Types of Groups

The study of groups has been an important part of sociological investigation because they play such a key role in the transmission of culture. Sociologists have made a number of useful dis­tinctions between types of groups.

Primary and Secondary Groups A 1979 Holly­wood film, The Warriors, begins with an outdoor meeting of delegates of numerous New York City street gangs in a playground. Kach gang has sent nine members to this unusual convocation. Dressed in colorful garb, these gangs represent various neighborhoods and racial and ethnic groups within New York. There are white gangs, black gangs, Hispanic gangs, and Asian gangs— all assembled in an explosive mix.

This scene from The Warriors can be used to illustrate an important distinction made by sociol­ogist Charles Horton Cooley in categorizing groups. Cooley (1902:23-57) coined the term primary group to refer to a small group character­ized by intimate, face-to-face association and co­operation. The members of the street gang known as the Warriors constitute a primary group. So do members of a family living in the same household as well as "sisters" in a college sorority. Primary groups play a pivotal role both in the so­cialization process and in the de­velopment of roles and statuses.

When we find ourselves identifying closely with a group, it is probably a primary group. How­ever, Americans participate in many groups which are not characterized by close bonds of friendship, such as large college classes and busi­ness associations. The term secondary group re­fers to a formal, impersonal group where there is little social intimacy or mutual understanding. If the diverse gangs portrayed in The Warriors had successfully established a city-wide gang organization, it would have been a sec­ondary, rather than primary, group. The distinc­tion between these types of groups is not always clear-cut. Some fraternities or social clubs become so large and impersonal that they no longer func­tion as primary groups.

In-Groups and Out-Groups A group can hold special meaning for members because of its rela­tionship to other groups. People sometimes feel antagonistic to or threatened by another group, especially if the group is perceived as being dif­ferent culturally or racially. Sociologists identify these "we" and "they" feelings by using two terms first employed by William Craham Sumner (1906:12—13): in-group and out-group.

An in-group can be defined as any group or category to which people feel they belong. Simply put, it comprises everyone who is regarded as "we" or "us." The in-group may be as narrow as one's family or as broad as an entire society. The very existence of an in-group implies that there is an out-group viewed as "they" or "them." More formally, an out-group is a group or category to which people feel they do not belong.

Americans tend to see the world in terms of in-groups and out-groups, a perception often fos­tered by the very groups to which we belong. "Our generation does not have those sexual hang-ups." "We Christians go to church every week." Although not explicit, each of these declarations suggests who the in-groups and out-groups are.

One typical consequence of in-group member­ship is a feeling of distinctiveness and superiority among members, who see themselves as better than people in the out-group. This sense of supe­riority can be enhanced by a double standard maintained by members of the in-group. Proper behavior for the in-group is simultaneously viewed as unacceptable behavior for the out-group. Sociologist Robert Merton (1968:480-488) describes this process as the conversion of "in-group virtues" into "out-group vices."

The attitudes of certain Christians toward Jews illustrate such a double standard. If Christians take their faith seriously, it is seen as "commend le"; if Jews do the same, it is a sign of "back-ardness" and a refusal to enter the twentieth century. If Christians prefer other Christians as friends, it is "understandable"; if Jews prefer other Jews as friends, they are attacked for being "clannish." This view of "us and them" can be destructive, as conflict theorists have suggested. At the same time, it promotes in-group solidarity and a sense of belonging (Karlins et al., 1969). Military combat units are often cited as an ex­ample of in-group solidarity; for example, during World War II, American soldiers maintained high morale and took great risks to assist each other in the face of the enemy, the out-group. Yet military morale among American troops in Viet­nam was at best uneven; some soldiers went so far as to join protest groups such as Vietnam Veter­ans Against the War when they returned to the United States. Why was there such a difference in military morale in these wars?

While the war in Vietnam was undoubtedly less popular and more controversial, sociologists draw upon small-group research to point to an­other significant difference influencing soldiers' morale. In World War II, combat troops were as­signed to the same unit for the duration of the war; fighting units therefore became both pri­mary groups and in-groups. By contrast, each American soldier in Vietnam had a separate tour of duty lasting 12 to 24 months. Thus, even as a military campaign continued, soldiers were com­ing and going. In-group loyalty had less of a chance to develop, since each soldier maintained a separate countdown of the days remaining be­fore he could go home (Moskos, 1975; Shils, 1950).

Reference Groups Both in-groups and primary groups can dramatically influence the way an in­dividual thinks and behaves. Sociologists use the term reference group when speaking of any group that individuals use as a standard for evaluating themselves and their own behavior. For example, a high school student who aspires to join a social circle of punk rock devotees will pattern his or her behavior after that of the group. The student will begin dressing like these peers, listening to the same record albums, and hanging out at the same stores and clubs.

Reference groups have two basic purposes. They serve a normative function by setting and enforcing standards of conduct and belief. Thus, the high school student who wants the approval of the punk rock crowd will have to follow the group's dictates to at least some extent. He or she will be expected to cut classes along with group members and to rebel against parental curfews. Reference groups also perform a comparison function by serving as a standard against which people can measure themselves and others. A law student will evaluate himself or herself against a reference group composed of lawyers, law pro­fessors, and judges (M. Deutsch and Krauss, 1965:191; H. Kelley, 1952; Merton and Kitt, 1950).

The term reference group was coined by Herbert Hyman (1942) in a study of social class. Hyman found that what people thought of as their status could not be predicted solely from such factors as income or level of education. To a certain extent, an individual's self-evaluation of status depended on the groups used as a framework for judgment.

In many cases, people model their behavior after groups to which they do not belong. For example, a college student majoring in finance may read the Wall Street Journal, study the annual reports of corporations, and listen to midday stock market news on the radio. The student is engaging in the process of anticipatory socializa­tion by using financial experts as a reference group to which he or she aspires.

It is important to recognize that individuals are often influenced by two or more reference groups at the same time. One's family members, neighbors, and coworkers shape different as­pects of a person's self-evaluation. In addition, certain reference group attachments change dur­ing the life cycle. A corporate executive who quits the rat race at age 45 to become a social worker will find new reference groups to use as stand­ards for evaluation. We shift reference groups as we take on different statuses during our lives.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-21