The concept of a social group. Group classification. Primary and secondary groups

According with These criteria distinguish two types of groups: primary and secondary. Primary group– it is two or more individuals who have direct, personal, close relationships with each other. Expressive connections prevail in primary groups; we treat our friends, family members, lovers as an end in themselves, loving them for who they are. A secondary group is two or more individuals who are engaged in an impersonal relationship and come together to achieve some specific practical goal. . In the secondary groups, the instrumental type of connections prevails; here individuals are considered as means to an end, and not as an end in itself of mutual communication. An example is our relationship with a salesperson in a store or with a cashier at a service station. Sometimes the relationships of the primary group follow from the relationships of the secondary group. Such cases are not uncommon. Close relationships often arise between colleagues, because they are united by common problems, successes, jokes, gossip.

The difference in relationships between individuals is most clearly seen in primary and secondary groups. Under primary groups are understood as such groups in which social contacts give an intimate and personal character to intra-group interactions. In groups such as a family or a group of friends, its members tend to make social relationships informal and relaxed. They are interested in each other primarily as individuals, have common hopes and feelings, and fully satisfy their needs for communication. In secondary groups, social contacts are impersonal, one-sided and utilitarian. Friendly personal contacts with other members are not required here, but all contacts are functional, as required by social roles. For example, the relationship between a leader and subordinates is impersonal and does not depend on friendly relations between them. The secondary group may be a labor union or some association, club, team. But the secondary group can also be considered two individuals trading in the bazaar. In some cases, such a group exists to achieve specific goals, including certain needs of members of this group as individuals.

Secondary the group can function in conditions of friendly relations, but the main principle of its existence is the performance of specific functions.

Thus, the primary group is always oriented towards the relationships between its members, while the secondary is goal oriented.

The term “primary” is used to refer to problems or issues that are considered important and urgently needed. Undoubtedly, this definition is suitable for basic groups, since they form the basis of the relationship between people in society. First, primary groups play a decisive role in the process of socialization of the individual. Within such primary groups, infants and young children learn the basics of the society in which they were born and live. Such groups are a kind of training grounds on which we acquire the norms and principles necessary in further social life. Sociologists view seed groups as bridges connecting individuals to society as a whole, since seed groups transmit and interpret the cultural patterns of society and contribute to the development in the individual of a sense of community, so necessary for social solidarity.

Second, seed groups are fundamental because they provide the environment in which most of our personal needs are met. Within these groups, we experience feelings such as understanding, love, security, and a sense of well-being in general. Not surprisingly, the strength of primary group bonds has an impact on group functioning.

Third, seed groups are fundamental because they are powerful tools of social control. The members of these groups hold and distribute many of the vital goods that give meaning to our lives. When rewards do not achieve their purpose, members of primary groups are often able to achieve obedience by censuring or threatening to ostracize those who deviate from accepted norms.

More importantly, seed groups define social reality by "organizing" our experience. By proposing definitions for various situations, they seek from the members of the group behavior corresponding to the ideas developed in the group. Consequently, the primary groups perform the role of bearers of social norms and at the same time their conductors.

Secondary groups almost always contain some number of primary groups. A sports team, a production team, a school or student group is always internally divided into primary groups of individuals who sympathize with each other, into those with interpersonal contacts more or less frequent. When managing a secondary group, as a rule, primary social formations are taken into account, especially when performing single tasks associated with the interaction of a small number of group members.

Internal and external groups. Each individual singles out a certain set of groups to which he belongs, and defines them as "mine". It can be "my family", "my professional group", "my company", "my class". Such groups will be considered internal groups, that is, those to which he feels himself to belong and in which he identifies with other members in such a way that he regards the members of the group as "we". Other groups to which the individual does not belong - other families, other groups of friends, other professional groups, other religious groups - will be for him outside groups, for which he selects the symbolic meanings "not us", "others".

In the least developed, primitive societies, people live in small groups, isolated from each other and representing clans of relatives. Kinship relationships in most cases determine the nature of ingroups and outgroups in these societies. When two strangers meet, the first thing they do is look for family ties, and if any relative connects them, then both of them are members of the in-group. If kinship ties are not found, then in many societies of this type people feel hostile towards each other and act in accordance with their feelings.

In modern society, relations between its members are built on many types of ties besides kinship, but the feeling of an inner group, the search for its members among other people, remains very important for every person. When an individual enters an environment of strangers, he first of all tries to find out if there are among them those who make up his social class or a layer that adheres to his political views and interests.

Obviously, the hallmark of people belonging to an ingroup should be that they share certain feelings and opinions, say, laugh at the same things, and have some unanimity about the spheres of activity and goals of life. Members of the outgroup may have many traits and characteristics common to all groups in a given society, they may share many feelings and aspirations common to all, but they always have certain particular traits and characteristics, as well as feelings that are different from the feelings of members of the ingroup. And people unconsciously and involuntarily mark these traits, dividing previously unfamiliar people into “we” and “others”

The term "reference group", first introduced into circulation by the social psychologist Muzafar Sherif in 1948, means a real or conditional social community with which the individual relates himself as a standard and to the norms, opinions, values and assessments of which he is guided in his behavior and self-esteem. . The boy, playing the guitar or playing sports, focuses on the lifestyle and behavior of rock stars or sports idols. An employee in an organization, seeking to make a career, focuses on the behavior of top management. It can also be seen that ambitious people who have unexpectedly received a lot of money tend to imitate in dress and manners the representatives of the upper classes. Sometimes the reference group and the internal group may coincide, for example, in the case when a teenager is guided by his company to a greater extent than by the opinion of teachers. At the same time, an external group can also be a reference group, the examples given above illustrate this.

There are normative and comparative referential functions of the group. Normative function of the reference group is manifested in the fact that this group is the source of norms of behavior, social attitudes and value orientations of the individual. So, a little boy, wanting to become an adult as soon as possible, tries to follow the norms and value orientations adopted among adults, and an emigrant who comes to another country tries to master the norms and attitudes of the indigenous people as quickly as possible so as not to be a "black sheep". Comparative function It manifests itself in the fact that the reference group acts as a standard by which an individual can evaluate himself and others. C. Cooley noted that if a child perceives the reaction of loved ones and believes their assessments, then a more mature person selects individual reference groups, belonging or not belonging to which is especially desirable for him, and forms a self-image based on the assessments of these groups.

An analysis of the social structure of society requires that the unit under study be an elementary particle of society, concentrating in itself all types of social ties. As such a unit of analysis, the so-called small group was chosen, which has become a permanent necessary attribute of all types of sociological research. However, only in the 1960s XX Art. a view arose and began to develop of small groups as real elementary particles of the social structure.

Small groups are only those groups in which individuals have personal contacts each with each. Imagine a production team where everyone knows each other and communicates with each other in the course of work - this is a small group. On the other hand, the workshop team, where workers do not have constant personal contact, is a large group. About students in the same class who have personal contact with each other, we can say that this is a small group, and about all students of the school - a large group.

small group name a small number of people who know each other well and constantly interact with each other

Example: sports team, school class, nuclear family, youth party, production team

The small group is also called primary, contact, informal. The term "small group" is more common than "primary group". The following are known small group definitions

J. Homans: a small group is a certain number of people interacting with each other for a certain time and small enough to be able to contact each other without intermediaries

R. Bales: a small group is a certain number of people actively interacting with each other during more than one face-to-face meeting, so that everyone gets a certain idea of \u200b\u200ball the others, sufficient to distinguish each person personally, respond to him or during a meeting , or later, remembering it

The main features of a small group:

1. Limited number of group members. The upper limit is 20 people, the lower one is 2. If the group exceeds the "critical mass", then it breaks up into subgroups, cliques, factions. According to statistical calculations, most small groups include 7 or fewer people.

2. composition stability. A small group, unlike a large one, rests on the individual uniqueness and indispensability of the participants.

3. Internal structure. It includes a system of informal roles and statuses, a mechanism of social control, sanctions, norms and rules of conduct.

4. The number of links increases exponentially if the number of members increases arithmetic. In a group of three people, only four relationships are possible, in a group of four - 11, and in a group of 7 - 120 relationships.

5. The smaller the group, the more intense the interaction in it. The larger the group, the more often the relationship loses its personal character, formalizes and ceases to satisfy the members of the group. In a group of 5 people, its members get more personal satisfaction than in a group of 7. A group of 5-7 people is considered optimal. According to statistical calculations, most small groups include 7 or fewer individuals.

6. The size of the group depends on the nature of the group's activities. Financial committees of large banks, responsible for specific actions, usually consist of 6-7 people, and parliamentary committees, engaged in theoretical discussion of issues, include 14-15 people.

7. Belonging to a group is motivated by the hope of finding in it the satisfaction of personal needs. A small group, unlike a large one, satisfies the greatest number of vital human needs. If the amount of satisfaction received in the group falls below a certain level, the individual leaves it.

8. Interaction in a group is stable only when it is accompanied by mutual reinforcement of the people participating in it. The greater the individual contribution to the group's success, the more motivated others are to do the same. If one ceases to make the necessary contribution to meeting the needs of others, then he is expelled from the group.

SMALL GROUP FORMS

A small group takes many forms up to very complex, branched and multi-tiered formations. However, there are only two initial forms - the dyad and the triad.

A dyad consists of two people. For example, couples in love. They constantly meet, spend leisure time together, exchange signs of attention. They form stable interpersonal relationships based primarily on feelings - love, hatred, goodwill, coldness, jealousy, pride.

The emotional attachment of lovers makes them take care of each other. Giving his love, the partner hopes that in return he will receive no less reciprocal feeling.

Thus, initial law of interpersonal relations in a dyad- exchange equivalence and reciprocity. In large social groups, say, in a manufacturing organization or a bank, such a law may not be observed: the boss demands and takes more from the subordinate than he gives in return

Triad - active interaction of three people. When in a conflict two oppose one, the latter is already faced with the opinion of the majority. In a dyad, the opinion of one person can be considered both false and true in equal measure. Only in the triad does a numerical majority appear for the first time. And although it consists of only two people, the point is not in the quantitative, but in the qualitative side. In the triad, the phenomenon of the majority is born, and with it, a social relationship, a social principle, is truly born.

Dyad- extremely fragile association. Strong mutual feelings and affection instantly turn into their opposite. A love couple breaks up with the departure of one of the partners or cooling of feelings

The triad is more stable. It has less intimacy and emotion, but a better division of labor More complex division of labor gives more independence to individuals. Two unite against one in solving some issues and change the composition of the coalition in solving others. In a triad, everyone alternates roles and as a result no one dominates.

The social group is characterized regularity: the number of possible combinations and roles grows much faster than the size of the group expands.

The structure of connections and relationships in a small group is studied by the sociogram method

The relationships between group members can be schematically represented in the form of a sociogram, which indicates who is interacting with whom and who is actually the leader of the group.

Imagine a working group in an enterprise where you need to conduct a survey. Everyone had to speak out with whom exactly he prefers to work together, spend leisure time, with whom he would like to go on a date, etc. Mutual choices are applied to the drawing: each type of connection is a special line shape.

Note. Solid arrow - leisure, wavy - date, corner - work.

It follows from the sociogram that Ivan is the leader of this group (the maximum number of shooters, while Sasha and Kolya are outsiders.

Leader- a member of the group who enjoys the greatest sympathy and makes decisions in the most important situations (he has the greatest authority and power). He is promoted due to his personal qualities.

If there is only one leader in a small group, then there may be several outsiders.

When there is more than one leader, the group splits into subgroups. They are called clicks.

Although there is only one leader in the group, There may be several authorities. The leader relies on them, imposing his decisions on the group. They form the public opinion of the group and form its core. If, for example, you need to have a party or go on a hike, then the core acts as an organizer.

So, the leader is the focus of group processes. Members of the group seem to delegate (by default) to him the power and the right to make decisions in the interests of the entire group. And they do it voluntarily.

Leadership is a relationship of dominance and subordination within a small group.

Small groups tend to have two types of leaders. One type of leader, the “production specialist,” is concerned with evaluating current tasks and organizing actions to accomplish them. The second is a “specialist psychologist” who is good at dealing with interpersonal problems, relieves tension between people and helps to increase the spirit of solidarity in the group. The first type of leadership is instrumental, aimed at achieving group goals; the second is expressive, focused on creating an atmosphere of harmony and solidarity in the group. In some cases, one person assumes both of these roles, but usually each of the roles is performed by a separate manager. No role can necessarily be seen as more important than the other; the relative importance of each role is dictated by the particular situation.

A small group can be either primary or secondary, depending on what type of relationship exists between its members. As for the large group, it can only be secondary. Numerous studies of small groups conducted by J. Homans in 1950. and R. Mills in 1967, showed, in particular, that small groups differ from large ones not only in size, but also in qualitatively different socio-psychological characteristics. The differences in some of these characteristics are given below as an example.

Small groups have:

1. Non-Group Goal Actions

2. group opinion as a permanent factor of social control

3. conformism to group norms.

Large groups have:

1. rational goal-oriented actions

2. group opinion is rarely used, control is carried out from top to bottom

3. conformity to the policy pursued by the active part of the group.

Thus, most often small groups in their constant activities are not oriented towards the ultimate group goal, while the activities of large groups are rationalized to such an extent that the loss of a goal most often leads to their disintegration. In addition, in a small group, such a means of control and implementation of joint activities as a group opinion is of particular importance. Personal contacts allow all members of the group to participate in the development of a group opinion and control over the conformity of group members in relation to this opinion. Large groups, due to the lack of personal contacts between all their members, with rare exceptions, do not have the opportunity to develop a common group opinion.

Small groups are of interest as elementary particles of the social structure, in which social processes are born, mechanisms of cohesion, the emergence of leadership, and role relationships are traced.

Introduction

The concept of "social group"

Classification of social groups:

a) division of groups on the basis of the individual's belonging to them;

b) groups divided by the nature of the relationship between their members:

1) primary and secondary groups;

2) small and large groups

4. Conclusion

5. List of used literature

Introduction

Society is not just a collection of individuals. Among large social communities are classes, social strata, estates. Each person belongs to one of these social groups or may occupy some intermediate (transitional) position: breaking away from the usual social environment, he has not yet fully joined the new group, his way of life retains the features of the old and new social status.

The science that studies the formation of social groups, their place and role in society, the interaction between them, is called sociology. There are different sociological theories. Each of them gives its own explanation of the phenomena and processes taking place in the social sphere of society.

In my essay, I would like to highlight in more detail the question of what a social group is, to consider the classification of social groups.
The concept of "social group"

Despite the fact that the concept of a group is one of the most important in sociology, scientists do not fully agree on its definition. First, the difficulty arises in connection with the fact that most concepts in sociology appear in the course of social practice: they begin to be applied in science after their long use in life, and at the same time they are given the most different meanings. Secondly, the difficulty is due to the fact that many types of community are formed, as a result of which, in order to accurately determine the social group, it is necessary to distinguish certain types from these communities.

There are several kinds of social communities to which the term “group” is applied in the ordinary sense, but in the scientific understanding they represent something else. In one case, the term "group" refers to some individuals, physically, spatially located in a certain place. At the same time, the division of communities is carried out only spatially, with the help of physically defined boundaries. An example of such communities can be individuals traveling in the same carriage, being at a certain moment on the same street, or living in the same city. In a strictly scientific sense, such a territorial community cannot be called a social group. It is defined as aggregation- a certain number of people gathered in a certain physical space and not carrying out conscious interactions.

The second case is the application of the concept of a group to a social community that unites individuals with one or more similar characteristics. So, men, school leavers, physicists, old people, smokers are presented to us as a group. Very often you can hear the words about the "age group of young people from 18 to 22 years old." This understanding is also not scientific. To define a community of people with one or more similar characteristics, the term "category" is more appropriate. For example, it is quite correct to talk about the category of blondes or brunettes, the age category of young people from 18 to 22 years old, etc.

Then what is a social group?

A social group is a collection of individuals interacting in a certain way based on the shared expectations of each member of the group regarding others.

In this definition, one can see two essential conditions necessary for a group to be considered a group:

1) the presence of interactions between its members;

2) the emergence of shared expectations of each member of the group regarding its other members.

According to this definition, two people waiting for a bus at a bus stop would not be a group, but could become one if they started a conversation, fight, or other interaction with mutual expectations. Airplane passengers cannot be a group. They will be considered an aggregation until groups of people interacting with each other are formed among them during the journey. It happens that the whole aggregation can become a group. Suppose a certain number of people are in a store where they form a queue without interacting with each other. The seller suddenly leaves and is absent for a long time. The queue begins to interact to achieve one goal - to return the seller to not his workplace. Aggregation turns into a group.

At the same time, the groups listed above appear inadvertently, by chance, they do not have a stable expectation, and interactions are usually one-way (for example, only a conversation and no other types of interactions). Such spontaneous, unstable groups are called quasigroups. They can turn into social groups if, in the course of constant interaction, the degree of social control between its members increases. To exercise this control, some degree of cooperation and solidarity is necessary. Indeed, social control in a group cannot be exercised as long as individuals act randomly and disunitedly. It is impossible to effectively control the disorderly crowd or the actions of people leaving the stadium after the end of the match, but it is possible to clearly control the activities of the enterprise team. It is this control over the activities of the collective that defines it as a social group, since the activities of people in this case are coordinated. Solidarity is necessary for the developing group to identify each member of the group with the collective. Only if the members of the group can say "we" is stable membership of the group and the boundaries of social control formed (Fig. 1).

From fig. 1 shows that there is no social control in social categories and social aggregations, so these are purely abstract allocations of communities according to one attribute. Of course, among the individuals included in the category, one can notice a certain identification with other members of the category (for example, by age), but, I repeat, social control is practically absent here. A very low level of control is observed in communities formed according to the principle of spatial proximity. Social control here comes simply from the awareness of the presence of other individuals. Then it intensifies as the quasi-groups turn into social groups.

Proper social groups also have varying degrees of social control. So, among all social groups, a special place is occupied by the so-called status groups - classes, layers and castes. These large groups, which have arisen on the basis of social inequality, have (with the exception of castes) low internal social control, which, nevertheless, can increase as individuals realize their belonging to a status group, as well as awareness of group interests and inclusion in the struggle to raise the status of their groups. On fig. Figure 1 shows that as the group decreases, social control increases and the strength of social ties increases. This is because as the size of the group decreases, the number of interpersonal interactions increases.

Classification of social groups

Separation of groups by feature

belonging to them of the individual

Each individual identifies a certain set of groups to which he belongs and defines them as "mine". It can be "my family", "my professional group", "my company", "my class". Such groups will be considered ingroups, i.e. those to which he feels himself to belong and in which he identifies with other members in such a way that he regards the members of the group as "we". Other groups to which the individual does not belong - other families, other groups of friends, other professional groups, other religious groups - will be for him outgroups, for which he selects symbolic meanings: "not us", "others".

In the least developed, primitive societies, people live in small groups, isolated from each other and representing clans of relatives. Kinship relationships in most cases determine the nature of ingroups and outgroups in these societies. When two strangers meet, the first thing they do is look for family ties, and if any relative connects them, then both of them are members of the ingroup. If kinship ties are not found, then in many societies of this type people feel hostile towards each other and act in accordance with their feelings.

In modern society, relations between its members are built on many types of ties besides kinship, but the feeling of an ingroup, the search for its members among other people, remains very important for every person. When an individual enters an environment of strangers, he first of all tries to find out if there are among them those who make up his social class or stratum, adhere to his political views and interests. Someone who goes in for sports, for example, is interested in people who understand sports events, and even better, those who support the same team as him. Inveterate philatelists involuntarily divide all people into those who simply collect stamps, and those who are interested in them, and are looking for like-minded people, communicating in different groups. It is obvious that the mark of people belonging to an ingroup should be that they share certain feelings and opinions, say, laugh at the same things and have some unanimity about the spheres of activity and goals of life. Outgroup members may have many traits and characteristics common to all groups in a given society, they may share many feelings and aspirations common to all, but they always have certain particular traits and characteristics, as well as feelings that are different from the feelings of members of the ingroup. And people unconsciously mark these traits, dividing previously unfamiliar people into “us” and “others”.

In modern society, an individual belongs to many groups at the same time, so a large number of in-group and out-group ties can intersect. An older student will consider a junior student as an outgroup individual, but a junior student and an older student may be members of the same sports team where they are in an ingroup.

Researchers note that ingroup identifications, intersecting in many directions, do not reduce the intensity of self-determination of differences, and the difficulty of including an individual in a group makes exclusion from ingroups more painful. So, a person who unexpectedly received a high status, has all the attributes to get into high society, but cannot do this, since he is considered an upstart; a teenager desperately hopes to participate in the youth team, but she does not accept him; a worker who comes to work in a brigade cannot take root in it and sometimes serves as a subject of ridicule. Thus, exclusion from groups can be a very brutal process. For example, most primitive societies consider strangers to be part of the animal world, many of them do not distinguish between the words "enemy" and "outsider", considering these concepts to be identical. Not too different from this point of view is the attitude of the Nazis, who excluded the Jews from human society. Rudolf Hoss, who ran the Auschwitz concentration camp where 700,000 Jews were exterminated, characterized the massacre as "the removal of alien racial-biological bodies." In this case, in-group and out-group identifications led to fantastic cruelty and cynicism.

Summing up what has been said, it should be noted that the concepts of ingroup and outgroup are important because the self-reference of each person to them has a significant impact on the behavior of individuals in groups, from members - associates in an ingroup, everyone has the right to expect recognition, loyalty, mutual assistance. The behavior expected from representatives of an outgroup at a meeting depends on the type of this outgroup. We expect hostility from some, more or less friendly attitude from others, indifference from others. Expectations for certain behaviors from members of outgroups undergo significant changes over time. So, a twelve-year-old boy avoids and does not like girls, but after a few years he becomes a romantic lover, and a few years later a spouse. During a sports match, representatives of different groups treat each other with hostility and may even hit each other, but as soon as the final whistle sounds, their relationship changes dramatically, becomes calm or even friendly.

We are not equally included in our ingroups. Someone may, for example, be the soul of a friendly company, but in the team at the place of work they do not enjoy respect and be poorly included in intra-group communications. There is no identical assessment by the individual of the outgroups surrounding him. A zealous follower of religious teaching will be more closed to contacts with representatives of the communist worldview than with representatives of social democracy. Everyone has their own outgroup rating scale.

R. Park and E. Burges (1924), as well as E. Bogardus (1933) developed the concept of social distance, which allows you to measure the feelings and attitudes shown by an individual or a social group towards various outgroups. Ultimately, the Bogardus scale was developed to measure the degree of acceptance or closeness towards other outgroups. Social distance is measured by separately considering the relationships that people enter into with members of other outgroups. There are special questionnaires, answering which members of one group evaluate the relationship, rejecting or, conversely, accepting representatives of other groups. Informed members of the group are asked, when filling out the questionnaires, to indicate which of the members of other groups they know they perceive as a neighbor, work comrade, as a marriage partner, and thus relationships are determined. Social distance questionnaires cannot accurately predict people's actions if a member of another group actually becomes a neighbor or workmate. The Bogardus scale is only an attempt to measure the feelings of each member of the group, the disinclination to communicate with other members of this group or other groups. What a person will do in any situation depends to a large extent on the totality of the conditions or circumstances of this situation.

Reference groups

The term "reference group", first introduced into circulation by the social psychologist Mustafa Sherif in 1948, means a real or conditional social community with which the individual relates himself as a standard and to the norms, opinions, values and assessments of which he is guided in his behavior and self-esteem. The boy, playing the guitar or doing sports, focuses on the lifestyle and behavior of rock stars or sports idols. An employee of an organization, seeking to make a career, focuses on the behavior of top management. It can also be seen that ambitious people who have unexpectedly received a lot of money tend to imitate in dress and manners the representatives of the upper classes.

Sometimes the reference group and ingroup may coincide, for example, in the case when a teenager is guided by his company to a greater extent than by the opinion of teachers. At the same time, an outgroup can also be a reference group; the above examples demonstrate this.

There are normative and comparative referential functions of the group.

The normative function of the reference group is manifested in the fact that this group is the source of norms of behavior, social attitudes and value orientations of the individual. So, a little boy, wanting to become an adult as soon as possible, tries to follow the norms and value orientations adopted among adults, and an emigrant who comes to a foreign country tries to master the norms and attitudes of the indigenous people as soon as possible so as not to be a "black sheep".

The comparative function is manifested in the fact that the reference group acts as a standard by which an individual can evaluate himself and others. If the child perceives the reaction of loved ones and believes their assessments, then a more mature person selects individual reference groups, belonging or not belonging to which is especially desirable for him, and forms a self-image based on the assessments of these groups.

stereotypes

Outgroups are usually perceived by individuals as stereotypes. A social stereotype is a shared image of another group or category of people. When evaluating the actions of a group of people, we most often, in addition to our desire, attribute to each of the individuals in the group some features that, in our opinion, characterize the group as a whole. For example, there is an opinion that all blacks are more passionate and temperamental than people representing the Caucasoid race (although in fact this is not so), all the French are frivolous, the British are closed and silent, the inhabitants of the city of N are stupid, etc. The stereotype can be positive (kindness, courage, perseverance), negative (unscrupulousness, cowardice) and mixed (Germans are disciplined, but cruel).

Having arisen once, the stereotype extends to all members of the corresponding outgroup without taking into account any individual differences. Therefore, it is never completely true. Indeed, it is impossible, for example, to talk about the traits of negligence or cruelty towards an entire nation or even the population of a city. But stereotypes are never completely false, they must always correspond to some extent to the characteristics of the person from the stereotyped group, otherwise they would not be recognizable.

The mechanism of the emergence of social stereotypes has not been fully explored, it is still not clear why one of the features begins to attract the attention of representatives of other groups and why it becomes a general phenomenon. But one way or another, stereotypes become part of culture, part of moral norms and role-playing attitudes. Social stereotypes are supported by selective perception (only frequently repeated incidents or cases that are noticed and remembered are selected), selective interpretation (observations related to stereotypes are interpreted, for example, Jews are entrepreneurs, rich people are greedy, etc.), selective identification ( you look like a gypsy, you look like an aristocrat, etc.) and, finally, a selective exception (he does not look like a teacher at all, he does not act like an Englishman, etc.). Through these processes, the stereotype is filled, so that even exceptions and misinterpretations serve as a breeding ground for the formation of stereotypes.

Stereotypes are constantly changing. Poorly dressed, chalk-stained teacher as a private stereotype has actually died. The rather stable stereotype of a capitalist in a top hat and with a huge belly has also disappeared. There are many examples.

Stereotypes are constantly born, changed and disappear because they are necessary for members of a social group. With their help, we get concise and concise information about the outgroups around us. Such information determines our attitude towards other groups, allows us to navigate among the many surrounding groups and, ultimately, determine the line of behavior in communication with representatives of outgroups. People always perceive the stereotype faster than the true personality traits, since the stereotype is the result of many, sometimes well-aimed and subtle judgments, despite the fact that only some individuals in the outgroup fully correspond to it.

Groups divided by nature

relationships between their members

Primary and secondary groups

The difference in relationships between individuals is most clearly seen in primary and secondary groups. Under primary groups are understood as such groups in which each member sees other members of the group as personalities and individuals. The achievement of such a vision occurs through social contacts that give an intimate, personal and universal character to intragroup interactions, which include many elements of personal experience. In groups such as a family or a group of friends, its members tend to make social relationships informal and relaxed. They are interested in each other primarily as individuals, have common hopes and feelings, and fully satisfy their needs for communication. In secondary groups social contacts are impersonal, one-sided and utilitarian. Friendly personal contacts with other members are not required here, but all contacts are functional, as required by social roles. For example, the relationship between the site foreman and subordinate workers is impersonal and does not depend on friendly relations between them. The secondary group may be a labor union or some association, club, team. But two individuals trading in the bazaar can also be considered a secondary group. In some cases, such a group exists to achieve specific goals, including certain needs of members of this group as individuals.

The terms "primary" and "secondary" groups characterize the types of group relationships better than indicators of the relative importance of this group in the system of other groups. The primary group can serve the achievement of objective goals, for example, in production, but it differs more in the quality of human relationships, the emotional satisfaction of its members, than in the efficiency of the production of products or clothing. So, a group of friends meet in the evening for a chess game. They can play chess rather indifferently, but nevertheless please each other with their conversation, the main thing here is that everyone is a good partner, not a good player. The secondary group can function in conditions of friendly relations, but its main principle is the performance of specific functions. From this point of view, a team of professional chess players assembled to play in a team tournament certainly belongs to the secondary groups. It is important here to select strong players who can take a worthy place in the tournament, and only then it is desirable that they be on friendly terms with each other. Thus, the primary group is oriented towards the relationships between its members, while the secondary is goal oriented.

Primary groups usually form a personality, in which it is socialized. Everyone finds in it an intimate environment, sympathy and opportunities for the realization of personal interests. Each member of the secondary group can find in it an effective mechanism for achieving certain goals, but often at the cost of losing intimacy and warmth in relationships. For example, a saleswoman, as a member of a team of store employees, must be attentive and polite, even when a client does not arouse her sympathy, or a member of a sports team, when moving to another team, knows that his relationships with colleagues will be difficult, but more opportunities will open up before him. to achieve a higher position in this sport.

Secondary groups almost always contain some number of primary groups. A sports team, production team, school class or student group is always internally divided into primary groups of individuals who sympathize with each other, into those with more or less interpersonal contact. When managing a secondary group, as a rule, primary social formations are taken into account, especially when performing single tasks associated with the interaction of a small number of group members.

Small and large groups

As a real set of individuals connected by social relations, a small group began to be considered by sociologists relatively recently. So, back in 1954, F. Allport interpreted a small group as "a set of ideals, ideas and habits that are repeated in each individual consciousness and exist only in this consciousness." In reality, in his opinion, there are only separate individuals. It was only in the 1960s that the view of small groups as real elementary particles of the social structure arose and began to develop.

The modern view of the essence of small groups is best expressed in the definition of G.M. Andreeva: "A small group is a group in which social relations act in the form of direct personal contacts." In other words, only those groups in which individuals have personal contacts each with each are called small groups. Imagine a production team where everyone knows each other and communicates with each other in the course of work - this is a small group. On the other hand, the workshop team, where workers do not have constant personal contact, is a large group. About students in the same class who have personal contact with each other, we can say that this is a small group, and about all students of the school - a large group.

A small group can be either primary or secondary, depending on what type of relationship exists between its members. As for the large group, it can only be secondary. Numerous studies of small groups conducted by R. Baise and J. Homans in 1950 and K. Hollander and R. Mills in 1967 showed, in particular, that small groups differ from large ones not only in size, but also in qualitatively different social groups. - psychological characteristics. The differences in some of these characteristics are given below as an example.

Small groups have:

actions not focused on group goals;
group opinion as a permanent factor of social control;
conformity to group norms.

Large groups have:

rational goal-oriented actions;
group opinion is rarely used, control is exercised from top to bottom;
conformity to the policy pursued by the active part of the group.

The study of small groups is now widespread. In addition to the convenience of working with them due to their small size, such groups are of interest as elementary particles of the social structure in which social processes are born, mechanisms of cohesion, leadership, and role relationships are traced.

Conclusion

So, I considered the topic in my essay: “The concept of a social group. Classification of groups”.

Thus,

A social group is a collection of individuals interacting in a certain way based on the shared expectations of each member of the group regarding others.

Social groups are classified according to various criteria:

On the basis of an individual's belonging to them;

By the nature of the interaction between their members:

1) large groups;

2) small groups.

References

1. Frolov S.S. Fundamentals of sociology. M., 1997

2. Sociology. Ed. Elsukova A.N. Minsk, 1998

3. Kravchenko A.I. Sociology. Yekaterinburg, 1998

Primary and secondary groups

A primary group is a group in which communication is maintained by direct personal contact, the highly emotional involvement of members in the affairs of the group, which leads the members to a high degree of identification with the group. The primary group is characterized by a high degree of solidarity, a deeply developed sense of "we".

G.S. Antipina identifies the following features characteristic of primary groups: "small composition, spatial proximity of their members, immediacy, intimacy of relations, duration of existence, unity of purpose, voluntary entry into the group and informal control over the behavior of members" .

For the first time, the concept of "primary group" was introduced in 1909 by C. Cooley in relation to a family in which stable emotional relationships develop between members. C. Cooley considered the family "primary", because it is the first group, thanks to which the process of socialization of the baby is carried out. He also referred to "primary groups" groups of friends and groups of nearest neighbors [see. about this: 139. S.330-335].

Later, this term was used by sociologists in the study of any group that had close personal relationships between its members. Primary groups perform, as it were, the role of the primary link between society and the individual. Thanks to them, a person is aware of his belonging to certain social communities and is able to participate in the life of the whole society.

The importance of primary groups is very great, in them, especially during early childhood, the process of primary socialization of the individual takes place. First, the family, and then the primary educational and work collectives, have a huge impact on the position of the individual in society. Primary groups form the personality. In them, the process of socialization of the individual, the development of patterns of behavior, social norms, values and ideals takes place. Each individual finds in the primary group an intimate environment, sympathies and opportunities for the realization of personal interests.

The primary group is most often an informal group, since formalization leads to its transformation into a group of a different type. For example, if formal ties begin to play an important role in the family, then it breaks up as a primary group and transforms into a formal small group.

C. Cooley noted two main functions of small primary groups:

1. Act as a source of moral norms that a person receives in childhood and is guided by throughout his subsequent life.

2. Act as a means of supporting and stabilizing an adult [see: II. P.40].

The secondary group is a group organized to achieve certain goals, within which there are almost no emotional relationships and in which subject contacts, most often mediated, predominate. Members of this group have an institutionalized system of relations, and their activities are regulated by rules. If the primary group is always focused on the relationship between its members, then the secondary group is always goal-oriented. Secondary groups tend to coincide with large and formal groups that have an institutionalized system of relationships, although small groups can also be secondary.

The main importance in these groups is given not to the personal qualities of the members of the group, but to their ability to perform certain functions. For example, in a factory, the position of engineer, secretary, stenographer, worker can be occupied by any person who has the necessary training for this. The individual features of each of them are indifferent to the plant, the main thing is that they cope with their work, then the plant can function. For a family or a group of players (for example, in football), the individual characteristics, personal qualities of each are unique and mean a lot, and therefore none of them can be simply replaced by another.

Since in the secondary group all roles are already clearly distributed, its members very often know little about each other. Between them, as you know, there is no emotional relationship, which is typical for family members and friends. For example, in organizations associated with labor activity, the main ones will be industrial relations. In the secondary groups, not only the roles, but also the methods of communication are already clearly defined in advance. Due to the fact that conducting a personal conversation is not always possible and effective, communication often becomes more formal and is carried out through telephone calls and various written documents.

For example, a school class, a student group, a production team, etc. always internally divided into primary groups of individuals who sympathize with each other, between which there are more or less often interpersonal contacts. When leading a secondary group, it is imperative to take into account primary social formations.

Theorists point out that over the past two hundred years there has been a weakening of the role of primary groups in society. Sociological studies carried out by Western sociologists over the course of several decades have confirmed that secondary groups currently dominate. But there has also been ample evidence that the basic group is still quite stable and is an important link between the individual and society. Research on seed groups was carried out in several areas: the role of seed groups in industry, during natural disasters, etc. was clarified. The study of people's behavior in different conditions and situations has shown that primary groups still play an important role in the structure of the entire social life of society. The reference group, as noted by G.S. Antipina. - "this is a real or imaginary social group, the system of values and norms of which acts as a standard for the individual" .

The discovery of the "reference group" phenomenon belongs to the American social psychologist H.Hyman (Hyman H.H. The psychology of ststys. N.I. 1942). This term was transferred to sociology from social psychology. Psychologists at first understood a “reference group” as a group whose standards of behavior an individual imitates and whose norms and values he learns.

In the course of a series of experiments that G. Hyman conducted on student groups, he found that some members of small groups share the norms of behavior. accepted not in the group to which they belong, but in some other one, to which they are guided, I.e. accept the norms of groups in which they are not really included. G. Hymen called such groups reference groups. In his opinion, it was the "reference group" that helped to clarify the "paradox why some individuals do not assimilate54 the positions of the groups in which they are directly included" [cit. according to: 7. p.260], but they learn the patterns and standards of behavior of other groups, of which they are not members. Therefore, in order to explain the behavior of an individual, it is important to study the group to which the individual “refers” himself, which he takes as a standard and which he “refers to”, and not the one that directly “surrounds” him. Thus, the term itself was born from the English verb to refer, i.e. refer to something.

Another American psychologist M. Sherif, whose name is associated with the final approval of the concept of "reference group" in American sociology, considering small groups that influence the behavior of an individual, divided them into two types: membership groups (of which the individual is a member) and non-membership groups, or actually reference groups (of which the individual is not a member, but with the values and norms of which he correlates his behavior) [see: II. S.56-57]. In this case, the concepts of reference and member groups were already considered as opposites.

Later, other researchers (R. Merton, T. Newcomb) extended the concept of "reference group" to all associations that acted as a standard for an individual in assessing his own social position, actions, views, etc. In this regard, both the group of which the individual was already a member, and the group of which he would like to be or was a member began to act as a reference group.

The "referent group" for an individual, J. Szczepanski points out, is such a group with which he voluntarily identifies himself, i.e. "its models and rules, its ideals become the ideals of the individual, and the role imposed by the group is performed devotedly, with the deepest conviction" .

Thus, there are currently two uses of the term "reference group" in the literature. In the first case, it refers to the group opposed to the membership group. In the second case, a group arising within a membership group, i.e. a circle of persons selected from the composition of a real group as a "significant social circle" for the individual. The norms adopted by the group become personally acceptable to the individual only when they are accepted by this circle of people [see: 9. p.197],

Asch Conformity Experiments), published in 1951, was a series of studies that impressively demonstrated the power of conformity in groups.

In experiments led by Solomon Ash, students were asked to participate in eye tests. In fact, in most of the experiments, all but one of the participants were decoys, and the study was to test the response of one student to the behavior of the majority.

Participants (real test subjects and decoys) were seated in the audience. The task of the students was to announce aloud their opinion on the length of several lines in a series of displays. They were asked which line was longer than the others, and so on. The decoys gave the same, obviously wrong answer.

When the test subjects answered correctly, many of them experienced extreme discomfort. At the same time, 75% of the subjects obeyed the fundamentally erroneous representation of the majority on at least one issue. The total proportion of erroneous answers was 37%; in the control group, only one person out of 35 gave one erroneous answer. When the "conspirators" were not unanimous in their judgment, the subjects were much more likely to disagree with the majority. When there were two independent subjects, or when one of the dummy participants was given the task of giving the correct answers, the error fell by more than four times. When one of the dummy gave incorrect answers, but also not coinciding with the main one, the error was also reduced: up to 9-12%, depending on the radicalism of the “third opinion”.

The three main features we have just considered—interaction, membership, and group identity—are common to many groups. Two lovers, three friends who go fishing together on weekends, a bridge club, scouts, a computer company - they are all groups. But a group consisting of two lovers or three friends is fundamentally different from a team that mounts a computer, sitting at one table. Lovers and friends form primary groups; computer assembly group - secondary.

Primary group consists of a small number of people between whom relationships are established based on their individual characteristics. Primary groups are not large, otherwise it is difficult to establish direct, personal relationships between all members.

Charles Cooley (1909) first introduced the concept of the primary group in relation to the family, between the members of which there are stable emotional relationships. According to Cooley, the family is considered "primary" because it is the first group to play a major role in the socialization of infants. Subsequently, sociologists began to use this term in the study of any group in which close personal relationships have formed that determine the essence of this group. Thus, lovers, groups of friends, club members who not only play bridge together, but also go to visit each other, are primary groups.

secondary group It is formed from people between whom there are almost no emotional relationships, their interaction is due to the desire to achieve certain goals. In these groups, the main importance is given not to personal qualities, but to the ability to perform certain functions. At an enterprise for the production of computers, the positions of a clerk, manager, courier, engineer, administrator can be occupied by any person with appropriate training. If the people in these positions are doing their job, the organization can function. The individual characteristics of each mean almost nothing to the organization and vice versa, members of the family or group of players are unique. Their personal qualities play an important role, none can be replaced by someone else.

Due to the fact that the roles in the secondary group are clearly defined, its members often know very little about each other. As a rule, they do not hug when they meet. Emotional relationships that are characteristic of friends and family members are not established between them. In the organization associated with labor activity, the main ones are industrial relations. Thus, not only the roles, but also the means of communication are clearly defined. Because face-to-face conversation is not effective, communication is often more formal and takes place through written documents or phone calls.

However, one should not exaggerate a certain impersonality of secondary groups, supposedly devoid of originality. People enter into friendships and form new groups at work, at school, and within other secondary groups. If sufficiently stable relations develop between the individuals participating in communication, we can assume that they have created a new primary group.

PRIMARY GROUPS IN MODERN SOCIETY

Over the past two hundred years, theorists of the social sciences have noted the weakening of the role of primary groups in society. They believe that the industrial revolution, the development of cities and the emergence of corporations led to the creation of a large impersonal bureaucracy. To characterize these trends, concepts such as "mass society" and "community decline" were introduced.

But sociological research over several decades shows the complexity of these issues. Indeed, in the modern world there is a dominance of secondary groups. But at the same time, the primary group turned out to be quite stable and became an important link between the personality and the more formal, organizational side of life. Basic heading research is concentrated in several areas. Let's start with an analysis of the role of basic groups in industry.

Industry

disasters

Social Control: The Chinese Case

Section 1 The main components of society.

Chapter 5 Social Interaction

INDUSTRY

Sixty years ago, a group of social scientists studied the behavior of workers at the giant Hawthorne plant operated by the Western Electric Company in Chicago. Scientists sought to determine the factors affecting labor productivity and individual output of workers. For example, they believed that the number of breaks at work affects productivity. So they chose a group of workers and started the experiment. At first, female workers were able to take several long breaks during the working day, then the rest periods were reduced, but became more frequent. The experimenters also shortened and lengthened the time allowed for lunch. In addition, lighting was enhanced to varying degrees; brighter lighting was expected to improve productivity.

The results of the experiment surprised the researchers. When they lengthened their rest periods, the productivity of female workers increased. While shrinking, it continued to grow. But when the initial regime of work and rest was established, labor productivity increased even more. The same was observed in experiments involving changes in the duration of lunch and the brightness of lighting. With any changes, the level of production of women increased.

With these results, the researchers tried to identify other factors (besides working conditions) that affected productivity. It turned out that the women selected for the experiment formed a group. It seemed to them that because they were selected, they acquired a special status, and they began to consider each other as representatives of a kind of "elite". Therefore, we tried to work as best as possible in accordance with the requirements of the researchers. This type of response is called hawthorne effect. It was as follows: it is likely that the very fact that this particular group is being studied affects the behavior of its members even more than other factors that researchers seek to identify.

Based on this experiment and other data, the Hawthorne researchers concluded that the "human factor" plays an important role in work. When a worker acquired a new status associated with a monetary reward, praise, or promotion, his productivity skyrocketed. This was also facilitated by an effective system for responding to complaints. If the worker has the opportunity to discuss this or that problem with a patient boss who will listen with sympathy and respect, and if after that something changes for the better, the trust of the workers in the management, their self-esteem and the desire for group unity increase.

The Hawthorne experimenters also revealed the favorable role of small, well-organized groups of female workers. Members of such groups often sought to start a fuss, jokes, games. After work, they played baseball, cards, went to visit each other. And these seed groups could have an impact on the productivity of the entire plant. Despite attempts by management to control production by setting standards, these groups themselves informally controlled the pace of work. Those who worked too fast (they were called "upstarts") were subject to social pressure from the group - they were teased, ridiculed or ignored. Often this pressure was so strong that the workers deliberately worked more slowly and refused bonuses for exceeding the production norms (Roethlisberger, Dixon, 1947).

Primary and secondary groups

C. Cooley noted two main functions of small primary groups:

1. Act as a source of moral norms that a person receives in childhood and is guided by throughout his subsequent life.

2. Act as a means of supporting and stabilizing an adult [see: II. P.40].

Asch Conformity Experiments), published in 1951, was a series of studies that impressively demonstrated the power of conformity in groups.