120

p A number of sociologists assert that in the 20th century class relations and the class division of society on the basis of class relationship to the means of production and to social production, have lost their former significance, and that intraclass relations have come to the foreground and have become the determining and decisive factor of social life. They regard society as being composed of an infinite number of most diverse social groups, including various associations of people on ethnic, racial, criminal, familial, etc., lines.

p It is natural that sociologists should not agree on what is a standard social group. The American sociologist A. Eister writes that “certain difficulties are encountered in any attempt to determine the scope and direction of the smallgroup research movement" and that “perhaps the most serious of the difficulties is the vagueness surrounding the concept of the small group itself" [21; 306]. In his opinion many sociologists and social psychologists are inclined to avoid a precise definition of the size of the group. Eister himself cites the results of an investigation of 9,129 groups conducted by American sociologists. These groups largely consist of two or three people and very rarely of more than 4-7 persons.

p The argument is that it is easier to integrate a small group than a large one. The more relationships there are in a group, the more difficult it is to regulate them and the greater the possibilities for social friction. This is demonstrated by the example of a large family. The following table is compiled to list relations between members of the family, depending on its size:

p A has relations with B                     —2 relations

121

p A has relations with B and C                     —6 relations

p A has relations with B, C and D                     —12 relations, etc.

p To prove the correctness and universal nature of this table, the results of the American sociologist F. Thrasher’s studies of criminal gangs are cited. He discovered that 859 gangs exist in Chicago; only ten gangs had a membership between 200 and 2,000, the rest had 20 or less. The reason was apparently because gangs require “intimacy” of contact; they therefore tend to be small.

p R. Bales defines the small social group as a number of people who interact with one another in direct personal contact or a series of contacts, in which each member receives a certain impression or perception of the other members, clear enough for him to react to each of them as an individual “person” [see 56; 33].

p Yet these sociologists themselves admit that the division of society into such small groups causes confusion. Eister writes: “There has been a proliferation of different words for essentially the same or similar phenomena and a growing variety of disparate and unrelated theoretic orientations. Borrowings of concepts and procedures have occurred and are hard to trace, particularly where ideas and techniques borrowed from one source are recast in different phrases and set in quite different theoretical contexts. Within a given discipline, moreover, whole areas of research have frequently not been seen as related by a common frame of reference. In sociology, for example, it is probably safe to say that comparatively little of the large volume of research on interpersonal relations in courtship, marriage, and the family has been dealt with explicitly in small-group term’s" [21; 353].

p Merrill defines a social group as “two or more persons who interact over an appreciable period and share a common purpose" [52; 46].

p This definition also covers the family, the basketball team and the criminal gang.

p Green’s definition slightly differs from that of Merrill: “A group is an aggregate of individuals which persists in time, which has one or more interests and activities in common, and which is organised—that is, some members lead, others follow, and rules and statutes control the social relationships within it" [16; 43].

122

p Other sociologists make even vaguer definitions. For example, Freedman, Hawley and Landecker depict a social group as “an organisation of two or more individuals united both by ties of mutual dependence and by a system of shared behavioral standards”, “a human aggregate, the members of which possess some common identifying social characteristic, but who lack either the ties of mutual dependence or the shared behavioral standard which are the marks of a group" [51; 70].

p Chinoy adds the terms “values” and “similar values" to a definition of the social group. In his view a social group is “a number of persons whose relationships are based upon a set of interrelated roles and statuses, who share certain beliefs and values, and who are sufficiently aware of their shared or similar values and their relations to one another to be able to differentiate themselves from others. The Social group then is identified by three attributes: patterned interactions, shared or similar beliefs and values, and, to use Franklin R. Giddings’ phrase, consciousness of kind" [49; 82]. Yet “value” is interpreted variously, so that the group too takes on an arbitrary definition.

p Many Western sociologists hold that the group originates in childhood. For example, Linton asserts that the tendency to form group issues from the child’s early dependence on other persons plus his intimate group relations during his formative period [see 66; 30]. This is because the child is completely dependent on others for food, warmth and love. During this period, the child develops a sense of comfort and security in the presence of other persons—his parents, brothers and sisters. It is this feeling of security in the presence of others that Linton considers the only and most important factor in the tendency to form groups [see 66; 30]. The need for co-operation and subordination to others in groups, he concludes, is the subsequent product of childhood, from birth to adolescence.

p Ogburn and Nimkoff declare the essence of group life to be internal stimulation, responsibility or communication consisting of a number of commonly understandable symbols, such as facial expression, gestures and words.

p In defining the social group many sociologists list as many elements as they can imagine. Freedman writes: “both common interests and goals and geographical proximity are 123 powerful forces contributing to the formation of new social groups”, “both biological and sociological factors have influenced their lives significantly" [51; 81, 82].

p During what particular processes, then, have “social groups" formed?

p Western sociologists regard the integration of people in groups as something eternal and differing only quantitatively. Yet the “division of labour" in the family, for example, has not always existed. It arose as a result of the first division of society. In the primitive community, under the maternal right, men and women performed economic functions on an equal basis. The diversification of economic functions (development of cattle-breeding) led to the overthrow of the matriarchate, which, as Engels notes, was one of the most radical revolutions experienced by mankind and led to domination over the female sex all over the world. “The man seized the reins in the house also, the woman was degraded, enthralled, the slave of the man’s lust, a mere instrument for breeding children" [2; II, 217].

p But what decides the formation of the group according to Western sociologists? 1) Personal attraction: individuals unite because they love one another and want to be together; 2) group prestige: individuals unite in a group because it is an honour to belong to a given group; 3) fear that people cannot resolve a particular problem and achieve their goal without the aid of others involved in the common activity.

p To bind the groups together once they have been formed, the sociologists have to find various group-binding forces. Merrill believes communication to be such a force. He writes: “The efficiency of the group depends upon the efficiency of communication" [52; 56]. Each small-group member is a unit of communication. Attraction is another force which retains people in the group.

p In their attempt to prove the eternal nature of the capitalist system, some Western sociologists appeal for “social integration" which they picture as the basis for the forces acting on the members and impelling them to stay in the group [see 82; 163].

p Herbert Spencer first introduced the concepts “social integration" and “social differentiation" into sociology. He devised them by analogy with the integration and 124 differentiation of cells in a living organism. In his work The Social Organism he draws an analogy between organic and social development. Simple organisms (for example, polyps) have two layers of cells: an outer layer which serves the purpose of catching food and fighting enemies, and an internal layer —for digesting food. In precisely the same manner, the primitive society had a class of warriors in contact with the external environment, defended the community against the enemies or itself made raids, and a class of slaves who processed the natural wealth and provided food for the tribe.

p Cell differentiation in the more complex biological organisms leads to the formation of three interdependent systems: digestive, circulatory (distributing the substances through the organism) and nervous (regulating the work of the internal and external organs). A developed social organism must, according to Spencer, also have three classes: the lower class (feeding itself and others), middle class (exchange and distribution) and higher class (regulation, administration).

p The rigid division of labour between these classes, he claimed, was the result of individual biological differences. The most capable and gifted people became differentiated from the “dull mass”, and rose to the top of the social ladder, to the helm of power and became the “brain” of the social organism. As a biological organism cannot normally function without interaction, exchange and co-ordination of the digestive, circulatory and nervous systems, so the social organism, Spencer concluded, cannot exist without integration or co-operation of groups of people, without the co-operation and harmony of classes.

p But this “biological” theory of the social process perverts the character of social life. Differentiation and integration of social groups are caused by the social division of labour, not by biological processes. In the Marxist view, only a study of the aims of all members of society or a social group in their entirety can scientifically determine the result of these aims. The source of the antagonistic aims is the difference in the social position and living conditions of the classes into which each society breaks up.

p In the final analysis, many sociologists reduce all the components of social integration to human psychology. They derive even the division of labour from “established 125 concepts”; group integration is conditioned by consciousness, emotions and even irrational motives. The group is stable if individual consciousness harmonises with group consciousness; it disintegrates if it comes into conflict with it.

p In explaining the causes of social integration these sociologists do not go any deeper than the 19th-century economists did in explaining private property. Marx said at the time that the only fly-wheel the economists use is self-interest and war between self-interested people, rereferred to as competition.

p The process of groups integration inevitably results from the social division of labour. Capitalism effects the distribution of labour among people through exchange, i.e., by the most spontaneous and least regulative form. In slave- owning and feudal societies “integration” occurred on the basis of personal dependence, whereas under capitalism it is effected by starvation.

p All historical forms of “integration” in antagonistic societies were of a compulsory nature. Only socialism creates the social conditions for truly voluntary, constructive and free association of people on rational and sociallyuseful principles.

p The doctrine of social integration is subjectivist. It disregards objective laws and processes.

p The theory of the need for social integration has undergone three stages.

p The mechanical or atomistic conception was advanced in the 18th century. The individual was regarded as a social atom acting on selfish interests and needs. Individual integration was pictured as an act of intelligence and will. The state rose as a supreme will above the people and alienated their rights and directed their activities.

p Pre-Marxian theories, wrote Lenin, made society “a mechanical aggregation of individuals which allows of all sorts of modification at the will of the authorities (or, if you like, at the will of society and the government) and which emerges and changes casually...” [1; 1, 142].

p The biological conception came into existence in the second half of the last century. It explained the emergence of groups by “natural principles" (racial struggle, division of labour, biological inequality, etc.).

126

p In this century bourgeois sociologists have developed the psychological conception, whereby group consciousness is the basis of social ties. Social differentiation is regarded as the second aspect of social interaction, as an antagonistic process, but interdependent with social integration. Differentiation is seen as the process of class formation, but in no way leading to an irreconcilable struggle. This concept is subjectivistic. The social division of labour is apparently a result of the various abilities, talents, i.e., psychological differences among people.

p There are sociologists who do their utmost to prove that contact between groups is harmful, maintaining that a change from one group to another or a transition of an entire group to another “cultural environment" presumably disturbs the homogeneity and stability and thereby the integration. Integration allegedly presupposes the individual’s constant attachment to the group.

p Some of them admit the possibility of disorganisation in the group. Disorganisation means, says Merrill, “that the network of relationships joining the members together breaks down" [52; 64]. But what is it that can break this network down?

p Merrill answers: “In this process at least three factors may be typically present: a) the needs that the members thought would be satisfied in the group have diminished; b) the needs are still there, but the members no longer believe that they can be satisfied in a particular group; c) the needs continue to exist but many persons have ceased to believe that their needs can be satisfied in any group" [52, 65].

p To prevent this, Western sociologists are seeking ways and means to preclude disorganisation. G. Homans writes that society may be weakened through underestimation of the importance of interaction within the small social groups. Continued failure to support the small group as the central unit may threaten the existence of society. If the individual leaves the group which surrounds him and which esteems him, and if he does not find a new group which he can enter, this will inevitably give rise to disordered thoughts, feelings and behaviour [see 83; 457].

p The theories of bourgeois sociology about small groups as exclusive social-psychological and cultural complexes sometimes reproduce the old sacerdotal sermon of “love thy 127 neighbour”. They serve as a theoretical basis for a number of social measures directly aimed at “patching up" the flagrant contradictions of modern capitalism.

p At the very inception of the capitalist mode of production some sociologists hoped that its development would prove compatible with petty bourgeois economics. Some subjective idealists such as N. K. Mikhailovsky, S. N. Krivenko, G. A. Lavrov who preached the stability of the Russian peasantry and the innumerable small enterprises both in agriculture and industry, rejected the possibility of capitalist development in Russia and thereby a sharp increase in class differentiation of Russian society.

But history dismissed these Utopian theories. The development of capitalist relations led to the division of capitalist society into two antagonistic and hostile classes—the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Today, some schools of Western sociology being unable to resist the material processes leading to heightened class differentiation, try to hamper the growing class consciousness of the working class. This is the purpose of the subjective-idealist theory of small groups, as factors “intensifying” integration.