The group problem is one of the most important not only for social psychology, but also for many social sciences. Currently, there are about 20 million different formal and informal groups. The groups are really represented public relations, which manifest themselves during the interaction of their members among themselves and with representatives of other groups. What is a group? The answer to such a seemingly simple question requires distinguishing between two aspects in understanding the group: sociological and socio-psychological.

In the first case, a group is understood as any set of people united for various (arbitrary) reasons. This approach, let’s call it objective, is characteristic, first of all, of sociology. Here, to identify one or another group, it is important to have an objective criterion that allows one to differentiate people on one or another basis to determine their belonging to a particular group (for example, men and women, teachers, doctors, etc.).

In the second case, the group is actually understood existing education, in which people are brought together, united by some common characteristic, a type of joint activity, or placed in some identical conditions, circumstances, in a certain way aware of their belonging to this formation. It is within the framework of this second interpretation that social psychology primarily deals with groups.

For a socio-psychological approach, it is extremely important to establish what a group means for a person psychologically; what characteristics of it are significant for the personality included in it. The group here acts as a real social unit of society, as a factor in the formation of personality. Moreover, the influence of different groups on the same person is not the same. Therefore, when considering the problem of a group, it is necessary to take into account not only the formal belonging of a person to a certain category of people, but also the degree of psychological acceptance and inclusion of himself in this category.

Let us name the main characteristics that distinguish a group from a random gathering of people:

Relatively long existence of the group;

The presence of common goals, motives, norms, values;

Availability and development of group structure;

Awareness of belonging to a group, the presence of a “we-feeling” among its members;

The presence of a certain quality of interaction between the people making up the group.

Thus, social group– a stable organized community united by common interests, socially significant goals, joint activities and an appropriate intra-group organization that ensures the achievement of these goals.

Classification of groups in social psychology can be done for various reasons. These grounds may include: level of cultural development; structure type; tasks and functions of the group; the predominant type of contacts in the group; the duration of the group's existence; principles of its formation, principles of accessibility of membership in it; number of group members; level of development of interpersonal relationships and many others. One of the options for classifying groups studied in social psychology is shown in Fig. 2.

Rice. 2. Classification of groups

As we can see, the classification of groups here is given on a dichotomous scale, which involves the identification of groups on several grounds that differ from each other.

1. According to the presence of relationships between group members: conditional - real groups.

Conditional groups– these are associations of people artificially identified by the researcher on some objective basis. These people, as a rule, do not have a common goal and do not interact with each other.

Real groups– truly existing associations of people. They are characterized by the fact that its members are interconnected by objective relationships.

2. Laboratory - natural groups.

Laboratory groups– specially created groups to perform tasks under experimental conditions and experimentally test scientific hypotheses.

Natural groups– groups functioning in real life situations, the formation of which occurs regardless of the desire of the experimenter.

3. By the number of group members: large – small groups.

Large groups– quantitatively unlimited communities of people, identified on the basis of various social characteristics (demographic, class, national, party). Towards unorganized, For spontaneously emerging groups, the term “group” itself is very conditional. TO organized, Long-term groups include nations, parties, social movements, clubs, etc.

Under small group is understood as a small group whose members are united by common social activities and are in direct personal communication, which is the basis for the emergence of emotional relationships, group norms and group processes (G.M. Andreeva).

An intermediate position between large and small groups is occupied by the so-called. middle groups. Having some of the characteristics of large groups, medium groups are distinguished by their territorial localization and the possibility of direct communication (team of a factory, enterprise, university, etc.).

4. By level of development: emerging – highly developed groups.

Becoming groups– groups already defined external requirements, but not yet united by joint activity in the full sense of the word.

Highly developed groups– these are groups characterized by an established structure of interaction, established business and personal relationships, the presence of recognized leaders, and effective joint activities.

The following groups are distinguished according to their level of development (Petrovsky A.V.):

Diffuse - groups at the initial stage of their development, a community in which people are only co-present, i.e. they are not united by joint activities;

Association – a group in which relationships are mediated only by personally significant goals (group of friends, buddies);

- cooperation- a group characterized by a really functioning organizational structure, interpersonal relationships are business nature, subordinated to achieving the required result in performing a specific task in a certain type of activity;

- corporation- this is a group united only by internal goals that do not go beyond its boundaries, striving to achieve its group goals at any cost, including at the expense of other groups. Sometimes corporate spirit can acquire features of group egoism;

- team- a highly developed, time-stable group of interacting people, united by the goals of joint socially beneficial activities, characterized by a high level of mutual understanding of each other, as well as the complex dynamics of formal and informal relationships between group members.

5. By the nature of interaction: primary – secondary groups.

For the first time, the identification of primary groups was proposed by C. Cooley, who included such groups as family, a group of friends, and a group of closest neighbors. Later, Cooley proposed a certain feature that would allow us to determine an essential characteristic of primary groups - the directness of contacts. But when such a feature was identified, primary groups began to be identified with small groups, and then the classification lost its meaning. If the characteristic of small groups is their contact, then it is inappropriate to distinguish within them any other special groups, where this very contact will be a specific characteristic. Therefore, according to tradition, the division into primary and secondary groups is preserved (secondary in this case are those where there are no direct contacts, and for communication between members various “intermediaries” are used in the form of means of communication, for example), but essentially it is the primary groups that are studied in the future, since only they satisfy the small group criterion.

6. By form of organization: formal and informal groups.

Formal is a group whose emergence is due to the need to implement certain goals and objectives facing the organization in which the group is included. A formal group is distinguished by the fact that all the positions of its members are clearly defined in it; they are prescribed by group norms. It also strictly distributes the roles of all group members in the system of subordination to the so-called power structure: the idea of ​​vertical relationships as relationships defined by a system of roles and statuses. An example of a formal group is any group created in the context of a specific activity: a work team, a school class, a sports team, etc.

Informal groups develop and arise spontaneously both within formal groups and outside them, as a result of mutual psychological preferences. They do not have an externally given system and hierarchy of statuses, prescribed roles, or a given system of vertical relationships. However, an informal group has its own group standards of acceptable and unacceptable behavior, as well as informal leaders. An informal group can be created within a formal one, when, for example, in a school class, groups arise consisting of close friends united by some common interest. Thus, two relational structures are intertwined within the formal group.

But an informal group can also arise on its own, outside of organized groups: people who accidentally come together to play football or volleyball somewhere on the beach or in the yard of a house. Sometimes within such a group (say, in a group of tourists going on a hike for a day), despite its informal nature, joint activity arises, and then the group acquires some of the features of a formal group: it has certain, albeit short-term, positions and roles.

In reality, it is very difficult to distinguish between strictly formal and strictly informal groups, especially in cases where informal groups arose within the framework of formal ones. Therefore, in social psychology, proposals were born that remove this dichotomy. On the one hand, the concepts of formal and informal group structures (or the structures of formal and informal relations) were introduced, and it was not the groups that began to differ, but the type, the nature of the relationships within them. On the other hand, a more radical distinction was introduced between the concepts of “group” and “organization” (although a sufficiently clear distinction between these concepts does not exist, since every formal group, unlike an informal one, has the features of an organization).

7. According to the degree of psychological acceptance on the part of the individual: membership groups and reference groups.

This classification was introduced by G. Hyman, who discovered the very phenomenon of “reference group”. Hyman's experiments showed that some members of certain small groups (in this case, student groups) share norms of behavior that are not accepted in this group, but in some other group that they are guided by. Such groups, in which individuals are not actually included, but whose norms they accept, Hyman called reference groups.

J. Kelly identified two functions of the reference group:

The comparative function consists in the fact that the standards of behavior and values ​​adopted in the group act for the individual as a kind of “frame of reference”, which he or she is guided by in his decisions and assessments;

Normative function- allows a person to find out to what extent her behavior corresponds to the norms of the group.

Currently, a reference group is understood as a group of people who are in some way significant for an individual, to which he voluntarily associates himself or of which he would like to become a member, acting for him as a group standard of individual values, judgments, actions, norms and rules of behavior.

The reference group may be real or imagined, positive or negative, and may or may not coincide with the membership group.

A membership group is a group of which a given individual is an actual member. A membership group may have more or less referential properties for its members.

. Social group is a set of people identified according to socially significant criteria (gender, age, race, nationality, profession, place of residence, income, power, education, etc.). She is a kind of intermediary between an individual and society.

A-priory. Roberta. Merton, a group is a collection of two and/or more people who interact with each other in a certain way, are aware of their belonging to this group and are considered members of this group from the point of view of others.

Classification of social groups

One of the main criteria for the typology of groups is their size. In sociology, there are small, medium and large groups. The smaller the group, the more opportunities an individual has to get to know other people and establish close relationships with them. The difference between small, medium and large groups lies primarily in the nature of communication processes. Close interpersonal communication in small groups gives them the will to develop norms and values, patterns of behavior, and also to implement social control more effective than in medium, and especially in large groups. Moreover, large and medium-sized groups can only demonstrate patterns of organized behavior and form stable intra-group norms and values ​​when they themselves include small groups as elements of their structure.

However, the size criterion is only a formal indicator of the difference between large, small and medium groups. It is precisely because of its formality that it is impossible to indicate exactly where exactly the numerical boundary lies between these groups. The number only reflects qualitative differences in the possibilities of direct interpersonal communication in groups of different sizes, in particular, different opportunities for feedback.

Small groups are people who know each other well and are united common goals, interests and constantly interact with each other (family, student group, production team, group of friends). In small groups, each member can have direct contact with any other member of the same group; in particular, he can always react to the behavior of each of its members, and, in turn, observe how each member of the group reacts to his behavior. Thus, in a small group there is a constantly operating system of direct and feedback between all its members.

The possibilities of such communication are limited, on the one hand, by the effectiveness of communication channels between individuals, and on the other hand, by the size of the group. Constant close contacts of individuals are possible only in relatively small groups, and therefore frequent interpersonal relationships in groups of 17-20, or even 30 people seem unlikely. Research by sociologists has shown that informal youth groups often number from 2-3 to 8 people (about 70% of groups) and from 8 to 12 people (about 30% of groups).

True, small social groups may also include highly formalized target associations, for example, a production team or a student academic one. However, even in this case, group contacts lose some of the properties of a small group, in particular, the constancy of connections between group members and the mutual influence of group members on each other. Usually in groups of more than seven people there is a “division” into subgroups, i.e. individuals are identified and united with their own interests and goals that are different from those of other members of the group. This can lead to the disintegration of groups.

large so that its members feel that they can freely express their emotions and even argue with each other, but it is small enough that its members can ignore each other.

Among small groups, primary and secondary are distinguished.

Primary groups are small groups formed for the following reasons: marriage and family ties, sympathy, emotional attachment, etc.

American sociologist. Edward. Shills (b 1911) distinguishes three types of small primary groups: p:

"Initial groups" that have strong, long-standing connections and traditions. An individual can belong to these groups regardless of his desires. An example of such a group is familyrupi є sіm"ya.

“Personal groups” are groups of friends. The basis for the formation of such groups is mutual sympathy.

“Ideological groups” that unite people with common values.

Relationships in primary groups are emotionally charged and usually do not have utilitarian value for their participants (we are friends with someone not because it will bring us some benefit, but because this person is attractive to us and close in spirit). Primary groups form the personality, its moral principles, tastes. It is no coincidence that they say: “Whoever you mess with is the one who will make you laugh.”

Secondary groups include a number of primary groups. Say, an academic student group, a sports team, or a squad of soldiers are always internally divided into smaller groups of individuals, the contacts between which are more frequent and of an emotional nature. In primary groups, relationships between people are individual (we like some people more, others less, no one will force us to love a person who is not attractive), and secondary groups unite people connected with each other in connection with their performance of certain functions and statuses , roles, and not because of sympathy. In such groups, social contacts are not isolated and are of a utilitarian nature. For example, the relationship between a foreman and his subordinate workers is impersonal, and their functions must be performed regardless of friendly or hostile relations between them.

The stronger the primary group ties, the more effectively the secondary group functions. American sociologists have found that during... During the Second World War, the success of German combat units was achieved, first of all, by the fact that the command was able to establish in military units those close friendly relations that are characteristic of primary groups in civilian life. German soldiers underwent military training together - together and fought in the same composition. Moreover, if the Allied troops were replenished as individual fighters fell out of action, then the German units fought as long as such an opportunity remained, and even subsequently the unit was withdrawn to the rear for reorganization and the formation of a new combat unit. Medium groups are those groups in which each member can know every other person included in the group, but cannot track the reaction of each of them to a separate element of their behavior, since the group is too large for this (for example, faculty students, workshop workers etc. especially).

Large groups are those groups in which individual members may not be personally acquainted with each other (residents of Lviv, Ukrainian, members of a religious group). These are groups of thousands of people, scattered over large spaces and characterized by indirect social interactions(class, territorial, ethnic communities).

Large groups are divided into nominal (they are identified only for statistical purposes, for example: consumers of Ariel washing powder; passengers of commuter trains; those registered in a hospital, etc.) and real (the criterion for their identification is real characteristics - gender, income, race , nationality, place of residence, education, profession, etc.).

There are three main types of real groups:

stratification groups - slavery, castes, estates, classes;

ethnic groups - races, nations, peoples, tribes, clans;

territorial groups - people from the same area, townspeople, peasants.

Real groups are real problems for society, while nominal groups do not create a spectrum of similar scale and nature social problems. We can easily recall some kind of racial or class or peasant riots, but we should not look in history for examples of unrest among buyers of washing powder or commuter bus passengers.

Large groups are carriers of the main features of culture. It is the group (ethnic, professional, urban, etc.) that carries out the selection and approves the basic customs, traditions, values, and through the medium of a small group, “denunciation” of this selection to each individual.

From the above, it is clear why numbers alone do not always allow one or another group to be unambiguously classified as large, small or medium. Interaction in a group of 6-20 people can be organized in such a way that it will function as a small group; each individual who is part of it will be able to know exactly how each other member of this group feels about each of his actions. On the other hand, if a group of zero people does not establish an effective mechanism of interpersonal communication, it may well turn out that it will behave like an average group in size, when, for example, individuals will react more likely to some average opinion of the group than to the opinion of each individual member.

Reference groups.

A person’s behavior, his values ​​and beliefs are formed under the influence of the group with which the person identifies himself. In everyday life, a person constantly compares himself with others in order to determine his povedem inka (who am I?). This comparison often occurs automatically, without much thought, however, if an individual makes some important decision for him, say, regarding the choice or change of profession, school, place of residence, etc., then such a comparison is conscious.

Since all people belong to many groups, each of which has a unique subculture (for example, family, group of friends, professional, religious, ethnic group, etc.), the patterns of behavior of the same person in different groups also differ. This does not mean that people are behavioral chameleons who constantly change their behavior, their values, motivations and beliefs depending on which group they identify with at a particular moment. People necessarily identify groups that are important to them, through the prism of whose values ​​they base their behavior.

Social groups that an individual focuses on when assessing and forming his views, feelings and actions are called reference groups.

The reference group may or may not be the group to which the individual actually belongs. Quite often, the reference group becomes only a source of psychological identification. People may orient their behavior towards a social group to which they do not belong. This helps explain some of the contradictions in the behavior of certain individuals, for example, a revolutionary coming from a privileged background.

Reference groups perform not only normative, but also comparative functions. The individual tries to live in accordance with the standards of the group that is his reference group. He cultivates in himself the appropriate life principles, tastes, political and other views, etc. If the group to which an individual actually belongs is far from the group that is his reference group, he has a feeling of relative deprivation (injustice) - that is, dissatisfaction caused by the gap between what the person actually has and what she would like to matati.

This relationship between the reference group and the feeling of deprivation leads to certain sociotechnical conclusions regarding how to optimally organize the impact on individuals in order to educate them, stimulate them with social activity, etc. If you try to impose on individuals or groups the values ​​and norms of behavior of those groups , which are located on top level social hierarchy, it will cause nothing more than a feeling of deprivation in individuals and groups. Therefore, it is always necessary to set goals in such a way that people can believe that they can be achieved. For example, it is inappropriate to demand from the worst student in the class that he is equal to the best, because he feels too great a distance that lies between them, a lack of abilities and opportunities to overcome this distance, it is appropriate to orient the objects of influence on an individual or group with the same output data or with a similar situation of deprivation, who nevertheless managed to improve their social position.

INTRODUCTION

A social group is a collection of people who have a common social characteristic and perform a socially necessary function in general structure social division labor and activity. Such characteristics may be gender, age, nationality, race, profession, place of residence, income, power, education.

P.A. Sorokin wrote: “... history does not give us a person outside the group. We do not know an absolutely isolated person who lives without communication with other people. We are always given groups.” Society is a collection of very different groups: large and small, real and nominal, primary and secondary. Group- is the foundation of human society, since it itself is one of such groups. Therefore, the study of social groups, their characteristics and analysis are very relevant today.

The purpose of this work is to analyze and characterize social groups. To achieve this goal, we consider it necessary to solve the following tasks:

ь define the concept of a social group;

b propose a classification of social groups;

b identify and characterize forms of manifestation of group solidarity;

b give a description of the small group.

When writing this work, we used the works of the following authors: Z.T. Golenkova, M.M. Akulich, V.N. Kuznetsov, O.G. Filatova, A.N. Elsukov, A.G. Efendiev, E.M. Babosov and others.

THE CONCEPT OF A SOCIAL GROUP. CLASSIFICATION OF GROUPS

Wanting to increase the effectiveness of his actions, a person seeks to enter into a network of relationships, which, by combining the efforts of people, makes them able to act as a single whole - as a social group.

Z.T. Golenkova defines a social group as a set of people who have a common social characteristic and perform a socially necessary function in common system separation social labor and activities.

EAT. Babosov notes that a social group is the most general and special concept of sociology, meaning a certain set of people who have common natural and social characteristics, united by common interests, values, norms and traditions.

From our point of view, the most accurate definition of a social group proposed by A.N. Elsukov, who believes that “a group in the strict sense of the word should be understood as a primary social association of people who are in direct (formal or informal) contact, performing certain social functions and characterized by common goals and interests."

In sociological theory, the concepts of “group”, “primary group” and “small group” are distinguished. In order not to get confused in terminological subtleties, we will use these concepts as equivalent. From the point of view of A.A. and K.A. Radugin, social groups, in contrast to mass communities, are characterized by:

· sustainable interaction, which contributes to the strength and stability of their existence;

· high degree of cohesion;

· clearly expressed homogeneity of composition, i.e. the presence of characteristics inherent in all members of the group;

· joining broader communities as structural elements.

Examples of primary social groups could be: groups of children kindergarten, school classes, student groups, groups of neighbors, a group of friends, a sports team, members of a sports section, a production team, a workshop or shift team, a teaching staff, employees of the department or dean’s office, a theater troupe, members of an orchestra, employees of subdivisions of ministries and government agencies management, small units security forces etc.

Most of these group entities have a formal status and structure. It has its own leaders and ordinary members, it has its own professional features and roles, the totality of which forms the structure of the group. Personal likes (or antipathies) do exist here, but they are secondary compared to job responsibilities. Particular cohesion of a group is observed if its official structure and relationships coincide with personal sympathies or, as they say, formal and informal structures coincide.

Along with formal group associations, there are also informal ones - these are interest or hobby groups (hunters, fishermen, music lovers, fans), as well as various types of criminal associations (gang, mafia, clan).

The positive significance of group associations is manifested in the fact that the group not only sums up the capabilities and efforts of each member, but also leads them to a new integral unity (what a group of 10 people can do, 10 people separately cannot do). This integral unity is manifested in the degree of cohesion of group members and in the nature of their interaction. Therefore, an important indicator of a group’s vital activity is its organization, that is, the discipline and coordination of the actions of each group member.

The socializing role of the group (and we're talking about specifically about the primary group) is manifested in a number of factors:

ь integrating role;

b increasing the level of individual motivation;

b the protective role of the team.

A group, like any complex object, has its own structure and functional relationships. There are formal and informal group structures. The first represents the division of roles (functions) within the group according to prescribed rules, the second represents the sensory-emotional attitude of group members towards each other, their likes or dislikes.

The typology of social groups can be carried out according to several criteria (grounds). Thus, the American sociologist E. Eubank identified seven main characteristics that allow classifying social groups: 1) ethnicity or race; 2) level of cultural development; 3) types of group structure; 4) tasks and functions performed by the group in wider communities; 5) the predominant types of contacts between group members; 6) different kinds connections in groups; 7) other principles.

Based on the degree of cohesion, groups are distinguished between primary and secondary.

Primary groups- groups in which people are in direct contact, connected by personal or business relations. Examples of such groups are families and children's groups. preschool institutions, school classes, student group, school teaching staff, university department teachers, sports team members, primary military unit, production team. This category also includes groups such as a group of friends, peers, close neighbors, members of gardening partnerships, and music lovers who know each other. Some of these groups may also have a criminal nature and are called gangs.

Secondary groups represent associations of people with a broader quantitative composition. In such associations, business and formal ties are preserved and complicated, but personal ties are weakened. In this case, they are talking about school students, students of a faculty or university, workers of a workshop or factory, etc.

Formal and informal groups are distinguished by forms of education.

Formal groups- such associations of people, the composition and functions of which are regulated by official documents: legal norms, charters, service instructions, professional requirements, etc. Therefore, a formal group has a strict structure, an ordered hierarchy, and prescribed role functions that regulate the activities of its members. In this case, we talk about the formal structure of the group and the formal relationships between its members. The primary formal group represents the initial link in the social structure of society.

Informal groups arise spontaneously on the basis of friendly, trusting relationships between its members. Basically, these are groups of friends, comrades, buddies who not only live, study or work together, but also relax together, have fun, support each other in difficult situations, etc. The cohesion factor here is sympathy, friendship, love, a sense of affection , common interests, etc. Informal primary associations can also arise within formal groups. For example, in a student group or in a school class as official group associations, there are always microgroups of a friendly or friendly nature. A harmonious combination of formal and informal connections and interests determines the normal and fruitful functioning of the primary link of the social structure.

Sometimes informal relationships can turn into formal ones - these are cases when a group of friends turns into a strictly organized group. For example, informal relationships that develop between individuals of criminal behavior gradually acquire the character of rigidly structured formations with clearly defined functions and severe discipline - this is a gang, mafia, criminal clan, group racketeering, etc.

Each person can be a member of several formal and informal groups, where he is considered as “one of our own” at his place of residence, study or work. At the same time, a person is not only a member of his group, but he can also observe the activities of other groups of which he is not a member, but whose values ​​and norms he correlates his views and behavior with. Such groups are called reference groups.

Means play a major role in the formation of referent stereotypes. mass media, creating a certain “image” of both individuals and group associations: sports teams, popular musical groups, political groups, etc. Moreover, such groups can be real and imaginary, invented by the person himself as a synthesis of several stereotypes.

Depending on the number of members and the conditions of intra-group interaction, social groups are divided into small, medium and large.

Small social groups include such associations of people in which all members are in direct contact with each other; as a rule, they number from two to several dozen people. These groups include: family, group of friends, neighborhood community, school class, student group, sports team, primary production cell(brigade), primary party organization, primary military collective (company, platoon), etc. The small group thus acts as primary organization of people.

With the exception of a group of friends and a neighborhood community, all these groups have clearly defined legal norms for their organization and behavior, which, however, does not exclude informal forms of relationships. The combination of formal and informal norms of collective relationships is an indispensable condition for the most optimal functioning of the group as a single social whole.

Based on the nature of combining people into small groups, the following types are distinguished: 1) diffuse group - group members enter into interpersonal relationships that are mediated not by the content of group activity, but only by personal sympathies (a group of friends); 2) association - group members enter into interpersonal relationships that are mediated only by personally significant goals (for example, an association of hunters, fishermen, coin collectors, etc.), 3) corporation - group members enter into interpersonal relationships mediated by private group interests; 4) collective - group members enter into interpersonal relationships mediated by the unity of personal and public interests.

Medium-sized social groups are relatively stable communities of people working at the same enterprise, who are members of some public organizations or living in one fairly large but limited territory (residents of a city, district, region). The first type can be called production-organizational groups, the second - territorial.

A distinctive feature of the first type of medium-sized social groups is the presence of one or another program, a plan of joint action, in the implementation of which all members of the group are included. In such a group, the composition of individuals, the structure and content of their joint activities, interpersonal relationships, and the characteristics of the organization are determined by the goals for which it is created and functions. It clearly outlines the management system, methods of making and implementing decisions and sanctions, and formalized communications. In contrast, the second type of such groups is territorial associations- are spontaneous group formations that unite people only on the basis of their place of residence.

Large social groups include stable groups of a significant number of people acting together in socially significant situations and functioning on the scale of a country (state) or their associations. These include classes, social strata, professional groups, ethnic associations (nationality, nation, race) or demographic associations (groups of men, women, youth, pensioners, etc.). The belonging of individuals to a given type of social group is determined on the basis of a certain set of socially significant characteristics - class affiliation, content and nature of large-scale social activities, demographic indicators, belonging to the main religious denominations, etc. Members of these groups, due to their large numbers, can be separated in time and space and not enter into direct communication with each other, but, nevertheless, due to a number of unifying factors, they constitute a group community. Of particular importance are those characteristics that give the group a class character.

Thus, a group is an association of people within which the social and production activities of people take place; it is the original unit organizational structure society. The harmonious functioning of groups determines the harmonious functioning of the collective of an enterprise, organization, institution and society as a whole. Primary groups and their systems determine the initial elements of social structure. Moreover, they themselves have their own structure and dynamics. Studying this structure is First stage studying the structure and functioning of society as a whole.

The first classification is based on a criterion (character) such as number, i.e. the number of people who are members of the group. Accordingly, there are three types of groups:

1) small group - a small community of people who are in direct personal contact and interaction with each other;

Table 1. Main differences between groups

2) middle group– a relatively numerous community of ideas that are in indirect functional interaction.

3) large group - a large community of people who are socially and structurally dependent on each other.

In table Figure 1 presents the main differences between small, with and large groups.

The second classification is associated with such a criterion as the time of the group’s existence. Here short-term and long-term groups are distinguished. Small, medium and large groups can be either short-term or long-term. For example: an ethnic community is always a long-term group, and political parties may exist for centuries, or may very quickly disappear from the historical scene. Such a small group, such as, for example, a team of workers, can be either short-term: people unite to complete one production task and, having completed it, separate, or long-term - people work at the same enterprise in the same team throughout their entire working life.

The third classification is based on such a criterion as the structural integrity of the group. On this basis, primary and secondary groups are distinguished. A primary group is a structural unit of an official organization that cannot be further decomposed into its component parts, for example: a team, department, laboratory, department, etc. A primary group is always a small formal group. A secondary group is a collection of primary small groups. An enterprise with several thousand employees, for example, Izhora Plants, is called secondary (or primary because it consists of smaller structural divisions workshops, departments. The secondary group is almost always the middle group.

Thus, the organization industrial enterprise, firms, corporations, etc. – This is the middle, secondary, most often long-term group. Social psychology has established that the patterns of formation and development of a group are largely determined by its size, the time of interaction between people and structural and functional unity. Let us consider the socio-psychological characteristics of the organization as an average group.

Introduction

The concept of "social group"

Classification of social groups:

a) division of groups based on the individual’s membership in them;

b) groups divided by the nature of the relationships 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 there are classes, social strata, estates. Each person belongs to one of these social groups or may occupy some kind of intermediate (transitional) position: having broken away from the usual social environment, he has not yet fully integrated into the new group; in his way of life, the features of the old and new social status are preserved.

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

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

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

There are several types of social communities to which the concept of “group” is applied in the ordinary sense, but in the scientific sense they represent something different. In one case, the term “group” refers to some individuals physically, spatially located in a certain place. In this case, the division of communities is carried out only spatially, using physically defined boundaries. An example of such communities could be individuals traveling in the same carriage, located 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 group to a social community that unites individuals with one or more similar characteristics. Thus, men, school graduates, physicists, old people, smokers appear 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 accurate. 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 particular way based on the shared expectations of each group member regarding the 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 group member regarding its other members.

By this definition, two people waiting for a bus at a bus stop would not be a group, but could become one if they engaged in 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 travel. It happens that an entire 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 leaves unexpectedly and is absent for a long time. The queue begins to interact to achieve one goal - to return the seller not him workplace. An aggregation becomes a group.

At the same time, the groups listed above appear unintentionally, by chance, they lack stable expectations, and interactions, as a rule, are one-sided (for example, only conversation and no other types of interactions). Such spontaneous, unstable groups are called quasigroups. They can develop into social groups if, through ongoing interaction, the degree of social control between its members increases. To achieve 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 separately. It is impossible to effectively control a disorderly crowd or the actions of people leaving the stadium after the end of a match, but it is possible to clearly control the activities of the enterprise team. It is precisely this control over the activities of the team that defines it as a social group, since the activities of people in this case are coordinated. Solidarity is necessary for a developing group to identify each group member with the collective. Only if group members can say “we”, stable group membership and boundaries of social control are formed (Fig. 1).

From Fig. 1 it is clear that in social categories and social aggregations there is no social control, so these are purely abstract identifications of communities based on one characteristic. Of course, among individuals included in a category, one can notice a certain identification with other members of the category (for example, by age), but, I repeat, there is practically no social control 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 quasi-groups transform into social groups.

Social groups themselves also have varying degrees of social control. Thus, among all social groups, a special place is occupied by the so-called status groups - classes, strata and castes. These large groups, which arose on the basis of social inequality, have (with the exception of castes) low internal social control, which, nevertheless, can increase as individuals become aware of their belonging to a status group, as well as awareness of group interests and inclusion in the struggle to improve their status. groups. In Fig. 1 shows that as the group gets smaller, social control increases and the strength of social connections increases. This is because as group size decreases, the number of interpersonal interactions increases.

Classification of social groups

Dividing groups based on characteristics

individual's belonging to them

Each individual identifies a certain set of groups to which he belongs and defines them as “mine”. This could be “my family”, “my professional group”, “my company”, “my class”. Such groups will be considered ingroups, i.e. those to which he feels that he belongs and in which he identifies with other members in such a way that he regards the group members 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 relations 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 family 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 relationships between its members are built on many types of connections in addition to family ones, but the feeling of an ingroup and the search for its members among other people remain very important for every person. When an individual finds himself among strangers, he first of all tries to find out whether among them there are those who make up his social class or layer and adhere to his political views and interests. For example, someone who plays sports is interested in people who understand sports events, and even better, who support the same team as him. Avid philatelists involuntarily divide all people into those who simply collect stamps and those who are interested in them, and look for like-minded people by communicating in different groups. Obviously, a sign 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 regarding areas of activity and goals in life. Members of an outgroup may have many traits and characteristics common to all groups of a given society, may share many feelings and aspirations common to all, but they always have certain private traits and characteristics, as well as feelings that are different from the feelings of members of the ingroup. And people unconsciously note 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 connections can overlap. An older student will view a junior student as an individual belonging to an outgroup, but a junior student and a senior student may be members of the same sports team, where they are part of the ingroup.

Researchers note that in-group 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 in-groups more painful. Thus, 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 join a youth team, but she doesn't accept him; a worker who comes to work in a brigade cannot fit in and is sometimes the subject of ridicule. Thus, exclusion from groups can be a very cruel 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 “stranger,” considering these concepts to be identical. The attitude of the Nazis, who excluded Jews from human society, is not too different from this point of view. Rudolf Hoss, who led the concentration camp at Auschwitz, where 700 thousand Jews were exterminated, characterized this massacre as “the removal of alien racial-biological bodies.” In this case, in-group and out-group identifications led to fantastic cruelty and cynicism.

To summarize what has been said, it should be noted that the concepts of ingroup and outgroup are important because the self-attribution of each individual to them has a significant impact on the behavior of individuals in groups; everyone has the right to expect recognition, loyalty, and mutual assistance from members - associates in the ingroup. The behavior expected from outgroup representatives when meeting depends on the type of outgroup. From some we expect hostility, from others - more or less friendly attitude, from others - indifference. Expectations of certain behavior from outgroup members undergo significant changes over time. Thus, a twelve-year-old boy avoids and does not like girls, but a few years later 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 relations change dramatically, becoming calm or even friendly.

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

R. Park and E. Burgess (1924), as well as E. Bogardus (1933), developed the concept of social distance, which allows one to measure the feelings and attitudes expressed by an individual or social group towards various outgroups. Ultimately, the Bogardus Scale was developed as a measure of the degree of acceptance or closedness towards other outgroups. Social distance is measured by looking separately at the relationships people have with members of other outgroups. There are special questionnaires, by answering which members of one group assess relationships, rejecting or, conversely, accepting representatives of other groups. Informed group members are asked, when filling out questionnaires, to note which of the members of other groups they know they perceive as a neighbor, a workmate, or a marriage partner, and thus relationships are determined. Questionnaires measuring social distance cannot accurately predict what people will do 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 great extent on the totality of conditions or circumstances of that situation.

Reference groups

The term "reference group", first coined by social psychologist Mustafa Sherif in 1948, means 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. A boy, playing the guitar or playing sports, is guided by the lifestyle and behavior of rock stars or sports idols. An employee of an organization, striving to make a career, is guided by the behavior of top management. It may also be noted that ambitious people who suddenly receive a lot of money tend to imitate the representatives of the upper classes in dress and manners.

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

There are normative and comparative referent 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. Thus, a little boy, wanting to quickly become an adult, tries to follow the norms and value orientations accepted among adults, and an emigrant coming to a foreign country tries to master the norms and attitudes of the natives as quickly 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 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.

Stereotypes

Outgroups are usually perceived by individuals in the form of stereotypes. A social stereotype is a shared image of another group or category of people. When assessing the actions of any group of people, we most often, against our desire, attribute to each of the individuals in the group certain traits 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 Caucasian race (although in fact this is not the case), all French are frivolous, the British are closed and silent, residents 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).

Once a stereotype arises, it spreads 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 traits of sloppiness 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 an individual from the group being stereotyped, otherwise they would not be recognizable.

The mechanism of the emergence of social stereotypes has not been fully studied; it is still unclear why one of the traits begins to attract the attention of representatives of other groups and why this becomes a universal phenomenon. But one way or another, stereotypes become part of culture, part of moral norms and role guidelines. 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, selective exclusion (he doesn’t look like a teacher at all, he doesn’t 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. The poorly dressed, chalk-stained teacher actually died as a private stereotype. The fairly stable stereotype of a capitalist with a top hat and a huge belly has also disappeared. There are a huge number of examples.

Stereotypes are constantly born, change and disappear because they are necessary for members of a social group. With their help, we receive 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 our line of behavior in communicating with representatives of outgroups. People always perceive a stereotype faster than the true personality traits, since a stereotype is the result of many, sometimes accurate and subtle judgments, despite the fact that only some individuals in the outgroup fully correspond to it.

Groups divided by character

relationships between their members

Primary and secondary groups

The difference in relationships between individuals is most clearly visible in primary and secondary groups. Under primary groups refers to groups in which each member sees the other group members as individuals and individuals. Achieving such a vision occurs through social contacts, which 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 interactions 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 in nature. Friendly personal contacts with other members are not necessary here, but all contacts are functional, as required social roles. For example, the relationship between a site foreman and subordinate workers is impersonal and does not depend on friendly relations between them. The secondary group can be a labor union or some kind of association, club, team. But two individuals trading at the bazaar can also be considered a secondary group. In some cases, such a group exists to achieve specific goals that include specific needs of the group members as individuals.

The terms “primary” and “secondary” groups better characterize the types of group relationships than indicators of the relative importance of a given group in the system of other groups. The primary group may serve to achieve objective goals, for example, in production, but it is more distinguished by the quality of human relationships and the emotional satisfaction of its members than by the efficiency of production of food or clothing. So, a group of friends meets in the evening to play chess. They can play chess rather indifferently, but nevertheless please each other with their conversation, the main thing here is that each 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. What is important here is the selection of 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 group is goal oriented.

Primary groups usually form the 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 loss of intimacy and warmth in the relationship. For example, a saleswoman, as a member of a team of store employees, must be attentive and polite, even when the client does not like her, 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 for him to achieve a higher position in a given sport.

Secondary groups almost always contain a certain number of primary groups. A sports team, a production team, a school class or a student group is always internally divided into primary groups of individuals who sympathize with each other, those who have more and less frequent interpersonal contacts. When leading 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

Analysis of the social structure of society requires that the unit being studied be an elementary particle of society, concentrating in itself all types of social connections. The so-called small group was chosen as such a unit of analysis, which has become a permanent necessary attribute of all types of sociological research.

As a real collection of individuals connected by social relations, a small group began to be considered by sociologists relatively recently. Thus, 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, only separate individuals exist. Only in the 60s did the view of small groups as real ones emerge and begin to develop elementary particles social structure.

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 take the form of direct personal contacts.” In other words, small groups are only those groups in which individuals have personal contacts each with each other. Let's imagine a production team where everyone knows each other and communicates with each other during work - this is a small group. On the other hand, the workshop team, where workers do not have constant personal communication, is a large group. About students of 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. Baze 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 -psychological characteristics. Below is an example of the differences in some of these characteristics.

Small groups have:

1. actions not oriented towards group goals;
2. group opinion as a constantly operating factor of social control;
3. conformity to group norms.

Large groups have:

1. rational goal-oriented actions;
2. group opinion is rarely used, control is top-down;
3. conformity to the policies pursued by the active part of the group.

Thus, most often small groups in their constant activities are not focused on the ultimate group goal, while the activities of large groups are rationalized to such an extent that the loss of the goal most often leads to their disintegration. In addition, in a small group, such a means of control and joint activities as group opinion acquires special importance. Personal contacts allow all group members to participate in the development of 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 unified group opinion.

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

Conclusion

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

Thus,

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

Social groups are classified according to various criteria:

Based on the individual’s membership;

By the nature of 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. Ekaterinburg, 1998

home » Earn money online » Concept and types of social groups. Classifications of groups Concept and classification of social groups briefly