Social Interaction: The Social Group Type and the Opportunistic Type
The Story
I was in a cafe in Oakland recently and observed a conflict. Well, not a conflict in the sense of a blowout argument or fistfight. This was the less sensational but far-more-common subtle tension between people that manifests in our daily life, here there and everywhere. The details are so trivial, they hardly constitute a “story” but here goes. I order a latte and sit down. The next customer behind me in line, a dark-haired older woman orders some drink, and right away, I can tell there is some tension between her and the cashier. Something said, something not heard correctly, minor irritation. Nothing untowards said, largely one could tell in the tone of their voice that they were somewhat irritated with one another - and you have that mix of subtle cues: a bit of curtness in the reply, the lack of eye contact with speaking or listening, a patronizing or gruffer tone of voice. It is jockeying, or passive-aggression, or whatever one might call it. The interesting part of this exchange to me was not this, that the cashier’s co-worker was sitting on the sidelines but nonetheless heard what was happening. When the customer came back with some request 5 minutes later- I couldn’t quite hear what the request was- asking for something for her drink or placing another order- the co-worker picked up where the last left off- being a bit cool to the customer and not idly listening to the Customer speak ill about the earlier employee’s behavior. The nature of the exchange between the three people I will call social conflict or social tension; and the dynamic of Employee 2 being aware of the dynamics between Employee 1 (and then incorporating this into her behavior) I will refer to as the pack mentality type.
Why does this “story” interest me so much? Well, it crystalizes what I’ve been dwelling on now for a while- which is there are really two kinds of social personalities. The Opportunistic type and the Pack type. Now bear in mind that many of us fall somewhere along this continuum and by no means must we represent the polar extreme as if it were a binary choice. But let’s review the two.
Pack/Social Group Type
Pack types tend to focus on social dynamics. They may have close friends and more significantly for this definition, be part of a small tight-knit social circle (typically between 3 and 8 people). You see packs forming as cliques in social life but also in the workplace. Families can behave as packs but do not necessarily since their union is not chosen by all parties. Important is what it isn’t: a group formed fully by the free choice of all of its members and a grouping of peers or social equals. Back to the pack. Why do packs form, why do they stay together, why are they useful? Gangs are packs- an extreme variety but nonetheless. Why do gangs form: security, fraternity, advancement. This is instructive since if we look at social groups, they are packs that exist for similar, though less drastic, reasons: security in a social environment, fraternity, and social advancement or opportunities. But nothing in this world comes for free- so what does the pack member do to keep his place? It’s the same thing that keeps the pack together- cohesion, common commitment to one another, mutual respect, loyalty and commitment to other group members, putting the group first, and more importantly putting each member of the group’s interests above those of the out-group. This latter clause is perhaps the toughest one for members since doing so means risking alienating others outside the group. Without it however, all cohesion is lost as the behavior of standing idly during another member’s social conflict is akin not to the Pack type but the Opportunistic “each man for himself” type.
Opportunistic/Individualist Type
The opportunist or individualist largely moves through the world individually. He or she may or may not belong to social groups - but if so, this typically falls along the lines of common interests. This type of social group tends to be more casual, less tight-knit. Individualists generally see themselves as responsible for their behavior and their outcomes. They also, consistently so, view the same for others.
Neither type is preferable in any objective sense, and people not only fall somewhere in between both extremes, but selectively engage or disengage during social conflict in different settings.
Back to the topic of social conflict. When people move in any group, there are really two responses to the social conflict of another member of the group:
1. Undercutting
2. Concerted non-involvement
3. Social Group behavior
To summarize, #1 involves either not being aware of social dynamics and acting in ignorance in such a way that worsens the outcome for the other group member, or observing such dynamics but nonetheless ingratiating oneself to the out-group member for opportunistic reasons at the expense of the group member, #2 involves being aware of social dynamics but consciously removing onesself from the social conflict, #3 involves being aware of the social dynamics. I’ll elaborate on all three below.
Social tension typically results from any number of reasons. I observed such an incident a week ago in which Person A was teasing Person B in a way that he thought was playful but the recipient, she could have viewed as offensive. Such incidents can be harmless fun or they can be viewed as hurtful, modestly so or otherwise. What is undercutting. Let’s add Person C to the mix. Let’s envision that Person B speaks up to Person A and asks, “Why did you do that (or what makes you say that?)”. Now Person A can either remedy the situation and deal plainly with Person B. OR they can use a convenient option of freezing Person B out by directing conversation to Person C. Person C is in quite a position- no? This akward unsponsored moment is brought to you by humanity on a daily basis! Person C either observed the social tension or not. Moreover if observed, he may not perceive the offense in the same manner or to the same degree. But whether he rates the offense as badly as the recipient, he or she may at least acknowledge that Person B is offended or bothered by such comments. When Person A directs conversation to Person C after offending Person B and then freezing them out, Person C has a choice. He or she can choose from the 3 above options. Let’s discuss them.
Person C can practice concerted non-involvement. The decisive precondition of this choice is that Person C has in fact aware of the social tension, and the decisive quality of his or her behavior is studious non-involvement despite temporal discomfort or acknowledging the discontinuity in the conversation. Significantly, listening passively to Person A as he freezes out Person B does not fit this category. This is, instead, undercutting as it serves Person A’s intentions perfectly of using insulting language to Person B and not only ignoring their request for clarification, but freezing them out and continuing the conversation with Person B. To elaborate, by giving visual attention to Person A, Person C is engaging in undercutting behavior. A less likely but other variant of undercutting is supporting Person A by laughing along, agreeing with them, or contributing further to the taunt. Option 3 of social group behavior would be giving visual attention to Person B. It is supportive behavior since it allows Person B to attempt to resolve the situation with Person A. More moderated versions would entail Person C asking Person A “I think she was saying something…”. At the extreme end of social group behavior would be admonishing Person A for the cutting remark or behavior, or directing attention and conversation back to Person B. Option of concerted non-involvement means observing and acknowledging the offense by saying “I’m not going to get in the middle of this.” or not giving either party visual attention. CNI is not without cost but it is fundamentally neutral. CNI neither favors Person A or Person B but simply acknowledges there is conflict.
If it’s so simple and logical, where do people go wrong?
Disconnects form amongst people for differences of style (pack, opportunistic), differences in perception (noticing of social tension or not), perception of tension (serious, unserious).
