An Introduction to Social Psychology
Chapter 28: Direct Contact Groups —Rational Types
Luther Lee Bernard
Table of Contents | Next | Previous
We have already spoken of the influence of certain primary groups, especially of the family, the play group, and the neighborhood, on individual behavior. In this and the following chapter we shall describe the typical forms which direct contact or face-to-face groups take, and show how they are used to condition individual behavior in a collective situation.
TWO TYPES of GROUPS — When collective behavior is organized around an interest common to a number of people, whether the interest and organization are permanent or only temporary, we have what may be called a group. The essential fact about the group is that a number of people are responding at approximately the same time to the same or similar or supplementary sets of stimuli. This statement includes, of course, also the reciprocal responses of members in the group. It is not necessary that all those responding shall behave in the same manner, but if the group is to possess the requisite unity there will be a large amount of uniformity in the responses to the common and reciprocal stimuli.
Also it is not necessary that the persons responding to common or reciprocal stimuli shall be in direct contact with one another, or that the group shall be of a face-to-face sort. Many groups are so spread abroad that their members have mainly or exclusively indirect contacts with one another. Stimuli come to them from the common source only by means of carriers, such as newspapers, telegraph, radio, and the like. But there is the same sort of uniformity of response, the same characteristics of permanency or temporariness, as in the face-to-face groups. Also, there may be present either emotional or intellectual qualities in the communication, or both.
(439)
The distinction between face-to-face contacts and non-face-to-face contacts in groups is fundamental since the psychology of these two types of contacts differs to a marked degree. In face-to-face contacts, all the kinesthetic and exteroceptive senses are active in receiving stimuli to facilitate responses. Direct contact is the medium par excellence for the communication of emotional behavior. Non-face-to-face or indirect contacts, on the other hand, must rely almost wholly upon verbal stimuli apprehended nearly exclusively through the ears and eyes. As a result, the content of indirect communication is usually intellectual, although it may also be emotional. Illiterate people are not reached by indirect stimuli without the intervention of literate persons, except through the radio and the phonograph. And even here the crowd setting as an accompaniment of the speaking voice, which greatly influences the emotional quality of communication, is absent.
PRIMARY AND DIRECT CONTACT GROUPS DISTINGUISHED— A distinction should also be drawn between direct contact groups in general and primary groups. Primary groups are those face-to-face or direct contact groups into which the child is born and which mold his behavior from the beginning of his self-active existence. Primary groups constitute a much less extensive category than the direct contact groups. The latter category includes the less formative and more purely administrative direct contact groups, even such derived ones as deliberative assemblies, which function primarily in the control of behavior already integrated as well as those primary groups which organize or integrate behavior or character, such as the family, play group, and neighborhood group.
TYPES OF DIRECT CONTACT GROUPS — The general distinction here made between direct and indirect contact groups is sometimes stated in terms of crowds and publics, the latter being the indirect contact groups. The term crowd, however, is not an equally happy term to cover all face-to-face or direct contact groups. It is associated in our minds with the quality of mobbishness. Iii fact, some writers, like Martin, use the term crowd to cover all types of irrational collective behavior, whether the participants have direct or indirect contacts with one another. Face-to-face groups vary all the way in rational-
(440) -ity of behavior from the deliberative assembly, which is guided in its transactions by formal rules of order, to the mob, which is wholly under the influence of some leader or fixed idea which controls and directs the emotions of the members.
It is scarcely possible to classify direct contact groups according to any one set of traits or categories, because the same set of characteristics is not necessarily important in all groups. Consequently we shall present in the following pages those classes of direct contact groups which are most functional in modern society and state their most prominent psycho-social traits more or less regardless of whether these characteristics occur in other groups also. Certain characteristics, however, such as the ability of a group to survive and the type of psychic behavior involved in its organization, are important in all groups. Consequently the degree of permanency and of rationality obtaining in groups will be considered in the following classification. The order of direct contact groups, in the decreasing ratio of their permanency, and secondarily of the rationality of their behavior, is somewhat as follows: genetic groups, clubs and other direct contact purposive associations, deliberative assemblies, discussion groups and classes, audiences, informal clubs, ceremonials, rallies and demonstrations, involuntary crowds, mobs. This classification of groups is, of course, purely tentative and empirical. A more complete and accurate classification must await further research. There are, however, good grounds for using this classification. It is based mainly upon the psychological mechanisms employed, rather than upon the aims or purposes of the members of the groups. All political, economic, religious, educational, fraternal, administrative, etc., groups, in their face-to-face aspects, take on the guise of one or more of the forms described in this and the following chapters.
GENETIC GROUPS, which are primary groups in their simpler forms, are perhaps the most permanent of all face-to-face associations, unless indeed we except corporations, which are only iii part direct contact groups, and chartered or incorporated clubs. The membership changes but the groups continue and are located in the same areas and perform essentially the same functions for many generations. The best known ex-
( 441) -amples of these genetic groups are perhaps the family, the neighborhood proper, the play group, and other neighborhood groups. But these neighborhood groups very quickly graduate from the category of genetic groups into clubs and purposive associations. Genetic groups are not always rational in their constitution, although they tend to become more nearly so with increasing culture. These groups, being very general and inclusive in character, employ the methods of organization and procedure which we find operative in the less general types of groups described in subsequent pages of this chapter.
CLUBS AND PURPOSIVE ASSOCIATION s are the most permanent of all non-primary face-to-face or direct contact groups. They are also frequently rational, especially if they also partake of the nature of deliberative assemblies. There are many kinds of face-to-face associations, but the most numerous of these are the business associations and the multi-type organizations known as clubs. Of business, occupational, professional and other interest associations, such as corporations, firms of professional men, labor union locals, armies, etc., we need say but little. They are very common. They are also highly purposive in character. The behavior of their members is presumably controlled by highly rational considerations, and they make a considerable use of those aspects of science which apply most particularly to their objects in view. Most of such associations very easily expand into the category of indirect contact groups.
Clubs are also generally purposive in character. Some clubs, such as scientific societies, debating societies, professional groups, are frequently organized about more or less abstract and scientific interests. Other clubs, such as various local religious societies, political groups, and reform or law enforcement clubs, are presumably organized for the purpose of promoting the public welfare. Some societies of this general type, like lodges and local coöperative societies, are organized primarily for the mutual benefit of their members. Others still, and perhaps by far the largest number, find their reason for existence in amusement and recreation. Some of these may be fairly ephemeral, but clubs ordinarily and on the average have a considerable span of life. Both the club and the busi-
( 442) -ness and professional associations frequently overlap with deliberative assemblies. Clubs and associations also make use of the methods of procedure and organization employed by other direct contact groups described in this chapter.
The team constitutes one of the most highly integrated and purposive types of groups belonging to the general classification here under discussion. Because of its high degree of organization it usually represents the maximum of effectiveness in collective behavior. The organization and behavior of the team need not be democratic; ordinarily they are dictated, for the chief objective of team work is coördination of effort and efficiency. We find teams in almost all aspects of collective behavior, ranging from manual labor and athletic activities to religious campaigns and scientific research.
RATIONAL VERSUS SUGGESTION CONTROL IN DIRECT CONTACT GROUPS— DELIBERATIVE ASSEMBLIES— The highest degree of rationality of organization in direct contact groups is to be found in the deliberative assembly. Here the common stimulus to which all of the members of the group respond is a common problem. The problem may be political, economic, legal, religious, ethical, esthetic, scientific, or of any character whatever. The essential general characteristic of the problem is that it shall be of significance to all of those who deliberate and exchange views regarding it. This deliberation may take place by means of indirect contacts, through the media of writing, print or otherwise, as well as through the direct contacts of oral speech. In such cases there is a deliberative public rather than a deliberative assembly. But the members of deliberative assemblies usually have been influenced by indirect contacts or public opinion before they come into the assembly. The different members will frequently have different interests at stake and therefore will support different views in the discussion. This is particularly true of representative deliberative assemblies, where representatives of diverse constituencies from various geographical sections, classes, nationalities, re ligions, etc., meet to iron. out conflicts of interests anal arrive at a compromise program. Such a representative assembly need not be political. It may be religious, industrial, or of any other character and complexion.
( 443)
Where the deliberative assembly is local and the members of a group participate directly rather than through their representatives, there is still room for difference of opinion and conflict in the discussion, but such conflict is usually not so pronounced because of the greater homogeneity of the participating members and their interests. Where the deliberative assembly is made up of members with like interests, whether they be a board of directors of an industrial corporation, or direct participators, as in the case of a district school meeting or of the stockholders of a local coöperative society, there is also likely to be a considerable uniformity of response. But even in these cases there is room for much difference of opinion and deliberative discussion — with regard to policies and aims and methods to be employed. Even in the meetings of scientific associations, where the data dealt with are most clearly subject to demonstration, discussion and conflict may be very considerable.
The function of the deliberative assembly is to give opportunity for the rational discussion and weighing of all aspects of questions which come before it. The normal result of such discussion is that all pertinent and available data are presented and considered impartially and as objectively as possible by all of those present. The assumption is, of course, that such rational and unbiased consideration of the data will lead to the selection of the most effective program for the conduct of the affairs of the groups. But such objectivity and complete rationality in the choice of a program is not possible of complete realization. In the first place it is not possible wholly to divorce one's judgments from his personal feelings and interests. And in the second place it is not possible to have all of the facts presented mean, even intellectually, the same thing to all the members, because their experiences have been different and their values vary accordingly. Consequently in almost all cases the formulation of group objectives and of programs to carry those objectives into execution is the result of compromise instead of the result of unity of opinion.
Rides and organization o f the deliberative assembly — The deliberative assembly is bound by rules of order and very probably possesses a constitution and by-laws. National delibera
(444) -tive assemblies frequently develop elaborate rules for their guidance and employ a trained parliamentarian to interpret the rules in application to particular situations. They may even have a committee on rules which further assists in the parliamentary control of the body by bringing in new rules or modifications of old rules for the purpose of facilitating a particular procedure or of untangling some stubborn conflict of interests. Besides the presiding officer, the secretary, and the minutes or records of proceedings, which practically all deliberative assemblies possess, legislative assemblies usually have floor leaders or whips whose business it is to keep party discussion within the lines agreed upon in party caucus and to get out the vote for approved measures. Smaller and less representative assemblies, where there is less political maneuvering, may dispense with many of these parliamentary controls or employ them in a less rigorous and regiminal way.
The ostensible function of the parliamentary procedure, rules, officers, records, etc., is the prevention of the use of force, intimidation and other non-rational controls in effecting collective judgments, decisions, and other behavior in the assembly. Freedom of speech on the floor, equality of opportunity in participation, and an adequate hearing for all members and interests are aimed at. Rules and records and a fair administration are supposed to insure these desirable ends. And in large measure they do achieve this result. But it is entirely possible for rules to be made in such a way, and for presiding officers, rules committees, parliamentarians, whips, caucuses, etc., to behave in such a manner, as to defeat these ends and give the advantage to some one faction or interest as over against other interests. This may occur even in those deliberative assemblies where the parliamentary precautions (or distortions) are most numerous. Committee appointments in political assemblies are uniformly made with such an end in view. The deliberate purpose of parliamentary procedure in such bodies often seems to be to enable the majority or some powerful and well organized minority to put through its program without allowing the opposition adequate means of expression and discussion. Yet parliamentary procedure cannot be dispensed with in such cases without re-
(445) -ducing the process of skillful maneuvering to disorder and chaos. The problem of the dominant group is to preserve sufficient respect for the parliamentary procedure among the opposition, while they accomplish their ends, that an open rebellion and disregard for the rules and authority by the opposition will not occur. In this objective the dominant faction is generally assisted by the strong respect which the constituents of the representatives in the deliberative assembly usually have for parliamentary practices and their prevailing ignorance regarding their abuse and perversion by parliamentarians.
In more local deliberative assemblies such abuses of the parliamentary procedures are usually avoided or mitigated by the direct participation of the members of the group and by the more frequent homogeneity of membership and interests involved. In those deliberative assemblies where the interests represented are subject to sudden or strong attack from without and frequently require immediate defense and vigorous policies of action, as in military and capitalistic enterprises, and in criminal organizations, the form of the control tends to pass from that of the deliberative assembly to the dictatorship, and parliamentary practice is modified or suspended accordingly.
Discussion and Committee Control— Also the methods of discussion used in deliberative assemblies are not always conducive to the formation of rational judgments, although the ostensible purpose of the discussion is such. Appeals to prejudice and other forms of suggestion may be substituted for the impartial statement of facts. Covert threats and other means of verbal intimidation are not infrequently employed on such occasions. In political representative assemblies frequently but little attention is given to the verbal arguments of the speaker by fellow members. During the period of speech making members are often absent from the chamber attending caucuses and committee meetings, or are engaged in other political or non-political activities. Questions are decided primarily in committee meetings and caucuses where adequate discussion may be had or where the vote is strictly along partisan lines. Speeches in the chamber of the political deliberative assembly of the representative type are primarily for the constituents of
(446) the speaker or the gallery rather than for the members of the deliberative body. In such cases as those here described the deliberative character of the assembly is largely lost, or it is to some extent transferred to the committee rooms. The real business of the assembly is transacted in the committees, which are always dominated by the majority party in the assembly, and almost always by the dominant faction in the majority party. Because of this committee domination there is little real opportunity for rational discussion to influence decisions in a deliberative assembly. In fact, domination of committees by the leading faction in the assembly turns it into a dictatorship instead of a truly deliberative assembly. The chamber itself serves primarily for final parliamentary skirmishes and for taking and recording the vote, and for oratory. But in non-representative political and in local and non-political assemblies deliberation may reach a high degree of development, with the result that public opinion is created and collective behavior is determined and initiated in a rational manner. Where parliamentary procedure is manipulated collective behavior is also determined and initiated, but not necessarily rationally.
DISCUSSION GROUPS— The discussion group is a modified deliberative assembly. It differs from the ordinary form of the latter, however, in a most important respect. Ordinarily it does not seek to direct collective behavior outside of the group. The function of the discussion group is to discuss. The subject matter of the discussion may be anything in which the members of the group are interested. Often it is political, economic, religious, educational, scientific. The interested people meet for the purpose of comparing views, exchanging facts, ascertaining the trends of opinion and of influencing them. A unity of opinion may be sought as the result of the discussion, or each one may be left to formulate his own conclusions. In the more highly developed and organized discussion groups there are likely to be committees for the purpose of presenting resolutions of findings, programs, declarations of principles, etc. These, if adopted as the unanimous or compromise opinion or "sense" of the whole group, may be presented to some administrative or legislative body with the re-
( 447) -quest that they be put into effect or enacted into law, or sent to a newspaper for publication, thus attempting indirectly to control collective behavior at large. The more loosely organized discussion groups, such as discussion clubs, may be content merely with individual statements of opinions and supporting data without any attempt to influence deliberative assemblies or the public and administrative authorities in any informal way. Among primitive peoples and children consensus of opinion often develops as a result of discussion without any formal statement of such opinion. Debating societies usually appoint judges to render a decision and when the decision is reached the club or society takes no further action. Forums and social centers may follow either policy on occasion. Scientific societies practically never take a vote or offer resolutions, but remain content with hearing what each member has to say. Semi-propaganda societies, such as conferences on good government, social welfare, housing reform, public health, etc., usually combine with scientific discussion an attempt to influence public opinion and legislation or administration through resolutions or other pronouncements. However, some of these societies are very conservative in the matter of resolutions.
THE TEMPER AND EFFECTS OF DISCUSSION GROUPS— The type of discussion groups may vary greatly, ranging from those that engage only in calm and unemotional straightforward presentations of data and individual or collective conclusions, to those that employ emotional oratory, suggestion in various forms, verbal intimidation, and other mob-like methods. In the latter types of discussion, of course, the character of the discussion groups proper is lost and a propaganda group or worse takes its place.
Whether there is any formal attempt to influence public opinion and public officials and representatives, or whether the discussion group is content with an interchange of facts and opinions, an effect is nevertheless usually exerted upon collective behavior. Discussion groups, especially if they publish their discussions in local newspapers or in regular proceedings, constitute one of the most effective means of influencing public opinion. So important are they that there has been in recent years a movement on foot to multiply the number of local
( 448) forums or discussion groups, in clubs, social centers, and elsewhere, in order to secure that interchange of opinion and information which is believed to be so necessary in a democracy. Such discussion groups are all the more desirable now that the old neighborhood contacts have so largely disappeared and that so much manufactured and ill digested opinion obtains circulation through indirect means of communication, such as the newspaper, radio, movie, the paid propagandist, advertising, and the like.
CLASSES FOR INSTRUCTION play a much larger part in collective thinking and in the generation of collective behavior than they did in earlier times. The development of universal education, by which all the youth are subjected to class instruction, and the growth of university extension for adults, have extended the period of formal instruction for large numbers of people through at least the first half of the life period. The woman's club movement, which has an educational side, belongs more to the discussion group than to the class group phase of group organization. However, it has aspects of the latter phase also. The class differs from the discussion group in that the primary purpose of the former is learning rather than discussion, although discussion properly occurs as an aspect of the learning process. Also, there is much more previous preparation for the class by reading.
THE AUDIENCE ordinarily does not enter into discussion but gives its attention solely to the lecturer or performer. Usually also it requires no special preparation. The audience is still an important type of direct contact group, although it is less important than it was before the development of the movie. The old lecture audience, which had so much vogue in the nineteenth century, is now relatively unimportant. Vaudeville has cheapened it, although it still survives in something of the old form in the Chautauqua. Even the church audience has declined in quality and interest. The radio has extended and widened the audience to a remarkable degree and has brought the inclusion of serious up-to-date subjects within the mental purview of millions of people. The radio has expanded the audience from the exclusive category of direct contact groups
( 449) to that of the indirect contact groups also. The modern visual analogues of the audience are the groups attending the movies, mainly for amusement and other trivial purposes, and the newspaper and the magazine reading publics. These also illustrate the tendency of direct contact groups to expand into indirect contact groups.
RELATIVE PERMANENCY AND SERIOUSNESS OF PURPOSE OF THE GROUPS DISCUSSED— The adventitious character of these groups increases as we descend from the deliberative assembly to the audience, or (to adopt a cognate expression) the "visience" of the movies. The deliberative assembly always, and the discussion group generally, assemble for the express purpose of a collective examination of facts and opinions and for arriving at a collective outlook or program. There is also a large element of permanency in these groups. The membership changes fairly slowly and the forms and functions of the groups are likely to persist for a considerable length of time. But the class and the audience or "visience," especially the last, do not necessarily possess permanency of organization. The class may remain intact for a period of weeks or months, but it rarely persists beyond that time. The audience and "visience" are exceedingly temporary, having an existence of an hour or so only. In the case of the class and the audience, the interest which brings the members together is frequently confined to the immediate subject matter. This is especially true of the audience. Church audiences, which closely resemble classes or even clubs, are nearly permanent in character. The deliberative assembly may embrace a large number of interests which are common to the members, almost as many as are involved in life itself; or it may involve only one, as in financial bodies, or only a few. But these interests, whether few or many, are likely to be relatively permanent. The discussion group is also likely to grow up among people with a large number of persisting common interests and therefore to last, although there are exceptions to this statement. All of there groups may he equally concerned with abstract problems, although the groups last mentioned are least likely to be so concerned. The audience and the "visience" are particularly
( 450) likely to find their interests, as a whole or in part, in the concrete sensorily based fields of experiences, such as are common to amusements.
MATERIALS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY READING
- Allport, F. H., Social Psychology, Ch. XI
- Beach, W. G., An Introduction to Sociology and Social Problems, Chs. XI, XII
- Bogardus, E. S., Fundamentals of Social Psychology, Chs. XVII, XXIII, XXIV
- Follett, M. P., The New State
- Hartson, L. D., "The Psychology of the Club; A Study in Social Psychology," Ped. Sem., XVIII:353-414
- LeBon, G., The Crowd, Book III, Chs. III, IV, V
- — ,The Psychology of Revolution, pp. 167-251
- Lindeman, E. C., The Community
- — ,Social Discovery, Ch. V
- McDougall, W., The Group Mind, Ch. III
- Puffer, J. A., The Boy and His Gang
- Ross, E. A., Principles of Sociology, Chs. XXIII, XXIV
- — ,Social Psychology, pp. 63-65
- Russell and Rigby, Working Lads' Clubs
- Webster, H., Primitive Secret Societies
