I like this article, but I think I sort of “don’t believe in scenes”, or believe they’re inherently sort of disappointing or contain a kind of tension.
A team has a goal orientation and some kind of merit-related criterion of membership (can you contribute?)
A clique can openly be arranged for the benefit of its members. There’s nothing “unfair” or “nepotistic” about prioritizing your family, your friend group, a social club with formal membership like the Elks, or a subculture like the Juggalos. The right answer to “What makes your clique better than anybody else, such that you should spend your time and effort on them?” is “nothing! i love it because it is mine. it suits me. something else might suit you.”
A scene is neither merit-based nor inward-looking. It’s sort of making a promise to collectively pursue the Art, but it also can’t really kick you out if you suck at the Art. It hasn’t committed to a membership boundary (like a clique, which exists for the benefit of these specific people) or an effectiveness boundary (like a team, which exists to get a specific thing done). It’s not willing to own its ruthlessness (like a team) or its self-servingness (like a clique). At best it’s fertile ground for building real teams and cliques. At worst, it seems to promise mutual support and progress towards common goals, but lots of people are going to be disappointed that they can’t counton that support or that progress actually materializing.
For instance, I think there are a lot of individual people in the LessWrong community I’d want to be on a team with because I respect them on merit-based grounds. I also have affection and loyalty to the community as a clique, as a place I feel at home, a subculture I’m fond of, a group with a high density of personal friends, regardless of whether it’s objectively “better” than any other community. But I don’t actually think community membership is evidence of merit. I think that sort of self-flattering narrative is built into the “scene” format and that people who critique it have a point.
I like this article, but I think I sort of “don’t believe in scenes”, or believe they’re inherently sort of disappointing or contain a kind of tension.
A team has a goal orientation and some kind of merit-related criterion of membership (can you contribute?)
A clique can openly be arranged for the benefit of its members. There’s nothing “unfair” or “nepotistic” about prioritizing your family, your friend group, a social club with formal membership like the Elks, or a subculture like the Juggalos. The right answer to “What makes your clique better than anybody else, such that you should spend your time and effort on them?” is “nothing! i love it because it is mine. it suits me. something else might suit you.”
A scene is neither merit-based nor inward-looking. It’s sort of making a promise to collectively pursue the Art, but it also can’t really kick you out if you suck at the Art. It hasn’t committed to a membership boundary (like a clique, which exists for the benefit of these specific people) or an effectiveness boundary (like a team, which exists to get a specific thing done). It’s not willing to own its ruthlessness (like a team) or its self-servingness (like a clique). At best it’s fertile ground for building real teams and cliques. At worst, it seems to promise mutual support and progress towards common goals, but lots of people are going to be disappointed that they can’t count on that support or that progress actually materializing.
For instance, I think there are a lot of individual people in the LessWrong community I’d want to be on a team with because I respect them on merit-based grounds. I also have affection and loyalty to the community as a clique, as a place I feel at home, a subculture I’m fond of, a group with a high density of personal friends, regardless of whether it’s objectively “better” than any other community. But I don’t actually think community membership is evidence of merit. I think that sort of self-flattering narrative is built into the “scene” format and that people who critique it have a point.