First of all, I'd like to apologize for the wait. I had Delta make me this editorial because I thought I had some free time coming. Turns out it arrived a little later than I thought. Anyways, here we go.



I think it’s safe to assume that we all acknowledge the existence of social cliques and, though they may be especially prominent in high school, they exist in slightly more subtle and broader forms in the real world as well. However, what sparked my interest the other day is why they exist. Obviously people need friends, but why are cliques exclusive. What is it in human nature that makes the majority of people stick to a specific handful of friends?

All of this arose when I made a new friend, hooray for me. I’d never met the person before, so I sat down next to her and we just started talking. Within just a few days we became pretty good friends, and now I hang out with her at lunch every few days or so. This new friend I made is an example of a person who doesn’t appear to mind reach out of her own social group to make a friend, which I’ve found to be quite rare. We’ll call this new friend of mine person A.

Now, not too long before this I had an almost inverse encounter. I had known another girl for a while, had classes with her and such for a couple years (by the way, all my examples are girls because I just happen to get along better with girls usually, not because of any sexual reasons). She’s quite an interesting girl; cares about the environment and philosophy, so I figured I would try get to know her a little better. On multiple times, I was greeted with a little banter and then she made an awkwardly disguised excuse to leave and go hang out with her own friends. We’ll call this one person B

Lets say these are the two experiments, regardless of the fact that I never planned on making them such when I had the encounters. First off, I’m not any kind of high school social reject and nor am I a popular person. I’m neither physically handsome nor repulsive. I’m neither socially awkward nor a master linguist. All of those aspects would have had some sway on what occurred in the two interactions. I’d also like to note that both of my interactions were with girls, both were roughly my age, and both had outgoing personalities. So we have a pretty average person interacting with two somewhat similar people, resulting in only one new friend.

The biggest difference between the two subjects was their intelligence. Person B, the one who skittered off back to her own friends, is overall a more intelligent person. By that I mean she excels in school, is capable of writing a quality analytical essay, performing higher level mathematics. Person A is by no stretch stupid, she simply doesn’t have the grasp of higher knowledge that person B does. However, it’s not innately the higher level of intellect which is what makes person less open to new people. I believe it’s a probably the slight arrogance which is a result of said intellect. It makes more sense that way if you consider the normally exclusive groups, such jocks in high school, or high paying white collar job workers, are somewhat arrogant. Jocks are arrogant because of their physical prowess in sports, while white collar job workers generally earn more money than the average person. I believe that arrogance is one reason why cliques exist.

That doesn’t nearly cover it, but I think it made a nice starting point, and it was the only part of my argument based on semi factual evidence. From here on out everything else will just be my speculation.

Pardon my metaphor, but I think the best way to describe acquiring new friends would be to say its like building a domino tower, except every domino is a slightly different shape. It’s pretty easy to stack a couple dominos, but after a while, for each one you add, it becomes harder. Plus there’s a chance that some might slip off, or the whole tower might even collapse. I’d contend that friends are the same way. It’s pretty simple to get a couple friends; it’s just a matter of finding some who fit well together. But every time you make a new friend, you have to integrate them into your own group of friends. If they don’t quite fit, then there’s likely to be a falling out of some kind. If they can’t resolve their differences either you’re new friend goes, or you’re old one does. In some ways, after you have a certain number of friends, its almost safer to just keep to the ones you have than try to make new ones.

So I would conclude that cliques are formed out of the necessity for friends, and are exclusive due to a certain satisfaction of the members. If you have enough friends, and feel that you and your friends are happy, why would you need anything else? I don’t condone that, because I think to settle on something is to deny everything else out there, but from my observations, that’s my belief on the existence of cliques. Please respond with your thoughts.

First of all, don't ever tell a girl she is/was an "experiment". It will leave you having to explain much, to which you might only dig yourself a deeper hole. :no:

Though I'd not paid cliques much mind, it was definately apparent when my sister hit junior high school. It seemed that membership was pretty exclusive for a bunch of silly younger girls (5-6 years younger). During a birthday party at our house, one girl was being "ignored" by all the rest. It pained me to great lengths to see an invited guest shunned for the sake of everyone else's giggles.

Her and I spent time talking, playing table tennis and whatever until her parents arrived to retrieve her. The next week, it came out that she had a crush on me after that day. She was a very sweet, thoughtful girl and kind of meek. There have been a couple of times of wondering "what if".

After a couple of decades, one of those friends of my sisters was at a gas station when I was passing through our old town on the way home. I'd introduced myself to her as the brother to her past friend. She didn't even care to acknowledge me. She wore apparel that led me to believe she worked in a doctor's office or hospital. It isn't clear what happened to widen the gap between her and my sister. What was clear is that she took one look at me and preferred to shun a past acquaintence instead of having the decency to ask about my sister.

Though I am a rough looking sort when unshaven and not likely to win any beauty contests, it was felt she chose to revert back to her junior high school attitude of shunning appearances that didn't suit her. Perhaps it was her job, some past hard feelings with my sister or the way I looked. Whatever it was, she made it plain that spending a few minutes of time in passing was too much of a requirement.

When meeting someone the first time, I don't try to categorize them or assume what kind of person they will be. My tolerance for drunks is rather low, but only for the reason that they tend to be obnoxious and use that as an excuse for unexcuseable behaviour. Usually, that only occurs when they have drank in great excess, but I don't wish to associate to greatly with someone that may reach that point. Still, I don't assume that's how that person is when they are stone-cold sober.

The way people dress doesn't impress me either. I'd rather see someone in their everyday work clothes than to see the "dressed-up" versions. Same with girls/ladies, except it extends to make-up.

Yes, there are those that are looking for the maximum amount of fun, popularity, hilarity and things to do beyond being bored. Then there are those that seem happy with who they are and only make things brighter when they are around us. Sometimes they mix. Ultimately, we tend to stray away from those that irk us to the point of wanting to slap them cross-eyed.

Playing in free-poker tourneys during the week and in a league every Tuesday, the mix of folks is rather startling as there are young and old, male and female, very aggressive and very laid back players. Some are too carefree, some too serious. It's almost like an exclusive clique, with the only requirement of enjoying Texas Hold'em. So I'd have to say cliques are those with a majour commonality.

Haha, just to clarify, they weren't ever experiments in my mind, I was just trying to sort of put it in scientific terms for the purpose of advancing my argument. Even if I ever did approach someone as an experiment, I would never ever tell them that, particularly a girl.

It seems to me that your saying cliques are formed on some common trait shared by members, and that exclusion is based primarily on appearance. Of course correct me if I summarized your argument incorrectly.

I'd like to hear more about the girl being excluded, and why you believe she was the one being neglected.

Appearances, yes... and not just the physical aspect.

She wasn't overly pretty, but cute in a way. Her parents were devout followers of a faith that wasn't mainstream to the area. Her brother had a problem with being slightly cross-eyed. She wasn't very outspoken, tended to be reserved but laughed easily enough. As far as I knew, she was liked by everyone in her class. She seemed rather intelligent.

The other girls were more prone to smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol or whatever else they could get away with at the time... sis included. This is probably the reason she wasn't with the "in crowd".

For my high-school class, those involved in sports tended to hang together somewhat, then there were the car fanatics, country boys, etc. When I attended a small local junior college, I was amazed how everyone got along with everyone else. Didn't matter if they were in band, the brainy type, drill team girls, cowboys/girls, foreign students, stereo cranks, football players, car enthusiats or what not. Matter of fact, the football QB, couple of girls on drill team and some rednecks looked up to me for excelling in classes. Go figure.

I think that grouping is natural in human interaction. We identify with what is similar to ourselves, and the desire to be with what we know is a strong one.

But why cliques? I think you two hit on two main causes:

AND

The first cause--the necessity for friends and that "certain satisfaction of the members"--is an interesting thing to point out. To that I would add that people gain a sense of identity in a group. Identity is formed by a very primal process of figuring out "this is me" and "this is not me"--that is, a process of identification and rejection. A clique provides that identity and amplifies it: Not only am I PART of this clique, in a way, I am DEFINED by it. And part of being in this clique is that I am NOT in that other clique. In other words--you're in or you're out. You're a friend or you're not. You're my best friend or I won't talk to you at all.

I think it takes a good deal of self-confidence to reject cliqiness. In other words, I think people that form cliques are the most lacking in self-esteem or in identity. After all, if you have a sense of identity outside of a clique, then you don't NEED the clique for anything at all.

I think the second point--that is of stereotyping people at first glance--exacerbates the problem. It's very natural to stereotype and make judgments--it's much harder to say "hmm... I wonder what this person has to offer me."

it amazes me I have never thought about it, despite being in my own high school years and being thoroughly aware of cliques. Let me give you a "case study" if you will:

In 2003, I came from my primary school into high school. In the primary school (primary= ages 5-11), it took me 6 years to get to a stage where I was pretty much comfortablish with everyone. Throughout those 6 years, I flitted from friend to friend and never quite found anywhere to fit in. I still look back and hate those years and myself- simply because I didn't fit in anywhere. I suppose if I had a stereotype back then, I would have been your nerd. I would have also been your coward afraid of venturing out of a comfort zone.

So, after leaving one school feeling incredibly unhappy- I come into a new bigger school. With one friend in my tutor group who doesn't turn up to school that often. During the induction period, I HATED the interactions we had with people. Maybe thats why I spent my first year of that school unhappy- because I didn't know anyone, and I was very reserved and agressive if approached. But ironically, it was my lack of clique that got me my first clique. The outcasts- I spent the year hanging out with another nerd and the school "gay boy". Well let's say we weren't the most liked of people :)

But again, NERDINESS to the rescue! I had gained an interest in HTML and was coding a website and trying to get visitors. This "popular" lad soon took an interest and wanted to help out which got the other people who I detested (and actually now quite like :P) wondering why this lad had come down in his taste of friends and was talking to me the nerd, the angry nerd and the slowly turning gothic/suicidal. As it goes with me, the first way you approach me is crucial. If you approach me the right way, I will be civil (ESPECIALLY because at the time I NEEDED some sort of sanctuary from my awful time) to you, and the more you talk to me the more I will talk back and eventually, I found myself having a lot in common with this lad- the one who I had hated for months on end. Go figure. But, again, because of my still retained innocence (mummy's boy at the time) I was still very impressionable. His lax attitude was rubbing off and I started going out more. By the end of the year I was definitely more accepted simply because I had this one more friend who talked to the right people and gave the right impression of me out to them.

So, for the most part, end of the horrible years of high school at this point. I started year 8 a virtually different person- I still didn't get on with a few people but I had started talking to more and more people. By no means popular (even still) but happy and content. I had a few cliques to hang around with, not just one. I had the moshers/skaters/mini-goths, my own outcast group (with a new 'satanist' there), and this lad- who brought me into a few brief encounters with people more popular than himself, and they slowly warmed to me. This was the year of my France trip as well, and I had a few of my new friends going there in a room with me. Here was a turning point for me, simply because this OTHER boy was annoying me, I ran after him and nearly hit him in the face- this, along with my growth spurt from being one of the smallest to the third tallest in our year, got me a reputation of being someone you can't walk over anymore. The A,B and C (C I nearly KO'd) were then quite friendly with me and still are. Another point as well was my quite clear start of puberty- I was THE hairiest person on the trip which got some admiration (it still does)

So exit second year and into my current year- again nerdiness plays a big rescue to my comfort in school. It is the year of my Standard Assessment Tests and in maths I was the only boy to sit the highest tier paper offered (6-8) and the lads who I had hated were spurring me on to succeed (which I did GO 8c!!!) and when I did, the "hardest" (I quote not because it isn't true, but because its slang) was playfully slapping me in the face and congratulating me along with a fair few others with the banter of me being a nerd which I joined in with. After that, with the start of the world cup I took a small interest in playing and watching football which got people who I really didn't like talking to me. Recently coming back from the barcelona trip, I was told at least a few times that I was "sound" (meaning that I'm a nice guy to talk to I think) which made me really really happy when looking back from that first year that I can now walk into school with a smile on my face and have a joke without having to worry who's coming round the corner to laugh at me and not with me. Alright, so I'm not without being laughed at but I now join in.

*conclusion*

I may think of a conclusion on WHY cliques exist, but I thought I'd submit a "live" experience for you to see if you can read anything into my experience as to why cliques form. I still don't think I have a clique- I'm a believer in the satanic philosophy but am not called a goth or emo or anything like that. I talk to the more popular girls and lads but I would never say I was popular (liked maybe). I hang out with someone who is considered scary and a weirdo but I am not in that clique. I can hang around with the moshers/skaters/rockers and am not one of them. I used to talk to the random girls until I felt betrayed by them and stopped talking to them. All this, and I still don't get into that much trouble with teachers, and I'm not in anyway a yob. I suppose I'm not an outcast anymore, but an incast. I'm inside the community but without a specific membership to a sub-community. Please realise, I am by no means the most liked person in our year, nor the smartest or funniest or near any of them. I am only trying to give an account to see if you can interpret through my biased view why these cliques exist. I can give one possible reason why they come about- in my view it is to GAIN a comfort zone and it is a rat race for popularity and influence among your peers.

Since I was homeschooled most of my life I didn't really have friends I talked to on a regular basis until high school. I never really made a lot of friends until high school. Most of my friends were people I saw on an everyday basis because of school. I never really did anything with friends outside of school. My social groups were based mostly on my situation. After a while I could be friends with people of pretty much any social group. The only time I really had a lot of trouble finding a place to "fit in" was my first year at a public high school. Everyone seemed to hate and target new students. I felt misurable at school at times until my second year when I manage to make a good number of friends.

I would assume people create cliques for social "survival". It's like a way to reinforce that you aren't so strange that no one else can understand you.

Maybe it is to help the human problem of insecurity... once people get into their comfort zone they will scout and relax. Seriously- popularity doesn't mean anything to people now.

Great topic!

I have a question that comes to mind as I read it.

Isn't it really rather the opposite? Aren't cliques, as such, defined much more by those who are NOT a part of them?

I know that, in my life, I was more often than not quite shocked to discover that I was a part of any "identifiable" group. I was just who I was, doing what I did, with those I did them with. It was always someone else who would announce that I was part of a group, or a particular "clique" in School.

I don't remember the identities so much as the feeling of shock or pleasure as I learned that I was, or was not in a particular "clique". I also never tried to be found acceptable to any particular person (even someone I may have been especially "interested" in), although I do specifically remember attempting to access a member of their "clique" as an ally to my purposes.

What do you think?

I wouldn't agree with what defines a clique. Well maybe that is the most part of a childish juvenile clique- but when the cliques start to mature and become just a regular group (like who you might drink with, or talk to in school/outside school) then its more about who's in the group I've found, than not in it.

I agree, to form the clique- you have to distinguish yourselves by saying "YOU aren't in the clique".

Interesting that you point out something which I'd never really thought about much.

Yeah, hanging with a group that you understand and are comfortable with is pretty natural, yet don't always try to "define" themselves. Used to get a kick out of the moniker "Goat Ropers". It seemed like it was broadly applied to anyone that wore cowboy boots or Justin ropers, dressed in any kind of western wear or had the rope hanging on the gun rack which was visible out the back window of their pickup. Jeff Foxworthy may group them all into that wonderfully large "redneck" group.

I guess the cool or hip group was either the upscale socialites or rebel-rousing leather jacketed bunch. Talking to some girls, it's amazing how many of them dig the latter, like the Jesse James' type from Monster Garage.... seems like they are attracted to bad boys.

I've got better things to do than to pretend I'm cool. When I'm playing poker, will get into the game-face... but that's only for as long as it's needed.

How many faces do we really put on without thinking about it? How much differently does everyone think we act when around various grouprs or even different people?

I can see your point.

The topic of Cliques is quite an interesting one, my school, being small, never had much in the way of big, noticible ones, but they're still here. For an example, when I first started high school, I had a small group of friends, a total of six guys that hung out all the time. We weren't defined, however. We were just a clique, but not jocks, bullies, nerds, or the "cool kids". We were very popular, and I guess when I say the cliques aren't as noticible, I mean that all of the cliques pretty much get a long, so it's hard to tell who's a part of which one.

Right now I'm not apart of a clique at all, because two of the guys from the group moved, and another two I'm having my problems with, which leaves me with one.

I believe cliques are formed on people's insecurity. For the most part, everyone likes meeting new people, but out of pure insecurity, they like to form a tight bond with certain people so they know it's less likely they'll "abandon" them for other friends.

I consider myself a very insecure person, but not on the outside. Having said that, my knowledge of the fact that most of the people who are in their little cliques, or the people who are just plain "cool" are even more insecure than me. I love playing with this fact, and in doing so, I seem in eveyone else's eyes to be a very secure person, because lots of time when people try and put me down, I recognise that as an insecure action, so I put them down back, then when I realize that I hurt them more than they hurt me, it doesn't even bother me anymore because I know the only reason they said what they did was because they were even more insecure than I was. Additionally, I'm a ruthless, vindictive person, and anyone who tries putting me down, regrets it. Not trying to sound like a badass or anything, but it's true.

But like I said, cliques normally form from less intelligent, insecure people. The clique works as a shelter. One in which each member makes the other one feel safe, as they know that they have created a friendship with the people that is stronger than what others have, which means that they, in a way, have a guarunteed friendship with those people. The shelter is hard to get into, and easy to get out of. This also give the members a feeling of exclusivity, and a false sense of security.

I find that pretty interesting that your "smaller" school doesn't have cliques. My orginal high school, in CT, was about 500 students in grades 7-12, and it had probably the most rabid form of cliques and defined groups, much more so than the high school I graduated from, Kennedy, which had 1,500 students.