As you have learned from the Week 4 learning resources (UMGC, n.d.), deviant behaviors are violations of social norms, and

Section Summary and Key Terms

Section Summary

The Sociological Self

Charles Cooley and George Mead both contributed significantly to the sociological

understanding of the development of self. Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan

developed their ideas further and researched how our sense of morality develops.

Gilligan added the dimension of gender differences to Kohlberg's theory.

Socialization

Socialization is important because it helps uphold societies and cultures; it is also a

key part of individual development. Research demonstrates that who we are is

affected by both nature (our genetic and hormonal makeup) and nurture (the social

environment in which we are raised). Sociology is most concerned with the way that

society's influence affects our behavior patterns, such as in the way behavior varies

across class and gender. Resocialization is a process that removes the socialization

we have developed over time and replaces it with newly learned rules and roles.

Groups

Groups largely define how we think of ourselves. There are two main types of

groups: primary and secondary. Primary groups are long-term and complex. People

use groups as standards of comparison to define themselves—both who they are and

who they are not. The size and dynamic of a group greatly affects how members act.

Primary groups rarely have formal leaders, although there can be informal

leadership.

Formal Organizations

Learning Resource

Large organizations fall into three main categories: normative (or voluntary),

coercive, and utilitarian. Bureaucracies are a common form of formal organization.

They are often meritocracies, meaning that hiring and promotion is based on proven

and documented skills, rather than on nepotism or random choice.

Deviance and Social Control

Deviance is a violation of norms. Whether or not something is deviant depends on

contextual definitions, the situation, and people's response to the behavior. The use

of sanctions contributes to a system of social control. Deviance is often relative, and

perceptions of it can change quickly and unexpectedly.

The three major sociological paradigms offer different explanations for the causes of

deviance and crime. Functionalists point out that deviance is a social necessity

because it reinforces norms by reminding people of the consequences of violating

them. Violating norms can also open society's eyes to injustice in the system.

Conflict theorists argue that crime stems from a system of inequality that keeps

those with power at the top and those without power at the bottom. Symbolic

interactionists focus attention on the socially constructed nature of the labels

related to deviance. Crime and deviance are learned from the environment and

enforced or discouraged by those around us.

Key Terms

aggregate—a collection of people who exist in the same place at the same time, but

who don't interact or share a sense of identity

anticipatory socialization—the way we prepare for future life roles

authoritarian leader—a leader who issues orders and assigns tasks

bureaucracies—formal organizations characterized by a hierarchy of authority, a

clear division of labor, explicit rules, and impersonality

category—people who share similar characteristics but who are not connected in

any way

clear division of labor—the fact that each individual in a bureaucracy has a

specialized task to perform

coercive organizations—organizations that people do not voluntarily join, such as

prison or a mental hospital

conflict theory—a theory that examines social and economic factors as the causes

of criminal deviance

conformity—the extent to which an individual complies with group or societal norms

control theory—a theory that states social control is directly affected by the

strength of social bonds and that deviance results from a feeling of disconnection

from society

degradation ceremony—the process by which new members of a total institution

lose aspects of their old identities and are given new ones

democratic leader—a leader who encourages group participation and consensus-

building before moving into action

deviance—a violation of contextual, cultural, or social norms

differential association theory—a theory that states individuals learn deviant

behavior from those close to them who provide models of and opportunities for

deviance

explicit rules—the types of rules in a bureaucracy; rules that are outlined, recorded,

and standardized

expressive function—a group function that serves an emotional need

expressive—a leader who is concerned with process and with ensuring everyone's

emotional well-being

formal organizations—large, impersonal organizations

formal sanctions—sanctions that are officially recognized and enforced

generalized other—the common behavioral expectations of general society

group—any collection of at least two people who interact with some frequency and

share some sense of aligned identity

hidden curriculum—the informal teaching done in schools that socializes children to

societal norms

hierarchy of authority—a clear chain of command found in a bureaucracy

impersonality—the removal of personal feelings from a professional situation

informal sanctions—sanctions that occur in face-to-face interactions

in-group—a group a person belongs to and feels is an integral part of his identity

instrumental function—being oriented toward a task or goal

instrumental leader—a leader who is goal oriented with a primary focus on

accomplishing tasks

iron rule of oligarchy—the theory that an organization is ruled by a few elites rather

than through collaboration

labeling theory—sociological perspective on the ascribing of a deviant behavior to

another person by members of society

laissez-faire leader—a hands-off leader who allows members of the group to make

their own decisions

leadership function—the main focus or goal of a leader

leadership style—the approach a leader uses to achieve goals or elicit action from

group members

meritocracy—a bureaucracy where membership and advancement are based on

merit—proven and documented skills

moral development—the way people learn what is considered good and bad in

society

nature—the influence of our genetic makeup on self-development

negative sanctions—punishments for violating norms

normative (or voluntary) organizations—organizations that people join to pursue

shared interests or because they provide some intangible rewards

nurture—the role that our social environment plays in self-development

out-group—a group that an individual is not a member of, and may even compete

with

peer group—a group made up of people who are similar in age and social status and

who share interests

positive sanctions—rewards given for conforming to norms

power elite—a small group of wealthy and influential people at the top of society

who hold the power and resources

primary deviance—a violation of norms that does not result in any long-term effects

on the individual's self- image or interactions with others

primary groups—small, informal groups of people who are closest to us

reference groups—groups to which individuals compare themselves

resocialization—the process by which old behaviors are removed and new behaviors

are learned in their place

sanctions—means of enforcing rules

secondary deviance—deviance that occurs when a person's self-concept and

behavior begin to change after actions are labeled as deviant by members of society

secondary groups—larger and more impersonal groups that are task-focused and

time limited

self—a person's distinct sense of identity as developed through social interaction

social control—the regulation and enforcement of norms

social disorganization theory—a theory that asserts crime occurs in communities

with weak social ties and the absence of social control

social order—an arrangement of practices and behaviors on which society's

members base their daily lives

socialization—the process through which people come to understand societal norms

and expectations, to accept society's beliefs, and to be aware of societal values

strain theory—a theory that addresses the relationship between having socially

acceptable goals and having socially acceptable means to reach those goals

total institution—an organization in which participants live a controlled lifestyle and

in which total resocialization occurs

utilitarian organizations—organizations that people join to fill a specific material

need

Licenses and Attributions

Introduction to Sociology 3e (https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-

3e) by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, and Asha Lal Tamang from OpenStax is

available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license. © June 3, 2021,

OpenStax. UMGC has modified this work and it is available under the original

license. Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-

3e/pages/1-introduction (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-

introduction)

© 2022 University of Maryland Global Campus

All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity

of information located at external sites.

Groups

What is a group? The term carries important clinical and scientific meanings in addition to

its generic usage. The concept of a group is central to much of how we think about

society and human interaction. So how can we pin down the meaning more precisely for

sociological purposes?

Defining a Group

The term group can refer to a wide variety of gatherings, from just two people to an

organization of hundreds. A group might be a club, a regular gathering of friends, or

people who work together or share a hobby. A group can be any collection of at least two

people who interact with some frequency and share a sense that their identity is

somehow aligned with the group. Of course, not every gathering of people is a group. A

rally is usually a one-time event, for instance, and belonging to a political party doesn't

necessarily mean interaction with others. People who happen to be in the same place at

the same time but who do not interact or share a sense of identity—such as people

standing in line at Starbucks—are considered an aggregate, or a crowd.

Another example of a nongroup is people who share similar characteristics but are not

tied to one another in any way. These people are considered a category. For example,

people born between about 1980 and 2000 are referred to as Millennials. Why are

Millennials a category and not a group? Because while some Millennials may share a sense

of identity, they do not, as a whole, interact frequently with each other.

Interestingly, people within an aggregate or category can become a group. For example,

during disasters, people in a neighborhood (an aggregate) who did not know each other

might become friendly and depend on each other at the local shelter. After the disaster,

when people go back to simply living near each other, the feeling of cohesiveness may last

since they have all shared an experience. They might remain a group, practicing

emergency readiness, coordinating supplies for next time, or taking turns caring for

neighbors who need extra help.

Learning Resource

Types of Groups

Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929) suggested that groups can broadly be

divided into two categories: primary groups and secondary groups (Cooley, 1963).

According to Cooley, primary groups play the most critical role in our lives. The primary

group is usually small and made up of individuals who generally engage face-to-face in

long-term, emotionally significant ways. This group serves emotional needs, and thus it

serves an expressive function for its members. The primary group is usually made up of

significant others—those individuals who have the largest impact on our socialization. The

most common example of a primary group is the family.

Secondary groups are often larger and impersonal. They may also be focused on tasks and

contain particular individuals for a limited time. These groups serve an instrumental

function rather than an expressive one, meaning that their role is more goal- or task-

oriented than emotional. A classroom or office is an example of a secondary group.

Neither primary nor secondary groups are bound by strict definitions or set limits. In fact,

people can move from one group to another. A group of coworkers, for example, can start

as a secondary group, but as the employees work together over the years, they may find

common interests and strong ties that transform them into a primary group.

Sociology in the Real World

Best Friends She's Never Met

Writer Allison Levy worked alone. While she liked the freedom and flexibility

of working from home, she sometimes missed having a community of

coworkers, both for the practical purpose of brainstorming and socializing.

Levy did what many do: She found a group of other writers online. Over time,

a group of approximately 20 writers who all wrote for a similar audience broke

off from the larger forum and started a private one. Their group ended up

consisting of women in their 20s and 30s who all wrote fiction for children and

young adults.

At first, the writers' forum was clearly a secondary group, brought together by

the members' professions and work situations. It was a useful place to

research information about publishers, recent books and authors, and industry

trends. But as time passed, Levy found it served a different purpose. Since the

group shared other characteristics beyond their writing (such as age and

gender), their conversation naturally turned to matters such as child-rearing,

aging parents, health, and exercise. When people didn't post for several days,

others expressed concern. It reached the point where most members would

tell the group if they were travelling or needed to be offline for a while.

Is this a primary group? Most of these people have never met each other. They

live in Hawaii, Australia, Minnesota, and across the world. They may never

meet. But the connection is meaningful and long term Despite the distance

and lack of physical contact, the group clearly fills an expressive need.

In-Groups and Out-Groups

One of the ways that groups can be powerful is through inclusion, and its inverse,

exclusion. The feeling that we belong in an elite or select group is a powerful one, while

the feeling of not being allowed in, or of being in competition with a group, can be

motivating in a different way. William Graham Sumner (1840–1910) developed the

concepts of in-group and out-group to explain this phenomenon (Sumner, 1959). In short,

an individual's in-group is the group that person feels a part of to that point that it is a

part of the person's self. An out-group, conversely, is a group someone doesn't belong to.

Often we feel disdain or competition toward an out-group. Sports teams, unions, and

sororities are examples of in-groups and out-groups. Primary groups consist of both in-

groups and out-groups, as do secondary groups.

While group affiliations can be neutral or positive, the concept of in-groups and out-

groups can also explain some negative human behavior, such as White supremacist

movements. By defining others as "not like us" and inferior, in-groups can end up

practicing ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism—manners of judging

others negatively based on their culture, race, sex, age, or sexuality, or other forms of

discriminatory othering.

Often, in-groups can form within a secondary group. For instance, there may be cliques

within a workplace, from senior executives who play golf together to engineers who write

code together to young people who socialize after hours. While these in-groups might

show favoritism and affinity for other in-group members, the overall organization may be

unable or unwilling to acknowledge it. It can pay to be wary of the politics of in-groups,

since members may exclude others to gain status within the group.

Reference Groups

A reference group is a group that people compare themselves to, one that provides a

standard of measurement. In US society, peer groups are common reference groups. Both

children and adults pay attention to what their peers wear, what music they like, what

they do with their free time, and more, and they compare themselves to what they see.

Most people have more than one reference group, so a middle school boy might look at

his classmates but also at his older brother's friends, where he might see a different set of

norms. He might also observe the behaviors of his favorite athletes for another point of

reference.

Some other examples of reference groups can include one's cultural center, workplace, or

family. Often, reference groups convey competing messages. For instance, on television

and in movies, young adults often have wonderful apartments, fancy cars, and lively social

lives despite spending little or no time working. This might be at odds with what a young

adult sees in a peer group. At all ages, we use reference groups to help guide our behavior

and establish our social norms.

Group Leadership

Often, groups require some kind of leadership. In small, primary groups, leadership tends

to be informal. After all, most families and groups of friends don't take a vote on who will

rule the group. This is not to say that de facto leaders don't emerge, but formal leadership

is rare. In secondary groups, leadership is usually more overt. These groups often outline

roles and responsibilities, with a chain of command to follow. Some secondary groups, like

the military, have highly structured and clearly understood chains of command, and

sometimes lives depend on those. Other secondary groups, like a workplace or a

classroom, also have formal leaders, but the styles and functions of leadership can vary

significantly.

Leadership function refers to the main goal of the leader, which may be instrumental or

expressive. An instrumental leader is one who is goal-oriented and largely concerned with

accomplishing set tasks. An army general or a Fortune 500 CEO would most likely be an

instrumental leader. In contrast, expressive leaders are more concerned with promoting

emotional well-being and ensuring that people feel supported. Social and religious leaders

—rabbis, priests, imams, directors of youth homes and social service programs, etc.—are

often expressive leaders. Most people, regardless of gender, tend to prefer leaders who

use a combination of expressive and instrumental leadership (Boatwright & Forrest, 2000).

Sociologists recognize three leadership styles. Democratic leaders encourage group

participation in all decision making. They work hard to build consensus before choosing a

course of action and moving forward. This type of leader is particularly common in groups

like school clubs or professional organizations, where members vote on priorities or

activities to pursue. Democratic leaders may be well liked, but there is a risk that

decisions will proceed slowly because it takes time to build consensus. Another risk is that

group members might pick sides and entrench themselves into opposing factions, rather

than reaching a solution.

In contrast, a laissez-faire (French for "leave it alone") leader is hands-off, allowing group

members to self-manage and make their own decisions. An example of this kind of leader

might be an art teacher who opens the art cupboard, leaves materials on the shelves, and

tells students to help themselves and make some art. While this style can work well with

highly motivated and mature participants who have clear goals and guidelines, it risks

group dissolution and a lack of progress.

Finally, authoritarian leaders issue orders and assign tasks with little to no feedback from

group members. These leaders are often instrumental leaders with a strong focus on

meeting goals. Many entrepreneurs, like Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, fall into this

mold. Unsurprisingly, authoritarian leaders risk alienating workers. When decisions need

to be made quickly or informed by a high level of expertise, however, this style of

leadership may be required.

In different circumstances, each of these leadership styles can be effective and successful.

Consider what leadership style you prefer. Why? Do you like the same style in different

areas of your life, such as a classroom, a workplace, and a sports team?

References

Boatwright, K. J., & Forrest, L. (2000). Leadership preferences: The influence of gender

and needs for connection on workers' ideal preferences for leadership behaviors.

The Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2): 18–34.

Cooley, C. H. (1963). Social organizations: A study of the larger mind. Shocken.

Sumner, W. (1959). Folkways. Dover.

Licenses and Attributions

Introduction to Sociology 3e (https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-

3e) by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, and Asha Lal Tamang from OpenStax is

available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license. © June 3, 2021,

OpenStax. UMGC has modified this work and it is available under the original

license. Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-

3e/pages/1-introduction (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-

introduction)

© 2022 University of Maryland Global Campus

All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity

of information located at external sites.

Formal Organizations

A common complaint is that society is dominated by large and impersonal secondary

organizations. From schools to businesses to government, these formal organizations are

highly bureaucratized. Indeed, all formal organizations are, or likely will become,

bureaucracies. Let's look at the purpose of formal organizations and the structure of their

bureaucracies.

Sociologist Amitai Etzioni posited that formal organizations fall into three categories

(Etzioni, 1975). Normative organizations, also called voluntary organizations, are based on

shared interests and joining them is voluntary. People find membership rewarding in an

intangible way; they receive non-material benefits. The Audubon Society and a ski club

are examples of normative organizations.

Coercive organizations are groups that people must be pressured to join. These may

include prison or a rehabilitation center. Symbolic interactionist Erving Goffman states

that most coercive organizations are total institutions, which we discussed in terms of

socialization (Goffman, 1961).

The third type is utilitarian organizations, which are joined because of the need for a

specific material reward. High school and workplaces fall into this category—one is joined

in pursuit of a diploma, the other in order to make money.

This table summarizes the three types of formal organizations:

Types of Formal Organizations

Normative Coercive Utilitarian

Benefit of membership

Intangible benefit Corrective benefit

Tangible benefit

Learning Resource

Normative Coercive Utilitarian

Type of membership

Volunteer basis Required Contractual basis

Feeling of connectedness

Shared affinity No affinity Some affinity

Source: Etzioni, 1975

The Structure of Bureaucracies

Bureaucracies are an ideal type of formal organization. By ideal, sociologists don't mean

best, but rather that they have a collection of characteristics that most of them exhibit.

Max Weber characterized a bureaucracy as having a hierarchy of authority, a clear division

of labor, explicit rules, and impersonality (Weber, 1968). People often complain about

bureaucracies being slow, rule-bound, difficult to navigate, and unfriendly. Let's look at

terms that define a bureaucracy to understand what they mean.

Hierarchy of authority refers to the chain of command that places one individual or office

in charge of another, who in turn must answer to superiors. For example, as an employee

at Walmart, your shift manager might assign you tasks. Your shift manager answers to the

store manager, who must answer to the regional manager, and so on, up to the CEO who

must answer to the board members, who in turn answer to the stockholders. Everyone in

this bureaucracy follows the chain of command.

Bureaucracies also have a clear division of labor: Each individual has a specialized task to

perform. For example, at a university, psychology professors teach psychology, but they

do not attempt to provide students with financial aid forms. The Office of Admissions

often takes on this task. In this case, it is a clear and commonsense division. But what

about in a restaurant where food is backed up in the kitchen and a host is standing nearby

texting? The host's job is to seat customers, not to deliver food. Is this the best division of

labor?

Bureaucracies have explicit rules—rules that are outlined, written down, and standardized.

For example, at a university, the student guidelines are generally documented in a student

handbook. As technology changes and organizations encounter new types of concerns

like cyberbullying and identity theft, the explicit rules need to be expanded to cover these

emerging issues.

Finally, bureaucracies are also characterized by impersonality, which takes personal

feelings out of professional situations. This characteristic grew, to some extent, out of a

desire to avoid nepotism, backroom deals, and other types of favoritism, while

simultaneously protecting customers and others served by the organization.

Bureaucracies often strive to be meritocracies, meaning that hiring and promotion is

based on proven and documented skills, rather than on personal relationships or random

choice. In order to get into a prestigious college, for example, you may need to perform

well on the SAT and have an impressive transcript. In order to become a lawyer and

represent clients, you must graduate law school and pass the state bar exam. Of course,

there are many well-documented examples of success by those who did not proceed

through traditional meritocracies. Think about technology companies with founders who

dropped out of college, or performers who became famous after a YouTube video went

viral.

Organizations that aspire to become meritocracies encounter challenges. How well do you

think established meritocracies identify talent? Wealthy families hire tutors, interview

coaches, test-prep services, and consultants to help their kids get into the most

prestigious colleges. This can start as early as kindergarten in places like New York City,

where competition for the most highly regarded schools is especially fierce. Are these

colleges, many of which have scholarship funds that are intended to make the school

more democratic, really offering all applicants a fair shake?

Bureaucracies are intended to improve efficiency, ensure equal opportunities, and serve a

large population. These aspects of a bureaucracy's rigid structures can be beneficial and,

at times, needed. But many of our bureaucracies grew large during the Industrial

Revolution. Young workers were trained—and organizations were built—for mass

production, focused on assembly line work in factories. In these situations, a clear chain of

command was critical.

Now, this kind of rigid training and adherence to protocol can actually decrease both

productivit

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.