ON THE SUBSTANTIAL SOCIAL VALUE OF LIGHTER-HEARTED SOCIETIES

LIGHTER-HEARTED SOCIETIES

We sketched here how Soc = Activity + People.

One significant consequence is the realization that there are some societies whose activities may not sound like they amount to much, but which nevertheless have considerable real-life social value through their People component.

By `not sounding like they amount to much', we mean that the Activity itself is not, or does not come across as*, one involving great skill, dedication or purpose, whether in its doing or in its organizing. Not likely to be much of a CV point or an attractor of funding in a haughty and materialistic world!

THE MEANING OF `CONSIDERABLE SOCIAL VALUE'

1) Being very, very low-stress and 'easy' social interaction, is good for people who feel left out or shy.

We frankly don't see why every single last society should be a disappointment for people who are shy, feel left out or express opinions of their own rather than the majority's via being structured and run in the same mold.

There is a large bias toward outgoing people, loud people, popular people, political people, highly conformist people getting to rule most societies, whether by taking over de facto or by small-scale election procedures where a candidate's group of friends can be a sizeable proportion of the active electorate. We believe that in a proportion of uni societies, people who simply love the activity or the company of the people who do that activity should be welcome to have an active part in its organizing quite regardless of whether they are outgoing, loud, popular or political. Shy people seldom stand for election, or do well in an election if they do stand solely though love of the society itself rather than any accompanying wish for self-promotion.

Thus there should be light-hearted societies/activities operating under a motto along the lines of "whoever can be sufficiently bothered to run such activities is welcome to go ahead and do so" (possibly subject to "provided that they do so friendlily and safely" if the absense of these restrictions risks to jeopardize the ongoingness of the activity. Thus some light-hearted activities should be open to as many organizers as are interested in organizing in the term in question. That's an informal people's government of as many volunteers as care to volunteer, rather than the Procrustean tyranny of a fixed-size elected committee, stretched or cut down to size from whichever number of people were actually interested at that point . In the sane parlance of official-model societies, one can e.g. adapt by having multiple Ents Officers or Social Secretaries, whilst in the Capture the Flag Society one has been known to, in times of plenty, likewise supplement one's "Crispy Ambulance" with "Paramedics" or even with "Detachable Sleeves". Socs with any actual obligations for organization/compliance with standards will need a minimum core of functional positions, but can still adapt to this inclusive multiplicity rather than being Procrustean. Thus,

2) anti-Procrustean organizing committees are an important structural element of light-heartedness and it embodies inclusiveness toward all who would be part of the running of the society.

3) Tolerance. is a crucial element of the personal set-up for a light-hearted Soc.

Tolerant societies provide homes for people who value being included rather than prowess, bossing people around or cultivating their CV like some kind of prize Bonsai. And such homes provides considerable comfort, particularly in a mostly elsewise highly competitive university environment. Relaxing in a place where people consent to be met and treat each other with interest and kindness can be a very significant source of support for some of the people in more difficulty, whether in settling into the new place, or through going through difficult times. Those two hours on a sunday evening in which one knows one will be welcome after all those blankings and disinterests in one's corridor and cafeteria and at one's other clubs that one does much more for the activity than for the people...

How is tolerance implementable in societies in general? Here are two options.

3a) The Naturality Principle. Light-hearted societies that do unusual/eccentric things in the first place tend to attract people who are generally tolerant of difference. This makes these Socs socially valuable and is compatible with them being run on but loose, well-intentioned and simple guidelines.

3b) The Safer Space Principle. Here, incursions by people who are intolerant are protected against by constitution and/or by action of some of the organizers. One tries to by widely inclusive, but that cannot in the end be inclusive of people who are exclusive beyond a point (or who disproportionately risk causing the authorities to close the society down).

Over-competititiveness and over-politization (real-life or society-political) may be viewed as not particularly helpful elements as regards 1). Though we consider 2) and 3) to be far more determining, in that competitive activities do not gall if between people that tolerate each other and openly share in the running of the activity. A culture in which those on the losing end are always offered a helpful hand to get up again, and in which the majority listens to, and encourages, minority tastes as well as majority ones can bridge the gap of being based on a competitive activity. On the other hand, some lighter-hearted societal activities, such as the Cheese Socs, Rocksoc, or Weevil Magazine would appear to manage to do just fine without any competitive activity.

CONCLUSION

We feel that this social importance, particularly toward people having a harder time of uni life (a lot of this applies even more in finding finite-time ways of dealing with exam stress), should be more widely known by

A) the Students, so those who need of it benefit from it, so it is seen as poor form to stick one's nose up at those societies from the quirky aisle which mostly happen to be of this kind of in-fact-useful nature.

B) The Staff, so that they know not to judge whether to support/tolerate/fund a society based on "what they do", but rather on the likely social value of the activity as well.

C) With all of Students, Staff and official Welfare people knowing about this value of lighter-hearted societies, these should come to be more widely recommended to people feeling left out or unhappy. Some of these will find Linkline and the Counselling Service impersonal; an alternative way of addressing feeling left out or unhappy is to make friends who will get one's mind off things, provide new options and sometimes provide the ``I personally care" type of support that was actually needed rather than the ``more expert but I'm paid to listen" or ``I volunteer to listen to anybody" types of support (for all that these are in often in other cases the right kinds of support, or a mixture). It is then good to know what kinds of things to look for in a society that make it likely that people will be particularly happy to welcome new people there and provide an environment in which friends can be made. I.e. the activity itself being light-hearted, evidence of noncompetitiveness, of apoliticalness, of a flexible number of organizers. And, upon arrival at such a society, a feeling of welcomeness and tolerance toward all who do make a good effort to themselves be tolerant of others.

* Do not prejudge whether an unfamiliar and strange-looking activity may in fact conceal a large range of skill being possible, with dedication then being posible to match. For instance, Tiddlywinks is of this nature. As such, be willing to find out and respect the nature of each activity. It may pass that what you thought was uncompetitive is not. Tolerance is still key: if people playing for fun and people playing competitively respect each other and have room for each other, the society will be better off through being larger as well as more diverse.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(From discussion between Captain Softpoms and the Oracle. Written for J.R. but placed in the public domain due to its wider usefulness!)

To join the Soc-Group that wrote this, join this email list or email altwelcome-general *at* srcf.net, and abide by the sketch of our Soc-Group's kind of Constitution.