Primary groups[edit]

A primary group is typically a small social group (small-scale society) whose members
share close, personal, enduring relationships. These groups are marked by members'
concern for one another, in shared activities and culture. Examples include family,
childhood friends, and highly influential social groups. The concept of the primary group
was introduced by Charles Cooley, a sociologist from the Chicago School of sociology,
in his book Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind. Although the group initially
referred to the first intimate group of a person's childhood, the classification was later
extended to include other intimate relations.[1] Primary groups play an important role in
the development of personal identity. A primary group is a group in which one
exchanges implicit items, such as love, caring, concern, animosity, support, etc.
Examples, of these would be family groups, love relationships, crisis support groups,
church groups, etc. Relationships formed in primary groups are often long-lasting and
goals in themselves. They also are often psychologically comforting to the individuals
involved and provide a source of support.

Secondary groups[edit]
People in a secondary group interact on a less personal level than in a primary group,
and their relationships are temporary rather than long lasting. Since secondary groups
are established to perform functions, peoples roles are more interchangeable. A
secondary group is one you have chosen to be a part of. They are based on interests
and activities. They are where many people can meet close friends or people they
would just call acquaintances. Secondary groups are groups in which one exchanges
explicit commodities, such as labour for wages, services for payments, etc. Examples of
these would be employment, vendor-to-client relationships, etc.

Ingroups and outgroups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In sociology and social psychology, an ingroup is a social group to which a person psychologically
identifies as being a member. By contrast, an outgroup is a social group with which an individual
does not identify. For example, people may find it psychologically meaningful to view ourselves
according to our race, culture, gender, age or religion. It has been found that the psychological
membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.
The terminology was made popular by Henri Tajfel and colleagues during his work in
formulating social identity theory. The significance of ingroup and outgroup categorization was
identified using a method called the minimal group paradigm. Tajfel and colleagues found that
people can form self-preferencing ingroups within a matter of minutes and that such groups can form
even on the basis of seemingly trivial characteristics, such as preferences for certain paintings. [1][2][3][4]

Reference group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A reference group is a group to which an individual or another group is compared.
Sociologists call any group that individuals use as a standard for evaluating themselves and their
own behavior a reference group.
Reference groups are used in order to evaluate and determine the nature of a given individual or
other group's characteristics and sociological attributes. It is the group to which the individual relates
or aspires to relate himself or herself psychologically. It becomes the individual's frame of reference
and source for ordering his or her experiences, perceptions, cognition, and ideas of self. It is
important for determining a person's self-identity, attitudes, and social ties. It becomes the basis of
reference in making comparisons or contrasts and in evaluating one's appearance and performance.
Reference groups provide the benchmarks and contrast needed for comparison and evaluation of
group and personal characteristics. Robert K. Merton hypothesized that individuals compare
themselves with reference groups of people who occupy the social role to which the individual
aspires.[1]

How to Write a Biography

Four Parts:Researching Your SubjectAnalyzing the Subjects LifeWriting the BiographyBiography
HelpCommunity Q&A

No matter how exciting or significant a person's life is, a poorly written

biography will make it seem like a snore. Whether you are writing a
biographical essay or the first installment of your three-book biography on your
favorite actor, it will need to be thoroughly researched and well-written. Follow
these steps to create a masterful biography.

Part

1.

Researching Your Subject

1
Know what a biography is. A biography is the story of a real persons life (so
not a fictional character) written by someone other than that person. It can be
a page or several books long (see the the biography of Mark Twain)
Biographies explore the events in a persons life and find meaning within them.
[1]

2.

2
Find anything written by or about the subject. These items could include
books, letters, pictures, newspapers and newspaper clippings, magazines,
internet articles, journals, videos, interviews, existing biographies, or an
autobiography. Only use material that has permissions available to use in your
research, especially if you are going to publish and distribute the biography (or
else you could end up with a lawsuit on your hands).

3.

3
Conduct interviews. Interviewing people will breath life into your research-people you interview may be able to tell you stories that you cant find in a
history book. If you can't interview the person you're writing about, see if you
can interview someone who knows or knew the subject. You can conduct the
interview in person, by phone, or through e-mail. Remember to be courteous
and professional.[2]

4.

4
Visit places significant to the subject's life. This can be helpful in putting
yourself in his or her shoes. Visualize witnessing what they witnessed.
Imagine how they felt. Take pictures for the biography. If you can't visit the
actual place, try to visit a place like it. Here are some ideas:
o

Where the person was born and died. Illustrate a sharp contrast or
powerful similarity between the two.

The subject's "refuge". Where did they go to recharge their

batteries, or escape the chaos of their life? Where did they find peace or
inspiration?
Locations of trauma. Were there any significantly negative events

in the person's life that deeply impacted them? An injury, death, natural
disaster, car accident, or even a bad break-up?

5
Explore what interested, influenced and inspired the subject. What was
he or she passionate about? Whether it was botany, poetry, classical music, or

architecture, immerse yourself in it. Try to discover why the subject enjoyed it.
How did this subject influence his or her own work or life?
Find out what your subject liked when he/she was a kid. Did an

interest in space inspire them to become a NASA employee later on in life?

Continue to look for connections between what the person loved and how
his/her life was shaped by that subject.

Study the time and place of the subject's life. If it was a long time ago, do
some homework on what life was like back then. Figure out what role your
subject played in the society of his/her time. Also account for regional
differences. What's frowned upon in one place may be celebrated 30 miles
(48 km) away. This can shed light on the subject's decisions, and their
consequences.
o

When researching the time period ask yourself: what were the
social norms of that time? What was going on economically and politically?
What about in that person's field?

When you are considering your subjects role in that time ask
yourself: What was his/her economic standing--was he/she lower, middle, or
upper class? What was his/her religion--was that religion persecuted at the
time? What was his/her race--did she/he face opposition because of it? If your
subject is a woman, ask, what was the role of women during that time?

Part

1.

Analyzing the Subjects Life

1
Assemble a timeline. Record every event that you can, from basic facts like
birth, death and marriage, to minor personal anecdotes, like the night your
subject had an argument with their spouse. You should also add major events
that somehow shaped the life of your subject, such as the death of a best
friend, the beginning of a war, or the introduction of notable figure in the

subjects life. This timeline will help you to link events in the persons life and
find their meaning.
o

For example, you may write down that at a point in the subjects
childhood, he/she first saw a sailboat. Later on, you may write down when
he/she first learned to sail. Still later you may write down about a position your
subject held as the captain of a boat, followed by your subjects mysterious
death at sea. While it may not have been clear in your research, using a
timeline could help you to see that your subjects life, and death, was formed
around his/her love of sailing and the sea.

2
Look for patterns. See the forest, not the trees. Some people continue to
come back to the same subject or theme in their lives, again and again.
Others start out well and spiral downward. Look for patterns within your
subjects life--what or who continued to draw him/her in?
o

Phases. Many people go through phases during their lives.

Sometimes the phases are backlashes of each other; for example, a person
may go through a very dependent phase, then a very independent phase,
then something in the middle. This can happen with relationships, too. One
may end up with a string of abusive partners, then, being fed up, starts
seeking very submissive mates, then begins to prefer aloof partners, etc.

Progression/regression. Look for a steady refining of the person's

character or work, an improvement over time, leading up to a defining event
that shows how far the person's come. Alternatively, perhaps someone's life
begins promisingly and gradually unravels--a tragedy of sorts.

Cycles. Pay attention to situations that repeat themselves in a

person's life. Maybe this person reaches out, gets hurt, becomes reclusive,
heals, and begins again. Or the subject sets a lofty goal, burns out, draws
wisdom from the experience, and starts over with a new goal. Addiction also
tends to play out in cycles. Whatever the situation, it repeats itself throughout
a significant portion of the person's life (maybe signifying a phase) and at
some point, the person might "break the cycle".

Turning points. What are the moments in the subject's life when
their direction changed dramatically? The birth of a child? A near-death
experience? Hitting rock bottom? It's the point at which a pattern changes; a
new phase begins, progression become regression (or vice versa), a cycle
ends or a new ones starts.

3
Make a thesis statement. A thesis statement is a summary of the claim you
will be making in your biography. Based on your "big picture" view of this
person's life, what's a point that you can prove? This will be your twist on the
biography--what makes it unlike any other biography on this subject. It
answers the question posed in the introduction: what makes this person's
life different and important? Some ideas:

What is the significance of this person's life? How did he or she

change the world? What would happen if this person never existed? What is
unique about what they did or made?
What led to the subject's success or demise? Was there a certain

passion (or obsession?) A particular relationship? A single incident of good or

bad luck? A decision by the subject? A particular circumstance?

Part

1.

Writing the Biography

Decide how to recount the person's life. Write an outline and fill in the
details. This is the step in which you decide which events in the subjects life
are the important ones, and which ones you will focus on. You should pick
these events based on your thesis statement. Try to use the organization to
support the thesis.
o

Chronological. Go by the timeline, recounting each significant

event in the order in which it happened. This is the simplest way to go, but it's
difficult to support your thesis in this context.

Flashbacks. Describe a recent or current situation, then

"flashback" to an earlier point in that person's life. This is good for illustrating
cause and effect, or how this led to that. You can even go in complete reverse
order; begin at the end, and work your way backwards.

Work. If the person's life is closely tied to his or her career, you
can break it up by job positions or works created. This can be tied to phases
or cycles in the subject's life.

Accomplishments/events. One idea is to start and end with events

that mirror each other in some way. Maybe you can start with a toy boat that
the subject made when they were 5, and end off with a military submarine that
they designed at age 55.

2
Shape your biography into a narrative. A narrative is a story--you want your
biography to flow like a story, to engage the reader and make them care about
what happens to your subject and why. Writing a narrative biography means
adding engaging language and information and really bringing your subject to
life--not just dryly relating the events of his/her life. Make your readers feel like
they have known the subject their whole lives.

3
Sit down and write. Using your outline, assemble the biography. If this is an
assignment you have been given, follow the instructions while you write. Is
there a specific length you are suppose reach? If you are writing an essay,
especially for class, make your thesis statement clear. Generally biographical
essays have an introductory paragraph (which contains your thesis
statement,) several or more body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
o

You can start at the beginning, but you don't have to. You may find
yourself rearranging the content as you go along.

4
Write multiple drafts. Rome wasn't built in a day, and your biography wont
be either. Once you have finished what you feel like is your first draft, step
away from it for a couple of hours (or even a day.) Come back to it, reread it,
and ask yourself if it makes sense, if the thesis statement is clear, and if it is
engaging. Maybe several sections need to be moved around or rewritten.

5
Have someone else read your biography. If you are working with a
publisher, you will have an editor reading your book every step of the way. If
you are hoping to get your book published, or are writing it for a class, make
sure that you get feedback from people you trust, like peers and professors.
Ask someone to read each draft of your biography as you work on it.
o

Ask the person reading your biography: Does it make sense? Do

you get a real sense of who the subject was/is? Is your point (your thesis
statement) made clearly? Is there anything you should add or delete? Is the
biography engaging?

If you are hoping to publish your book and want some professional

advice while writing, consider hiring a copy editor. If you have a friend who is a
professional editor, ask him/her to look at your book.

6
Proofread the biography. This is particularly important if you are writing this
for a class, as improper grammar or spelling mistakes could earn you a lower
grade, even if your content is great. Double check the spelling of every proper

noun you have in your biography. It would be very bad if you misspelled your
subjects name throughout the biography.

7
Come up with a title. This can either be done before writing the biography or
after it is completed. Keep in mind that biographies have a way of taking on a
life of their own. You may start out with one idea about your subject, and halfway through writing, gain a deeper understanding of the person that makes
you reconsider your first impressions. The title should reflect the character of

your subject as well as your thesis statement. It should be engaging and

interesting to someone who may have never heard of your subject.
For example, if you were to write a biography about writer and

adventurer Jack London, you should create an engaging title about his
adventurous life. Notice the difference between Jack London, a Writer and
Adventurer and The Seafaring Cowboy. One is boring, the other is
intriguing.

Cite all of the quotes you use in your biography. It is very important that
you give credit where credit is due. If you do not cite your sources, you could
be accused of plagiarism or even potentially sued. If you have specific
instructions for this assignment, check which style your professor would like
you to use (MLA, APA, etc.) If you are writing this for yourself, it is generally
best to use footnotes or endnotes.

9
Publish your book. There are many ways you can get your book published,
from self-publishing to working with a world-class company. See How to
Publish a Book for more information.

CHAPTER 6. GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS

PreviousNext

Figure 6.1. Students, environmentalists, union members, and aboriginal people showed up to protest at the Occupy
movement in Victoria, B.C. (Photo courtesy of rpaterso/flickr)

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

6.1. Types of Groups

Understand primary and secondary groups as two key

sociological groups

Recognize in-groups and out-groups as subtypes of primary

and secondary groups

Define reference groups

6.2. Groups and Networks

Determine the distinction between groups, social networks,

and formal organizations

Analyze the dynamics of dyads, triads, and larger social

networks

Distinguish between different styles of leadership

Explain how conformity is impacted by groups

Understand why groups and networks are more than the sum
of their parts

6.3. Formal Organizations

Understand the different types of formal organizations

Categorize the characteristics of bureaucracies

Analyze the opposing tendencies of bureaucracy toward

efficiency and inefficiency

Identify the concepts of the McDonaldization of society and the

McJob as aspects of the process of rationalization

INTRODUCTION TO GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS

The punk band NOFX is playing outside in Los Angeles. The music is loud, the crowd
pumped up and excited. But neither the lyrics nor the people in the audience are quite
what you might expect. Mixed in with the punks and young rebel students are
members of local unions, from well-dressed teachers to more grizzled labour leaders.
The lyrics are not published anywhere but are available on YouTube: Were here to
represent/The 99 percent/Occupy, occupy, occupy. The song: Wouldnt It Be Nice If
Every Movement Had a Theme Song (Cabrel 2011).
At an Occupy camp in New York, roughly three dozen members of the Facilitation
Working Group, a part of the General Assembly, take a steady stream of visitors with
requests at their unofficial headquarters. One person wants a grant for $1,500 to make
herbal medications available to those staying at the park. Another wants to present
Native American peace principles derived from the Iroquois Confederacy. Yet another

has a spreadsheet that he wants used as an evaluation tool for the facilitators. A group
of women press for more inclusive language to be used in the Declaration of the
Occupation document so that racial and womens concerns are recognized as central
to the movement.
In Victoria, B.C., a tent community springs up in Centennial Square outside city hall,
just like tent cities in other parts of the country. Through the horizontal decisionmaking process of daily general assemblies, the community decides to change its
name from Occupy Victoria to the Peoples Assembly of Victoria because of the
negative colonial connotations of the word occupy for aboriginal members of the
group. As the tent cities of the Occupy movement begin to be dismantled, forcibly in
some cases, a separate movement, Idle No More, emerges to advocate for aboriginal
justice.
Numerous groups make up the Occupy movement, yet there is no central movement
leader. What makes a group something more than just a collection of people? How are
leadership functions and styles established in a group dynamic?
Most people have a sense of what it means to be part of some kind of a group,
whether it is a social movement, sports team, school club, or family. Groups connect
us to others through commonalities of geography, interests, race, religion, and
activities. But for the groups of people protesting from New York City to Victoria,
B.C., and in the hundreds of cities in between, their connection within the Occupy
Wall Street movement is harder to define. What unites these people? Are homeless
people truly aligned with law school students? Do aboriginal people genuinely feel for
the environmental protests against pipelines and fish farming?
Groups are prevalent in our social lives and provide a significant way to understand
and define ourselvesboth through groups we feel a connection to and those we do
not. Groups also play an important role in society. As enduring social units, they help
foster shared value systems and are key to the structure of society as we know it.
There are four primary sociological perspectives for studying groups: functionalist,
critical, feminist, and symbolic interactionist. We can look at the Occupy movement

through the lenses of these methods to better understand the roles and challenges that
groups offer.
The functionalist perspective is a big-picture, macro-level view that looks at how
different aspects of society are intertwined. This perspective is based on the idea that
society is a well-balanced system with all parts necessary to the whole. It studies the
functions these parts play in the reproduction of the whole. In the case of the Occupy
movement, a functionalist might look at what macro-level needs the movement
serves. Structural functionalism recognizes that there are tensions or conflicts between
different structural elements of the system. The huge inequalities generated by the
economic system might function positively as part of the incentive needed for people
to commit themselves to risky economic ventures, but they conflict with the
normative structure of the political decision-making system based on equality and
democratic principles. The Occupy movement forces both haves and have-nots to pay
attention to the imbalances between the economic and political systems. Occupy
emerges as an expression of the disjunction between these two systems and functions
as a means of initiating a resolution of the issues.
The critical perspective is another macroanalytical view, one that focuses on the
genesis and growth of inequality. A critical theorist studying the Occupy movement
might look at how business interests have manipulated the system to reduce financial
regulations and corporate taxes over the last 30 years. In particular, they would be
interested in how these led to the financial crisis of 2008 and the increasing inequality
we see today. The slogan, We are the 99%, emblematic of the Occupy movement,
refers to the massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the upper class.
Even when the mismanagement of the corporate elite (i.e., the 1%) had threatened
the stability of peoples livelihoods and the entire global economy in the financial
meltdown of 2008, and even when their corporations and financial institutions were
receiving bailouts from the American and Canadian governments, their personal
income, bonuses, and overall share of social wealth increased.

Feminist analysis of the Occupy movement would be interested in the connection

between contemporary capitalism and patriarchy. Why are women the poorest of the
poor? They would also be interested in the type of organizational models used by the
Occupy movement to understand and address the resulting issues of power structure
and economic injustice. The consciousness-raising techniques and non-hierarchical
decision-making processes developed by feminists in the 1960s and 1970s were, in
fact, incorporated into the daily political activities of the Occupy movement in order
to extend the critique of corporate greed and financial institutions to largely invisible
issues of privilege and daily, personal struggle. Occupy Montreal adopted the concept
of stepping back or progressive stack in their meetings. Men and other dominant
movement figures were encouraged to step back from monopolizing the conversation
so that a diversity of opinions and experiences could be heard. We are not here to
reproduce the same monopolization of voice and power as the 1%, we are here to
diversify spaces for radical inclusion (Boler 2012).
A fourth perspective is the symbolic interactionist perspective. This method of
analyzing groups takes a micro-level view. Instead of studying the big picture, these
researchers look at the day-to-day interactions of groups. Studying these details, the
interactionist looks at issues like leadership style, communicative interactions, and
group dynamics. In the case of the Occupy movement, interactionists might ask,
How does a non-hierarchical organization work?; How is the social order of a
diverse group maintained when there are no formal regulations in place?; What are
the implicit or tacit rules such groups rely on?; How do members come to share a
common set of meanings concerning what the movement is about?

Figure 6.2. Slavoj Zizek addresses the crowd at Occupy Wall Street, You dont need to be a genius to lead, anyone
can be leader. (Photo courtesy of Daniel Latorre/Flickr).

At one point during the occupation of Wall Street, speakers like Slovenian social critic
and philosopher Slavoj Zizek were obliged to abandon the use of microphones and
amplification to comply with noise bylaws. They gave their speeches one line at a
time and the people within earshot repeated the lines so that those further away could
hear. The symbolic interactionist would be interested in examining how this
communicational format, despite its cumbersome nature, could come to be an
expression of group solidarity.

6.1. TYPES OF GROUPS

Most of us feel comfortable using the word group without giving it much thought.
But what does it mean to be part of a group? The concept of a group is central to much
of how we think about society and human interaction. As Georg Simmel (1858
1915) put it, [s]ociety exists where a number of individuals enter into interaction
(1908). Society exists in groups. For Simmel, society did not exist otherwise. What
fascinated him was the way in which people mutually attune to one another to create
relatively enduring forms. In a group, individuals behave differently than they would
if they were alone. They conform, they resist, they forge alliances, they cooperate,

they betray, they organize, they defer gratification, they show respect, they expect
obedience, they share, they manipulate, etc. Being in a group changes their behaviour
and their abilities. This is one of the founding insights of sociology: the whole is
greater than the sum of its parts. The group has properties over and above the
properties of its individual members. It has a reality sui generis, of its own kind. But
how exactly does the whole come to be greater?
DEFINING A GROUP

How can we hone the meaning of the term group more precisely for sociological
purposes? The term is an amorphous one and can refer to a wide variety of gatherings,
from just two people (think about a group project in school when you partner with
another student), a club, a regular gathering of friends, or people who work together
or share a hobby. In short, the term refers to any collection of at least two people who
interact with some frequency and who share a sense that their identity is somehow
aligned with the group. Of course, every time people gather, they do not necessarily
form a group. An audience assembled to watch a street performer is a one-time
random gathering. Conservative-minded people who come together to vote in an
election are not a group because the members do not necessarily interact with one
another with some frequency. People who exist in the same place at the same time, but
who do not interact or share a sense of identitysuch as a bunch of people standing in
line at Starbucksare considered an aggregate, or a crowd. People who share similar
characteristics but are not otherwise tied to one another in any way are considered
a category.
An example of a category would be Millennials, the term given to all children born
from approximately 1980 to 2000. Why are Millennials a category and not a group?
Because while some of them may share a sense of identity, they do not, as a whole,
interact frequently with each other.
Interestingly, people within an aggregate or category can become a group. During
disasters, people in a neighbourhood (an aggregate) who did not know each other
might become friendly and depend on each other at the local shelter. After the disaster

ends and the people go back to simply living near each other, the feeling of
cohesiveness may last since they have all shared an experience. They might remain a
group, practising emergency readiness, coordinating supplies for next time, or taking
turns caring for neighbours who need extra help. Similarly, there may be many groups
within a single category. Consider teachers, for example. Within this category, groups
may exist like teachers unions, teachers who coach, or staff members who are
involved with the school board.
TYPES OF GROUPS

Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (18641929) suggested that groups can broadly be
divided into two categories: primary groups and secondary groups (Cooley 1909).
According to Cooley, primary groups play the most critical role in our lives. The
primary group is usually fairly small and is made up of individuals who generally
engage face-to-face in long-term, emotional ways. This group serves emotional
needs: expressive functions rather than pragmatic ones. The primary group is usually
made up of significant othersthose individuals who have the most impact on our
socialization. The best example of a primary group is the family.
Secondary groups are often larger and impersonal. They may also be task focused and
time limited. These groups serve an instrumental function rather than an expressive
one, meaning that their role is more goal or task oriented than emotional. A classroom
or office can be an example of a secondary group. Neither primary nor secondary
groups are bound by strict definitions or set limits. In fact, people can move from one
group to another. A graduate seminar, for example, can start as a secondary group
focused on the class at hand, but as the students work together throughout their
program, they may find common interests and strong ties that transform them into a
primary group.
Peter Marsden (1987) refers to ones group of close social contacts as a core
discussion group. These are individuals with whom you can discuss important
personal matters or with whom you choose to spend your free time. Christakis and
Fowler (2009) found that the average North American had four close personal

contacts. However, 12 percent of their sample had no close personal contacts of this
sort, while 5 percent had more than eight close personal contacts. Half of the people
listed in the core discussion group were characterized as friends, as might be
expected, but the other half included family members, spouses, children, colleagues,
and professional consultants of various sorts. Marsdens original research from the
1980s showed that the size of the core discussion group decreases as one ages, there
was no difference in size between men and women, and those with a post-secondary
degree had core discussion groups almost twice the size of those who had not
completed high school.

MAKING CONNECTIONS: CAREERS IN SOCIOLOGY

BEST FRIENDS SHES NEVER MET

Writer Allison Levy worked alone. While she liked the freedom and flexibility of
working from home, she sometimes missed having a community of coworkers, both
for the practical purpose of brainstorming and the more social water cooler aspect.
Levy did what many do in the internet age: she found a group of other writers online
through a web forum. Over time, a group of approximately 20 writers, who all wrote
for a similar audience, broke off from the larger forum and started a private invitationonly forum. While writers in general represent all genders, ages, and interests, it ended
up being a collection of 20- and 30-something women who comprised the new forum
they all wrote fiction for children and young adults.
At first, the writers forum was clearly a secondary group united by the members
professions and work situations. As Levy explained, On the internet, you can be
present or absent as often as you want. No one is expecting you to show up. It was a
useful place to research information about different publishers and who had recently
sold what, and to track industry trends. But as time passed, Levy found it served a
different purpose. Since the group shared other characteristics beyond their writing
(such as age and gender), the online conversation naturally turned to matters such as
childrearing, aging parents, health, and exercise. Levy found it was a sympathetic
place to talk about any number of subjects, not just writing. Further, when people

didnt post for several days, others expressed concern, asking whether anyone had
heard from the missing writers. It reached a point where most members would tell the
group if they were travelling or needed to be offline for a while.
The group continued to share. One member on the site who was going through a
difficult family illness wrote, I dont know where Id be without you women. It is so
great to have a place to vent that I know isnt hurting anyone. Others shared similar
sentiments.
So is this a primary group? Most of these people have never met each other. They live
in Hawaii, Australia, Minnesota, and across the world. They may never meet. Levy
wrote recently to the group, saying, Most of my real-life friends and even my
husband dont really get the writing thing. I dont know what Id do without you.
Despite the distance and the lack of physical contact, the group clearly fills an
expressive need.

Figure 6.3. Engineering and construction students gather around a job site. How do your academic interests define
your in- and out-groups? (Photo courtesy of USACEpublicaffairs/flickr)

IN-GROUPS AND OUT-GROUPS

One of the ways that groups can be powerful is through inclusion, and its inverse,
exclusion. In-groups and out-groups are subcategories of primary and secondary
groups that help identify this dynamic. Primary groups consist of both in-groups and
out-groups, as do secondary groups. The feeling that one belongs in an elite or select
group is a heady one, while the feeling of not being allowed in, or of being in
competition with a group, can be motivating in a different way. Sociologist William
Sumner (18401910) developed the concepts of in-group and out-group to explain
this phenomenon (Sumner 1906). In short, an in-group is the group that an individual
feels he or she belongs to, and believes it to be an integral part of who he or she is. An
out-group, conversely, is a group someone doesnt belong to; often there may be a
feeling of disdain or competition in relation to an out-group. Sports teams, unions, and
secret societies are examples of in-groups and out-groups; people may belong to, or be
an outsider to, any of these.
While these affiliations can be neutral or even positive, such as the case of a teamsport competition, the concept of in-groups and out-groups can also explain some
negative human behaviour, such as white supremacist movements like the Ku Klux
Klan, or the bullying of gay or lesbian students. By defining others as not like us
and inferior, in-groups can end up practicing ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, ageism,
and heterosexismmanners of judging others negatively based on their culture, race,
sex, age, or sexuality. Often, in-groups can form within a secondary group. For
instance, a workplace can have cliques of people, from senior executives who play
golf together, to engineers who write code together, to young singles who socialize
after hours. While these in-groups might show favouritism and affinity for other ingroup members, the overall organization may be unable or unwilling to acknowledge
it. Therefore, it pays to be wary of the politics of in-groups, since members may
exclude others as a form of gaining status within the group.

MAKING CONNECTIONS: THE BIG PICTURES

BULLYING AND CYBERBULLYING: HOW TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED THE GAME

Most of us know that the old rhyme sticks and stones may break my bones, but
words will never hurt me is inaccurate. Words can hurt, and never is that more
apparent than in instances of bullying. Bullying has always existed, often reaching
extreme levels of cruelty in children and young adults. People at these stages of life
are especially vulnerable to others opinions of them, and theyre deeply invested in
their peer groups. Today, technology has ushered in a new era of this dynamic.
Cyberbullying is the use of interactive media by one person to torment another, and it
is on the rise. Cyberbullying can mean sending threatening texts, harassing someone
in a public forum (such as Facebook), hacking someones account and pretending to
be him or her, posting embarrassing images online, and so on. A study by the
Cyberbullying Research Center found that 20 percent of middle-school students
admitted to seriously thinking about committing suicide as a result of online
bullying (Hinduja and Patchin 2010). Whereas bullying face-to-face requires
willingness to interact with your victim, cyberbullying allows bullies to harass others
from the privacy of their homes without witnessing the damage firsthand. This form
of bullying is particularly dangerous because its widely accessible and therefore
easier to accomplish.
Cyberbullying, and bullying in general, made international headlines in 2012 when a
15-year-old girl, Amanda Todd, in Port Coquitlam, B.C., committed suicide after
years of bullying by her peers and internet sexual exploitation. A month before her
suicide, she posted a YouTube video in which she recounted her story. It began in
grade 7 when she had been lured to reveal her breasts in a webcam photo. A year later,
when she refused to give an anonymous male a show, the picture was circulated to
her friends, family, and contacts on Facebook. Statistics Canada report that 7 percent
of internet users aged 18 and over have been cyberbullied, most commonly (73
percent) by receiving threatening or aggressive emails or text messages. Nine percent
of adults who had a child at home aged 8 to 17 reported that at least one of their
children had been cyberbullied. Two percent reported that their child had been lured
or sexually solicited online (Perreault, 2011).

In the aftermath of Amanda Todds death, most provinces enacted strict guidelines and
codes of conduct obliging schools to respond to cyberbullying and encouraging
students to come forward to report victimization. In 2013, the federal government
proposed Bill C-13the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Actwhich would
make it illegal to share an intimate image of a person without that persons consent.
(Critics however note that the anti-cyberbullying provision in the bill is only a minor
measure among many others that expand police powers to surveil all internet activity.)
Will these measures change the behaviour of would-be cyberbullies? That remains to
be seen. But hopefully communities can work to protect victims before they feel they
must resort to extreme measures.

REFERENCE GROUPS

Figure 6.4. Athletes are often viewed as a reference group for young people. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia
Commons)

A reference group is a group that people compare themselves toit provides a

standard of measurement. In Canadian society, peer groups are common reference
groups. Children, teens, and adults pay attention to what their peers wear, what music
they like, what they do with their free timeand they compare themselves to what

they see. Most people have more than one reference group, so a middle-school boy
might look not only at his classmates but also at his older brothers friends and see a
different set of norms. And he might observe the antics of his favourite athletes for yet
another set of behaviours.
Some other examples of reference groups can be ones church, synagogue, or mosque;
ones cultural centre, workplace, or family gathering; and even ones parents. Often,
reference groups convey competing messages. For instance, on television and in
movies, young adults often have wonderful apartments, cars, and lively social lives
despite not holding a job. In music videos, young women might dance and sing in a
sexually aggressive way that suggests experience beyond their years. At all ages, we
use reference groups to help guide our behaviour and show us social norms. So how
important is it to surround yourself with positive reference groups? You may never
meet or know a reference group, but it still impacts and influences how you act.
Identifying reference groups can help you understand the source of the social
identities you aspire to or want to distance yourself from.

MAKING CONNECTIONS: SOCIOLOGY IN THE REAL WORLD

UNIVERSITY: A WORLD OF IN-GROUPS, OUT-GROUPS, AND REFERENCE GROUPS

Figure 6.5. Which university club would you fit into, if any? Campus club recruitment day offers students an
opportunity to learn about these different groups. (Photo courtesy of Murray State/flickr)

For a student entering university, the sociological study of groups takes on an

immediate and practical meaning. After all, when we arrive someplace new, most of
us look around to see how well we fit in or stand out in the ways we want. This is a
natural response to a reference group, and on a large campus, there can be many
competing groups. Say you are a strong athlete who wants to play intramural sports,
but your favourite musicians are a local punk band. You may find yourself engaged
with two very different reference groups.
These reference groups can also become your in-groups or out-groups. For instance,
different groups on campus might solicit you to join. Are there student-unionsponsored clubs at your school? Is there a club day when the student clubs set up
tables and displays? The spelunking club, the Aikido club, the square dance club, the
Conservative Party club, the Green Party club, the chess club, the jazz club, the kayak
club, the tightrope walkers club, the peace and disarmament club, the French club, the
young women in business clubenumerable clubs will try to convince students to
join them. While most clubs are pretty casual, along with a shared interest comes
many subtle cues about what sorts of people will fit in and what sorts will not. While
most campus groups refrain from insulting competing groups, there is a definite sense
of an in-group versus an out-group. Them? a member might say, Theyre all right,
but they are pretty geeky. Or, Only really straight people join that group. This
immediate categorization into in-groups and out-groups means that students must
choose carefully, since whatever group they associate with will not just define their
friendsit may also define types of people with whom they will not associate.

6.2. GROUPS AND NETWORKS

Figure 6.6. Cadets illustrate how strongly conformity can define groups. (Photo courtesy David Spender/flickr)

DYADS, TRIADS, AND SOCIAL NETWORKS

A small group is typically one where the collection of people is small enough that all
members of the group know each other and share simultaneous interaction, such as a
nuclear family, a dyad, or a triad. Georg Simmel wrote extensively about the
difference between a dyad, or two-member group, and a triad, a three-member
group (Simmel 1902 (1950)). No matter what the content of the groups isbusiness,
friendship, family, teamwork, etc.the dynamic or formal qualities of the groups
differ simply by virtue of the number of individuals involved. In a dyad, if one person
withdraws, the group can no longer exist. Examples include a divorce, which
effectively ends the group of the married couple, or two best friends never speaking
again. Neither of the two members can hide what he or she has done behind the group,
nor hold the group responsible for what he or she has failed to do.
In a triad, however, the dynamic is quite different. If one person withdraws, the group
lives on. A triad has a different set of relationships. If there are three in the group, twoagainst-one dynamics can develop and the potential exists for a majority opinion on
any issue. At the same time, the relationships in a triad cannot be as close as in a dyad
because a third person always intrudes. Where a group of two is both closer and more
unstable than a group of three, because it rests on the immediate, ongoing reciprocity

of the two members, a group of three is able to attain a sense of super-personal life,
independent of the members.
The difference between a dyad and a triad is an example of network analysis. A social
network is a collection of people tied together by a specific configuration of
connections. They can be characterized by the number of people involved, as in the
dyad and triad, but also in terms of their structures (who is connected to whom)
andfunctions (what flows across ties). The particular configurations of the connections
determine how networks are able to do more things and different things than
individuals acting on their own could. Networks have this effect, regardless of the
content of the connections or persons involved.
For example, if one person phones 50 people one after the other to see who could
come out to play ball hockey on Wednesday night, it would take a long time to work
through the phone list. The structure of the network would be one in which the
telephone caller has an individual connection with each of the 50 players, but the
players themselves do not necessarily have any connections with each other. There is
only one node in the network. On the other hand, if the telephone caller phones five
key (or nodal) individuals, who would then call five individuals, and so on, then the
telephone calling would be accomplished much more quickly. A telephone tree like
this has a different network structure than the single telephone caller model does and
can therefore accomplish the task much more efficiently and quickly. Of course the
responsibility is also shared so there are more opportunities for the communication
network to break down.
Network analysis is interesting because much of social life can be understood as
operating outside of either formal organizations or traditional group structures. Social
media like Twitter or Facebook connect people through networks. Ones posts are
seen by friends, but also by friends of friends. The revolution in Tunisia in 20102011
was aided by social media networks, which were able to disseminate an accurate, or
alternate, account of the events as they unfolded, even while the official media
characterized the unrest as vandalism and terrorism (Zuckerman 2011). On the other

hand, military counterinsurgency strategies trace cell phone connections to model the
networks of insurgents in asymmetrical or guerilla warfare. Increased network
densities indicate the ability of insurgents to mount coordinated attacks (Department
of the Army 2006). The amorphous nature of global capital and the formation of a
global capitalist class consciousness can also be analyzed by mapping interlocking
directorates; namely, the way institutionalized social networks are established between
banks and corporations in different parts of the world through shared board members
(Carroll 2010).
Christakis and Fowler (2009) argue that social networks are influential in a wide range
of social aspects of life including political opinions, weight gain, and happiness. They
develop Stanley Milgrams claim that there is only six degrees of separation between
any two individuals on Earth by adding that in a network, it can be demonstrated that
there are also three degrees of influence. That is, one is not only influenced by ones
immediate friends and social contacts, but by their friends, and their friends friends.
For example, an individuals chance of becoming obese increases 57 percent if a
friend becomes obese; it increases by 20 percent if it is a friends friend who becomes
obese; and it increases 10 percent if it is a friends friends friend who becomes obese.
Beyond the third degree of separation, there is no measurable influence.
LARGE GROUPS

It is difficult to define exactly when a small group becomes a large group. One step
might be when there are too many people to join in a simultaneous discussion.
Another might be when a group joins with other groups as part of a movement that
unites them. These larger groups may share a geographic space, such as Occupy
Montreal or the Peoples Assembly of Victoria, or they might be spread out around the
globe. The larger the group, the more attention it can garner, and the more pressure
members can put toward whatever goal they wish to achieve. At the same time, the
larger the group becomes, the more the risk grows for division and lack of cohesion.

GROUP LEADERSHIP

Often, larger groups require some kind of leadership. In small, primary groups,
leadership tends to be informal. After all, most families dont take a vote on who will
rule the group, nor do most groups of friends. This is not to say that de facto leaders
dont emerge, but formal leadership is rare. In secondary groups, leadership is usually
more overt. There are often clearly outlined roles and responsibilities, with a chain of
command to follow. Some secondary groups, like the army, have highly structured and
clearly understood chains of command, and many lives depend on those. After all,
how well could soldiers function in a battle if they had no idea whom to listen to or if
different people were calling out orders? Other secondary groups, like a workplace or
a classroom, also have formal leaders, but the styles and functions of leadership can
vary significantly.
Leadership function refers to the main focus or goal of the leader. An instrumental
leader is one who is goal oriented and largely concerned with accomplishing set
tasks. An army general or a Fortune 500 CEO would be an instrumental leader. In
contrast, expressive leaders are more concerned with promoting emotional strength
and health, and ensuring that people feel supported. Social and religious leaders
rabbis, priests, imams, and directors of youth homes and social service programsare
often perceived as expressive leaders. There is a longstanding stereotype that men are
more instrumental leaders and women are more expressive leaders. Although gender
roles have changed, even today many women and men who exhibit the oppositegender manner can be seen as deviants and can encounter resistance. Former U.S.
Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton provides an example of
how society reacts to a high-profile woman who is an instrumental leader. Despite the
stereotype, Boatwright and Forrest (2000) have found that both men and women
prefer leaders who use a combination of expressive and instrumental leadership.

Figure 6.7. This gag gift demonstrates how female leaders may be viewed if they violate social norms. (Photo
courtesy of istolethetv/flickr)

In addition to these leadership functions, there are three different leadership

styles. Democratic leadersencourage group participation in all decision making.
These leaders work hard to build consensus before choosing a course of action and
moving forward. This type of leader is particularly common, for example, in a club
where the members vote on which activities or projects to pursue. These leaders can
be well liked, but there is often a challenge that the work will proceed slowly since
consensus building is time-consuming. A further risk is that group members might
pick sides and entrench themselves into opposing factions rather than reaching a
solution. In contrast, a laissez-faire leader (French for leave it alone) is hands-off,
allowing group members to self-manage and make their own decisions. An example
of this kind of leader might be an art teacher who opens the art cupboard, leaves
materials on the shelves, and tells students to help themselves and make some art.
While this style can work well with highly motivated and mature participants who

have clear goals and guidelines, it risks group dissolution and a lack of progress. As
the name suggests, authoritarian leaders issue orders and assigns tasks. These
leaders are clear instrumental leaders with a strong focus on meeting goals. Often,
entrepreneurs fall into this mould, like Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Not
surprisingly, this type of leader risks alienating the workers. There are times, however,
when this style of leadership can be required. In different circumstances, each of these
leadership styles can be effective and successful. Consider what leadership style you
prefer. Why? Do you like the same style in different areas of your life, such as a
classroom, a workplace, and a sports team?

MAKING CONNECTIONS: THE BIG PICTURES

WOMEN LEADERS AND THE GLASS CEILING

Figure 6.8. Green Party leader Elizabeth May stands out both for her gender and her leadership style among federal
party leaders. (Photo courtesy Itzafineday/flickr)

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, was voted best parliamentarian of the year
in 2012 and hardest working parliamentarian in 2013. She stands out among the party
leaders as both the only female and the only leader focused on changing leadership
style. Among her proposals for changing leadership are reducing centralization and
hierarchical control of party leaders, allowing MPs to vote freely, decreasing narrow

political partisanship, engaging in cross-partisan collaboration, and restoring respect

and decorum to House of Commons debates. The focus on a collaborative, nonconflictual approach to politics is a component of her expressive leadership style,
typically associated with female leadership qualities.
However, as a female leader Elizabeth May is obliged to walk a tight line that does
not generally apply to male politicians. According to some political analysts, women
candidates face a paradox: they must be as tough as their male opponents on issues
such as foreign or economic policy or risk appearing weak (Weeks 2011). However,
the stereotypical expectation of women as expressive leaders is still prevalent.
Consider that Hillary Clintons popularity surged in her 2008 campaign for the U.S.
Democratic presidential nomination after she cried on the campaign trail. It was
enough for the New York Times to publish an editorial, Can Hillary Cry Her Way
Back to the White House? (Dowd 2008). Harsh, but her approval ratings soared
afterwards. In fact, many compared it to how politically likable she was in the
aftermath of President Clintons Monica Lewinsky scandal.
In the case of Elizabeth May, many pundits believed that she won the 2008 election
leaders debate by being firm in her criticism of government policy and being both
intelligent and clear in her statements. (Notably, she was prevented from participating
in the 2011 election leaders debate, perhaps for the same reasons.) She was able to
articulate the rationale behind a national carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gases,
whereas then Liberal leader Stphane Dion seemed to struggle to explain his Green
Shift policy. We tax the pollution, and we take the taxes off families, she said
(Foot 2008). The idea of winning debates and defeating opponents in a hostile
environment is regarded as a masculine virtue. At the same time, May is subject to
criticisms that have to do with her femininity, in a way that male politicians are not
subject to similar criticisms about their masculinity. Media tycoon Conrad Black
called her a frumpy, noisy, ill-favoured, half-deranged windbag to which, May
quipped, Hes right on one point: I certainly am frumpy. I dont have anything like
Barbara Amiels [Blacks well-known journalist wife] sense of style. But on the

whole, I figure being attacked by Conrad Black is in its own way an accolade in this
country (Allemang 2009).
Despite the cleverness of Mays retort, the pitfalls of her situation as a female leader
reflect broader issues women confront in assuming leadership roles. Whereas women
have been closing the gap with men in terms of workforce participation and
educational attainment over the last decades, their average income has remained at
approximately 70 percent of mens and their representation in leadership roles
(legislators, senior officials, and managers) has remained at 50 percent of mens (i.e.,
men are twice as likely as women to attain leadership roles in these professions than
women). In terms of the representation of women in Parliament, cabinet, and political
leadership, the figures are much lower at 15 percent (despite the fact that several
provinces have had women as premiers) (McInturff 2013).
One concept for describing the situation facing womens access to leadership
positions is the glass ceiling. Whereas most of the explicit barriers to womens
achievement have been removed through legislative action, norms of gender equality,
and affirmative action policies, women often get stuck at the level of middle
management. There is a glass ceiling or invisible barrier that prevents them from
achieving positions of leadership (Tannen 1994). This is also reflected in gender
inequality in income over time. Early in their careers mens and womens incomes are
more or less equal but at mid-career, the gap increases significantly (McInturff 2013).
Tannen argues that this barrier exists in part because of the different work styles of
men and women, in particular conversational-style differences. Whereas men are very
aggressive in their conversational style and their self-promotion, women are typically
consensus builders who seek to avoid appearing bossy and arrogant. As a linguistic
strategy of office politics, it is common for men to say I and claim personal credit in
situations where women would be more likely to use we and emphasize teamwork.
As it is men who are often in the positions to make promotion decisions, they interpret
womens style of communication as showing indecisiveness, inability to assume
authority, and even incompetence (Tannen 1994).

Because of qualities of womens expressive leadership, which in many cases is more

effective, their skills, merits, and achievements go unrecognized. In terms of political
leadership, as one political analyst said bluntly, women dont succeed in politicsor
other professionsunless they act like men. The standard for running for national
office remains distinctly male (Weeks 2011).

CONFORMITY

We all like to fit in to some degree. Likewise, when we want to stand out, we want to
choose how we stand out and for what reasons. For example, a woman who loves
cutting-edge fashion and wants to dress in thought-provoking new styles likely wants
to be noticed within a framework of high fashion. She would not want people to think
she was too poor to find proper clothes. Conformity is the extent to which an
individual complies with group norms or expectations. As you might recall, we use
reference groups to assess and understand how we should act, dress, and behave. Not
surprisingly, young people are particularly aware of who conforms and who does not.
A high school boy whose mother makes him wear ironed button-down shirts might
protest that he will look stupidthat everyone else wears T-shirts. Another high
school boy might like wearing those shirts as a way of standing out. Recall Georg
Simmels analysis of the contradictory dynamics of fashion: it represents both the
need to conform and the need to stand out. How much do you enjoy being noticed?
Do you consciously prefer to conform to group norms so as not to be singled out? Are
there people in your class or peer group who immediately come to mind when you
think about those who do, and do not, want to conform?
A number of famous experiments in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s tested the propensity of
individuals to conform to authority. We have already examined the Stanford Prison
experiment in Chapter 2. Within days of beginning the simulated prison experiment
the random sample of university students proved themselves capable of conforming to
the roles of prison guards and prisoners to an extreme degree, even though the
conditions were highly artificial (Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo 1973).

Stanley Milgram conducted experiments in the 1960s on how structures of authority

rendered individuals obedient (Milgram 1963). This was shortly after the Adolf
Eichmann war crime trial in which Eichmann claimed that he was just a bureaucrat
following orders when he helped to organize the Holocaust. Milgram had
experimental subjects administer what they were led to believe were electric shocks to
a subject when the subject gave a wrong answer to a question. Each time a wrong
answer was given, the experimental subject was told to increase the intensity of the
shock. The experiment was supposed to be testing the relationship between
punishment and learning, but the subject receiving the shocks was an actor. As the
experimental subjects increased the amount of voltage, the actor began to show
distress, eventually begging to be released. When the subjects became reluctant to
administer more shocks, Milgram (wearing a white lab coat to underline his authority
as a scientist) assured them that the actor would be fine and that the results of the
experiment would be compromised if the subject did not continue. Seventy-one
percent of the experimental subjects were willing to continue administering shocks
even beyond 285 volts even though the actor was clearly in pain and the voltage dial
was labelled with warnings like Danger: Severe shock.

MAKING CONNECTIONS: SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

CONFORMING TO EXPECTATIONS

Figure 6.9. In the Asch conformity experiments a subject had to determine which of the three lines on the left
matched the length of the line on the right. (Photo courtesy of Nyenyec/Wikimedia Commons).
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asch_experiment.png

Psychologist Solomon Asch (19071996) conducted experiments that illustrated how

great the pressure to conform is, specifically within a small group (1956). In 1951, he
sat a small group of eight people around a table. Only one of the people sitting there
was the true experimental subject; the rest were actors or associates of the
experimenter. However, the subject was led to believe that the others were all, like
him, people brought in for an experiment in visual judgments. The group was shown
two cards, the first card with a single vertical line, and the second card with three
vertical lines differing in length. The experimenter polled the group, asking each
participant one at a time which line on the second card matched up with the line on
the first card.
However, this was not really a test of visual judgment. Rather, it was Aschs study on
the pressures of conformity. He was curious to see what the effect of multiple wrong
answers would be on the subject, who presumably was able to tell which lines

matched. In order to test this, Asch had each planted respondent answer in a specific
way. The subject was seated in such a way that he had to hear almost everyone elses
answers before it was his turn. Sometimes the non-subject members would
unanimously choose an answer that was clearly wrong.
So what was the conclusion? Asch found that 37 out of 50 test subjects responded
with an obviously erroneous answer at least once. When faced by a unanimous
wrong answer from the rest of the group, the subject conformed to a mean of four of
the staged answers. Asch revised the study and repeated it, wherein the subject still
heard the staged wrong answers, but was allowed to write down his answer rather than
speak it aloud. In this version, the number of examples of conformitygiving an
incorrect answer so as not to contradict the groupfell by two-thirds. He also found
that group size had an impact on how much pressure the subject felt to conform.
The results showed that speaking up when only one other person gave an erroneous
answer was far more common than when five or six people defended the incorrect
position. Finally, Asch discovered that people were far more likely to give the correct
answer in the face of near-unanimous consent if they had a single ally. If even one
person in the group also dissented, the subject conformed only a quarter as often.
Clearly, it was easier to be a minority of two than a minority of one.
Asch concluded that there are two main causes for conformity: people want to be
liked by the group or they believe the group is better informed than they are. He found
his study results disturbing. To him, they revealed that intelligent, well-educated
people would, with very little coaxing, go along with an untruth. He believed this
result highlighted real problems with the education system and values in our society
(Asch 1956).
What would you do in Aschs experiment? Would you speak up? What would help
you speak up and what would discourage you?

6.3. FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS

A complaint of modern life is that society is dominated by large and impersonal
secondary organizations. From schools to businesses to health care to government,
these organizations are referred to as formal organizations. A formal organization is
a large secondary group deliberately organized to achieve its goals efficiently.
Typically, formal organizations are highly bureaucratized. The
term bureaucracy refers to what Max Weber termed an ideal type of formal
organization (1922). In its sociological usage, ideal does not mean best; it refers
to a general model that describes a collection of characteristics, or a type that could
describe most examples of the item under discussion. For example, if your professor
were to tell the class to picture a car in their minds, most students will picture a car
that shares a set of characteristics: four wheels, a windshield, and so on. Everyones
car will be somewhat different, however. Some might picture a two-door sports car
while others might picture an SUV. It is possible for a car to have three wheels instead
of four. However, the general idea of the car that everyone shares is the ideal type.
Bureaucracies are similar. While each bureaucracy has its own idiosyncratic features,
the way each is deliberately organized to achieve its goals efficiently shares a certain
consistency. We will discuss bureaucracies as an ideal type of organization.
TYPES OF FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS

Figure 6.10. Cub and Guide troops and correctional facilities are both formal organizations. (Photo (a) courtesy of
Paul Hourigan/Hamilton Spectator 1983; Photo (b) courtesy of CxOxS/flickr)

Sociologist Amitai Etzioni (1975) posited that formal organizations fall into three
categories. Normative organizations, also called voluntary organizations, are based
on shared interests. As the name suggests, joining them is voluntary and typically
done because people find membership rewarding in an intangible way. Compliance to
the group is maintained through moral control. The Audubon Society or a ski club are
examples of normative organizations. Coercive organizations are groups that one
must be coerced, or pushed, to join. These may include prison, the military, or a
rehabilitation centre. Compliance is maintained through force and coercion.
Goffman (1961) states that most coercive organizations are total institutions. A total
institution is one in which inmates live a controlled life apart from the rest of society
and in which total resocialization takes place. The third type are utilitarian
organizations, which, as the name suggests, are joined because of the need for a
specific material reward. High school or a workplace would fall into this category
one joined in pursuit of a diploma, the other in order to make money. Compliance is
maintained through remuneration and rewards.
Table 6.1. Etzionis Three Types of Formal Organizations (Source: Etzioni 1975)
Normative or
Voluntary

Coercive

Utilitarian

Benefit of
Membership

Non-material
benefit

Corrective or disciplinary
benefit

Material
benefit

Type of Membership

Volunteer basis

Obligatory basis

Contractual
basis

Feeling of
Connectedness

Shared affinity

Coerced affinity

Pragmatic
affinity

BUREAUCRACIES
Bureaucracies are an ideal type of formal organization. Pioneer sociologist Max
Weber (1922) popularly characterized a bureaucracy as having a hierarchy of

authority, a clear division of labour, explicit rules, and impersonality. Bureaucracies

were the basic structure of rational efficient organization, yet people often complain
about bureaucracies, declaring them slow, rule-bound, difficult to navigate, and
unfriendly. Let us take a look at terms that define bureaucracy as an ideal type of
formal organization to understand what they mean.
Hierarchy of authority refers to the aspect of bureaucracy that places one individual
or office in charge of another, who in turn must answer to her own superiors. For
example, if you are an employee at Walmart, your shift manager assigns you tasks.
Your shift manager answers to the store manager, who must answer to the regional
manager, and so on in a chain of command up to the CEO who must answer to the
board members, who in turn answer to the stockholders. There is a clear chain of
authority that enables the organization to make and comply with decisions.
A clear division of labour refers to the fact that within a bureaucracy, each individual
has a specialized task to perform. For example, psychology professors teach
psychology, but they do not attempt to provide students with financial aid forms. In
this case, it is a clear and commonsensical division. But what about in a restaurant
where food is backed up in the kitchen and a hostess is standing nearby texting on her
phone? Her job is to seat customers, not to deliver food. Is this a smart division of
labour?
The existence of explicit rules refers to the way in which rules are outlined, written
down, and standardized. There is a continuous organization of official functions
bound by rules. For example, at your college or university, student guidelines are
contained within the student handbook. As technology changes and campuses
encounter new concerns like cyberbullying, identity theft, and other issues,
organizations are scrambling to ensure their explicit rules cover these emerging topics.
Bureaucracies are also characterized by impersonality, which takes personal feelings
out of professional situations. Each office or position exists independently of its
incumbent, and clients and workers receive equal treatment. This characteristic grew,
to some extent, out of a desire to eliminate the potential for nepotism, backroom deals,

and other types of irrational favouritism, simultaneously protecting customers and

others served by the organization. Impersonality is an attempt by large formal
organizations to protect their members. However, the result is often that personal
experience is disregarded. For example, you may be late for work because your car
broke down, but the manager at Pizza Hut doesnt care why you are late, only that you
are late.
Finally, bureaucracies are, in theory at least, meritocracies, meaning that hiring and
promotion are based on proven and documented skills, rather than on nepotism or
random choice. In order to get into graduate school, you need to have an impressive
transcript. In order to become a lawyer and represent clients, you must graduate from
law school and pass the provincial bar exam. Of course, there is a popular image of
bureaucracies that they reward conformity and sycophancy rather than skill or merit.
How well do you think established meritocracies identify talent? Wealthy families hire
tutors, interview coaches, test-prep services, and consultants to help their children get
into the best schools. This starts as early as kindergarten in New York City, where
competition for the most highly regarded schools is especially fierce. Are these
schools, many of which have copious scholarship funds that are intended to make the
school more democratic, really offering all applicants a fair shake?
There are several positive aspects of bureaucracies. They are intended to improve
efficiency, ensure equal opportunities, and increase efficiency. And there are times
when rigid hierarchies are needed. However, there is a clear component of irrationality
within the rational organization of bureaucracies. Firstly, bureaucracies create
conditions of bureaucratic alienation in which workers cannot find meaning in the
repetitive, standardized nature of the tasks they are obliged to perform. As Max Weber
put it, the individual bureaucrat cannot squirm out of the apparatus in which he is
harnessed He is only a single cog in an evermoving mechanism which prescribes
to him an essentially fixed route of march (1922). Secondly, bureaucracies can lead
to bureaucratic inefficiency and ritualism (red tape). They can focus on rules and
regulations to the point of undermining the organizations goals and purpose. Thirdly,
bureaucracies have a tendency toward inertia. You may have heard the expression

trying to turn a tanker around mid-ocean, which refers to the difficulties of changing
direction with something large and set in its ways. Inertia means bureaucracies focus
on perpetuating themselves rather than effectively accomplishing or re-evaluating the
tasks they were designed to achieve. Finally, as Robert Michels (1911) suggested,
bureaucracies are characterized by the iron law of oligarchy in which the
organization is ruled by a few elites. The organization serves to promote the selfinterest of oligarchs and insulate them from the needs of the public or clients.
Remember that many of our bureaucracies grew large at the same time that our school
model was developedduring the Industrial Revolution. Young workers were trained
and organizations were built for mass production, assembly-line work, and factory
jobs. In these scenarios, a clear chain of command was critical. Now, in the
information age, this kind of rigid training and adherence to protocol can actually
decrease both productivity and efficiency. Todays workplace requires a faster pace,
more problem solving, and a flexible approach to work. Too much adherence to
explicit rules and a division of labour can leave an organization behind. Unfortunately,
once established, bureaucracies can take on a life of their own. As Max Weber said,
Once it is established, bureaucracy is among those social structures which are the
hardest to destroy (1922).

Figure 6.11. This McDonalds storefront in Egypt shows the McDonaldization of society. (Photo courtesy of
s_w_ellis/flickr)

THE MCDONALDIZATION OF SOCIETY

The McDonaldization of society (Ritzer 1994) refers to the increasing presence of the
fast-food business model in common social institutions. This business model includes
efficiency (the division of labour), predictability, calculability, and control
(monitoring). For example, in your average chain grocery store, people at the cash
register check out customers while stockers keep the shelves full of goods, and deli
workers slice meats and cheese to order (efficiency). Whenever you enter a store
within that grocery chain, you receive the same type of goods, see the same store
organization, and find the same brands at the same prices (predictability). You will
find that goods are sold by the kilogram, so that you can weigh your fruit and
vegetable purchases rather than simply guessing at the price for that bag of onions,
while the employees use a time card to calculate their hours and receive overtime pay
(calculability). Finally, you will notice that all store employees are wearing a uniform
(and usually a name tag) so that they can be easily identified. There are security
cameras to monitor the store, and some parts of the store, such as the stockroom, are
generally considered off-limits to customers (control).
While McDonaldization has resulted in improved profits and an increased availability
of various goods and services to more people worldwide, it has also reduced the
variety of goods available in the marketplace while rendering available products
uniform, generic, and bland. Think of the difference between a mass-produced shoe
and one made by a local cobbler, between a chicken from a family-owned farm versus
a corporate grower, or a cup of coffee from the local roaster instead of one from a
coffee-shop chain. Ritzer also notes that the rational systems, as efficient as they are,
are irrational in that they become more important than the people working within
them, or the clients being served by them. Most specifically, irrationality means that
rational systems are unreasonable systems. By that I mean that they deny the basic
humanity, the human reason, of the people who work within or are served by them.
(Ritzer 1994)