On Social Groups

[gothwalk]

There seems to be some kind of need for any social group to have an underdog. Sometimes the underdog is a jester, sometimes a charity case, sometimes a victim, sometimes an almost outcast. They're the person about whom other people talk in negative terms, be they "have you heard what he did now?" to "Why doesn't she go to a shrink?" to "When is he going to get over this wearing a dress thing?".

Sometimes, however, the underdog rebels - decides to refuse the charity, no longer be the butt of jokes, strike back, or forge friendships outside the group. This always provokes backlash, as the group tries hard to either keep their underdog, punish them for straying, or get a new one, all at once. Instant polarisation of the group appears - you're either on the side of the underdog, or the other side. Members of the "other side" may contact the underdog directly, and either try to persuade them not to rebel, for their own good, or point out how much they are hurting the group, or members of the group.

Strangely, even when the underdog is gone from the group, they can still fulfil that function as a target for any bad feelings the group has, and the group draws closer together in their dislike of this "common enemy" and the feeling of comradeship that they get from the underdogs opposition to all of them. Anyone attempting to defend the underdog can be likewise attacked, unless they're a person of higher social standing in the group, in which case things lapse into sullen silence. Defending in this way, however, is the first step towards becoming the new underdog.

Now, it might be thought that what I've described here is confined to teenagers and younger children. Surely adults can overcome this kind of unconscious behaviour, and will act rationally. Especially if they're intelligent people. But in the last week, I've seen a social group go through precisely this. And they are definitely intelligent people - but it's truly bizarre what this situation does to them.

I've seen kindly people - people I respect, or in some cases, respected - act like children, saying hurtful and indeed hateful things. I've seen elements of the underdog's history, both inside and outside the group, dug up and thrown. And I've seen the gathering in other places of the group to sniff and comment and talk carefully and specifically to other people who have fallen out with the underdog. Now, I'm not saying the underdog is one hundred percent blameless here. But the degree of mistreatment that they have received is out of all proportion to anything they did - except try to stop being the underdog.

I'm not naming names here - I thought about it, and then decided that bringing any more attention to the actual affair could do no good; it would only attract voyeurs. The people involved know who they are, and know what they have done. I doubt that they'll accept this explanation of why - they'll provide dozens of justifications, many coming down to "[Underdog] started it!"

And all I can do is stand on the sidelines and say: grow up.

Comments

[two-star.livejournal.com]

I nominate you to be our new whipping-boy.

Rene Girard, Violence and the Sacred

[dryad-wombat.livejournal.com]

I've noticed this over the years too -- the best analyst of it I've found is the French philosopher/sociological type Rene Girard, in his book Violence and the Sacred, where he analyses how scapegoating constitutes a social group. He approaches it via ancient sacrificial economies, which rather gloomily implies we've been doing it for several millenia. :(

I have cited Girard in social situations before where I've felt like pointing out the current scapegoat by which the group is constituting itself. It's really striking; I agree .. and it's ghastly to see.

[piratejenny.livejournal.com]

Actually, humans aren't the only animals that do this. Wolves and dolphins are two others I can think of offhand.

And if you're referring to what I'm pretty sure you are, I really have to say that you're really not aware of all the dynamics involved, there are both years and areas of background that you're not necessarily involved in. You also only have one side of the story--granted I'm sure it's persuasive, but it's not the only side.

[tanaise.livejournal.com]

It's not a scapegoat issue. Scapegoats tend to not have done anything wrong, and do not insist on controlling all aspects of their environment. This is a divorce. Of a friendship, not of a relationship, but the same issues apply. In a divorce you look at both sides of the relationship, and you decide which side you agree with, and which side is a psychotic hosebeast. Seeing as I know everyone in the situation, it's hard, but I know who I judge sane, and that's the side I support. And I'm sorry the situation came to this point. And I'm sorry you can't see things as clearly as the rest of us can, but we have the advantages of having met her and other people who she was friends with, and being able to make our own judgements without the filter of other people's opinions, so you may never understand.

[maida-mac.livejournal.com]

What you describe is a normal human activity, as much as I despise it. However, I think in this case that you're in error in using it. That's my perspective though and I don't expect you to believe the same way that I do. Variety is the spice of life and all that.

Remember that there's always at least three sides to a story, if not a million more. I choose to not take sides in this case, however I also refuse to support certain behavior. Everybody does things that they regret when they're angry. There is one post that I read, that was deleted relatively soon after and that most people didn't see, that went past a line of behavior for me. I don't care how angry or upset someone is, there are simply some lines that shouldn't be crossed, in my book. That one did and I couldn't handle it.

I do my best not to judge people on other's interpretations of their actions, but on what they actually do.

[eudaimonia.livejournal.com]

Sorry Drew, as much as I like you and think you're an all around nifty person, you're way off base on this one, sadly enough. There's a whole huge back story to this that explains what's going on, including people who are and have been right in the thick of it, in person. The people you are criticising in this case, anyway, are still the wonderful people you thought they were. It's a very sad situation for many. I haven't been too involved in this publicly myself because honestly there's too much stress to deal with in my real life right now to even think about it. Family comes first, in my case.

[ailbhe]

I get the impression fromthe other comments that this isn't about the situation I assumed it was. But there is somewhere I no longer go because of the way the inhabitants treated the underdog when s/he rebelled; it's just not friendly enough for me to want to be there anymore.

So it's more common than I thought... Adults can be so childish.

[bardiphouka.livejournal.com]

While I have a guess as to which persona are involved,it is not a situation I have any desire to be part of,not knowing all the facts. But I think there is merit to the general comment. Wether it is in society as a whole or in small groups of people, there need always be someone lower. Why? I am not really sure.

[teapot-farm.livejournal.com]

As a general comment, I have not found this to be the case - sometimes it is, but certainly not always (and I tend to avoid the social groups where it happens, and haven't found it difficult to do this).
In the specific case you are presumably referring to, I personally find it easier to believe that I was mistaken about one person who I thought was a great person (and who I still think can be, if she can get herself back on track) than that I was wrong about 10 different people, *all* of whom are out to get someone for no reason other than that they''ve suddenly decided to be 'hurtful and hateful' when they've never done that before. Some of the people you refer to have been harsh to others, but some - well, I can't think of *any* time when I've seen EvilAri be unkind to anyone. Ever. Sorry Ari, there goes your image...
I don't intend to discuss this any further. I really don't see that it would help anyone involved.

[juanfandango.livejournal.com]

Occam's Razor.

[tikimama.livejournal.com]

Usually, growing up means understanding that one can't know everyside of the story, nor presume to know "The Truth" about something you are only barely peripherally involved in. So, I say, take your own high and mightly advice.

"The Underdog." What a joke. It's like in any sub-dom (or addict-co-dependent, if you like) relationship: the passive, the sub, the underdog has FAR more power than the dom, though it seems like the opposite from the outside or on the surface. They control it all. They're not an innocent victim, though they like to play that angle.

[juanfandango.livejournal.com]

Een England we have a sayeeng,pot, kettle, black

:-)

[fiddledragon]

Thank you! I never thought about it that way with regard to some stuff that's gone on up here in person - *chuckle* I tend to be the one in a certain mutual friend's position...the one who's the butt of the "Don't you know how terrible so-and-so is" rumors...it has gotten to me upon occassion - but what you say makes sense...and makes it easier to ignore. Thanks :)

[trouvera.livejournal.com]

Studies of jr. high students have shown that in virtually every 'quasi-stable' social group that numbers larger than 5, 4 roles emerge consistently: Leader, peacemaker, clown, and scapegoat. In smaller groups the same roles do occur, but some individuals will take on dual roles. However, such dualities rarely involve the scapegoat role. That is to say, you might be the leader and the peacemaker, or the peacemaker and the clown (a common combo), but it is virtually impossible to be the clown and the scapegoat. (A recent study from Colorado State U supports evidence of these roles also occurring in alcoholic, abusive and/or otherwise dysfunctional families.)

An interesting aside in that these characteristics also manifest in our archtypes and mythos.

Just an academic aside...personally I think tanaise's comparison to divorce is most appropriate, however, I don't think that the extremes of hero or beast are the most productive of terms. On the otherhand, I am a confirmed peacemaker, so searching for calming language is my stock in trade...

[dryad-wombat.livejournal.com]

I am a confirmed peacemaker, so searching for calming language is my stock in trade...


I second that!

And in the vein of peacefulness and this whole post-and-thread -- someone invoked the metaphor of "divorce" earlier, and described that as a matter of extremes. She said it involved choosing which person is "sane" and which is a "psycho hose beast" -- but surely, always, BOTH people are sane, just not compatible.

I have been divorced myself, and there was no animosity either between us or among our friends. Just because a group divorces doesn't mean one side is "sane" and the other isn't. It's like any divorce. I really believe that all people are very wonderful but they are just sometimes not compatible. But I am sure everyone always MEANS well.