TYPOLOGY OF GROUPS

Groups can be classified in terms of size—large or small, the degree of their organization—informal, semi-formal, or formal; the quality of social interaction—intimate or impersonal; the range of group interests—specific or diffused. From the point of view of an individual, a group may be the one to which s/he belongs or does not belong—in-group and out-group. Figure 5.5 shows how an individual in a given society is related to various types of groups.

 

Figure 5.5 The Individual and Types of Group Affiliation

 

Source: MacIver and Page, 1955: 223

An essential distinction is made between Primary and Secondary groups. The concept of primary group was first introduced by Charles Hooton Cooley (1909). He defined it as a ‘small group whose members share personal and enduring relationships’. The family offers an excellent example of a primary group because it is tightly integrated and performs the basic function of socializing the newborn, and thus develop in them an attachment for it.

The concept of primary group was further elaborated by MacIver and Page. They regarded the primary group ‘as the nucleus of all social organization’. They further specified:

 

The simplest, the first, the most universal of all forms of association is that in which a small number of persons meet ‘face-to-face’ for companionship, mutual aid, the discussion of some question that concerns them all, or the discovery and execution of some common policy. The face-to-face group is the nucleus of all social organization and … is found in some form within the most complex systems—it is the unit cell of the social structure. The primary group in the form of family initiates us into the secrets of society. It is the group through which, as playmates and comrades, we first give creative expression to our social impulses. It is the breeding ground of our mores, the nurse of our loyalties. It is the first and generally remains the chief focus of our social satisfactions. In these respects the face-to-face¹² group is primary in our lives (1955: 218-19).

 

The basic point is that primary groups are spontaneous, and such groups emerge into the most complex organizations.

 

The nature of the face-to-face group … is revealed most adequately in the detached form where the members come freely together, not as representatives or delegates constitute, defined, and limited to allotted tasks by predetermined arrangements, but spontaneously and apart from executive direction. A group which of its own initiative comes together for debate or study or conference meets this requirement more fully then, say, the class that assembles in a college lecture room; so do the informal cliques of workers in a factory more fully represent the primary group principle than the formal divisions established by the factory’s organizational plan (ibid.: 219).

 

A primary group is, thus, small in size and consists of people from similar backgrounds, who come together with limited self-interest and in the spirit of cooperative participation. However, it is important to remember that the phrase ‘face-to-face’ should not be taken literally. While a ‘face-to-face’ relationship is essential for a primary group to exist, not all such relationships are of a primary character. A boss and his secretary have a regular ‘face-to-face’ relationship, but they do not constitute a primary group. Of course, a continuous interaction between them might result in an ‘off-office’ relationship, which may then qualify as a primary group. Moreover, even within the office culture small informal groups may be formed on the basis of ‘face-to-face’ relationships. Small group research has focused on groups within groups that are informal in character. Sociometric analysis is deployed to unearth such groups, as they are not formally recognized and are not ordinarily known. It is common knowledge that when students register for a course, they belong to a ‘Class’ as sophomores, where they begin as strangers; however, in due course of time, small groups are formed among them and friendships develop. This may be due to the frequency of contact, common interests (games, or music, or sharing a common room in the hostel, etc.), or a common language. Participation in such groups affects the quality of participation in the formal group called the ‘Class’, or even the college. It was the discovery of such groups (in the 1930s) and their influence on productivity in an industrial firm that virtually gave birth to Industrial Sociology and the Sociology of Management. The famous study of the ‘Bank-Wiring Observation Room’ carried out at the Hawthorne Electric Company became a classic reference in management sciences.¹³

The above example suggests that primary groups continue to exist even in complex societies, and spring up even in formal organizations. In fact, the larger the group, the greater the chances of primary groups forming, as people come to know only a few members of the larger group at a personal level.

The concept of ‘secondary’ group appears as a residual category, in the sense that all groups that are not primary are secondary. They tend to be large and impersonal and are organized around specific goals or activities. For any particular individual, participation in a secondary group is generally limited to a short term. A college student joins a particular class—a secondary group—which s/he quits after clearing the examination. The class shall remain but its membership will change radically over a period of time. The number of such groups is much larger compared to one’s primary group. No person can afford to have too many primary groups, but may belong to several secondary groups as interactions in them tend to be limited and goal-specific. Members of a primary group have a personal orientation; those in a secondary group are united by goal orientation.

Macionis has clarified the differences between the two types of groups in the following manner:

 

Table 5.2 Primary Groups and Secondary Groups: A Summary

	Primary Group ↔ Secondary Group
Quality of Relationships	Personal orientation	Goal orientation
Duration of Relationships	Usually long term	Variable: often short term
Breadth of Relationships	Broad; usually involving many activities	Narrow; usually involving few activities
Subjective Perception of Relationships	As ends in themselves	As means to an end
Examples	Families, circles off riends	Co-workers, political organizations

Source: Macionis, 2006: 165

The distinction between in-group and out-group is also from the point of view of individuals participating in a group. Members of a group regard it as an in-group, and view groups in which they do not participate as out-groups. The size of these groups is of course variable, from very small to very large. In this sense, an in-group is a ‘we-group’ and an out-group a ‘they-group’. Based on the principle of membership, this distinction is helpful in the analysis of group behaviour—expressing solidarity towards the group to which we belong, and categorizing those who belong to an out-group, generally by stereotyping them. ‘In simpler language, we tend to react to in-group members as individuals, to those in the out-group as members of a class or category. We tend to notice the differences between those who are in our in-groups and to notice only the similarities of those in the out-group’ (Bierstedt, 1957: 307).

Sociologists also make distinctions between (i) large and small groups, (ii) formal and informal, (iii) long-lived and short-lived groups, (iv) voluntary and involuntary groups, (v) horizontal groups and vertical or hierarchical groups, (vi) independent and dependent groups, and (vii) open and closed groups. This kind of dyadic classification placed within a single matrix can lead to innumerable boxes, making the typology futile and unusable. Till date, there has been no satisfactory classification that can convert the diffused property spaces into manageable categories.

One concept, namely that of Reference Groups advanced by Robert Merton, has attracted great attention because of its enormous theoretical potential. We shall briefly introduce this concept here.

Reference Group

It is obvious that the number of groups to which an individual belongs is comparatively smaller than the number of those groups of which s/he is not a member. It is only from the point of view of a given actor that groups can be classified into ‘membership’ or ‘non-membership’ groups. These serve as ‘reference groups’, that is, ‘points of reference for shaping one’s attitudes, evaluations and behaviour’ (Merton, 1964: 233). That is why ‘reference groups are, in principle, innumerable’ (ibid.).¹⁴ When Merton developed the theory of reference groups in collaboration with Alice S. Rossi, sociologists were focusing their attention only on membership groups while analysing the influence groups have on an individual’s personality and behaviour. It was The American Soldier, a work carried out during World War II and published in two volumes (authored by S. A. Stouffer et al., and published in 1949 by Princeton University Press), that provided Merton with the stimulus to develop his theory of reference groups by reanalysing The American Soldier data on ‘Relative Deprivation’.

Relative deprivation occurs only when people compare their situation vis-à-vis others. Compared to those who are better placed, a person feels deprived, but compared to those who are lower than him in status or riches, he feels superior, while it is the other party that suffers from relative deprivation. This is the sense in which a distinction is made between absolute poverty and relative poverty.

It is this concept that led Merton to investigate the groups with which people compared their own situation. From the first volume of The American Soldier, Merton excerpted nine instances where respondents expressed relative deprivation. Proceeding inductively, Merton found ‘that the frames of reference for the soldiers under observation … were provisionally assumed to be of three kinds’. These were:

• comparison with the situation of others with whom [subjects] were in actual association, in sustained relations’ (people in the same job, acquaintances, etc);
• Comparison ‘with those men who are in pertinent respect of the same social status or in the same social category’ (for example, a Captain in the army comparing his lot with other captains not necessarily in direct social interaction); and
• Comparison ‘with those who are in some pertinent respect of different status or in a different social category (for example, a non-combat soldier with combat men).

The presence of sustained social relations between the individual and those taken as a basis for comparison indicates that they are to this degree, in a common membership group or in-group, and their absence, that they are in a non-membership group or out-group. When it comes to comparative status, the implied classification is slightly more complex: the individuals comprising the base of comparison may be of the same status as the subject, or different, and if different, the status may be higher, lower, or unranked (Merton, 1964: 211-12).

 

These ‘array of reference points’ are shown in Figure 5.5, where only two variables are chosen to build the matrix: the fact of sustained relationship, and status of the respondent vis-à-vis his counterparts.

It is generally granted that the groups of which an individual is a member serve as that person’s reference group, as the actions of that person are oriented towards it. However, reference group theory suggests, as is clear from the analysis of the data from The American Soldier, that the person also compares his or her behaviour with persons belonging to other groups, of which s/he is not a member. And it is this territory of numerous non-membership groups that has been explored by the evolving reference group theory.

Any person’s orientation to any other group, which s/he does not belong to, depends on whether that person is interested in becoming a member of that group, and whether s/he is eligible for membership. Depending on these criteria, we may build a matrix:

 

Table 5.3 Group-defined Status of Non-members

Non-members ‘Attitude toward Membership	Eligible for Membership	Ineligible
Aspire to belong	Candidate for membership	Marginal man
Indifferent to Affiliation	Potential member	Detached non-member
Motivated not to belong	Autonomousnon-member	Antagonistic non-member (out-group)

Source: Merton, 1964: 290

 

Figure 5.6 Attributes of Individuals, Social Categories and Groups

 

Summarizing the Mertonian exposition, Johnson states:

For members of a particular group, another group is a reference group if any of the following circumstances prevail:

1. Some or all of the members of the first group aspire to membership in the second group (the reference group).
2. The members of the first group strive to be like the members of the reference group in some respect, or to make their group like the reference group in some respect.
3. The members of the first group derive some satisfaction from being un-like the members of the reference group in some respect, and strive to maintain the difference between the groups or between themselves and the members of the reference group.
4. Without necessarily striving to be like or unlike the reference group or its members, the members of the first group appraise their own group or themselves using the reference group or its members as a standard for comparison (Johnson, 1960: 39-40).

Thus, reference group behaviour is reflected in (i) striving for admission, (ii) emulation, (iii) conferral of superiority, and (iv) simple comparison. It may also be a combination of different types. In terms of the eligibility criteria, those motivated to join can either be ‘candidates for membership’ if they are eligible, or remain marginal if they do not satisfy the eligibility criteria. Indifferent yet eligible persons are regarded as ‘potential’ members in the event that they are motivated to join; but those who are both indifferent and ineligible remain detached from the non-membership group. The eligible but not motivated remain ‘autonomous non-members’, while those who are ineligible and critical of the reference group will be antagonistic. For persons of both categories, the group in question is a negative group.

Let us take some examples of each.

Students passing the CBSE examination aspire to gain admission in reputed institutions of higher learning. However, admissions there are governed by the twin criteria of pass percentage and entrance test scores. Those fulfilling both conditions are candidates for admission; others who have scored less than the prescribed marks in both examinations remain marginal, hoping to gain admission if the scores are lowered.

There might be some students who qualify but are not interested in joining a particular course, say medicine (as they want to join an IT course). They can be regarded as ‘potential’ candidates who could be persuaded to join; others, who are neither eligible nor interested in medicine, are examples of ‘detached non-members’.

There might also be those who are amply eligible but are not at all interested in becoming a doctor; they would fall under the category of autonomous non-members, in the sense that no purpose would be served in trying to motivate them.

Those criticizing the medical profession without fulfilling the eligibility criteria are classed as antagonistic.

A good example of reference group behaviour is found in the Indian caste system. Hinduism, being a very old religion, has continuously accommodated several groups within its fold and enlarged its membership. New groups entering the Hindu fold found their places in the Hindu caste hierarchy, based on the four-fold Varna system. New entrants followed the customs and practices that suited them, and pursued their traditional occupations even after the merger. Although there is no centralized authority to grant newcomers any particular status, it was determined in the context of specific localities by the participating groups, who developed norms for commensality and social and ritual distance. Due to this fluidity, groups chose to either remain where they were, or to move up or down the ladder of caste hierarchy.

Castes located on the lower rungs of the hierarchy treated upper castes as their reference groups, and tried to emulate their behaviour and lifestyle in the hope of moving up the hierarchical ladder. They did so by renaming themselves and eschewing some habits such as drinking alcohol and eating meat. The adoption of vegetarianism and teetotalism, and the following of other Brahmanical practices became a feature at the beginning of the twentieth century. Depending on their main vocation, they claimed their place in the Kshatriya (warrior) or the Brahman or Vaishya Varna. Sometimes people of the same stock located themselves differently in different regions.

This process was facilitated by the new institution of the decennial censuses, introduced by the British. The census also recorded the castes of respondents. Once listed, the caste title became official. Since census enumerators had no way of verifying the claim, they recorded the caste as reported. That system of enumeration has several flaws, which become obvious when the data are judged in terms of the sociological definition of caste. Here it is sufficient to say that lower castes treated upper castes as their positive reference groups, and many of them succeeded in getting their Varna category changed while retaining their caste. This pattern of upward mobility was aptly described by M. N. Srinivas, a pioneering Indian sociologist, who termed it Sanskritization. This was the first major concept that Indian sociology offered, and it provides a good example of reference group behaviour.

Although Srinivas did not allude to reference group theory, his discussion of the process of Sanskritization suits this theory perfectly. Implicit in his statement is the point that lower castes treat higher castes as a positive reference group, which they emulate because of the prestige associated with it. Through such behaviour, they do not seek to enter a higher caste, but move from one Varna category to another as a group. Thus it is emulation and not striving for admission; comparing their lifestyles with those of the upper castes, the lower group may decide to give up some practices (such as non-vegetarianism and alcohol) and adopt certain upper-caste practices to change their profile. On occasion the upper castes might discourage such efforts to maintain their superiority and political and economic dominance. But field studies suggest that this process was widespread. Such an upward mobility was always possible, particularly in the middle rungs of the hierarchy. A lower caste succeeded, in a generation or two, in climbing up by adopting certain practices and by sanskritizing its ritual and pantheon. Tribal groups that were not part of Hinduism came to be treated as castes when they adopted Hindu practices and began interacting with other local castes. Since Hinduism is polytheistic, these groups continued to worship their deities with some added rituals. Along with these new entrants, Hinduism continued to absorb local cultural beliefs. This is the reason why the local caste system represents a unique hierarchy of castes, Jatis. In two different cultural areas, the same caste (Jati) may have two different positions in the hierarchy, brought about by differences in their Sanskritization.

Srinivas is of the view that the second Varna, namely Kshatriya, has been the most open. It has accommodated all kinds of groups that had the effective possession of political power. He who became chief or king had to become a Kshatriya, whatever his origins. A bard provided a genealogy linking the chief with a well-known Kshatriya lineage, or even to the Sun or the Moon (Surya Vanshi or Chandra Vanshi). The lifestyle of the newly coronated king had to correspond with the Kshatriya way of life, duly supported by Brahmin priests. Brahmins have always been predisposed to revere power, and they helped in legitimizing the chief’s authority. Various sects as well as pilgrim centres have acted as agents of Sanskritization.

Srinivas has mentioned two forms of caste mobility. One, ‘in which a Jati adopted, over a generation or two, the name and other attributes of a regionally prestigious dominant caste which was not highly Sanskritized’; and two, ‘in which aJati called itself a Brahman or Kshatriya or Vaisya (usually with a prefix), and this was accompanied by appropriate changes in its dietary, style of life, and ritual’.

We cannot go into the debate that this concept (which also prompted other sociologists to introduce similar concepts such as Kulinization or Kshatriyaization) generated here. The new concepts introduced also hint at reference group behaviour. It might be useful here to suggest a reverse process to Sanskritization that has gained currency in recent times. The policy of reservation and the special privileges now being granted by the Government of India to the lower strata of society somehow halted the process of Sanskritization, and even encouraged the previous parvenu groups to return to their original status in order to take advantage of the benefits. Rather than shedding the old derogatory names, the groups now take pride in calling themselves Dalit (oppressed—a term British officers used in the censuses). Thus, groups that served as positive reference groups and encouraged upward mobility have now become negative reference groups, giving rise to antagonistic feelings.

A recent instance of this process is provided by the Gujar movement in Rajasthan. This group, which is in fact a cluster of groups carrying the same name, but separated from each other through endogamous boundaries and even religion, succeeded in raising its status during the colonial period. Most of its men who wanted to join the government opted for jobs in the Army. Yet another group, the Meenas, who were initially identified with the Bhil tribals in southern Rajasthan, followed the same trajectory. Their namesakes in eastern Rajasthan were, however, given a prefix, ‘jagirdar’—landlords. But when the Constitution of free India was promulgated with a provision for special privileges for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (STs and SCs), all Meenas were included in the ST category. This provoked the Gujars, who, feeling relatively deprived in comparison, demanded that they be included in the ST category. Thus, the castes covered under the umbrella term Gujar, which had somehow succeeded in moving up the caste hierarchy and so were not listed as tribals in the British Censuses, demanded a move back to the ST category. This was a clear case of reverse Sanskritization.

We need not dwell here on the merits of the case, but can just hint at reference group behaviour. This is illustrated in Figure 5.7.

 

Figure 5.7 Reference Group Orientation of Backward Classes in India

 

The broader circle represents the total population of Rajasthan, the black circle consists of castes listed in the Scheduled Caste category, the dark grey circle represents the tribal population of the State (around 12 per cent), and the light brown rectangle represents the castes recognized as Backward Castes. These three distinct groups enjoy the privileges that came with being Backward, which included reserved seats in government jobs, educational facilities, etc. The Gujars regard the ST category as a positive reference group and are seeking entry by claiming a tribal status, thereby opting to eschew the status of a caste hitherto enjoyed by them. They are highlighting features in their social organization that ‘appear to them’ to be tribal; however, the tribals are resisting their admission. Amongst tribals, the Meena are the most opposed, and the Gujars are now comparing their lifestyle with that of the Meena to suggest an identical social history and status. The Meena, though, have enjoyed far greater benefits by being included in the ST category, and they feel ‘relatively deprived’. They have yet another demand: ‘if we do not qualify, then Meena does not either; therefore, if we are denied entry, then oust the Meena as well’.