Norms & Groups

In the real world, people organize themselves into groups. I can tell you the psychology of why and how, mostly. What I’m working on is how to develop your skills to ensure that you feel included, that you can find a place to belong because when that happens, I believe, you can thrive. One reason we have an epidemic of loneliness is because our desire to feel included out paces our actual real life.

We can be around a lot of people and feel alone when our values and motivations are not aligned. Or if our voice isn’t heard. Or if we feel like the goals of the group do not align. It can happen on a team, at work, or even within our own families. And we will suffer through a lot before risking alienation from a group. It is why we say “Don’t talk about religion or politics at a holiday gathering”—we expect that we don’t agree with others and we want to keep the peace.

But . . . what if keeping the peace is slowly killing us. What if others need a way out of the dark and the groups they are in are suffocating them. Don’t we have an obligation to offer different groups? Or at least groups that think of themselves in broader terms.

This effects my work in a multitude of ways. Schools and teams of teachers build communities that act as in groups and can often put people into out groups that cause harm. We do it as teachers by saying, “The admin made us to x.” Or, “Can you believe what those parents want us to do?” We do it when new ideas come or when we feel threatened. We often don’t do it consciously or because we are not open to new ideas, but more because we fear losing our status in the group itself.

In my current research, it shows up as how do we create belonging in a degree, a college, a future profession. It comes up as I navigate adult friendships and notice the world at large. We talk about degrees of separation. If someone is willing to renounce one thing about themselves and join a new group, we should want to welcome them, but do we? Can we? Are we wired that way?

The psychology of it is interesting. I use Social Identity theory (Tajfel & Turner) in my studies and I believe that how we perceive ourselves and the groups we are in matter. I do a lot of work in my classes to develop a group of people into a team or cohort of learners that functions as an in group. I help them to see themselves more widely so more can be included. We talk about the markers of race, age, sexual orientation, immigration status, gender, abilities, religion and class because those can be our defaults just as easily as what our majors are and what teams we like. I am super susceptible to group think especially when it comes to our rival college. There are no cats winning on my bracket, period.

Turner took the work even further to include many more researchers and ideas. In psychology we move from Social Identity Theory to Self Categorization Theory which is the exact pull of the conversation—do we align more with our groups or our self and can we even separate the two. And how much is in our control.

I read an article this morning that takes it even further to highlight the differences in how norms are adhered to—I know, I’m so fun. It talks about the differences between how norms and rules are used in groups—I particularly like the quote, “Complex societies comprise many different groups with different norms, whose members regularly interact with people from their out-groups.” It goes on to talk about navigating differences to create societies that exist outside of our families. It got me thinking.

Let’s talk Maga. People choose red hats, they align with a belief system, they act in accordance. We, me, those on the left, talk about it as a cult, a group think project, but at the same time we say things like people went along with it on single issues. We can’t imagine a world where people chose all that it is. We can’t imagine a world where people we love chose all that it is. We need to believe that people we love choose it for a single issue.

And YES! Maga is a group that has strong implied norms and some people chose to be a part of it because they agree with one element and were willing to overlook the others. And some choose it because they align with all of it. And some people feel like they didn’t chose it and it is just the group they are in because of some issues that they believe are supported by it. There are flag waving, hat wearing, Trump supporting members and there are others that think it is the best of the worst groups but at least my values/ideas/thoughts/notions/politics/music are supported here. Or maybe I don’t agree with any of it but I can’t imagine being on the other side. That’s classic group psychology. The tipping point for leaving a group like that is when the consequences or impacts of the things you don’t agree with become greater than the benefits to your idea IF you even know you are in control of making that choice.

There are theorists among us that believe that you aren’t in control.

There are thoughts in the world that detail out how the risk to group inclusion prevent you from ever leaving because 1. you aren’t making a decision about it, it is all happening within you and 2. there is not a new group for you to join so the risk of loneliness, isolation, out group-ness is too strong. Whether that is happening biologically or unconsciously or on purpose with full thought on board, it is happening. For people to want to leave, they have to have a place to go.

But that’s only one example. What I’m playing with in my sandbox is schools. For a long time the in group in schools were the traditional teachers that love to close their door and teach. What I worked on as a principal was creating a community feel in our school where we were in it together for the betterment of all and as I get deeper into the research I see where I went sideways and how I might have tried different things. Just my asking teachers to build a team was a threat to their norms which created fear and push back—sometimes on purpose and sometimes unconsciously. So, with this new group of teachers, future teachers, I’m working to build their ability to group switch, group identify, group toggle as needed to find belonging but also to widen their view of what a group does. If our goal is to educate each student in a way that they achieve thriving can’t we as the ones providing the education also thrive. And what does it mean for groups, teams, skill building, purpose, belonging, etc. What if the switch is the norms and how we use/internalize them like in the article from this morning?

For years the focus has been on leadership but what if the real work is how each of us show up as teammates. What if the skills are within us to change the world and make it more inclusive, kind, more in group, less out group, more welcoming, less predetermined, more come on in, and less we can’t agree on anything, more I changed my mind on that, and less you believe one thing so you can’t possibly believe another.

When I teach about sexual orientation, gender, religion, class, immigration status we talk about how each of us has those. We can group up based on where we are with each but can’t we also group up because we each have them? Can’t we begin to recognize that as individuals we are all unique and that uniqueness makes our groups better?

I think that we don’t have to be lockstep to be included. I’m going to keep reading and researching and working on solutions that allow us to show up fully human in the groups we choose while also trying to figure out how our groups can do better to invite us in and allow us to switch when they no longer serve us. What are you doing to create belonging in your family, job, neighborhood, world? I’d love to know and follow along, I have some ideas.