Another aspect of groups is group size. The size of a group changes the dynamics in a variety of ways. Typically, the smaller the group, the more informal and intimate it tends to be. Show Sociologist George Simmel identified a couple of groups based on size: dyads, triads, and coalitions. Dyads are the smallest type of social group with two people. Dyads are the most intimate. A dyad might be you and a friend, a couple who are dating, or two co-workers working on a project. Dyads are the most unstable type of group. They are unstable because if one person leaves the group, the group no longer exists. Triads are a group of three people. Triad groups are slightly more stable because if one person leaves the group, a dyad can still exist. However, these groups are somewhat more formal and less intimate. This might be three friends or a couple with a child. One aspect of a triad that is somewhat unique is that coalitions are possible Coalition is when two group members pressure the third member into some sort of behavior that is potentially positive or negative. Ultimately, as group numbers grow, dynamics change. The number of people in a group plays an important structural role in the nature of the group's functioning. Dyads are the simplest groups because 2 people have only 1 relationship between them. Triads have three relationships. A group of 4 people has 6 relationships, 5 has 10, and so on. The more people that are in the group, the more relationships exist. When triads form it looks much like a triangle and these typically take much more energy than dyads. A newly married couple (a dyad) experiences great freedoms and opportunities to nurture their marital relationship. A triad forms when their first child is born; they experience a tremendous incursion upon their marital relationship from the child and the care demanded by the child. Ultimately, the relationship becomes less intimate and the dynamics change. Here's another example of group size and group dynamics: Two students were BFF's since elementary school. They went to college together and even pursued the same major. Their friendship became stressed when one started dating a young man. The other friend felt pressure to get along with her best friend's boyfriend, so she worked at the friendship and soon all three of them were friends. Some time later, the boyfriend and girlfriend broke up, and it put the friend in an awkward position. Since she had established a friendship with the guy, she did not want to lose a friend. But since her best friend broke up with him, she felt like she had to end her friendship with him too. The example on the previous slide shows a very clear transition from a dyad to a triad. It also shows that the triad required more work and put stress on the dyad. You can imagine the pressure that the girl experienced in the group to end her friendship with the young man just out of loyalty to her longtime friend. Of course, in many cases, group membership takes on different dynamics for each person involved. The dynamic also depends on the type of group (primary or secondary, for instance). The best friend situation described is not supposed to happen in a work environment where you have specific goals to accomplish on a daily basis. The stranger is fixed in a given location (spatial or social), but is not origional to it, and he brings qualities to it are not, and cannot be, indigenous to it. Note the claim: all social relations are a combination of closeness and remotness. For strangers, this is highlighted: The stranger is an element of the group itself, ..., an element whose membership within the group involves both being outside it and confronting it. Repulsion and attraction in the social form of the stranger:
Toward the end, he brings back a second notion of 'stranger' -- the one outside the group entirely -- and points out that some of these points do not apply, since they hinge on the basic fact of interaction. Strangers are not perceived of as individuals, but instead characterized by a quality that they share with somebody else -- a commonality that gives them a distinct otherness. The Isolated Individual and the Dyad 2. Freedom.
Freedom is sociological action. It's working within a system of relations, largely to get something done. Freedom is: - Freedom emerges as a continuous process of liberation, as a fight, not only for our independence, but also for the right, at every moment and of our own free will, to remain dependent. (2) Freedom is something quite different from rejection of relation or immunity of the individual sphere from adjacent spheres - not only in the function described, but also in its contents. "freedom consists in a process of liberation; it rises above a bond, contrasts with a bond; it finds its meaning, consciousness, and value only as a reaction to it." It also consists in a power relation. The Dyad. The dyad is where many general social forms exist in their pure state, also the limitation two only two members is the a condition that gives rise to specific social forms. The characteristics of the dyad follow for all groups of two actors. Note that an actor can be a group too, as long as it acts uniformly. The differences between the dyad and larger groups "consists in the fact that the dyad has a different relation to each of its two elements than have larger groups to their members." (p123) Key: the dyad does not attain a super-personal life which the individual feels to be beyond himself.
1) Triviality.
2) Intimacy: "the peculiar color of intimacy exists ... if [the dyad's] whose affective structure is based on what each of the two participates gives or shows only to the one other person and to nobody else." [p.126] True intimacy is only possible in Dyads, (or groups that are dependent on each member equally). Intimacy follows from seeing and recognizing the other member of the group as an individual, not a part of a supra-individual whole. Here equality is possible, though difficult. "This intimacy ... is the reason why the dyad constitutes the chief seat of jealousy" (p.136) Delegation of duties and Responsibilities to the Group Two forms: b) The group enables / obliges the individual to commit acts for which, as an individual, he does not carte to be responsible for. [example: milgram experiments, bureaucracy, rioting, etc.] These are not possible in the dyad , the partner can reject the passing off of duties The Expansion of the Dyad: We also find differences in the evaluation of outside characteristics, a feeling of social balance. The difficulty in forming a "really uniform mood" The key to remember with the dyad is that it is dependent on each member equally. This gives rise to the power and unique characteristics of the dyad. The introduction of more actors changes the relationship drastically by dissolving this dependence of the group on EACH relation equally. [c] Dyads, triads and larger groups [d] The formal radicalism of the Mass The Triad I. The non-partisan: Two Types: b) Arbitrator: Imposes a decision through the authority granted by the parties (or the state). Simmel says that this is a VERY common interaction type: That we all play the role of mediator often in daily interactions with friends. Two Forms of 'unbiased' participation.
Simmel points out that the key to doing sociology is to recognize these 'embryonic forms' (p.152). We see this in the extension to social balance theory. II. The Tertius Gaudens: (The third who enjoys). The following sections move to people who are definitely involved in the activity of interest, and he describes a set of triad types, characterized by differing levels of engagement of the third actor to the other two.
In the largest scale, the Tertius Gaudens is represented by the buying public with respect to the rest of the market: we play merchants off each other for the best price. The advantage of the TG derives from the fact that he has an equal, independent, and for this reason decisive, relation to the other two (p.159) Note that the favorable position of the TG dissolves as soon as the other two become a unit: then you get a dyad (TG to Group). Here Simmel is pointing out the power that comes from being the third party in a relationship. There are various configurations of three that lead to power for the third party. Simmel really only talks about how using the two in direct conflict (or gaining favor of one against the other) might lead to benefits for the third. In your thinking about this topic, think of how ELSE a third member might benefit from POSITIONS that relate to various alters. One that comes readily to mind is being in the center of an information flow: This notion of structural power, determined from the configurations actors and the flow of influence, information, There are association assumptions built into most models of society. Classic economics, for example, posits perfect information and fluid exchange markets. This assumption of perfect information flows implies a network structure of all connected directly to all. What happens when there are certain players in a field who control the flow of information? This is what this line of research tries to ascertain: what can we say about the influence/power of a given configuration of ties? How do we expect to see such configurations change over time? (an excellent application of this line of work is called "Social Structure in a Securities Exchange Market" in the American Journal of Sociology, 1984.) Anyway... Back to Simmel. Types of 'Tertius Gaudens".
At the 'full power' end is the logic of pure competition in a market: the purchaser can buy from anyone, therefore they have the power to play sellers off each other for the best price. Simmel says that a person faced with two suitors marks the other end, because there is no active element of choice, but that the decision of the third depends entirely on the 'nature' of the suitors. I'm not wholly convinced by this argument.
Power comes from the freedom to act, and thus to some extent, it has to come from the interaction of equals. If the two that ego tries to separate are highly unequal, then playing them off of each other is going to do no good. Divide and Rule.
The thing to take from this portion of Simmel is that a 'simple group of three' is not so simple. That the shape of interaction between participants decides the tenor of the whole relationship. Also, Simmel is pointing out the importance of interaction between one actor with another non- individual actor i.e. the TG is reacting against a dyad. This is one of the reasons that the move from 2-3 is so much more significant than the move from 3-4. The key is that interaction takes on a supra-individual characteristic. Group Expansion and the Development of Individuality �<not read!, just FYI> 1) Group expansion leads to solidarity. This happens in multiple ways. Imagine two groups: M and N, both of them small, tightly knit and separated. Then imagine they grow. Simmel says that, "quantitative expansion will produce an increase in social differentiation. What were once minimal differences in inner predilection, ... will be accentuated by the necessity of competition for a livelihood ..." (p.258) Moreover, as different as the starting points of M and N may be, they will become more and more similar as they expand, since the number of "fundamental human formations upon which a group can build is relatively limited." The development of M and N over time will push them towards similarity. "This convergence will come about if for no other reason than because even within very diverse groups, the forms of social differentiation are identical or approximately the same." Such as the relational pattern of simple competition, the alliance of many against one, etc. (p.258). That is, there are only a small number of relational patterns that are evident in social life, driven by rules that guide relationship formation, which will generate substantively similar social units. Moreover, this will likely lead to solidarity among groups occupying similar positions (a notion that pre-dates contemporary network understandings of structural equivalence). He then uses the transformation of guilds into markets as an example, leading to differentiated groups with common interests. 2) But if the group expands to break a homogeneous whole (i.e. move from self-production to trade), it breaks this boundary, creating inequality. A fissioning is also apparent with this correlation (between individuality and expansion) involving the content of labor and its "sociological dimension." If you have a self-contained Division of Labor, you still essentially have equality, since every person is producing for the group. As soon as you have a distinction between internal and external production, you get a division of inequality. His example is the transformation of serf - lord relations. What used to be a combination of owner-laborer was divided directly into two very different types. The voluntary organization quote highlights this relation (p.261).
The general point is that groups are faced with two competing pressures: on the one hand, be internally equal, but externally distinct. If, however, you have internal inequality, you end up building links to a wider external group. This is a trade-off between internal and external differentiation. The Relation between Personal and Collective Individuality
He points out that this is not a natural law, but the phenomenological result of many disparate activities. Illustrations of the Formula in Religious and Political Settings The Basic Relation as a Dualistic Drive TheDifferentiation Driveas a Heuristic Principle he extends this idea to German states and Russian politics. Note the last paragraph:
Stages of Social Commitment The Sociological Duality of the Family
This double role is part of the reason that the family is sociologically ambiguous, it's role is never clear. Note the interesting implication of his historical sketch: what role does the family, especially the extended family, play today? Freedom and Individuality If we consider the nested social circles people live in, the smallest one restricts freedom, the larger one encourages freedom. "Freedom" ranges over many things, from freedom in choosing a spouse to freedom in economic initiative, that depend solely on the area of interest you are explaining. Note that as individuality increases, in some ways, freedom decreases, since the range of options that would satisfy an individual are much more narrow. (see discussion around p.268-9), particularly concerning questions of partners.. Individual freedom is freedom that is limited by individuality, out of the uniqueness of the individual arrises a corresponding uniqueness of that which can complement and free him. The meanings of Individuality
The 19th century has been about the 2nd type, which is contradictory to the first (is it? I'm not sure I buy this claim, it seems to me they really work on different levels, which is what makes his claim that they move together sensible). GS argues that the first sense of individuality focused on what was common among humanity -- the potential that was thwarted by political fetters. The 2nd type of individuality focuses on that which is unique in each person. Group Expansion and the Consciousness of the Ego In addition to the effect on will (i.e. individualism) group expansion affects the 'sensation' of a particular ego. Mass society has lead to the "unprecidented levelings of the personality form of life." (p.271) In settings where people confront many differences, the personality exapnds. "The mre uniformly and unwaveringly life progresses, ..., the les strongly does the sensation of personality arise; but the farter apart they stretch, .., the more intenslely does a human being sense himself as a personality. (p.271) The ego is percieved as the one constant in all the "social alternation" found in life. Why are dyads not considered groups?Group socialization cannot occur in a dyad because there is only one relationship there that can change as time passes, namely, the relationship between the dyad's two members. There is no larger group to which each person can relate separately.
What makes a dyad different from a triad and every other possible group?Abstract. The smallest and most elementary social unit, a dyad is a social group composed of two members while a triad is a social group composed of three members.
Can dyad take place if there are three people involved?Dyads and Triads
The main difference between them is the number of members a part of each group. To define a dyad, a dyad group is a social group containing two members. A triad group is a social group containing three members.
Is a dyad considered a group?Lesson Summary
A dyad is a social group that consists of two people and is considered the most basic and fundamental social group.
|