Conflict In Niche Groups
Sep. 27th, 2004 11:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nemorathwaldIn my wanderings around the web I've noticed that certain kinds of conflict happen to very certain kinds of projects. Take for instance Orion's Arm, a collaborative worldbuilding project creating a science-fiction universe which is supposed to be "hard SF," meaning they can't just make up fake science, they are constrained to not contradict what science currently knows in 2004. On their e-mail list there are frequent flame wars that usually involve personality politics rather than disagreements over science! I was reminded of that when artificially-designed religions have fallouts, such as Universism or Church of Virus. Artificially-constructed languages also come to mind. And yet all these are the very same people who have the greatest need to band together to succeed, because they serve a niche within a niche.
Ask yourself why the Klingon language is the most widespread artificial language ever (far more so than Esperanto), and no one who speaks Klingon could care less if it is "flawed." "Flawed" is a concept which doesn't seem to apply to it-- "flawed" according to what? Guess what happens to highly talented and valuable (in my opinion) constructed languages which are intended to be "ideal" for real use? They split into countless squabbling factions over seemingly irrelevant grammar mechanisms. These factions often consist of one person, who hopefully can converse with himself in his unique "perfect language." Also coming to mind is the schism between Extropians and the World Transhumanist Association, two organizations I love, both transhumanist groups, who have immeasurably more in common with each other than they do with the rest of the world.
No one questions or even notices the hideous inadequacies of the English language. Why? Because as a naturally evolved language you don't have a chance to "get in on the ground floor." It's not up for dispute-- you take it or leave it, and you can't leave it. Like Microsoft, or revealed religion, the usefulness of English as a common cultural hegemony makes it a standard unto itself. Similarly, in Klingon, a Hollywood scriptwriter invents it off-the-cuff without one-one-thousandth the blood sweat and tears put in over decades by the Lojban Committee, because that guy doesn't have to fear having to speak it. He puts his language into a movie that links it to Star Trek and presto. This man becomes the only standard by which it needs to be judged. If you want to know the subjective state of one author's mind about his fantasy world, you just ask him and that settles it, like Jesus.
In an artificially constructed religion, or a serious constructed language, or hard science fiction, the only standard against which to measure success in its creation is reality itself, in which much less can ever be dogmatically settled. So the participants, starting from a blank slate, feel like they have a chance to create Perfection. So then they will settle for nothing less than Perfection, and a church split ensues. Ironically, the reason monolithic traditions endure is that they're set in stone and the opinion of the participants doesn't matter.
Net communities never survive unless they cultivate a certain kind of indifference as a virtue. I mean patience and grace to people hurting our feelings. "Lower your expectations" is my mantra. Being within that niche within a niche is more than enough to ask. May niche groups have laser-like focus on what they have in common, and indifference to peripheral issues, and the wisdom to tell the difference.
Ask yourself why the Klingon language is the most widespread artificial language ever (far more so than Esperanto), and no one who speaks Klingon could care less if it is "flawed." "Flawed" is a concept which doesn't seem to apply to it-- "flawed" according to what? Guess what happens to highly talented and valuable (in my opinion) constructed languages which are intended to be "ideal" for real use? They split into countless squabbling factions over seemingly irrelevant grammar mechanisms. These factions often consist of one person, who hopefully can converse with himself in his unique "perfect language." Also coming to mind is the schism between Extropians and the World Transhumanist Association, two organizations I love, both transhumanist groups, who have immeasurably more in common with each other than they do with the rest of the world.
No one questions or even notices the hideous inadequacies of the English language. Why? Because as a naturally evolved language you don't have a chance to "get in on the ground floor." It's not up for dispute-- you take it or leave it, and you can't leave it. Like Microsoft, or revealed religion, the usefulness of English as a common cultural hegemony makes it a standard unto itself. Similarly, in Klingon, a Hollywood scriptwriter invents it off-the-cuff without one-one-thousandth the blood sweat and tears put in over decades by the Lojban Committee, because that guy doesn't have to fear having to speak it. He puts his language into a movie that links it to Star Trek and presto. This man becomes the only standard by which it needs to be judged. If you want to know the subjective state of one author's mind about his fantasy world, you just ask him and that settles it, like Jesus.
In an artificially constructed religion, or a serious constructed language, or hard science fiction, the only standard against which to measure success in its creation is reality itself, in which much less can ever be dogmatically settled. So the participants, starting from a blank slate, feel like they have a chance to create Perfection. So then they will settle for nothing less than Perfection, and a church split ensues. Ironically, the reason monolithic traditions endure is that they're set in stone and the opinion of the participants doesn't matter.
Net communities never survive unless they cultivate a certain kind of indifference as a virtue. I mean patience and grace to people hurting our feelings. "Lower your expectations" is my mantra. Being within that niche within a niche is more than enough to ask. May niche groups have laser-like focus on what they have in common, and indifference to peripheral issues, and the wisdom to tell the difference.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
No surprise.
Date: 2004-09-29 09:18 am (UTC)Granted, fandom has the advantage of not being a church. Churches have the great liability that they come together around a new way for people to be, and so they expect each other to actually be that way. Plus they expect their church to be an official mouthpiece of the centerpiece of their life, which is a pretty high expectation. So it seems to me that if we attempts to solve the problem by writing the abolishment of personality politics into the founding constitution of a group, we exacerbate the problem by arguing about who is practicing personality politics rather than ignoring it. And a new church would be born. :^) So remember the key is, "lower your standards."
Re: No surprise.
Date: 2004-10-01 09:29 am (UTC)Congratulations, Matt. You have delivered to me a blindingly obvious, and, to me, completely new idea. Thank you. I must go muse, now. (:
Re: No surprise.
Date: 2004-10-01 11:04 am (UTC)Re: No surprise.
Date: 2006-06-24 03:28 am (UTC)And a new commune (http://www.kerista.com/) is born. I recall reading about the way the Kerista group tried to deal with all the interpersonal politics that come with the type of poly relationships they were trying to have, but not specifically which article it was in. In any case, your commentary reminded me of it.