Academics and social graces
This post at Philosophy et cetera got me thinking about my own experience in academic social circles. For full context, you want to go to Feminist Philosophers and read the comment thread, then see what Richard has to say about it. But the gist of the problem is this:
A female philosopher complained that she was at a social function with a visiting colleague (which included spouses) and witnessed rudeness, conversation domination, etc. and was torn: does she jump into the philosophical conversation and show she’s got “the stuff”, or does she try to talk with the other females at the table, who are non-philosophers?
Richard picked up on the question of social norms and replied:
“Now, from my perspective, the whole point of a bunch of philosophers going out to dinner with a visiting speaker is to discuss philosophy. That’s what they’re there for…More generally, it’s nice to accommodate people and make them feel comfortable. But given that the lack of fit between ‘nerds’ and ‘normals’ is symmetrical, it’s not clear why the norms of the latter group should always take precedence. I mean, there’s no surer way to make me uncomfortable than to put me in a situation where one is expected to engage in small talk.”
So, he seems to be saying, the problem is not due to gender and social expectations, but one of unjustly expecting others to follow our social norms (the ‘normals’ to expect the ‘nerds’ to be polite).
My response was to tell a story about being the “odd man out” at doctor functions and appeal to collaboration in conversation, not domination. At Feminist Philosophers, this difference in style might be perceived as due to gender (whether innate or socialized).
The larger point, though, I think, is that social norms in conversation are not entirely arbitrary, but are intended to ease communication and comfort. “Small talk” that makes some people (myself included) uncomfortable is meant to help the majority of people talk about easy things. Eventually we work ourselves up to more self-disclosure and difficult topics. But for the ‘nerds’ as Richard calls them, small talk is terrifying. We’d rather jump into what is safe for us–ideas, books we’ve read, lectures we’ve attended and so on. Again, however, the reason we go there, rather than small talk, is that we feel more able to connect and be comfortable when discussing these topics.
Where things get hairy is when you’re at a function that involves both ‘nerds’ and ‘normals.’ Richard says that since the nerds are setting up the function, their social norms should govern. The Feminist Philosophers are concerned that these social norms are primarily male-dominated, and that female nerds are torn between two desires: be comfortable in avoiding small talk and joining into professional conversation, and be comfortable in socializing with the normals who are feeling like outcasts.
My comment at his site appeals to the shared focus of both norms: conversational comfort. Since these norms are governing communication, which is (as another commenter points out) collaborative, there is nothing to prevent the two groups from working together to (implicitly) develop new norms for the situation. For example: if the situation is centered around a visiting philosopher, then it makes sense for technical talk to be permitted and not socially castigated. But since spouses, who are outliers in this language game, are invited, some concern needs to be given for their comfort. The final problem is that often the female philosopher is the one who “leaves” the technical group to ensure that the (female) spouses are included. But this assumes that the primary characteristic is the gender of the conversation’s participants.
What do you think? The situation is one that probably everyone, academic or not, has had: you’re with your spouse at a work function and the topics at hand continue to be spreadsheets or finances or business strategies. Who is responsible for including people, if such a responsibility exists? What expectations should spouses have coming into the event? Does having a couple with opposite gender makeup than the norm complicate things?
I’ve thought about this a lot, since I’m a woman partnered to a woman and we are both in male-dominated fields. At social events, I’ve often wound up talking with the wives–but as someone who identifies more “butch”, that’s an odd feeling, not identifying with the group entirely. Yet if I talk with the men, I am out of my field professionally. My solution is to aim to overcome my expectations about how I should be treated and instead focus upon the conversational needs of the people I am with. Generally I will ask questions, find what they are interested in, and go from there.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Those are good questions. I’m tempted to think that the primary issue for me is that there is Group A with a great shared body of knowledge and Group B who have nothing necessarily in common other than a love of someone in Group A, and that simple politeness would dictate that Group A try and find common ground with Group B because of course we do all share the human experience, but that often Group A is so excited by their common knowledge that they don’t do that.
Jim and I have given up on attending each other’s work-related functions, at least on a regular basis.