The Lens of Language: Horizontal Hostility and the Predicament of Clexacon

In our new series, The Lens of Language, GayBaeCo will be exploring terminology we find helpful when having complicated and nuanced discussions. Language tethers us, but it can also act as a divide. We hope that this series provides an additional framework and lens for individuals to recognize patterns, have thoughtful dialogue, and engage with one another in a more productive manner.

As with most things, having a concrete example rather than an abstract idea tends to help contextualize a concept, so we will be looking at this week’s topic, horizontal hostility, through the current issues ClexaCon, a media conference focused on wlw ships, has been facing.

I would like to preface that although sometimes we share our opinions in pieces (i.e. fangirling about Juliantina), this article is about presenting an idea, from which we hope to take your own learnings.

So what is horizontal hostility?

Per Psychology Today: “Horizontal hostilities occur between groups whom one would expect to have close affinities. They surface when challenges are made to the status quo. Passionate and extreme, radical groups work hard to build coalitions that will further their cause. Unfortunately, coalitions are inherently unstable, and collaborators often bicker over how best to achieve their common goal.”

Basically, groups that should be aligned and tend to agree on “big picture” ideas, sometimes differ on the tactics to get there.

In the context of this discussion, most people agree that a wlw conference is a great idea, but infighting begins to occur when capitalism, intersectionality, and marginalization are added to the framework and lenses through which people are having a discussion about ClexaCon’s responsibilities. The conference is growing, there have been management changes, and operationally, updates have been made as visibility grows.

How does ClexaCon fit in?

With an understanding of horizontal hostility, we can apply it to the lens of ClexaCon’s current issues as the conference just wrapped its third year.

It began as a noble pursuit, of which the majority of individuals in attendance agreed upon. There needed to be more visibility for wlw ships, and with the death of Lexa on The 100, fans were devastated as another gay was buried on television.

Something needed to be done to discuss these issues as well as celebrate the positive wlw representation for shows that didn’t fall prey to the frustrating trope too frequently employed, and thus, ClexaCon was born. What started as a small idea morphed into something much larger, even in its first year, with approximately 2,200 attendees and some of the biggest names of actors who portray characters in wlw ships. The conference has doubled in size since then, and with more people comes a whole host of logistical complexities––as the organization works to provide a great experience to guests.

So what’s the problem?

I have been able to best apply horizontal hostility when I consider these questions: Is ClexaCon a profit-making venture or one dedicated to social good? Can it be both? And what responsibility does it have to its attendees to act in a conscious way as the conference grows?

After the conference, a #clexapocalypse hashtag popped up on Twitter with groups sharing their grievances. There is one thread in particular gaining traction, and it is a 60+ tweet thread of the issues of mostly vendors, who felt poorly managed and unsupported during the weekend.

It’s clear that attendees and fans of ClexaCon feel a large sense of ownership over the conference, as there’s nothing else like it in the world and its roots grew from a place of wanting to feel seen and heard.

Where do we go from here?

As a community, there is difficulty discussing the intersection of capitalism, social inequality, race, and gender.

A wlw media conference, which started out with noble intentions after another death of an LGBTQ+ character, has morphed into a large, profitable enterprise with no other direct competitors in the space. Because the con focuses on a marginalized community, individuals and attendees expect those who run the conference to have a higher degree of sensitivity and “do better.”

But, it’s hard to agree on the debate if you disagree on the central premises under which it’s founded. For Clexacon to survive and thrive, they’ll likely need to figure out who they are and who they want to be as they undoubtedly scale. It takes capital to run successful endeavors, but if you alienate your fan base, you will lose potential customers whose voices feel like they aren’t being heard.