Geek Culture Honors Thesis Interview

[nemorathwald]

A poster in Ops at U-Con advertised seeking geeks to be interviewed, for an honors thesis about geek culture. So I emailed Rachel Yung at and signed up. If you self-identify as a geek, Rachel wishes you to do likewise. Here is a transcript of the interview.

Rachel: Hi! This is Rachel, the one doing the geek study.

me: Hello there. I'm ready.

Rachel: Awesome. So, just to clarify: I'm doing this as part of my anthro honors thesis. Although I do intend to publish my findings, no identifying info will be included. You may opt out or refuse to answer any question at any time. Sound good to you?

me: OK!

Rachel: I'd like to start off by asking you a bit about your background. Could you describe yourself a little? Who you are, what you do, that sort of thing.

me: I am a male in early middle age, white, heterosexual, under-employed. I work in graphic design and publications. I come from a fundamentalist religious background and am outspokenly non-religious. I am in a polyamorous relationship with a computer geek. I run Linux, Mac, Windows, and Palm OS. My main interests include organizing science fiction or software conventions, and playing and designing board/card games.

Rachel: That segues quite nicely into my next question: what do you like to do in your spare time? Other than the aforementioned, of course.

me: I speak Lojban, an artificial human speakable language (like Esperanto or Klingon). It is engineered to minimize ambiguity with a grammar based on formal logic systems. I'm President of the Board of Directors of the Logical Language Group, founded thirty years ago to administer the language standard.

Rachel: How exactly do you administer the standard?

me: We maintain the official documents describing Lojban, rule on any changes to the grammar, and rule on edge cases of meanings in the more obscure parts of the vocabulary. Our language debugging committee is the authority when asking whether a particular utterance is valid Lojban.

Rachel: Impressive.

me: I mostly leave that to the others on the committee and act as a "cat herder", which is my principal talent. In most groups I am involved with, I drive the projects forward with emails, check how motivated the participants feel, thank donors, and give press interviews. That sort of thing.

Rachel: So, how do you think these things you've mentioned fit into geek culture?

me: I like to call Lojban a secret geek code.

Rachel: Why is that?

me: It's engineered for utility. It tends to attract geeks and high-functioning autistics. It resembles a computer language. And if everybody in the world learned it, we'd all probably leave.

Rachel: Leave?

me: Yes, because it would no longer feel like a ghetto subculture. Being a geek is about being intensely interested in things that others find boring and wish to avoid. Well, not avoid. Minimize. Like math, or language, or relationship skills. With language you learn just barely enough to get by, as an onerous chore, and would not learn a second language. Not Lojbanists. The weirdness and difficulty of Lojban is what makes it an endless source of fascination.

Let me know if I'm going on and on about this.

Rachel: Oh no, going on and on is a good thing. :)

me: Similarly, I think the reason that I know so many geeks who are polyamorous is the exact same distinction, applied to relationship skills. How many times have you heard someone say they are really tired of dating? They want to get one person monogamously and get it over with. Polyamorists are relationship geeks. They keep doing it over and over because they actually like relationships, instead of just getting their needs met to the bare minimum. That's my opinion.

Rachel: So someone can be a geek about any topic others consider boring?

me: Yes, if their interest is sufficiently obsessive.

Rachel: Is there anything you'd say someone has to know (or at least have heard of) in order to call him or herself a geek?

me: No, but I'd say that if you are a geek, you probably wish the answer were yes.

Rachel: Really? Why is that?

me: Because the obsessiveness of a geek tends to try to engulf their entire social environment if they're not careful, to exclude those who do not share that obsession, or who insufficiently share it.

Rachel: So would you say that you have a lot of non-geek friends?

me: No. That's a case in point. I have a hard time making friends in the workplace, at college, or anyone outside a subculture.

Rachel: And you think this is common to most geeks?

me: It's a strongly-bound trait of the radial category "geek". Do you know radial categories?

Rachel: Somewhat. Could you explain further?

me: Something is in the radial category "fruit" if it has enough of the strongly-bound traits such as bright color or sweet flavor. There are weakly-bound traits which are less important. Radial categories are less "on/off" than strict categories. Language breaks when you apply it to the real world. Defining words with radial categories adds flexibility to language without giving up on meaning. If I say "every geek can quote Monty Python", I'll be embarrassed when I am proved obviously wrong. However, I can say it is a weakly-bound trait.

Rachel: What would you say is a strongly-bound trait, then?

me: Interest in a topic the mainstream finds boring, to a level they find disagreeable. To a level some of them find disagreeable.

Another strongly-bound trait, in my opinion, is a self-image of independence and contrariness. (Whether accurate or not.)

Rachel: How do you determine what topics the mainstream finds boring?

me: For context of the question, who is making that determination?

Rachel: You, personally--or rather, on what basis you determine criteria for geekhood.

me: I define a mainstream interest as one concerned with maximizing the number of people with whom one is compatible, rather than concerned with that interest for its own sake, or choosing people for the interest.

Rachel: In that case, could something like football be excluded from that category if the interested person was truly enamoured of the sport for its own sake?

me: I would ask "is this person a geek?" instead of "is football a geek interest?" I'm not sure how I would tell what he or she would have done if football were less popular. So, as a rule of thumb, I feel I have no choice but to assume that person is not very geeky.

Rachel: But nothing about football (to continue with the hypothetical) is inherently opposed to geek culture.

me: Football is associated with things such as fitness, activity, and attractiveness on a physical level. These contradict weakly-bound traits of a geek. That's the most that I can say with confidence.

For maximizing the number of people with whom one is popular, there are no criteria more important than the physical. The internet created an entire social world in which that is less important. It caused some kind of critical mass in geek self-image. Now, instead of a stigma, it's a positive identification.

Rachel: Speaking of which--would you say that the internet is a mainstream phenomenon?

me: It's not a mainstream interest, but going there is a mainstream activity. Very few internet users are intensely interested in the infrastructure. They're interested in each other.

Rachel: How do you think the internet has affected geek culture(s)?

me: It made it possible for geek subcultures to flourish to a degree never before even hinted. Previously they could barely even be called cultures. It caused some of the geek cultural imagery (such as the visual and thematic trappings of science fiction, fantasy and hackers) to take over Hollywood and television. It consolidated geek culture into a political movement in Sweden that occupies a seat in Parliament. It caused a lot of crossover between geek cultures, and an awareness that there are commonalities.

Rachel: How would you characterize these commonalities?

me: Again?

Rachel: Are you saying these can be described in the same ways as interests? In other words--can the commonalities be described as simply 'boring to the mainstream'?

me: Not just that. Obsession.

There are many other traits that are more weakly-bound to the radial category.

For instance, a weakly-bound trait of geeks is fear of conformity. Despite the fact that geeks bond strongly and rigidly enforce conformity, they are more likely to speak up to dissent the words or actions of someone in their community, than to support them. When they feel supportive of a proposal or behavior in a geek community, they often don't speak up in support for fear of group-think, or from assuming that silence will be heard as assent. It is not heard as assent. If I may broadly stereotype: geeks fear agreement and feel proud of dissent. Hence, the constant flame wars and schisms in geek communities, conflict over minutia, a reputation for feeling like "herding cats", and a difficulty in achieving group action.

Rachel: You mentioned that geeks rigidly enforce conformity, though; how does that fit in? And conformity to what?

me: Yes. They enforce conformity by splitting, mostly. Geeks, particularly the young, or very recently escaped from an ill-fitting lifestyle, tend to be sensitive to feel the acceptance they used to lack. They wish to be with people with whom they fit. Sometimes their standards for shared interests are high. Sometimes they enforce rules against behaviors they identify as bullying or shunning. They do this by bullying or shunning. Have you read "The Geek Social Fallacies"? Brilliant. It absolutely reflects what I have seen.

Rachel: Yes, I've seen it; quite an interesting read.

In terms of social identities, how do you think your gender, race, and sexual orientation have affected your participation in geek culture?

me: I think being a white heterosexual male is probably an advantage. I'm told I look like a geek. If I say "oh yes, non-white gay females have it very different", I'd be claiming a perspective that I don't have. But I know that everyone around me just believes I am a geek. They feel like they can let their geek flag fly around me.

My girlfriend has said she had it very different. We will be sitting in a coffee shop, laptops open. She is working on writing software, setting up servers, using Asian cookware as a wireless antenna, or updating Linux on her Apple laptop which dual-boots Windows and Linux but not Mac OS. I will be drawing pretty pictures with my tablet. A stranger approaches us. Which one do you think they ask for tech advice?

I have a ridiculous number of stickers on my laptop, and she does not. But that cannot be the explanation.

Rachel: Why do you think these dynamics exist? Or, to rephrase: how have these dynamics developed?

me: I risk blowharding out of my butt if I try to talk about that. I simply don't know-- all I have is surmise. But, if it has nothing to do with babies somehow, I will be very surprised.

Rachel: Babies?

me: Women can give birth to them, or so I hear. ;)

Rachel: (Also, surmise is absolutely fine; I'm studying anthropology, which means that I am all about championing surmise as social reality)

me: If you raise a baby, well. You can't have as much fun. Including geeking out on hobbies. A woman is always present at the birth of her child. When that happens, the attachment hormones start flowing like mad. Men are sometimes completely absent. Their commitment is different. Without raising the child, they can turn their minds to obsession with topics that are outside of strict necessity.

I have never caused a pregnancy. I got a vasectomy at the age of 32.

Rachel: So being a geek takes a lot of time?

me: If you define it by behavior instead of one's nature, yes. If you define it by nature, one can be an unsatisfied repressed geek.

I think it is possible to be a closet geek, but there is hardly any reason for that in contemporary America.

Rachel: Why is there hardly any reason to be a closet geek?

me: The social consequences of geekhood are easier to get around, because it's easier to find and spend time with other geeks. You have entire events centered around this or that geek interest. You even have one or two like Penguicon that are just about being a geek generically. We build entire websites around algorithms that can identify fellow geeks. OKCupid works really well.

Rachel: Remind me to ask you about Penguicon in a minute, but I just want to clarify: do you think geek culture is getting more mainstream?

me: Yes, it is diffusing-- incorporating more diversity, learning to be less touchy about shibboleths. Geek is less distinct from non-geek than it was before the internet. It is still very, very concerned with shibboleths, but less so than before, I think. More aware of the greater world. Participating in geek communities can be, for some, a way to eventually become more socialized and well-rounded instead of less. Specifically, I feel it worked that way for me.

Rachel: Given your previous definition of geek interests as inherently anti-mainstream, does this make geek culture less--well, geeky?

me: Geekiness is not evenly distributed. Geek interests are not inherently anti-mainstream. It is more accurate to say mainstream is inherently concerned with popularity at the cost of all other interests. To be a geek, all one needs to do is fail to devote one's self exclusively to "popularity with the maximum possible people". The farther one falls on this continuum, the geekier one is. That's why it's porous. Nobody is at the hard Mainstream end of that continuum.

That having been said, most people are frightfully near the mainstream end of the spectrum.

Rachel: Ok, I realize we're way over time--for which I apologize--but I just have a few more questions; I'll try to make it quick.

me: I have time.

Rachel: Do you think geeks signal each other? (i.e. references to geek media)

me: Yes. Signals include Monty Python, science fiction and fantasy, and terms from software development.

Rachel: What role do you think physical objects such as dice, minis, cards, computers, etc. play in geek culture?

me: That is a really interesting question. Collections provide an easy way to visually demonstrate obsession, without rattling off knowledge. Also, collecting is an addictive activity. That addiction is created by geek urges, but also amplifies and perpetuates them.

Rachel: Would you say you have to have a lot of resources to be a geek?

me: No. I don't. But it helps.

Rachel: Okay. Just to go back to your own background for a bit--would you say your family had an influence on your geekiness?

me: Despite existing on the extreme right-wing fringe of politics and religion, my father has always been deeply geeky, far more so than anyone with whom my parents surrounded themselves. He just has a non-geek community. My mother used to be no slouch at programming, either. They introduced us to computers as early as the Vic-20. We watched Star Trek together, one of the few things we did regularly as a family.

My father used to consume a lot of science fiction of the more tame variety. He warned me to only read Heinlein novels from before 1963. Of course I went right out and read Job and Stranger In a Strange Land. I believe SF novels were a large component of my eventual apostasy. And yet most of the preachers I have met were extremely familiar with written science fiction.

My great-grandfather recorded episodes of the Dr. Demento Show, and my parents would play them in the car. Novelty music acts were, and continue to be, a significant source of geekiness for me.

Rachel: Do you think people are born geeks, or can they be inducted into geekiness at a later date?

me: Some are born geeks. Some achieve geekness. And others have geekness thrust upon them by their spouses.

Rachel: Do you remember when you first started identifying as a geek?

me: Oddly-- and counter to stereotype-- that was not in high school. I was completely ignored in school, and had no interest in my peers. I was never tormented.

It may have been when I left behind my entire life and everything in it, at the end of 2002. I left my church, which created strain between me and my parents. I was laid off from my job at another church. My wife filed for divorce. My grandmother died. Even our pet died. This was all within a few months.

I had very little to lose from re-invention. So I asked myself what I wanted to do. And what I wanted to do was go to my first science fiction convention.

So I Googled "science fiction convention michigan". The first result was the website for the first year of Penguicon. The rest was history.

Rachel: Oh, right; Penguicon. Could you speak briefly about what that is, who it's targeted at, and why it works?

me: Penguicon is a convention bringing together fans of science fiction and fantasy with that of open source software. Those are the "twin suns" of the Penguicon solar system, you might say. There is a gas giant of board, card, and roleplaying games; a rocky planet of comedy music concerts; a verdant world of webcomics and other digital media; ice cream made with liquid nitrogen, rapid prototyping machines, customizable marble roller coasters, and anything that anyone geeks out about.

It works because science fiction brings the vision, open source software brings the spirit of contribution, and conventions bring in community as a factor in a way that you can't get on the internet alone.

It is an explosion of creativity and intelligence, a geek Woodstock, a Nerdvana, and you can probably tell it is one of my favorite things in the world.

Anyone who wants to tell everybody about their interest gets podium there. Those who say "OK, I paid for my fun, now where is it?" will have less fun, but they can show up if they want to.

Rachel: Sounds pretty nifty. :)

Okay, I think that's all I have; is there anything else you think is important that I haven't mentioned or anything else you'd like to share?

me: I'm sure there is, but I'll only think of it when it's too late. This has been good! It helped me to bridge together some thoughts.

Rachel: Well, let me say you've been a great interviewee; you've clearly thought through things a bit more than most.

me: Thank you! Can I share this transcript, or would that tamper with the academic impartiality and anonymity of the thesis?

Rachel: Sure; out of curiosity, who/what do you want to share it with? Also, the anonymity is 100% for your benefit.

me: I would like to blog it.

Rachel: go ahead. if you wouldn't mind, though--could you include my contact info in case someone else wants to be interviewed?

me: I'd be happy to. That will probably happen. However, does it matter if my blog post influences their answers?

Rachel: Probably not.

me: OK. It has been a pleasure.

Rachel: Thanks again!