Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

He puts his argument as follows:
Sociology 99
Why do we need the category of the group in the system of historical materialism? The
crucial problem consists in delimiting the influence of society upon the individual and
upon single events; we have to go beyond the question of how the social quality of
individual action is explained in terms of general theory, for this latter problem has
been basically solved.
At this point he proceeds to a two-page restatement of the basic idea that
people’s conduct is determined by their position in the economic system. But
then he reverts to his initial question, and offers an answer:
The group can become one of the most essential categories which mediate between basic
societal relations and the individual, which bring out the most direct societal effects on
any specific event.
One might expect that from there on the author would report some studies
which exemplify the use of small group research for this mediating function. But
luckily for our purposes he does something different. He makes eight concrete
suggestions as to how reflection and research can improve the notion of the group
as a tool of sociological analysis. The three most interesting merit brief summary.
He suggests various classifications of groups. Western sociologists do not
distinguish clearly enough between essential and non-essential reference groups.
Does it matter as much from where we take our ideas on how to dress as it does
from where we get our notions of the basic workings of the social system?
Another classification is at variance with one traditional in Western sociology.
Whereas we would make the family a chief example of a primary group, Hahn
restricts the notion of primary groups to unstructured situations, such as those
formed for the purpose of study and discussion or for temporary political
action. The family follows enough rules to become an example of a semi-
institutional group. Most provocative is Hahn’s third category - what one might
call a grouping, or dismissing the pejorative implications of the term, a clique.
As an analysis by Marx, he quotes how Napoleon III came to power (18th
Brurnaire). In the course of his narrative he distinguishes at least a dozen sub-
groups within the bourgeoisie: those who have financial rather than industrial
interests; those who by family tradition are allied to one rather than the other of
thetworoyal pretenders; a combine of intellectuals and public servants who have
opinions as to the right syle of government. It is true that Western sociologists
have studied such sub-sets : the military-industrial combine, the intellectuals,
and so on. I know few examples, however, where such analysis has been
properly linked, by similarity or difference, to concepts developed in small group
research in the West.51 As is to be expected, at another point, Hahn raises the
question: how do such groupings parallel or cut across the major class structure?
Hahn also urges a stronger concern with the relation between small group
research and broad social change. Through observations and experiments one
should be able to determine when small groups shield the individual from such
changes, when they help him acljust, and when the groups break down because
various members react differently to new societal challenges.
4. Systematics. Ideas of the kind just reviewed derive from a basic systematic
position, a fact which Marxist sociologists consider their main strength. We are