The study and understanding of social groups is central to sociology. We live most of our lives within social settings, so sociology is actually a study of our experiences within groups. Sociologists devote much attention to groups of all sizes and characteristics. Much sociological study investigates “how individu- als are shaped by their social groups, from families to nations, and how groups are created and maintained by the individuals who compose them” (Kimmel 1998, 7).
SOCIAL GROUPS
The term group has a specific definition in sociology that differs from everyday usage. In everyday language, almost any collection of people might be called a group. However, two or more people being in close physical proximity does not constitute a group in the sociological meaning of the word. Sociologi- cally speaking, a group is a collection of people who interact regularly based on
some shared interest and who develop some sense of belonging that sets them apart from other gatherings of people. They form a social relationship. This is
sometimes referred to as developing a sense of “we-ness.” All groups share this factor of interdependence (Lewin 1948).
People who just happen to be in the same place at the same time are not
a group. Rather, they are an aggregate. Individuals riding the bus or walking their dogs in a park are examples of aggregates. If these people interact and de- velop some sort of shared interests or sense of themselves as a group, then they become a group by definition. For example, the individual dog walkers might begin to talk with each other about their pets, start to walk their dogs on the same schedule, and even plan events together, such as an obedience class. Through these shared interests and interactions, the dog walkers may begin to identify
themselves as members of a group. They might even adopt some sort of name to identify themselves. Another, albeit tragic, example of an aggregate developing very quickly into a group was on September 11, 2001, when hijackers flew air- planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The passengers on United Air- lines Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania started as an aggregate and became a group when they joined together to fight the hijackers.
Another term that is often confused with group is category. A category refers to people who share some common characteristic or status. Categories are often used by sociologists and other researchers interested in studying social life. Age, race, gender, income level, religious affiliation, being a musician, owning a pet, or living in a apartment are all categories. People in a category do not nec- essarily interact or share any sense of belonging, and may not even know each other.
Researchers have also pointed out that sometimes categorizations are as basic in our minds as those groups with which we identify and feel a sense of be-
longing and loyalty, in-groups, and those with which we do not identify or to- ward which we may even feel animosity, out-groups. We also tend to develop a
bias in which we favor our in-groups, perceiving them in a better light than those “others” (Sumner 1906). We often prefer our fraternity or sorority, our church, or people from our ethnic group, for example, over others for this reason.
This in-group/out-group distinction works to build group identity and solidarity. Groups use a variety of means to distinguish who is “in” and who is “out.” Rituals such as secret handshakes (Collins 1989) or symbols such as team uniforms, gang colors, or awards honoring member’s accomplishments are all ways to exhibit group identity and reinforce membership.
Conflict with another group (or groups) can also strengthen group soli- darity (Coser 1956). The members of one group draw together to challenge a common enemy—the age-old idea of “us” against “them.” Thus, having an out- group to focus on can strengthen that sense of belonging and support the devel- opment of a sense of group identity as members tend to focus on differences between groups rather than any similarities (Coser 1956; Sherif 1966; Quattrane 1986). Street gangs or racist groups such as skinheads or the Ku Klux Klan il- lustrate this concept in action.
This group identity can even overpower and eliminate any previously existing relationships members held with those of the “other” group. Well- known research conducted by Sherif and associates demonstrate this process in their Robbers Cave Experiment. A number of boys participated in a camping trip during which they were closely observed by the researchers. The research team set up and manipulated various situations involving group membership and com- petition. After the boys had participated in camp activities and formed friend- ships for a week, researchers divided the boys into two competitive groups, purposely putting best friends into different groups. The resulting in-group/out- group conflict became stronger than the previous friendship ties (Sherif and Sherif 1953). A more recent example of this dynamic occurred in the former Yu- goslavia, where an emphasis on in-group/out-group conflict led to horrible
bloodshed between Serbs and Muslims, some of whom had individually been friends previously.
Reference Groups
Sociologists are also interested in how we use groups to judge ourselves and our attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and actions (Hyman 1942; Hyman and Singer 1968; Singer 1981). The groups we use for this purpose are reference groups. Reference groups are those with which we compare ourselves. Any group can become a reference group if we use them to judge something about ourselves. Considering what best friends will think about your new boyfriend or girlfriend or how to dress to fit in with your new colleagues on your first day of work are both ways of using reference groups.
We can also have negative reference groups that we do not want to be like. Dressing in hip-hop, punk, or goth styles sets children apart from their par- ents and a conservative establishment. Reference groups do not even have to be real. Girls and women who judge their bodies against the apparently flawless, thin, air-brushed models shown on the cover of women’s magazines or adver- tisements are measuring themselves against a fictional, and unattainable, refer- ence group (Kilbourne 2000). Children who compare their parents to parents on television sitcoms are making a similar fictional reference-group comparison.
Group Size
Group size influences the interactions that take place within the group. Sociologist Georg Simmel (profiled below) addressed the importance of this concept. Simmel notes that the smallest possible group is composed of two per- sons. This group of two is called a dyad. These are often our strongest, most in- timate relationships, such as a marriage. The existence of the dyad depends on both people. If one leaves, the group ceases to exist. As Simmel says, “for its life, [the dyad] needs both, but for its death, only one” (1964, 124). Each person holds full responsibility for group accomplishment or failure, since there are no additional members to which to shift the blame or effort. Because of the impor- tance of marriage to society and the instability of the dyad as a group, cultural, religious, and legal guidance are often provided to support marriages and en- hance the dyad’s stability.
A three-person group is a triad. The addition of the third person changes the group dynamics considerably. The addition of just this one person also makes the group more stable. Simmel noted that this third person adds the possibility of mediator when two members disagree. If one person takes some at- tention away from maintaining group relationships, the group continues to exist with the effort of the other two members. However, the addition of the third per- son also adds the possibility of a coalition forming against one person. Another possibility is that this third person might instigate trouble between the other two for personal benefit.
Simmel also noted that as groups become larger in size, they generally become more stable and less intimate, with less required of each member. Larger groups can lose members and still exist. For example, owners regularly trade members of sports teams, and a military unit can lose members in battle but still exist. Although the relationships between individuals in the unit may have been somewhat intense, the lost members are replaced by new arrivals, and the unit continues to function. Interaction with members outside the group may also in- crease as the group gets larger (Blau 1977; Carley 1991). As groups become larger, they also tend to develop formal structures such as bureaucracies that are discussed later in this chapter.
NETWORKS
Sociologists have also demonstrated the importance of our relationships that occur outside of defined groups in networks, the patterned relationships
that connect us with those outside of our established groups. Network relation-
ships are ever changing as people come and go from our lives. Sociologist Barry Wellman (profiled in chapter 8) offers a good illustration of networks when ex- plaining that it would have been impossible to make a membership list of New York City gangs when he was growing up there during the 1950s: “My New York consisted of unbounded networks of friends and of friends of friends. When a fight was coming up, groups of friends would call each other and come together to be a gang for that night. On another night, when other friends would call, some of the same teens would become members of another gang” (1999a, 94). Although these network ties are weaker than those within our defined groups, they are nonetheless very important in our everyday lives (Granovetter 1973, 1982).
Social networks exist across society. They are important aspects of kin- ship ties (Lai 2001), providing advice (Cross, Borgatti, and Parker 2001), orga- nized crime (Chambliss 1988), drug use and prevention of HIV/AIDS (Friedman 1999), finding a job (Lin, Ensel, and Vaughn 1981), and the deal making be- tween business and politicians that takes place at social events (Domhoff 1974). Networks also form among Internet users in cyberspace (Wellman 1999b; Kendall 2002). Sociological research on how networks link people in diverse places (Milgram 1967; White 1970) was even the basis for the popular Holly- wood movie Six Degrees of Separation.