There is no dispute in calling society a ‘Group’. However, we must make it clear that while every society is a group, not every group is a society. A society is a special type of group; it shares the characteristics of a group, but possesses additional characteristics that are found only within it.
A football team, a club, a political party, an assembly of people, a picnic party, a family, and similar other collectivities are all groups. The common point between them is that each contains a plurality of interacting individuals. The individuals can simultaneously be members of other groups.
Groups generally disallow members from being members of other groups of the same type. A member of a particular society, for example, cannot be a member of another society. Similarly, a follower of a particular religion cannot follow another religion at the same time. But a person can choose to opt for citizenship of another society or membership to another faith. However, dual membership is not permitted. While a system of dual citizenship1 does exist in some countries, such dualities come with certain restrictions—for example, it may waive the precondition of obtaining a visa, but not allow the dual citizen to vote, as voting right is restricted to only one country.
Since a person at any given point in time is a member of several groups of different types, the duration of that person’s active participation in any group may be limited. Participation in other groups requires people to be mobile. However, a person is identified with that group in which s/he spends most of her/his time. A politician may be identified with the political party to which he belongs, but he may also be a member of a literary club, head a governing board of an academic institution, and be a functionary in an NGO. But he will still known by his status as a member of the political party to which he belongs—the Congress, or BJP, or BSP, or Trinamool, or CPI.
Take yet another example of students in a class in college. The class consists of all students studying the same subject. The teacher taking the class also becomes a member with a definite set of role expectations. However, the teacher moves from one class to the other after the lecture. Similarly, a student goes to another class after the period is over. Student Malti may have chosen economics, sociology and Hindi literature. Another student, Sakshi, may have a different combination, where Hindi might be replaced by Geography or English literature. Thus, both Malti and Sakshi have sociology and economics in common, but belong to other classes for the other optional courses chosen by them. The composition of each subject class will thus differ in terms of the student population, and the teachers teaching those courses. These classes may be composed of students of both sexes, or of any one sex, and the relationship between students in the context of the class is governed by the core concern of the class, namely receiving tuition from the teacher.
Constant interactions in class may also result in the formation of informal friendship groups; students coming from the same native place, or speaking the same mother tongue, or residing in the same hostel, or sharing some other common interest (cricket, or poetry, or political preference) tend to develop such groups with more frequent interactions.
Compare a group within a society with society itself. A society is also composed of people of both sexes—this is not necessary for every group—and the members are in constant interaction. However, a society differs from other groups because of its exclusive membership—an individual cannot be a member of another society; if a person resides in another society, s/he is regarded as an ‘outsider’ or a ‘migrant’. If s/he decides to become a member, her/his membership from the society of origin is transferred, and s/he is then ‘naturalized’. Thus, a society is an all-encompassing arena of social interaction, and most other groups form its parts, as sub-systems.
The classificatory category ‘group’ is a term broader than society. Its definition comprises of those general attributes that are applicable to all kinds of groups. Additional characteristics help to make the group much more specific. This is the general principle of classification. To illustrate, let us take the term ‘furniture’. This term refers to all types of furniture—tables, chairs, stools, etc. A chair is a piece of furniture, but all pieces of furniture are not chairs. In the same way, while all the cases mentioned above are groups, each has a distinctive character. A picnic party is a special group, organized for the express purpose of going out for a picnic. A class, similarly, is a group organized with the purpose of providing tuition in a given subject to a plurality of students. A society also fulfils every criterion to be classified as a group, but possesses some distinctive features in addition to the basic characteristics of a group.
Groups can be as large as a society, or as small as two individuals in a well-defined, permanent relationship. Groups within society are therefore sub-systems of a society, in the sense that its membership is drawn from within the society. The group functions within the broad framework of the society and maintains its relations both with other groups and with non-members.
Groups can also be formed at a supra-national level. The United Nations, for example, is a group. We often read about G-77, or G-9, or G-20,2 or the Non-Aligned Group. These are groups at the international level, comprising of a set of countries—77 or nine or 20—who come together for a common cause. Thus, groups can be formed by individuals or by agencies. Of course, participants always remain individuals—either in their personal capacity, or as representatives of an agency, an organization, or even a society.
Some groups have wide-ranging areas of interaction, while others have very specific and specialized, and thus limited, areas of interaction.
Groups may be formal or informal. A member of a society participates in both types of groups. In formal groups, participation is basically of two types: persons participate (i) as members—either voluntary or as employees of the formal group; and (ii) as clients of the organization—for example, a citizen visiting a government office, a customer going to a firm, or a representative of another firm visiting his counterparts. The second type of interaction may be called interaction between an outsider and a group or its designated representative; the interacting parties, in this case, do not form a permanent group.
‘A social group arises when a series of interpersonal relationships, which may be defined as sets of reciprocally adjusted habitual responses, binds a number of participant individuals collectively to one another’ (Murdock, 1949: 3). A group is thus a complex of social relationships between two or more individuals operating in a given frame of reference. The analysis of a group would require focus on individuals who constitute the collectivity, the goals, the means and the conditions under which the group operates to achieve its goals. Thus, a group represents a special type of relationship. On a broader canvas, we can say that social relationships vary from tenuous and transitory interactions to ‘permanent’ systems of interaction. Parties to a social relationship may be friendly or unfriendly. The relationship between opposing armies is also a social relationship. But a group is formed only when the relationships are complementary and cooperative.
Running through the characteristic features of a society, we can locate the attributes common to all groups.
A well-defined territory, our first characteristic, is not necessary for all groups. This, however, is not to deny the designation of group to an entity that has a territorial base.
The second characteristic, namely that it consists of persons, is valid. But note that while a society’s membership has to be bi-sexual, allowing for sexual reproduction (of course, in accordance with well-defined norms), a group’s composition may, or may not, comprise of both sexes; not all groups are self-generating entities in terms of the renewal of membership.
As members of a group, each individual is recognized as the bearer of a common status, that of a ‘member’. Of course, within this group members may occupy different positions, such as President, Secretary, Treasurer, Coordinator, etc. An aggregate of people may be found in a togetherness situation and in a group situation.
While people in a group also come together, all aggregates of people who come together do not constitute a group. For example, people travelling in a bus are together, but they do not automatically form a group.3 It is when togetherness gives rise to a ‘sense of belonging’ that a group is formed. For example, if the people travelling in a bus feel irritated by the behaviour of the conductor and somehow join hands to voice their discontent against him, they move towards a group formation. They might halt the bus, sit on strike, shout slogans, or write a joint petition against the conductor, which they submit to higher transport authorities—all these actions would pave the way towards group formation. Similarly, all office-goers from a given colony may agree to hire a chartered bus on a monthly basis, and thus form a group of bus travellers.
Thus propinquity, social proximity and a commonality of interests are essential for group formation.
Informal groups have loosely defined boundaries. In the case of a formal group, the boundaries are somewhat well-defined. A group’s social boundary is carved by its members. Members are distinguished from non-members. The selection of a group may or may not depend upon its members’ preferences. One may prefer to seek admission to a prestigious school, but may not get admission for one reason or the other; in such a case, the student joins an institution where seats are available. In both cases the new member enters as a stranger, but gradually becomes a familiar face and develops his own friendships within the formal setting.
In formal groups, membership is acquired through a procedure, after which a membership ID is granted. But in many groups, there is no such identification. Confirmation of membership is done by (i) self-definition, and (ii) definition by ‘others’. These others are of two kinds: (a) those who are also members, and (b) those who are not members. A person becomes a member of a group when he announces his affiliation, and this affiliation is acknowledged by others belonging to that group, as well as by those who do not belong to it. When there is correspondence in the three sets of responses, the membership of a person is firmly established.
An example: if a person says that he resides in colony A, confirmation is then sought by verifying whether other residents of colony A accept him as a resident, and whether residents of other colonies also state that the person in question belongs to colony A, and not to their respective colonies.
Figure 5.1 Individual as Member and Non-member of Groups
Note: The person is claiming that he belongs to Group A. This will be confirmed when (i) those who belong to Group A allow him entry; (ii) those of Group B and C say that he does not belong to their respective groups, and—this is important—that he belongs to Group A.
A member is thus an insider. Non-members, likewise, are outsiders in the context of a particular group. In 1906, William Graham Sumner made popular the distinction between an in-group and an out-group. In common parlance, people refer to ‘we’ and ‘they’. This ‘we-ness’ is the characteristic of an in-group. It must, however, be stressed that orientation towards any out-group is not always hostile. Members on the margins of a group might be ambivalent towards the in-group and somewhat favourable in their attitude towards an out-group. Thus, the degree of ‘we-ness’ may vary among members of an in-group. The more coherent and integrated groups will have a high degree of ‘we-ness’. The degree of ‘group-ness’ depends upon the extent of interaction between its members. It may be less in a newly formed group or in a group on the verge of liquidation. It is, however, also possible that a newly formed group might possess a high degree of ‘we-ness’; this is quite often the case in a break-away group. Renegades4 are generally more committed to the new group than are the original members. There is a saying in Hindi: ‘Naya Bhil Musalman Banta hai to din men das baar namazpadhata hai’—which literally means that a new religious convert offers prayers many more times than older members of the faith.
It must again be stressed that while all groups are a complex of social relationships, not all social relationships can be termed groups. For a social relationship to become a group, it is essential that it have a certain degree of permanence, with frequent interactions. When two individuals meet casually in a marketplace, they enter into a transient relationship. But when they start meeting frequently with a common intent, the relationship transforms into a group. A boy and a girl may date and develop a relationship, but they become a group—a married couple—only after their wedding, which bestows a certain degree of permanence on their relationship.
Groups also change their characters. A married couple, for example, is a group, a conjugal unit. It transforms itself into a family when the couple have a child.5 The transformation of a conjugal unit into a family changes the nature of that particular group.
There is another point: while the composition and character of a ‘real’ group might change, the structural categories remain, and are peopled by another set of individuals. A particular conjugal unit of Mr Y and Mrs A may transform into a family when they have a child S—born to them or adopted by them. But their move to a family does not imply a disappearance of the conjugal unit. The same is true of the sociological category of family. A particular family may disintegrate through separation, death of a member, or divorce. But the structural category of family continues to exist. That is why it is said: a family is dead, long live the family.
A group is differentiated from a crowd in the sense that while a crowd is an assemblage of people, it is not a permanent unity with a well-defined pattern of interaction and criteria for membership.
Similarly, a group is different from a Category. Women, youth, farmers, workers, students are categories and not groups. They are referred to as groups in statistical terms, or as collectivities bearing some common characteristic/s. There are no gatekeepers for vocational categories to verify the credentials of those entering its folds. And people falling within these categories can belong to different groups. This is also of for the category of women, which is based on gender; however, it will be wrong to assume that they form a single group. Even when groups are formed on the basis of a specified characteristic, such as being a woman, or a farmer, or black, not all people bearing that characteristic automatically become members of that group. They have to express their desire to become a member, and the authorities of the group in question have to accept their eligibility. A terrorist group, to take yet another example, may consist of people belonging to one faith, but not all people pursuing that faith become members of that terrorist group. The criteria of self-definition and definition-by-others will have to be employed to determine the membership of any particular individual to the group in question. This cannot be done for a category. When political leaders mobilize people belonging to a particular category, they take the first step towards converting that category into a group.
It is quite likely that a category might transform into a group with varying degrees of permanence. For example, ‘students’ constitute a category, but students of a particular college, or of the city, may form their own Association. In such cases, membership is obtained from the category of students. In the Indian context, one is familiar with the ABVP (Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad) or the SFI (Students Federation of India), for instance; students of a given college or university may be divided in terms of their membership to any of these groups; that is to say, a college or a university may have wings of the ABVP and SFI, and students may opt to join any of them or remain unattached.
We also notice that many associations provide membership, even offer leadership, to persons who technically do not belong to that category. In India, politicians have assumed the leadership of trade unions. V. V. Giri, one of our past Presidents, was known as a Trade Union Leader. Similarly, George Fernandes led the trade union of railway workers, although he was never a railway employee. The President of the BCCI (Board of Control of Cricket in India) need not be a cricketer himself. Non-sportspersons may head the Olympic Association’s.
It can therefore be said that a group is defined by three characteristics: continuous interaction, cooperation and a sense of belonging; of course, these are highly variable. The intensity of interaction may differ; cooperation is generally crossed by conflict, giving rise to factions or dissident groups within a group; and the sense of belongingness, the ‘we-ness’ may vary from member to member. Variations in the three attributes found in a group help us to classify groups into different types. Due to the varying presence of these three attributes, it can be said that actual groups demonstrate different stages of ‘groupness’. While a highly integrated group is clearly visible and observable, a group with limited and infrequent interaction defies easy identification. Several informal groups are those in which members do not know that they are operating in a group setting. Researchers employ the technique of sociometry6 to unearth such informal groups within formal groups, like a school class, a branch of an office, etc.
It is participation in different groups that shapes an individual’s personality. Obviously, the amount of influence a group exerts on a particular member depends on the degree of that member’s involvement in the activities of that particular group. Not only do groups influence the personality make-up of their individual members, members also equally influence the character of the group through their participation and contribution.
When the volume of interaction with outsiders increases, the formal organization has to come up with innovative ways to handle the excess work, resulting in a reorganization of the various departmental activities, introduction of a machine culture (computers, for example), and amendment in the prescribed procedure.
This is clearly visible in the field of education. Entrance tests are now conducted jointly for a number of identical institutions of higher learning during admissions; and online tests are administered to eliminate poor candidates and invite a select number of applicants for the final interview. This was not necessary earlier, when the number of aspirants for higher education was limited compared to the number of seats available.
Sociological research has also drawn attention to the fact that while the statuses and structure of the groups may remain the same, their culture gets defined by the actual occupants of the various statuses within the organization/group. This is true of both formal and informal organizations. For example, while the structure of a cricket team remains the same—the number of players, the team hierarchy in terms of skipper and vice skipper, etc., the specialization in various departments such as bowling, fielding, and batting—teams are differentiated in terms of the person-sets, that is, by those who occupy particular positions or who play particular roles. It is this assessment that determines their worth in an auction like that of the IPL7—Indian Premier League—where Sachin Tendulkar or M. S. Dhoni, or Ishant Sharma are offered huge sums because of their good performances on the cricket field, either as batsman or bowler. This fact has led some sociologists to distinguish between ‘prestige’ and ‘esteem’: prestige is derived from official status, but esteem is earned by a status occupant from his performance. A prime minister, to take another instance, is judged as good or bad, or strong or weak in terms of his/her performance, and that determines the esteem s/he commands among the electorate.
Elaborating this point, Johnson says:
[A] group does not cease to exist when its members Leave one another temporarily. If the football player goes home early from the dance in order to keep in training, he is acting at the moment as a member of the football squad. Thus the football team exists continuously, even though the duties of its members do not require their attention at every moment. At times, a particular group membership is quiescent or dormant in one’s personality, but during those times it is still ready to assert its claims, so to speak, if a proper occasion should arise (Johnson, 1960: 6).
Using the IPL example, we know that Rahul Dravid—a prominent Indian cricketer—returned from South Africa during the May 2009 matches to be with his pregnant wife who was due to deliver; but he went back soon after and joined the team again. In South Africa, he could not forget his status as a husband, and back home, he was keenly following the IPL series. The two groups influenced his behaviour and performance in the two status positions he held simultaneously.
Every individual plays a given role at a particular time, but also vicariously performs other roles attached to his/her other statuses. An individual is thus a bundle of statuses, and the roles associated with them shape that individual’s personality.
Leave a Reply