> You’re sitting at a party, and you decide, “I don’t like this; I don’t want to be here.” And then you don’t leave.
Wait.. what?? Why would someone stick around at a party they don't like? Is this really what normally happens?
* You were invited, and it would be awkward to leave too early.
* You're someone's +1, and it would be awkward to leave them behind.
* It's a party for you, and it would be ungrateful to leave.
* You're intoxicated, and it's not safe for you to drive right now, so you need to wait until you sober up.
* The host put in a lot of effort to arrange the party, and if too many people leave they will be sad.
* It's a mandatory voluntary work "party", and you need to play along or you'll be considered not invested in your job.
* You were expecting to find a romantic interest here, and they're late, but you're still hoping they show.
* You've been avoiding people lately for reasons of your own, but your friends will become more worried if you don't display adequate sociability.
* You're a linchpin in your friend group--when you don't hang out, they tend not to hang with each other, and this is bad for at least one of them.
* It's a battle of the bands, and you need to defeat two of Ramona's seven evil exes.
This is a trap.
---
"You are at a party, and you get bored. You say “This isn’t doing it for me anymore. I’d rather be someplace else. I’d rather be home asleep. The people I wanted to talk to aren’t here.” For whatever reason, the party fails to meet some threshold of interest. And then a really remarkable thing happens: you don’t leave. You make a decision: “I don’t like this.” If you were in a bookstore and you said, “I’m done,” you’d walk out. If you were in a coffee shop and said, “This is boring,” you’d walk out. You’re sitting at a party, and you decide, “I don’t like this; I don’t want to be here.” And then you don’t leave. That kind of social sticki- ness is what Bion is talking about.
And then, another really remarkable thing happens. Twenty minutes later, one person stands up and gets their coat, and what happens? Suddenly everyone is getting their coats on, all at the same time. Which means that everyone had decided that the party was not for them, and no one had done anything about it, until finally this triggering event let the air out of the group, and everyone kind of felt okay about leaving."
---
At least that's how I'm reading it? This is confusing - why would anyone stay longer in such a situation? How is this different from the coffee shop or bookstore example?
If it is really unimaginable to you that someone would not leave a social event the minute they're bored, this whole concept of groups might be a little alien to you. Maybe you're autistic, in a way that's very different from how I am. I don't know at all; I don't know you. But I can say confidently that it is normal behavior to hang out a little longer than you really want to at a social event.
Maybe i'm susceptible to group pressure. I know a lot of people are.
The funny thing is, afterwards I was halpy that I left as one of the latest.
The reason was in the paragraphs leading up your excerpt: >, and so he decided that the unresolvability of the question was the answer. To the question “Do groups of people behave as aggregations of individuals or as a cohesive group?” Bion’s answer was that human groups are “hopelessly committed to both,” which is to say hopelessly committed to individual identity and to group membership.
Or put another way, the desire for social conformity can contradict private preferences.
If the bored person leaves early (fulfills a personal preference), he/she draws extra attention to himself because they're the only making an exit. This can also embarrass the host. So a reasonable rationalization is to avoid embarrassing the host (social conformity) and just suffer some temporary boredom.
But the above social calculation changes if multiple people decide to leave. Now, there's "safety in numbers" and leaving early is emotionally easier. Sure, the host still might be embarrassed but there's no longer a single party-goer to point disapproval at.
Another version of the above is clapping and standing ovations at presentations. If all the audience members expressed their true opinions, there might be 75% clapping and 25% not clapping. But polite society has an unspoken rule where everybody claps. Likewise when some think that clapping by itself is appropriate but a standing ovation is not. But then a few stand up ... and now everybody stands up.
Applies to so many things. In a somewhat conservative-ish community of people who grew up in the same small town/village, the first person to divorce their partner will become a village-wide scandal. A small wave of divorces following soon after will barely gather a remark.
If it's "I'm bored" but not "oh God, I hate this," a lot of folks will stick around to be kind to the party host.
Many sorts of parties involve a social obligation and leaving them early comes with a social cost.
Compromise is mandatory in order to have a functioning society. This is a kind of compromise.
Of course, maybe you're a person who always behaves rationally (or at least imagines they do). But people like that are uncommon. Most of us just don't behave rationally all the time.
I feel that people, these days, are more free to express their "inner voice," more often.
In some cases, this is good. In others, it is bad.
One of the rationalizations that I hear, for "hate jockeys," is "Hey, they're just saying what everyone thinks!".
There's a reason that we don't say everything that we think. We're actually experiencing object lessons, in exactly this, in society, these days.
In my case, basic courtesy is why I "behave unauthentically." It's not lying, or even dishonesty. It's basic human relations.
Extreme example:
I'm routinely dealing with the types of people many folks in "polite society" think should be euthanized. It sucks, when those people say what they think.
When we say "These people should be killed/hurt," then some folks take the rhetoric as support for their actions.
I do take your point overall, but in this kind of example would it not be better to bring it out into the open and discuss it? Granted it would likely be an unpleasant conversation, but they do hold an unpleasant opinion, so why not make them go through the unpleasantness of defending it?
It works a treat. Trying to “call out” people, these days, simply gives them a new platform, and actually amplifies their hate.
The party example is a good point. A very common thing is to go to a friends party as a show of support for their thing, and to, for lack of a better word, have numbers be good. But it's not inauthentic to support your friend's thing! Sometimes you do a thing because it's for someone else.
And when the wave of departures happen... there is a mix of "I also wanted to leave", but "oh I guess it's time to leave" is another, and "oh I'm not totally done but it's starting to end so" are all on the spectrum of possibilities, and ones that I've held.
I think this group behavior is ... authentic and human. Acting on what you are thinking, at its extreme, is kind of indistinguishable from having no impulse control.
People are complicated animals, just because I have a personal preference or a personal tendency, doesn't mean it is inauthentic to exercise self-control in pursuit of a larger, different goal.