Nitheesh

1 | s o c i a l g r o u p s
Assignment
Submitted by
Nitheesh .t.g
Social science
Fmtc mylapure

Index
Sl.no
content
Page .no
1
INTRODUCTION
3
2
NEED AND
SIGNIFICANCE
4-6
3
OBJECTIVES
6-7
4
ANALYZIS AND
INTERPRETATION
7-12

5
ÇONCLUSION
13
6
REFERENCES
14
INTRODUCTION
A social group consists of two or
more people who interact with one another and who recognize themselves as a
distinct social unit. The definition is simple enough, but it has significant
implications. Frequent interaction leads people to share values and beliefs. This
similarity and the interaction cause them to identify with one another.
Identification and attachment, in turn, stimulate more frequent and intense
interaction. Each group maintains solidarity with all to other groups and other
types of social systems.
Groups are among the most stable
and enduring of social units. They are important both to their members and to the
society at large. Through encouraging regular and predictable behavior, groups
form the foundation upon which society rests. Thus, a family, a village, a political

party a trade union is all social groups. These, it should be noted are different
from social classes, status groups or crowds, which not only lack structure but
whose members are less aware or even unaware of the existence of the group.
These have been called quasi-groups or groupings. Nevertheless, the distinction
between social groups and quasi-groups is fluid and variable since quasi-groups
very often give rise to social groups, as for example, social classes give rise to
political parties.
NEED AND SIGNIFICANCE
Usually defined as a number of people who identify and interact with
one another. This is a very broad definition, as it includes groups of all
sizes, fromdyads to whole societies. While an aggregate comprises
merely a number of individuals, a group in sociology exhibits
cohesiveness to a larger degree. Aspects that members in the group
may share include: interests, values, ethnic/linguistic
background, roles and kinship. One way of determining if a collection of
people can be considered a group is if individuals who belong to that
collection use the self-referent pronoun "we;" using "we" to refer to a
collection of people often implies that the collection thinks of itself as a
group. Examples of groups include: families, companies, circles of
friends, clubs, local chapters of fraternities and sororities, and local
religious congregations.
A law enforcement official is a social category, not a group. However,
law enforcement officials who all work in the same station and
regularly meet to plan their day and work together would be
considered part of a group.

Collections of people that do not use the self-referent pronoun "we"
but share certain characteristics (e.g., roles, social functions, etc.) are
different from groups in that they usually do not regularly interact with
each other nor share similar interests or values. Such collections are
referred to as categories of people rather than groups; examples
include: police, soldiers, millionaires, women, etc.
Individuals form groups for a variety of reasons. There are some rather
obvious ones, like reproduction, protection, trade, protest, and food
production. But social categorization of people into groups and
categories also facilitates behavior and action.[1] An example may help
explain this idea:
Suppose you are driving somewhere in a car when you notice red
lights flashing in your rearview mirror. Because you have been
socialized into society, you know that the red lights mean you
should pull over, so you do. After waiting for a minute or two, an
individual in a uniform walks toward your car door. You roll down
your window and the individual asks you for your "license and
registration."
Because groups and categories help facilitate social behavior, you
know who this individual is: a member of a law enforcement
category like the police or highway patrol. In all likelihood, you do
not have to question this individual as to why they are driving a
special car with lights on it, why they are wearing a uniform, why
they are carrying a gun, or why they pulled you over (you may ask
why they pulled you over, but doing so often increases the likelihood
they'll give you a ticket). In short, because you recognize that the
individual driving the car belongs to a specific social category (or
group), you can enter this interaction with a body of knowledge that
will help guide your behavior. You do not have to learn how to
interact in that situation every single time you encounter it.

In fact, sociologists have long recognized the people experience
much of social life by attempting to frame situations in terms they
can understand.[2] Specifically, people approach each situation by
consciously or unconsciously asking "What is going on here," and
seeking to coordinate their activities to the "definition of the
situation" they decide upon. To accomplish this, people scan
situations for information "given" (e.g., the things people do to
signify who they are and what groups they belong to intentionally)
and "given off" (e.g., the things people do that inadvertently signify
who they are and the groups they belong to) by other people in the
situation. Based on this information, people then act in ways they
have been socialized to believe is appropriate for the situation. In
the case above, for example, you (as the driver) would note the
information given (e.g., the special car, the lights, and the uniform
worn) to ascertain what was happening and who the other driver
was, and then you could note the information given off (e.g., the
apparent mood of the police officer based upon her or his body
language, verbal language, and mannerisms) to predict (accurately
or otherwise) what was about to happen to you. In so doing, you
would be using the knowledge of groups at your disposal to manage
the situation. Such interpretive work combined with social
categorizations to smooth a wide variety of interactional and
interpretive experiences.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
Identification carries two meanings. Part of who we are is made up of
our group memberships. That is, sometimes we think of ourselves as

"us" vs. "them" or "we" vs. "they", and at other times we think of
ourselves as "I" vs. "he or she" or "me" vs. "him or her". In other words,
sometimes we think of ourselves as group members and at other times
we think of ourselves as unique individuals. This varies situationally, so
that we can be more or less a group member, depending upon the
circumstances. What is crucial for our purposes is that thinking of
yourself as a group member and thinking of yourself as a unique
individual are both parts of your self-concept. The first is referred to as
social identity, the latter is referred to as personal identity. In social
identity theory, group membership is not something foreign which is
tacked onto the person, it is a real, true and vital part of the person.
Our groups make up part of who we are.
The other
meaning implied by the concept of identity is the idea that we are, in
some sense, the same, or identical to other people. This should not be
misinterpreted, when we say that we are the same, we mean that for
some purposes we treat members of our groups as being similar to
ourselves in some relevant way. To take the most extreme example, in
some violent conflict such as a war, the members of the opposite group
- the outgroup - are treated as identical and completely different to the
those people in your group - theingroup - which is made up of distinct
individuals. Thinking about individuals in one's outgroup in such a

fashion allows the individual to believe that the enemy is deserving of
death by dehumanizing them (more on this below). Treating people this
way allows us to justify otherwise unjustifiable behavior
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
A social network is a
social structure between actors, either individuals or organizations. It
indicates the ways in which they are connected through various social
familiarities ranging from casual acquaintance to close familial bonds.
The study of social networks is called both social network
analysis and social network theory. Research in a number of academic
fields has demonstrated that social networks operate on many levels,
from families up to the level of nations, and play a critical role in
determining the way problems are solved, organizations are run, and
the degree to which individuals succeed in achieving their goals.

An example of a social network diagram
Social network theory views social relationships in terms
of nodes and ties. Nodes are the individual actors within the networks,
and ties are the relationships between the actors. There can be many
kinds of ties between the nodes. In its most simple form, a social
network is a map of all of the relevant ties between the nodes being
studied. The network can also be used to determine the social capital of
individual actors. These concepts are often displayed in a social
network diagram, where nodes are the points and ties are the lines.
The shape of the social network helps determine a network's
usefulness to its individuals. Smaller, tighter networks can be less useful
to their members than networks with lots of loose connections (weak
ties) to individuals outside the main network. More "open" networks,
with many weak ties and social connections, are more likely to
introduce new ideas and opportunities to their members than closed
networks with many redundant ties. In other words, a group of friends
who only do things with each other already share the same knowledge
and opportunities. A group of individuals with connections to other
social worlds is likely to have access to a wider range of information. It
is better for individual success to have connections to a variety of
networks rather than many connections within a single network.

Similarly, individuals can exercise influence or act as brokers within
their social networks by bridging two networks that are not directly
linked (called filling social holes).
The power of social network theory stems from its difference from
traditional sociological studies, which assume that it is the attributes of
individual actors - whether they are friendly or unfriendly, smart or
dumb, etc. - that matter. Social network theory produces an alternate
view, where the attributes of individuals are less important than their
relationships and ties with other actors within the network. This
approach has turned out to be useful for explaining many real-world
phenomena, but leaves less room for individual agency, the ability for
individuals to influence their success, so much of it rests within the
structure of their network. For instance, social networks have been
used to examine how companies interact with each other,
characterizing the many informal connections that link executives
together, as well as associations and connections between individual
employees at different companies. These networks provide ways for
companies to gather information, deter competition, and
even collude in setting prices or policies. Power within organizations
has also been found to be tied to social networks. Powerful people in
organizations often derive their power from their degree of
connectedness within the organization (i.e., the degree to which an

individual within a network is at the center of many relationships)
rather than from job title or statuses. Social networks also play a key
role in hiring, in business success for firms, and in job performance.
The so-called rule of 150 states that the size of a genuine social
network is limited to about 150 members (sometimes called
the Dunbar Number). The rule arises from cross-cultural studies
in sociology and especially anthropology of the maximum size of
a village (in modern parlance an ecovillage). It is theorized
in evolutionary psychology that the number may be some kind of limit
of average human ability to recognize members and track emotional
facts about all members of a group. However, it may be due
to economicsand the need to track "free riders", as larger groups tend
to be easier for cheats and liars to prosper in.
The "six degrees of separation" model.
The small world phenomenon is the hypothesis that the chain of social
acquaintances required to connect one arbitrary person to another
arbitrary person anywhere in the world is generally short. The concept

gave rise to the famous phrase six degrees of separation after
a 1967small world experiment by psychologist Stanley Milgram which
found that two random US citizens were connected by an average of six
acquaintances. Current internet experiments continue to explore this
phenomenon, including the Ohio State Electronic Small World
Projectand Columbia's Small World Project. As of 2005, these
experiments confirm that about five to seven degrees of separation are
sufficient for connecting any two people through the internet.
Sociologists are interested in social networks because of their influence
on and importance for the individual. Social networks are the basic
tools used by individuals to meet other people, to recreate, and to find
social support.[32] Recent research suggests that the social networks of
Americans are shrinking and more and more people have no close
confidants or people with whom they can share their most intimate
thoughts.[33] In 1985, the mean network size of individuals in the U.S.
was 2.94 people. Networks declined by almost an entire confidant by
2004, to 2.08 people. Almost half, 46.3% of Americans, say they have
only one or no confidants with whom they can discuss important
matters. The most frequently occurring response to the question of
how many confidants one has was zero in 2004. The decline in
confidants has been most notable among non-kin networks, putting
greater emphasis on kin and spouses as social confidants. Most social

confidants are similar in demographic characteristics to the person
doing the sharing.[33] The implications of these findings are potentially
disturbing for American society as people have smaller social
support networks, which are important for both social but also health
reasons.[32]
Conclusion
The term group, or social group,
has been used to refer to very divergent kinds of aggregations of
people. Indeed, the term has been used so broadly as to threaten its
fruitfulness as a focal concept. For one thing, the word group has
sometimes been used to designate the members of a social category
based on possession of a common attribute, even when the members
have no meaningful degree of interrelation. Thus, it has been used to

refer to such collections as persons of a particular age, all persons
having similar incomes or occupations, and all persons with similar
reading habits. These are what might be called statistical groups, as
distinct from actual groups, the latter being characterized by
interrelatedness of the members.
Virtually all efforts to classify social groups result in a certain degree of
artificiality. Because of these and other problems of definition and
classification, sociologists have attempted to distinguish between
various kinds of social aggregates, some to be considered groups and
others to be identified by other terms—audiences, publics, and the like;
there is, however, no generally accepted classification at this time.
REFERENCES
1. ohn J. Macionis, Linda M. Gerber, "Sociology", Seventh Canadian
Edition, Pearson Canada. Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. Jump up^ Hare, A. P. (1962). Handbook of small group research.
New York: Macmillan Publishers.

3. Jump up^ Sherif, Muzafer and Sherif, Carolyn W., An Outline of
Social Psychology rev.ed. Harper & Brothers: New York pp. 143–
180.
4. Jump up^ Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior 3rd ed. Free
Press 1976 p.123-153

Nitheesh

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Nitheesh

More from Vichu Brahmanandan

Recently uploaded

Nitheesh