions it requires and the lack of common consensus on the evolutionary and biological roles of homosexuality in nature) but in sheer linguistic terms, you always hear the first structure, and rarely if ever the second.
Fri, Mar. 12th, 2004 05:59 pm (UTC)
dmnsqrl: Re: because most people really aren't looking for _more_ things to be uncomfortable about....
Maybe this is one of those things I just don't tend to understand about not-me people. I know _I_ don't tend to purposefully seek more things that make me feel uncomfortable. And I understand and empathize with people who also do not tend to do these things as well.....
Sat, Mar. 13th, 2004 05:45 am (UTC)
dmnsqrl: Re: because most people really aren't looking for _more_ things to be uncomfortable about....
Actually, I'd also say there's a difference between identifying stuff that is uncomfortable for you (which is a kind of definitional thing) and.... adding something to your life specifically for the purpose of the fact that it's uncomfortable ("I've just heard of people who worship purple triangles. Ewww. I'd better note where they do their purple triangle worshipping so I can avoid it." and "I've just heard of people who worship purple triangles. I think that's something I should be uncomfortable about _and_ I'm going to go out of my way to associate with them and feel uncomfortable about what they do.") A difference between _recognizing_ that something one used to be comfortable with one is no longer going to be comfortable with and _deciding_ that something that one used to be comfortable with now makes one uncomfortable ("You know.... I used to like blue, but Sally filled _so_ _much_ of her house with it that I can't stand it anymore" and "I used to like blue.... but.... I think I'm going going to not like it anymore. I _could_ keep liking it if I wanted to.... but... I think I won't") Most of the people I understand seem to feel that there's enough stuff out there that they don't know how to 'decide' to not make them uncomfortable, why 'decide' to _add_ things to the 'makes me uncomfortable and is part of my life' thing? But... I guess if there's some .... significant benefit to be gained from joining a society where blue is considered icky then it could be to one's benefit to develop a distaste for that color before going shopping for home decoration.....
|
thinky