On Being "Socially Awkward"

[megpie71]

In the wake of the Readercon incident, and the general rush of convention season in the USA, I feel like addressing the regular refrain which springs up about people who are being accused of sexual harassment at conventions (particularly within the geek community).

This refrain is, of course, that the harasser (particularly a serial harasser) is "socially awkward" or has "poor social skills".

To which I say: bullshit. Absolute and utter crap. I do not believe this in the least.

Why not? Because their behaviour argues otherwise.

It takes a lot of social skill to develop a set of behaviours which are both threatening to the recipients and innocuous to disinterested bystanders. It takes a lot of skill and practice to be able to perform these behaviours in a public setting on a regular basis without drawing attention to oneself. Choosing your victim is a skill which takes practice and social awareness. So does choosing your friends in order to be believed when you tell people you're very, very sorry and it won't happen again (or at least, not until your friends have forgotten the last time).

Serial harassers aren't socially awkward. If they were socially awkward, they wouldn't be the menace they are. On the contrary, they're socially skilled, socially competent, and well practiced in what they're doing. They know where the lines are, and they're adept at walking them. They have enough empathy to figure out what's going to upset their victim, and enough callous self-interest not to care.

Genuine social awkwardness will manifest itself in all environments, in all settings, and around all people. The genuinely socially awkward person won't have many friends, and will have problems fitting into normal social routines under any circumstance. They won't be charming. They won't be popular. They will creep out people of both sexes, and all gender preferences, because they will be obvious. Genuine social awkwardness is rarer than you'd think.

Comments

[johnpalmer]

Genuine social awkwardness will manifest itself in all environments, in all settings, and around all people. The genuinely socially awkward person won't have many friends, and will have problems fitting into normal social routines under any circumstance. They won't be charming. They won't be popular. They will creep out people of both sexes, and all gender preferences, because they will be obvious. Genuine social awkwardness is rarer than you'd think.

Without arguing what you've said prior to this, I think you're making far too deep a definition of social awkwardness. If a person has moments in which they find themselves bereft of all but the most basic social skills, (this might go along with a deep feeling of anxiety as well) but this doesn't cause them to fail to fit into "normal social routines in (em)any(/em) circumstance", etc., you're saying "that person is not socially awkward."

I think that goes too far for your point.

I think it's more true to say that well meaning, socially awkward people will respond very differently to clearly expressed, angry disapproval. "Socially awkward" doesn't mean "unable to recognize an angry response", and a well meaning person of any type who gets someone angry wants to know why.

[megpie71]

I'd put it this way: I recognise a very distinct difference between social anxiety (nervous and anxious response to being placed in social situations) and a lack of knowledge of social cues, rules and mores. The first is an emotional and psychological response to the experience of being in social situations. The second is a cognitive gap caused by poor socialisation.

The second one is the one I'd call "social awkwardness".

What you're describing (where a person finds themselves unable to function socially in a temporary fashion) is what I'd call social anxiety.

In each case, this is distinct from the point I was making in my original post, which is that when it comes to serial harassers, we aren't dealing with people who don't know the rules. We are, instead, dealing with people who are rules lawyers (and therefore know the rules very well indeed).

[johnpalmer]

I'd put it this way: I recognise a very distinct difference between social anxiety (nervous and anxious response to being placed in social situations) and a lack of knowledge of social cues, rules and mores. The first is an emotional and psychological response to the experience of being in social situations. The second is a cognitive gap caused by poor socialisation.

Herm. You know, I'm not sure discussing that would be productive. It touches on personal stuff for me. And I consider myself a bit socially awkward, so it'd feel like I was walking through a minefield that could blow up.

So, instead, I'll say I do agree with you on the important part - serial harassers are not people who can't figure out the rules.

Even the worst social klutz can realize "wow, I did X, and so-and-so didn't like it!" The idea that it could just be awkwardness - it doesn't make any sense at all. Once? Sure. A *small number of times*? Maybe. It keeps happening? That's not clumsiness, that's indifference - that's not caring who gets hurt.

I mean - (to make up a completely different example) a klutz might need to learn to ask before hugging.

But a person who keeps hugging without asking, while fully aware that s/he's messed it up in the past? That's not klutziness any more. The *urge* might be klutziness, the lack of an instinctive understanding of body language that says a hug won't be welcome can be klutziness, but people can learn patterns, and can at least figure out that there are rules they don't quite get, and figure out a way to work around them!

Being awkward socially doesn't mean being unable to figure out that people have gotten pissed off or hurt, after all.