One of the distinctive traits of man is to live in groups , associations, and organizations; for this reason, sociologists have initially distinguished the concept of group from that of aggregate : the first concept presupposes a regularity of interaction between a certain number of individuals. This interaction holds them together, giving rise to a unity characterized by a social identity . The second concept, however, disregards such regularity: human aggregates are composed of individuals who can be found in the same place at the same time, without any pre-existing bond . Based on these types of bonds, sociology has distinguished between primary groups , in which individuals are linked by emotional ties and have direct interaction (family groups, groups of friends), and secondary groups , in which interactions between individuals are determined by practical purposes and have an impersonal nature (school groups, work groups).
The psychology of form
It was there Gestalt Psychology, the psychology of form, to formally define the group in socio-psychological terms. The psychology of form in fact claimed the character of wholeness of mental phenomena by reevaluating the individual's immediate experience of reality. Gestaltists consider mental experiences as wholes that must be studied in their entirety, since the meaning of individual elements is given by their placement or role in the whole in which they are inserted. According to the Gestalt approach, it is the type of interaction that defines a group, since the latter is best defined as a dynamic totality based on theinterdependence rather than on similarity (Lewin, 1948). In fact, confirming such a characteristic, organized groups have an internal differentiation that leads to equally differentiated statuses and roles.
The internal organization of the groups
Lo status It is a classic theme in group dynamics: this concept refers to the position that a person occupies in a social group; two important indicators of status are, on the one hand, the prestige connected to a certain position, while on the other hand the tendency of those who occupy a certain status to promote initiatives in terms of ideas ed organisers' activitiesThis status differentiation leads to a hierarchy, already present in informal peer groups, such as those of adolescents. Observations have been made on the verbal/nonverbal behavior of those with a high status: in general, those who hold a certain position possess atall stature, an firm vocal tone and always maintains the eye contactHe interacts more frequently with other group members and intervenes more often than others during conversations to express ideas or criticisms, sometimes interrupting conversations; on the other hand, he receives more communications from other members. However, the resulting internal hierarchy does not have stable connotations, since depending on the departure of old members, the entry of new ones, or changes in activity, some individuals will rise within the group organization, while others will fall in terms of their abilities (Sherif, 1984).
Question of status
According to research conducted by Wesfield (1984), status can derive from the implementation of certain behaviors, from responsibility towards one's group, from respecting internal norms, or from helping the group itself to achieve its goals (Wesfield, 1984). It is also true, however, that the status system changes with surprising rapidity. In this sense, the expectancy theorists They argue, on the one hand, that status is defined during the first meetings between members, with regard to each member's potential contribution to the group's goals: expectations, therefore, focus on the personal characteristics mutually exhibited (Berger, Rosenholtze Zelditch, 1980). Moreover, the creation of specific positions within a group corresponds to a human need for order and predictability.
The importance of the role
Connected to status is the concept of role, defined as a set of shared expectations about how an individual holding a certain position within a group should behave. By enforcing these expectations, order and predictability in group life are guaranteed, as well as the achievement of group goals. According to Levine and Moreland (1990), beyond the enormous differentiation that characterizes today's group contexts, the fundamental roles within social groups can be reduced to three: the role of leader, the role of the New arrival and the role of the scapegoat (Levine and Moreland, 1990). According to these scholars, the role of the leader depends on "prototypical" images that the members of the group share, or on the prototypicality of the leader's behavior. Sherif (1984) instead states that it is necessary to take into account all those collective products typical of group contexts, such as the name of the group, the nouns that are assigned to the members of the group, the ways of dressing and choosing common activities. Products of a collective nature that acquire importance for the members themselves and which can therefore be referred to with the term social norms (Sherif, 1984).
Deviants from the group
Shared expectations of how group members should behave, a set of opinions and behaviors to which they must conform, in other words, a set of "consensual" norms whose transgression can lead to sanctions. Anyone who fails to conform to these expectations literally "deviates" from the established path, thus becoming a deviant; these norms can be easily observed in informal groups and even more so in formal groups, where the right to exert pressure on its members is legitimately recognized. The possible sanctions, in case of deviance (Sherif, 1984), vary from group to group but generally take the form ofremoval and in 'marginalization of the deviant. As described so far, it seems that everything that happens within the group is regulated: in reality, however, groups provide a space in which to express personal opinions and, more generally, individual differences, a space in which such diversity can be expressed without the risk of being judged deviant.
Emanuela Ferrara
