![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Not Separate, Also Not Equal
Jan. 29th, 2010 04:48 pmI've been watching an online community, with much sadness, flail at it's inability to live to it's own social contract.
The basic idea of the social contract is good: "Support each other's threads, respect the thread starter's requests, engage honestly, take side issues or serious disagreement to other threads."
The problem is, this contract is fairly well upheld when it's a white, male posting. And not so much when it's anyone else.
The two major "solutions" so far proposed are:
a) "If you don't like it, ignore it" - AKA "The community doesn't care about you, mutuality, or upholding the social contract with regards to you, too bad. Don't complain". This also assumes people haven't already BEEN doing that, to the point of ridiculousness. It's pretty hard to miss when your thread is an example in derailing and a white man posts just what you posted, right after you, and gets more honest and supportive communication.
b) A "karma" system- aka, a systemic social pressure system.
So. Huh. If the problem is that some aren't getting equal treatment based on the bias of the majority, installing numeric system by which the majority enforces it's rule will produce... um what?
Ultimately the problem with "mass social pressure" based communities is that it effectively entrenches it's own problems- if the majority is happy, equal treatment under the system doesn't need to happen, and likely, will be resisted on simple basis of ratio and the unconscious desire to hold onto power, equality be damned.
When you have a space that has a basically good concept, it's stable enough that all the things that make it good, also serve as the reasons the majority then see any possible change as something to be feared- a shield from making sure everyone gets to enjoy the mutuality of participation.
This is basically why I stick with the idea that it's far more useful to build productive spaces where you have the opportunity than to fight through existing ones- it's less effort and more payoff.
Typically the hardest part with this level of community disengagement is the hard honesty of accepting that despite all reassurances otherwise, the message through action really is, "You don't matter except in how you can help my fun/fanboy/squee/etc." It's the Big Betrayal and an ugly one, since usually at that point, you've developed long term relationships and such. Add in any manner of internalized 'ism, and there's a layer of wanting acceptance from this same group that just showed you that acceptance only comes at secondary status.
Take the good idea, take the community goal you want to participate in, add whatever systems will assure that your group doesn't come around to do the same thing, and make it work. If someone consistently takes your money and fails to deliver on the goods? Why would you believe if you talk to them again, this would be any different? Same thing with your time and energy.
The basic idea of the social contract is good: "Support each other's threads, respect the thread starter's requests, engage honestly, take side issues or serious disagreement to other threads."
The problem is, this contract is fairly well upheld when it's a white, male posting. And not so much when it's anyone else.
The two major "solutions" so far proposed are:
a) "If you don't like it, ignore it" - AKA "The community doesn't care about you, mutuality, or upholding the social contract with regards to you, too bad. Don't complain". This also assumes people haven't already BEEN doing that, to the point of ridiculousness. It's pretty hard to miss when your thread is an example in derailing and a white man posts just what you posted, right after you, and gets more honest and supportive communication.
b) A "karma" system- aka, a systemic social pressure system.
So. Huh. If the problem is that some aren't getting equal treatment based on the bias of the majority, installing numeric system by which the majority enforces it's rule will produce... um what?
Ultimately the problem with "mass social pressure" based communities is that it effectively entrenches it's own problems- if the majority is happy, equal treatment under the system doesn't need to happen, and likely, will be resisted on simple basis of ratio and the unconscious desire to hold onto power, equality be damned.
When you have a space that has a basically good concept, it's stable enough that all the things that make it good, also serve as the reasons the majority then see any possible change as something to be feared- a shield from making sure everyone gets to enjoy the mutuality of participation.
This is basically why I stick with the idea that it's far more useful to build productive spaces where you have the opportunity than to fight through existing ones- it's less effort and more payoff.
Typically the hardest part with this level of community disengagement is the hard honesty of accepting that despite all reassurances otherwise, the message through action really is, "You don't matter except in how you can help my fun/fanboy/squee/etc." It's the Big Betrayal and an ugly one, since usually at that point, you've developed long term relationships and such. Add in any manner of internalized 'ism, and there's a layer of wanting acceptance from this same group that just showed you that acceptance only comes at secondary status.
Take the good idea, take the community goal you want to participate in, add whatever systems will assure that your group doesn't come around to do the same thing, and make it work. If someone consistently takes your money and fails to deliver on the goods? Why would you believe if you talk to them again, this would be any different? Same thing with your time and energy.
