The skeptical blogosphere seems to be all a-rage with inter-scene squabbling. “Oh noes”, some cry “this will truly be the end of the skeptical movement!” Other’s say “It’s time to decide what we rally stand for!”. Both are correct, to an extent. This is a conflict that has played out before and will play out again in every sub-culture, as the struggle to define a solid cultural identity amongst an increasingly diverse (and increasingly growing) group of people. An important point to understand however, is that this conflict is internal. Outside the sub-culture, people will not know or care what we do, while these conflicts are a neccessary step in defining our cultural identity.
Outside the Skeptical and Scientific activist movements, people really don’t care about our squabbles. It’s hard to imagine that important struggles in the Skeptical community, such as Atheism and Feminism, would not be understood by outsiders to the community. Many self-identified skeptics cross-over to gaming (many, perhaps via Dragoncon). But if you are not in the gamer community you would not understand or care about the difference between say, tabletop RPG and cardboard chit games (even using this phrasing identifies my sub-cultural group among gamers). But to someone who plays only tactical war games, they would be offended if one were to say “Oh, you game? So, do you play an elf?”. To go even farther afield in nerdly culture, what is the difference between con-goers wearing a Sailor Moon costume or a Fox costume? What about a Fox with Sailor Moon paraphernalia? I am only vaguely aware of the cultural rules of cos-play and furries, and I do not, for a moment, care about their cultural conflicts.
The sometimes tedious and frustrating discussions about everything from blasphemy to party-themes does play an important role in skepticism. We use these discussions to decide what is acceptable language, what are the social mores we expect. Is it ok to hassle an alt-med skeptic who is also a practicing Catholic? Are alien abductions a “guy thing”. As skeptical culture grows and evolves, these questions won’t stop being discussed. The questions themselves will change. With more women involved, feminism has started to creep into the vocabulary. As skepticism becomes less anglo, questions of race will come to the fore. As the population changes, discussions pertinent to that population about what is and what is not OK have to be answered.
If our squabbles do not permeate outside our sub-culture, when does it matter, or does it matter at all? Yes, it matters for recruitment. Upon first entering a sub-culture, a neophyte is usually unaware of the sub-culture’s striations. They may know a celebrity or two from outside, or from their induction, but otherwise will likely only know the person or persons who introduced them to the sub-culture. Assuming an initial interest more than simple curiosity, the inductee is only likely to be successfully adopted into the sub-culture if the inductee determines that there is an incentive for them to join. We need to make sure that our cultural discussion is appropriately incentivising the people we want to join and the people we don’t want to leave.
All other things being equal, who do we want to participate. Do we want theist skeptics? Do we want feminist skeptics? These questions aren’t about appearing friendly to the media, or open to outsiders. Outsiders don’t care. We are defining our future membership. Is it better to have more people with a wider variety of ideas, or is it better to have a more closely-knit group with a tighter ideology. Only time will tell who has won the argument.
.
