 |
     |
|
|
A lot of people I know don't like going to cocktail parties. It's not that they don't like meeting people or that they are particularly shy. With smoking banned from most public places they don't even complain about the environment. What most people find distasteful about these events (and it can be a 'mixer' or a 'gala' or a bar-b-que) is that the crowd breaks into little groups appearing to know one another, having a good time. Maybe these things are so predesigned and it is a fact; maybe it just looks that way. Since most of the people I've talked to about it feel the same way and they all can't be on the outside looking in, it's probably an illusion. But perception is reality, as they say.
What does this have to do with anything? Well, to continue, the challenge for most people is that at one of these things, sooner or later you'll want to join a conversation. It might just be getting revved or it might be long started. You may have been encouraged and asked to join explicitly or by some surreptitious signal. Regardless, breaking in to that conversation is as difficult as learning to surf. Got to catch the wave just right or -- wipe out. Only difference is that on the water, the wave is the only opposition. In a group, not only is each individual its own challenge, the group collectively has a dynamic that doesn't like disruption.
To be part of any conversation one must first listen to get a feel for the flow, then volley up a verbal offering. Two schools of thought here:
The problem with the first option is that there is a long lead-time for everyone to feel satisfied that you are "one of them" and not merely pandering (which is what you're doing). You aren't contributing and there is the real possibility that the crowd will see no value in keeping you. If your goal is to be an "insider," this is the safe strategy without a doubt. If your want to be meaningful, it's still the safe choice but a longer-term strategy with a lower likelihood of achieving the goal.
The second alternative is riskier. If you're lucky and the timing of your pithy comments is just right -- perhaps a supporter or someone open-minded and ready to engage is in the crowd -- there is a good chance of being catapulted from obscurity to the centre of the scene. More than that, your position is genuine: based on your contribution and some level of respect for what you can add to the discussion. Very long odds but a pretty good reward regardless of which goal you desire: acceptance or relevance. More likely, however, is that you will be greeted with either closed-rank scorn or stony silence.
Scorn is valuable, if not enjoyable, because it's feedback. You can assess what to do next: stay and try again, shift to a strategy of fawning, quietly skulk away tail between legs, or tell everyone off and make a scene before storming away and telling everyone who'll listen about the bunch of closed-minded Neanderthals that think they're just soooo goood. . . . This last alternative is otherwise known as taking a flamethrower to the rope bridge.
Silence is more troubling because there is no feedback. You don't know whether maybe they didn't hear you, were ignoring you, didn't understand, didn't like, don't speak the language, are *so* beyond those ideas -- maybe you're breath is bad . . . The decision about what to do is infinitely more difficult. This is particularly so if you have been encouraged to join and so have nothing else to go on.
Frankly, to answer the question you've posed, I don't know what to do either. My default position appears to be the second strategy, and it's been successful as often as not. What I do know is that it's hard to join a conversation when nobody acknowledges that you've opened your mouth and said something let alone respond to it. I don't let it stop me and it doesn't mean you should clam up either.
Posted by Grayson at June 2, 2005 08:05 AM