Before I start this out I think I should point out that I am not a sociologist. This isn’t to say that I’m not qualified to say the things that I’m about to say, it’s to point out that I’m probably not going to be saying anything that’s as revolutionary as I like to think it is. That’s just kind of the nature of things, I suppose.
See, I’m not a sociologist. I have taken a few courses on psychology, so I have a good groundwork for basic conversation about human behavior. More than that, though, I have been an insider and an outsider in many groups. I have been a leader and a follower. Through it all, I’ve been, primarily an observer. As such, I have a few theories about how groups come together. I’m also a massively unpopular blogger, so I feel no shame in sharing those thoughts.
The way I see it, there are two major axes around which groups form. Each of those, in turn, have three components.
The first grouping is the organizing principles group. Groups organize based on three general principles: identity, proximity, and purpose. These three principles rarely work in a vacuum, however. It is, for instance, not likely to see all Illinoisans going in the same direction. It is, however, possible to see a critical mass of Illinois Republicans moving in the same direction. I suppose that means very little. So let me break it out some more.
Identity is, generally, the easiest organizing principle to work around. Everyone has a collection of identities that they work from. I, for instance, am a white, heterosexual male. I am also college-educated and non-religious.[1] All of these are part of my identity. Four of them are pretty much completely immutable. The fifth is not, as evidenced by the fact that I was, in fact, once religious. So it’s possible to add a second level of identity: temporary identification. In that, I am a home- and dogowner. I’m single. I’m a White Sox fan in specific and a baseball fan in general. I strongly identify with all of these things, but they’re also things that could change tomorrow and could, conceivable, change faster than the whole white male thing. All of these things, however, are part of my identity.
People defining groups love identity. It tends to give big groups with seemingly non-porous borders. So you hear about how all Christians believe in Thing A or all homosexuals do Thing B. It’s also why people become surprised when there’s a Christian who doesn’t believe in Thing A or a homosexual who totally isn’t a fan of Thing B. This is where the interaction between identities comes in. It’s also where the interaction between identity and the other organizing principles comes in.
Proximity is both a measure of age and distance. In broad strokes, an American will have different ideas than a European on politics. An American in Alabama will have different ideas than an American in Massachusetts. A teenager will also have different ideas than an octogenarian.
People defining groups also love proximity. They love to talk about The South as a voting bloc or Generation X as a fuckload of people who are entirely in love with flannel and slacking off. Again, though, not every resident of Phoenix, AZ believes the same thing. Not every 15 year-old does, either. Still, people tend to think in those broad demographic categories.
Purpose is the most malleable of the three organizing principles. It tends to be less permanent and more results-based. It can, however, be a key organizing principle and I think it’s the one that’s most likely to be a standalone principle. For instance, my career is, for me, a purpose-based principle that has very little to do with my identity and is only related to my proximity in that I work for a company headquartered near where I live. I work with a couple hundred people with whom I share somewhere between nothing and a whole lot of things in terms of identity and with whom I share proximity simply by geographic accident. Yet we all work together for the common purpose of the goal.
Still, purpose as an organizing principle is usually subordinate to the other two organizing principles. As such you might have Christians who gather once a week at a soup kitchen to feed the hungry. You might have atheists who join together to fight creationism on the local school board. You might also have Christians and atheists who join together to fight creationism and then decide to go feed the homeless.
These three main organizing principles are then influenced by what I see as the three decision making principles: personality, interest, and access.
Personality is both a personal and a corporate-based principle. Quite simply, someone who is not prone to join a group probably won’t join a group even if it is exactly in line if their principles. Someone who wants to join a group but doesn’t like the people who are in the group probably won’t join, either. On the flip side, someone who is lukewarm about something might be influenced positively by a passionate and welcoming community.[2]
Interest is somewhat harder for me to define as a separate issue from the organizing principles. On the negative side, someone might simply not be interested in, say, joining the church group on a missions trip to build houses for Habitat for Humanity. On a positive side, someone who is really passionate about helping out at the animal shelter might get a bunch of friends with whom they generally only watch football games to go down and play with the puppies and kitties before kickoff every Sunday.
Access, on the other hand, is something that might actually be wholly dependent on personality or proximity. Someone who is, say, passionate about feeding the homeless might find themselves in a place where there are several soup kitchens, but those soup kitchens are run by people who only give food in conjunction with a sermon, which goes against the principles of the person who wants to feed the homeless. It might, however, be as simple as lack of transportation or the group only meeting at a time when the potential member is at work.
--------------------------
What I have here is a very rough outline of the two basic levels and six associated dimensions on which I think all group dynamics hinge. It’s probably a bit sloppy from a group demographics standpoint and it’s definitely not going to get me published any time soon. But it serves, I hope, as a jumping-off point to discuss some big ideas I want to cover.
Mostly, though, it’s about how I should have approached the stuff I wanted to discuss in my Atheism+ posts. It’s about how I can agree with an idea, not want to participate, and think that the people involved are either naïve, assholes, or naïve assholes. It’s also about how to attempt to talk about people who have interests and goals that are outside of my general understanding, experience, or – to put it bluntly – care. I hope to be able to provide some thought-provoking ideas.
---------------------------
[1]I identify myself as non-religious far more consistently than I identify myself as an atheist or an agnostic, both of which also apply. There’s a reason for this, but it’s hard to explain. Basically, I consider atheism and agnosticism an intellectual issue, whereas non-religiousness is my basic, overall functional attitude.
[2]This is pretty much the end-goal of all of the Christian outreach in which I was engaged. The whole idea was to get someone to come by hook or by crook, and then overwhelm them with the whole love o’ Jesus thing.
See, I’m not a sociologist. I have taken a few courses on psychology, so I have a good groundwork for basic conversation about human behavior. More than that, though, I have been an insider and an outsider in many groups. I have been a leader and a follower. Through it all, I’ve been, primarily an observer. As such, I have a few theories about how groups come together. I’m also a massively unpopular blogger, so I feel no shame in sharing those thoughts.
The way I see it, there are two major axes around which groups form. Each of those, in turn, have three components.
The first grouping is the organizing principles group. Groups organize based on three general principles: identity, proximity, and purpose. These three principles rarely work in a vacuum, however. It is, for instance, not likely to see all Illinoisans going in the same direction. It is, however, possible to see a critical mass of Illinois Republicans moving in the same direction. I suppose that means very little. So let me break it out some more.
Identity is, generally, the easiest organizing principle to work around. Everyone has a collection of identities that they work from. I, for instance, am a white, heterosexual male. I am also college-educated and non-religious.[1] All of these are part of my identity. Four of them are pretty much completely immutable. The fifth is not, as evidenced by the fact that I was, in fact, once religious. So it’s possible to add a second level of identity: temporary identification. In that, I am a home- and dogowner. I’m single. I’m a White Sox fan in specific and a baseball fan in general. I strongly identify with all of these things, but they’re also things that could change tomorrow and could, conceivable, change faster than the whole white male thing. All of these things, however, are part of my identity.
People defining groups love identity. It tends to give big groups with seemingly non-porous borders. So you hear about how all Christians believe in Thing A or all homosexuals do Thing B. It’s also why people become surprised when there’s a Christian who doesn’t believe in Thing A or a homosexual who totally isn’t a fan of Thing B. This is where the interaction between identities comes in. It’s also where the interaction between identity and the other organizing principles comes in.
Proximity is both a measure of age and distance. In broad strokes, an American will have different ideas than a European on politics. An American in Alabama will have different ideas than an American in Massachusetts. A teenager will also have different ideas than an octogenarian.
People defining groups also love proximity. They love to talk about The South as a voting bloc or Generation X as a fuckload of people who are entirely in love with flannel and slacking off. Again, though, not every resident of Phoenix, AZ believes the same thing. Not every 15 year-old does, either. Still, people tend to think in those broad demographic categories.
Purpose is the most malleable of the three organizing principles. It tends to be less permanent and more results-based. It can, however, be a key organizing principle and I think it’s the one that’s most likely to be a standalone principle. For instance, my career is, for me, a purpose-based principle that has very little to do with my identity and is only related to my proximity in that I work for a company headquartered near where I live. I work with a couple hundred people with whom I share somewhere between nothing and a whole lot of things in terms of identity and with whom I share proximity simply by geographic accident. Yet we all work together for the common purpose of the goal.
Still, purpose as an organizing principle is usually subordinate to the other two organizing principles. As such you might have Christians who gather once a week at a soup kitchen to feed the hungry. You might have atheists who join together to fight creationism on the local school board. You might also have Christians and atheists who join together to fight creationism and then decide to go feed the homeless.
These three main organizing principles are then influenced by what I see as the three decision making principles: personality, interest, and access.
Personality is both a personal and a corporate-based principle. Quite simply, someone who is not prone to join a group probably won’t join a group even if it is exactly in line if their principles. Someone who wants to join a group but doesn’t like the people who are in the group probably won’t join, either. On the flip side, someone who is lukewarm about something might be influenced positively by a passionate and welcoming community.[2]
Interest is somewhat harder for me to define as a separate issue from the organizing principles. On the negative side, someone might simply not be interested in, say, joining the church group on a missions trip to build houses for Habitat for Humanity. On a positive side, someone who is really passionate about helping out at the animal shelter might get a bunch of friends with whom they generally only watch football games to go down and play with the puppies and kitties before kickoff every Sunday.
Access, on the other hand, is something that might actually be wholly dependent on personality or proximity. Someone who is, say, passionate about feeding the homeless might find themselves in a place where there are several soup kitchens, but those soup kitchens are run by people who only give food in conjunction with a sermon, which goes against the principles of the person who wants to feed the homeless. It might, however, be as simple as lack of transportation or the group only meeting at a time when the potential member is at work.
--------------------------
What I have here is a very rough outline of the two basic levels and six associated dimensions on which I think all group dynamics hinge. It’s probably a bit sloppy from a group demographics standpoint and it’s definitely not going to get me published any time soon. But it serves, I hope, as a jumping-off point to discuss some big ideas I want to cover.
Mostly, though, it’s about how I should have approached the stuff I wanted to discuss in my Atheism+ posts. It’s about how I can agree with an idea, not want to participate, and think that the people involved are either naïve, assholes, or naïve assholes. It’s also about how to attempt to talk about people who have interests and goals that are outside of my general understanding, experience, or – to put it bluntly – care. I hope to be able to provide some thought-provoking ideas.
---------------------------
[1]I identify myself as non-religious far more consistently than I identify myself as an atheist or an agnostic, both of which also apply. There’s a reason for this, but it’s hard to explain. Basically, I consider atheism and agnosticism an intellectual issue, whereas non-religiousness is my basic, overall functional attitude.
[2]This is pretty much the end-goal of all of the Christian outreach in which I was engaged. The whole idea was to get someone to come by hook or by crook, and then overwhelm them with the whole love o’ Jesus thing.
I find it interesting that you collect age together with physical proximity rather than with identity. Do you have any specific reasons for dividing it that way?
On footnote [1], I think I know what you mean. Intellectual ideas that are also group identity labels feel like ill-fitting underwear. Prefer to go commando.
Posted by: Janet | 09/06/2012 at 04:35 PM