Social Groups

Compiled by: Imran Ahmad Sajid imranahmad131@gmail.com Key Book. Group Dynamics by Forsyth.

I am cast upon a horrible, desolate island; void of all hope of recovery. I am singled out and separated, as it were, from allthe world, to be miserable. I am divided from mankind, a solitary; one banished from human society. I have no soul to speak to or to relieve me. Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe With these words Robinson Crusoe, the hero in Defoes classic novel, laments his fate. The climate of his island is comfortable, the food plentiful, and the animals peaceful. He has seed for crops, tools for working, weapons to protect himself, and clothes to cover himself. But despite these comforts, he feels that fate has done him a great wrong, for he is no longer a member of any human group. Unlike unfortunate Crusoe most of us live out our lives in the midst of groups. Of the billions of people populating the world, all but an occasional hermit, outcast, or recluse belong to a group. In fact, since most of us belong to several groups, the number of groups in the world probably reaches well beyond 5 billion. Everywhere we turn, we encounter groups: airplane crews, audiences, choirs, clubs, committees, communes, dance troupes, families, fraternities, gangs, juries, orchestras, sororities, support groups, teams, and on and on. The world is literally teeming with groups. Groups are a fundamental component in our social lives, but in some respects their pervasiveness prevents us from fully understanding them. In living most of our lives surrounded by groups, trying to get into groups, and trying to get out of groups, we can become so accustomed to theme that their influence on our behaviour goes unnoticed. We take our groups for granted, so much so that we must learn to look at them anew, from a different, more scientific perspective.

The Nature of Groups

The Impressionists. Art in 19th century France was dominated by the classicists, who
favored paintings depicting mythological, religious, or historical scenes. But not all artists accepted the standards established by the classical school. In 1860 Claude Monet met Camille Pissaro, and the two spent long hours airing their radical views. Two years later Edourd Manet and Edgar Degas, both sons of wealthy families, joined Monet and Pissarro in their search for alternative forms of artistic expression. Later that year Monet met three other disillusioned young artists (Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Alfred Sisley, and Frederic Bazille) and persuaded them to join the informal gathering.
1

Over the next few years these young artists worked together in developing a new approach to painting, often journeying out into the country side to paint landscapes. They sometimes painted side by side and patiently critiqued one anothers work. They also met regularly, each Thursday and Sunday, in a caf in Paris to discuss technique, subject matter, and artistic philosophies. For years their art was rejected by critics and they scarcely earned enough money to survive, but by relying on one another for social support they were able to continue to develop the ideas. In time their approach was recognized by the art community as new school of paining and was labeled impressionism (Farrell, 1982).

The Survivors. Piers Paul Read (1974) recounts the grim fate of the members of a rugby
team who survived the crash of their chartered plane only to find themselves stranded in subzero temperatures high in the Andes Mountains. A lone individual would have certainly perished in the harsh climate, but by pooling their scant resources and skills, the group managed to survive. Each individual was responsible for performing certain tasks, including cleaning their sleeping quarters, tending to the injured, and melting drinking water. These activities were coordinated by the captain of the rugby team, but when he was killed in an avalanche much of the business of running the groups activities fell on the shoulders of a coalition of three cousins. The group lived for weeks by eating the bodies of those who had dies in the crash and avalanche, but when starvation seemed imminent they sent two men down the mountain to seek help. After walking 14 days and sleeping in the open at night, the two explorers managed to reach a small farm on the edge of the great mountain range. Their sudden appearance after 70 days was followed by an air-rescue operation that lifted the remaining 14 from the crash-site. Those who had managed to stay alive later pointed out that it was their combined efforts which saved their lives (Read, 1974).

The Peoples Temple. Jim Jones was a dynamic speaker who could hold an audience in
rapt attention. In 1963 he formed his own church, the Peoples Temple Full Gospel Church. His persuasiveness influenced many, and his message reached out to the rich and poor, young and old, and educated and uneducated. The membership soon swelled to 8000, united in their acceptance of Joness political religious, and social teachings. Rumors of improprieties began circulating, however. Former members reported that at some meetings those who had displeased Jones were severely beaten before the whole congregation, with microphones used to amplify their screams. Jones, some said, insisted on being called Father and he demanded absolute dedication and obedience from his followers. Many member donated all their property to the church, and one couple even turned over their 6-year-old son on demand. Jones eventually moved the group to Guyana, in South America, where he established Jonestwon. Press releases described the settlement as a utopian community, but rumors still circulated; was Jonestown more like a prison than a utopia? Relatives in the United States became concerned, and they convinced a member of Congress, Representative Leo Ryan, to visit Jonestown. Joness followers attacked the group, and five people were killed, including

Ryan. When the assassins returned to tell Jones of their attack, he ordered his followers to take their own lives. Armed guards prevented all but a few from escaping, and Jones repeatedly told the members to accepttheir deaths with dignity. When authorities reached the settlement the next day, they were met by a scene of unbelievable ghastliness. On Joness orders more than 900 men, women, and children had killed themselves. Joness body was found near the throne from which he had directed mass suicide. Over the chair remained the motto Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it (Krause, 1978).

The Rattlers and the Eagles. The 22 11-year-olds, all white and all boys, were camping
near Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. The boys were separated into two groupsthe Rattlers and the Eaglesbefore spending several days hiking, swimming, and playing sports. During that time friendship bonds, rules, and rituals blossomed within each group, along with an undercurrent of animosity toward the other group. When the two groups met in a series of competitive games, in almost no time tempers flared and full-fledged hostility broke out. The Eagles stole and burned the Rattlers makeshift team pennant. The Rattlers counterattacked that night by breaking into the Eagles cabin, and the following day fistfights and small brawls broke out between members of the two groups. Unbeknownst to the boys, the camp was part of a field study of relationships between groups, and the boys behaviours were recorded continually by the camp counselors. When hostilities reached a physical level, the observers intervened and separated the two groups. They then staged a series of problems that could be solved only if the groups cooperated with each other. One problem required locating a leak in the camps water supply. Another required them to move a truck that apparently had broken down. During and after the pursuit of these goals, animosity between the two groups diminished. When camp was over, the boys went back home on the same bus (Sherif, Harvey, White, hood, & Sherif, 1961).

The Therapy Group. The seven members of the group were outpatients at a university
clinic. All seven reported problems in relating to other people, to the extent that they could not establish meaningful interpersonal relationships. Dr. R. and Dr. M., two experienced group psychotherapists, met with the group weekly. During these meetings the group members shared problems from their daily lives and received support from one another. More importantly, they learned to disclose information about themselves to others and received feedback that helped them acquire useful social skills. Despite the fact that the group was composed entirely of people who had never been able to maintain friendships or intimate relationships, it became remarkably unified. The members rarely missed a session, and they grew more confident whenever they disclosed some previously unmentioned aspect of themselves. The therapists felt that the group seemed to plod at times, but the clients themselves were excited by their ability to interact successfully. The group lasted for 30 months, after which clinical testing indicated that the members did extraordinarily well and underwent substantial characterologica changes as well as complete symptomatic remission (Yalom, 1985).

What is a Group?
The group in these examples differed from one another in many ways. Some were small, consisting of fewer than ten members (the therapy group), but others were large (Peoples Temple). Nearly all the groups had leaders, but the power and duties of the leaders varied greatly. The artists, for example, seemed to take turns at leading. Similarly, some of the groups formed spontaneously, whereas others were established deliberately for the purpose of achieving certain goals. Given these differences, can we accurately call all these collection of people groups?

Kurt Lewin, offered an answer. He felt that despite their difference in size, structure, and activities, virtually all groups were based on interdependence among their members (Lewin, 1948). We understand intuitively that three persons seated in separate rooms working on unrelated tasks can hardly be considered a social group, for they cannot influence one another in any way. If, however, we create the potential for interdependence by letting at least one person influence or be influenced by others, these three individuals can be considered a rudimentary group. The impressionists, for example, lived and worked together, influencing one anothers ideas and techniques. Stranded in the Andes, the group of survivors helped one another overcome the many hardships they faced. The members of the therapy group provided one another with the encouragement and support. Each Rattlers contribution brought the group closer to triumph over the Eagles. In all these examples, and in most other groups, members have relationships to one another that make them interdependent to some significant degree (Cartwright & Zander, 1968). By emphasizing the importance of mutual influence among members we can define a group as two or more interdependent individuals who influence one another through social interaction. This definition, however, is fairly arbitrary. It implies that collections of people can be easily classified into two categoriesgroup and nongroupwhen in actuality such classifications are rarely so clear-cut. Forsyth provided a list of definitions which are given below.

Defining a Group
A group is two or more interdependent individuals who influence one another through social interaction. Forsyth.p.7 A group exists when two or more people define themselves as members of it and when its existence is recognized by at least one other. Brown, 1988.pp.2-3 A group is a collection of individuals who have relations to one another that make them interdependent to some significant degree. Cartwright and Zender, 1968, p.46.

For a collection of individuals to be considered a group there must be some interaction. Hare, 1976, p.4 We mean by a group a number of persons who communicate with one another, often over a span of time, and who are few enough so that each person is able to communicate with all others, not at second hand, through other people, but face to face. Homans, 195-, p.1. A group is an aggregation of two or more people who are to some degree in dynamic interrelation with one another. McGrath, 1984, p.8. Two or more persons who are interacting with one another in such a manner that each person influences and is influenced by each other person. Shaw, 1981, p.454. A Group is a social unit which consists of a number of individuals who stand in (more or less) definite status and role relationships to one another and which possesses a set of values or norms of its own regulating the behaviour of individual members, at least in matters of consequences to the group. Sherif and Sherif, 1956, p.144.

Characteristics of Groups
The dictionary defines a cow as a large female animal kept on farms to produce milk, but dairy farmers are likely to be more interested in a cows characteristics (four legs, tail, udder) rather than this definition (Webster, 1976). Similarly, if you wanted to understand one of the groups we discussed earlier, you would need to be able to say more than Yes, this aggregate is a group. You would need, for example, to describe how much members interact with one another and how each person is related to other members. You might also need to estimate the size of the group, catalog the goals that the group members pursued, index the groups unity, and chart the way the group changed over time. Interdependence among members is the hallmark of a group, but we should not overlook other crucial characteristics of groups. Forsyth identified the following characteristics of social groups: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. There is interaction among members of the group. The group has a structure based upon role, status, and attraction relations. Groups vary in size. Group usually exists for a reason (goal). There is some degree of cohesiveness in group. The group changes over time.