Us Versus Them – Why Do We Always Get Here?

April 29th, 2009 • Comments Communities

Phew! It’s been a busy week, but I wanted to make sure that I got this post out – it’s been in the works for days now.

Last week, we had some great thoughts and conversations through Twitter, within the blogosphere, and face to face on communities and how they are built. For me, this spurred out of two separate “events” – research for the Ignite presentation I did last week (and a desire to expand on the ideas), and a personal examining of the role that I play in my communities, and where my time is best spent. (There’s an awkwardly worded sentence.) More on what I see my role later this week; for now, let’s continue to discuss some of the issues facing communities.

One of the common threads in any community (or crowd) that I’ve been a part of has been this phenomena of “us versus them” – either to those outside of the community, or within factions of the community itself. Be it when I was growing up, during my time in school, or in various communities that I’ve found myself is as an adult, this conflicts pervades, almost ahead of everything else. The context seems to be irrelevant as well – the conflicts have been as present at my private golf course as they were between different parts of the student union volunteer base.

This means that there has to be some other deeper cause that exists here. I think there are a few factors come into play:

1. Too many leaders – or “leaders” – with differing visions
   As the old, offensive analogy goes, the “too many chiefs, not enough indians” situation is a pretty obvious factor in the creation of conflict within communities. If you get leaders stepping up to contribute and their ideas aren’t on the same page, pretty soon, if these are charasmatic people, you end up with factions forming, each working towards their own goals. These people most often are working towards what it is they think is best for the community, and are able to mobilize others – but there’s an inherent conflict in what those visions may be. Of course, this also comes from…




2. A community actually formed of smaller communities
   Sometimes, what we perceive to be a community – or one big happy family – is actually a group of a few differing communities looped together under a “common goal.” This was certainly the case during my student union days at Laurier – each department of volunteers had different goals and different presences, yet because they were all under the WLUSU banner, the tendency was to always try and make everyone this big community working towards “providing for the needs of students.” Problem was, the personality types and jobs completed within the 1300 volunteers were all varied, and should’ve never meshed together in the first place. This created factioning, as well as resentment towards the most publicly present department – resentment which still exists to this day. That’s the danger we face in trying to create communities, or to help others do so – we may end up creating this “common goal” that doesn’t actually exist.




3. Human nature – specifically, the basic principle of natural selection
   I know, I know; we’ve gotten to where we are in this world because we’ve worked together, right? You’re right, by and large. However, we still have this inherent survival of the fittest mentality that exists, and because of that, we have to prove our constant fitness. This breeds competition, which is by definition contrary to the stated purpose of a community working together for a common goal.

As you can see, many of the previous factors are personality-based, and centre on competition. In some ways, this is a problem that should be a given when dealing with a community, and tactics need to be developed – consciously or not – in order to ensure that these aspects don’t lead to the detriment of the community.

In fact, competition can be a useful tool for community success, when it is inter-community rather than intra-community. Many major innovations have become because of races between communities – take a look around you; the odds are that you’ll see something that was invented due to one of these races. I’m not saying that competition is inherently bad; just that it does lead to community problems.

What’s important here, though, is what you think. Have you experienced the us versus them situation in a community before? How did you, or the community, deal with it? Do you agree/disagree with some of the factors I’ve identified? Am I off my rocker? Please, respond in the comments below.

Thoughts on Daniel Patricio’s “How to Convert Crowds to Communities”

April 23rd, 2009 • Comments Communities

Continuing the conversation from my piece yesterday, Daniel Patricio was inspired to put down some of his thoughts here. It’s a great piece that raises some cogent arguments, and I think the crux of it can be summed up by this:

What if instead of perpetrating attitudes of hopelessness, disdain for government and dire opportunity we could facilitate development of communities that encourage commerce, entrepreneurship, education, civic duty, personal branding and innovation?

Daniel also discusses what differentiates crowds from communities, but his value differs from mine. Daniel considers that communities have to be both brought together by common cause, value and goal, and ownership from leaders within that community to create a channel for communication and action. He discusses communities on the global scale, mentioning how oppressive nations such as Cuba, Zimbabwe and China prevent communities from being formed.

My thoughts on the piece? I think Daniel and I differ in two key areas:

1. Firstly, I think that leaders in the community aren’t necessarily the ones they appear to be. I’m a heavy believer in the concept of the unconscious leader – one who doesn’t necessarily seek the role, but whose actions and mannerisms cause them to be placed in that leadership position. One of the issues faced with trying to assist those who self-identify as leaders within communities is that they sometimes get caught up in the self-interest game, competing with each other. While this can lead to benefits for the community, it can also create factions or camps that end up driving a community apart.
2. Daniel’s country mentions are interesting. While I certainly can’t defend the community building efforts in a country like Zimbabwe (or, to a lesser extent, China), I think Cuba gets a bit of a bad rap here in North America. The primary voices we hear are dissent from the displaced Cubans in the US, but quietly, Cuba is a country with an excellent health care system, and full of communities that are vibrant. Yes, it may not be as developed as other countries, but that’s a testament to a lack of resources than many other things.

The really interesting point that Daniel brings up is the comparison between those of lower socioeconomic status here versus less developed countries and how similar the two may be. This is a point that I don’t really have a cogent answer to – what about you, any thoughts? Leave them in the comments below.

Great stuff. I have a few more thoughts left on the community realm, so expect those soon.

The Death of the Library? A Lunchtime Twitter Conversation

April 22nd, 2009 • Comments Communities, Toronto Social Media

Yesterday, as lunchtime approached, I was reflecting on two things: a) how hungry I was; and b) a comment made on Monday night about the potential death of the library due to the growth of augmented reality, and the ability to have the information we need at our fingertips. As content moves into a digital form, the book, as a unit with a limited lifespan (due to decay, etc) seems to be one on the decline.

I thought this was worthy enough to have a discussion over, and so I posed a question out to my Twitter community, which read:

Interesting thought out of last night’s #refreshevents: what do we really lose by the death of the library?

As Twitter is a largely digital society of people, I expected answers leaning towards very little, or nothing. What I got was actually pretty surprising. Out of the 41 replies that I received on the topic, more than half of them defended the experience that a library offers, or the benefits that come from having a shared space like that. They included:

First thing that comes to mind is access to books for kids. I remember signing out 10-12 books at a time in my younger years.
Jon Lim

The best smell in the world, and a kick-ass numeric cataloging system. Otherwise? Not much. Digital persists more tenaciously through replication and indexing.
Noah Zerkin

if you get rid of libraries, then how do people who can’t afford the internet learn?
Share Sigma Chi

nothing compares to sitting down with a good book. Libraries let us have access to free literature. Digital versions are not free.
Clarisse Mussi

Certain content is much better in book format as it needs to be read curled up in a big comfy chair.
Adam Thody

Interesting stuff for sure. Of course, then there was the other side, or people who may have not have taken things quite as seriously. Excerpts include (left anonymous; if you want credit, just ask):

…You don’t need to keep a shrine to dead trees to offer services to a community.

…What was the library’s URL again?

…We also lose the notion of ‘Naughty Librarians’ Dear God No!

…Books are overrated. I can learn everything I need from the back of a cereal box. For example, did you know Trix are for kids?

Again, interesting stuff, but perhaps not as… academically appealing as some of the previous reasons.

Paige Dzenis brought up a great point I thought on the difference between print and digital:

There’s studies about how we interact with paper and digital differently; paper invites you in, digital becomes an extension of self, so the relationship (interactivity and engagement-wise) we enjoy when reading books etc on paper is hard to replicate on a screen

I think that’s incredibly valid, and one of the hardest things left for digital to tackle. The Kindle is a step in the direction of having a tactile reading device, but doesn’t quite tackle that gap. If we completely remove the paper experience, maybe people would learn how to adapt digital to fit their needs, but that’s an uncertainty that we can’t answer.

So what do I think? The library is a location that isn’t going to disappear. Between the fact that for many it’s the first contact in a community for many newcomers, a host of resources directly available for free, and helpful staffers who can point you in the right direction, the library serves a useful role for our society. It will certainly have to adapt to meet some changes – more eBook access, smart recommendations on site, an updating of content, access to different types of media – but I think the space is too valuable for us to lose.

What do you think? I’d love to hear from you in the comments.