> It’s actually impressive that some groups can all gossip together about the one person that isn’t there, and somehow all expect that they are the exception to that rule (e.g. nobody hates them behind their back). I honestly do not understand how those relationships are supposed to work (but they do, or all of them are just deeply unhappy about the whole thing but don’t know how to leave).
I felt the same way until I read ‘Sapiens’ (yes yes, I know it’s something of a meme book around here), where in a certain section it is pointed out that gossiping is one of the most efficient ways to disseminate information in social groups without creating direct conflict.
To be honest, I still largely feel the same way. I too don’t understand how people can be so incongruent as to talk shit behind people their back, but somehow operate on the mode that this doesn’t happen to them (they wouldn’t like it
if people talked shit about them, so why do it). But, I’ve largely come to accept it, and even mildly participate. Apparently it is an important social construct, so by joining in you don’t seem like you are disapproving of the behavior and judging people for it.
One nice thing about male platonic relationships is that ribbing on each other with harsh jokes is commonplace, which allows to perform the same function as gossip but now in plain sight, including the person it is about. And because it is packaged as a joke it is both less hurtful and still allows the plausible deniability for either party to evade direct conflict.
I think this is also why women gossip more and do it in a much more toxic manner: they don’t have the same social culture of ribbing on each other, necessitating more and harsher gossip.