Groupology
E-groups "spring full-blown from the head of Athena" it seems,
in terms of being "live" in short order.
It is difficult to describe and explain the exceptional closeness,
loyalty to, and protectiveness of each other that we experienced. Most of
us never met f2f, nor even talked by phone. But when
one of us suddenly married, a few were truly incensed that she "didn't ask
our permission." When that very same young woman several years later suddenly
died from a heart attack, we were stunned and unconsolable. We couldn't even
see her own husband being anywhere as close to her as we were. We even tried
to have a funeral service for her over the Net.
a) I'm psychologically minded b) the internet is shooting
up like Jack's Beanstalk - I'd like to climb it and see what dreadful and
wonderful creatures await us at the top; c)I have suffered writers block
for years - can't even write a letter - and suddenly I've found a medium
I can freely communicate in (well, verbal has never been a problem; but I
want to publish!) - which amazes me and makes me wonder about the semiotics
of Netspeak. d) I need a dissertation - and either this is an excuse not
to write one, or it is an opportunity to write one. e) I want to be on the
cutting edge of psychological research, and this is where it must be - The
Psychology of NetGroups or some understanding of how appealing this
experience/language/community is to some of us, more and more of us,
and why.
This gets us back to the age-old question, "What is
a group, as opposed to a bunch of bozos waiting for a bus?" I think
W.R. Bion wrote that a group was a shared, perhaps
unconscious, fantasy (or maybe "object"). If this is so, then the question
is, is the medium of a list of messages sufficient to create a group?
It seems to me that "a group" has some kind of
self-reflexive stance (a little we/they) -- bozos waiting for a bus have
little of this, although under stress, they can develop it at least temporarily.
So it seems to me that a group has to develop some sense of membership or
belonging.
"A bunch of bozos waiting for a bus" *is* a group. Groups that
are self-aware are a special case of the class "group". Groups are collections
of people with shared circumstances.
So, yeah, I'd say an e-mail list is a group. Of what? I'd say
an e-mail group is a group of humans who are attempting/succeeding/failing
(at any given time) at some sort of unifying relationship or
community and have some
purpose in mind. Each may have his/her own purpose,
a global group purpose,or both. Humans may come to this group & humans
may go from this group buteach have some purpose in the coming, in the staying
and/or in the going.
Uh-oh. Now, what is a "community?"
Myself (and several other members of this list) also belong
to a group which formed a team over the net.
Well... with a really "close" group, I can whine about my life
and not get kicked out! :-)
I think you are a member of a group if and when you say you
are.
Some history: having begun with 2, year-long sensitivity groups
in high school; numerous T-groups (including how to design and conduct T-groups)
in Bethel, Maine (NTL) during grad school; 7 years of weekly Gestalt training
& Gestalt groups; about 8 trips to Esalen for more "group experience."
I now run groups in my practice. I'm a "grouped-out groupie," in cyberspace
and everywhere else.
The Bloomsbury Group is all dead and gone but it lives on as
a concept, . . .
Memory is a legitimate way of maintaining a group, I think;
i.e. a written record, or a hard disk somewhere, or an individual person's
cerebral cortex -- so yes the group lives on if only in one person's memory
The impulse to differentiate and reintegrate differences is
the central principle around which I base my work with groups and organizations
as it is the fundamental dynamic in all living human systems.
For example, a group which experiences great anxiety about a
topic will avoid that topic through a variety of defenses, intellectualizing
being one. Bion called that basic assumption flight.
If the group is unsure as to direction (certainly the case here) the interaction
will repeatedly focus on questions of who's in charge,
why don't they set a clear direction, etc.
An interesting element of COG's Ladder
is that according to the model, a group is knocked back down to the polite
stage every time there is a change in membership. That is, someone joining
the group or exiting the group. One reason for this is the need to validate
the relationships and roles again considering the
new membership mix. -
This brings into focus something about the peculiarties of this
medium which distinguishes it from most f2f groups:
The boundaries are quite elastic and amorphous (either/or) and I wouldn't
even say they are "permeable" (in the Agazarian sense) -- They are beyond
permeable -- By the setup there is no clear demarcation between "inside"
and "outside." In psychoanalytic terms (NOT
psychobabble) this nearly defines either a psychotic state or a highly creative
state of being. In the psychotic range: paranoia, loss of distinct identity
(psychotic merging), uncanny experiences (mind-reading, synchronicity, thought
broadcasting, hallucinations) are symptomatic and create high anxiety in
most. In the creative range: All sorts of new ideas, new connections, pushing
the edge of the envelope.
Boundaries here are a bit of a moving target, but one factor
in the civility of the discussion on this list is the growing and tacit and
informal sense of limits, etc. which do seem to validate boundary setting
as an on-going process. OTOH, make "no boundaries" the rule and I'll gladly
and gleefully run amuck.;-)
I crave comments from those who know more about this group-dynamics
voodoo.
The problem with trying to judge or watch or whatever the rest
of the group does is THE GROUPS REACTION IS AN ILLUSION.
So, what does the group do with individuating individuals?
By having a task, it seem to me, the
"group" is intent upon interacting with and having an impact upon the
environment, whether that environment be physical, social, economic, or
political. A group is trying to change the world outside the group. A club,
as an entity, is not trying to change the world and the impact it has on
the social or economic environment is incidental. Thus, in a group, the members,
when engaged in activities that further the purposes of the group, are agents
(in a legal sense) of the group when dealing with
the world outside the group. The group is responsible for the actions of
its members. In a club, outside of administrative matters that involve people
outside the group, the agency relationship is unnecessary. For these reasons
(maybe), groups tend to have authoritarian
structures, while clubs can afford to be more democratic.
Now here we are gathered discussing/studying internet dynamics
as though they are somehow different than group dynamics in general. If they
are somehow different, why then take concepts and models used in studying
regular group dynamics and try to imply them here? Wouldn't we, by definition,
need new concepts and models?
As the eternal optimist, I believe anyone can be accepted into
any group
"The term (group) embraces only mental activity of a particular
kind, not the people who indulge in it."
[Bion]
If one postulates a "group mind" or some similar construction
with an existence akin to the Cartesian mind, it is nearly impossible to
devise what constitutes an effective group, because the "mind" has no clear
interaction with the world around it. If, however, one grants that the group
is a hunk of social evolution arising from the interaction of people, technology
and the other groups, the problem may become clearer. Just as the humans
are constantly engaged in problem solving with the problems ranging from
breakfast to game theory, the group is a problem
solving entity and its effectiveness can loosely be judged on how creatively
and intelligently it solves problems that arise as a result of situations
presented by the environment in which it lives.
I've mentioned Agazarian before - and didn't even draw an "huh?"
Agazarian Theory (a woman theorist in line with Virginia Satir) looked at
groups as systems within systems (also in line with Lewin - King of systems
theory). She was particularly interested in the boundaries between systems,
and using a biological model (ala Lewis "Lives of a Cell" - my assoc., not
necc. hers) she saw groups as micro-organisms in a context of relatively
larger macr0 -organisms, or in relation to other micro-organisms, and ultimately
in relation to a super-arching organism which is all social groups and
groupings...
Her focus, again, was on the boundaries between systems.
And her definition of a healthy, vital group was one that was semi-permeable
- enabling it to take in from the "outside", through the boundary, what was
nourishing and assimilable to the group; and not taking in what would poison
or overload the group. "Unhealthy" groups either have impermeable boundaries
which end up starving it into extinction/implosion (cults?) or they have
virtually no boundaries which permit a deluge from the "outside" , levelling
and soddening everything inside and out (democracies?).
Agazarian theory is under the rubric of what is called
Group-as-a-Whole theory; just to give some of you an important key-word for
a search or whatever
How we as a group learn to manage
lurkers, flamers, spammers,
or just generally members having a cranky day
IS an issue of interest to the study of net dynamics. Mismanagement of
affect, affective intolerance, or the lack of
protective "rules" (carefully laid down and flexible
as the group grow in the skills of affect management) might be what distinguishes
an "effective" group from an "ineffective" group; or a thriving group from
a dying group.
Individuality is about each of us. It can't be separated out
from the group either. Did Bion understand this?
(Don't see this group headed toward group think or consensus or a grandiose
*WE* which is okay by me.;-}
Boundary functions are probably the most imfluential factor
in understanding and managing or at least surviving group processes. It isn't
a surprise to me that relatively small deviations in the functional boundaries
arouse intense and rather primitive feelings among
a subgroup of members
What you're describing seems consistent with my contention that
it is often useful to analogize groups with biological organisms or some
other type of self-defining system. Group member roles
must be seen as both a result of and a stimulant to, other group member
roles.
Now, I think we agree that changes in the group really might
not matter as one group will pretty much follow the dynamics of another group.
And groups in cyberspace will pretty much follow F2F
groups, as you suggested, this has yet to be disproven, but what I doubt,
is the ability for the group to _advance_ through the
developmental process due to an ever changing membership
unless we consider some alternate methodologies.
Consider that if groups do indeed behave as virtual entities,
then insights can be gained by analyzing them as as one would an
individual.
'group think' can be both driven by instinctual needs, say for
survival.
My guess is that any chance the group has of progressing through
noticable group development stages past "bid for
power" depends largely on how intransient and how dedicated the "core"
group is to the purposes and
processes (if any) that they can
agree on.
no one's hiding his/her humanity. but trying to recreate rl
group interactions on the net may be counter productive.
In my discussions, I don't intend to filter out the qualitative
forces at work in groups. However, I often feel the need to point out that
many of our behaviors are just "simply human" behaviors that occur in many
venues. Dog's tend to pant. If a group who had never seen a dog before were
wondering why dog's pant after eating, it might be useful for someone to
point out that dog's naturally pant and that it may not have anything to
do with the food.
If we remain too "polite," we are doomed
to cycle again and again through the polite stage
of group development. If we encourage too much conflict, we are likely to
remain in "bid-for-power." The key to progress seems
to lie in allowing the group to develop its own character and flavor while
exploring affinities and disaffinities. An important element in this is the
development of tolerance among members of the group for an occasional behavior
that is outside the emerging norms. This allows the group to explore boundaries
and, in doing so, define them.
The primary thing to keep in mind is that the group is a mental
construct and not a physical reality. We are not face to face although this
doesn't alter the fact that the group-as-a-whole is a mental construct. It
only exists for as long as we think it does and then it doesn't
What has been created here is an interaction pattern of
asynchronous, individual interactions inside a structure that has no
time, task or territorial
boundaries per se. If you wanted nonlinear and nondeterministric, this is
about as good as its gonna get.
"A system, whether it be social, personality or cultural, has
a task of defining its boundaries, demarcating itself from the others,
establishing its characteristics, and developing its qualities. These attributes
of the identity task may be illustrated by examining trust
formation (Gibb, 1978), problems of dependency and independence (Bennis
& Shepard, 1956), and boundary awareness (Slater, 1966). The social system
of a small group appears to evolve its own identity; it can be described
by its members as having specific characteristics that distinguish it from
other groups. Individuals (personality systems) can be observed reflecting
on the values they hold, the kind of persons they are, and the goals that
shape their lives. The basic and formative patterns of the cultural system
become active in characterizing and directing the dynamics of the small group."
Robert D. Boyd Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
I can now see that the group-relations
work simply must be done with some modicum of privacy, boundaries,
containment, structure, knowledgeable guidance (consultant), and relatively
minimal interference. We've covered each of these in our discussions, and
I think fairly concluded that these variables cannot be controlled in this
medium/forum.
Group-think as a normative behavior
expectation. I like it. Of course, you wanted me to think that. (grin)
I am not so convinced as Ron that it is impossible to form a
'group' on the net, or that it is impossible to work together to accomplish
something.. . .For the latter to occur, however, there must be some
(acknowledged?) boundaries & definition of the structure (we do have
both, they're just not explicit) -- some of those things Marvin has been
talking about, and NetDynam has been unable to look at itself in a way which
would permit this to take place.
I'd suggest that it's not an issue of whether we _can_ function
as a group so much as whether we are _willing_ to do so.
Groups have semi-permeable membranes around them, just like
cells. They can grow, divide, incorporate other groups, die from malnourishment
or toxins. I think this is human nature, on the net as anywhere else
For me 'group dynamics' is a specific term which has to do with
studying the conscious and unconscious aspects of human behavior in organizations
and groups. The two areas of interest are linked; I think much of what is
puzzling in organizational behavior is the result of unrecognized and
unacknowledged emotional reactions on the part
of the participants -- reactions which are not truly 'unconscious' but which
can become available as useful information in certain circumstances.
all groups are 'psychological' groups but not all groups are
'sociological' groups.
we cannot possibly *be* a sociological group but we can cultivate
the desire to be one, which I think we (I) do. But in the act of cultivating
the desire to be a sociological group, we're basically just indulging our
fantasies.
We have available to us a variety of languages in which to say
the same thing. baD. The phantasy of the group as mother-body, within which
and from which we are in a constant struggle to differentiate ourselves,
each of us. The archetype of the tribe, and of the king who must die.
Transformation as the destruction --phoenix-like-- of each stage to provide
the energy and the material for the next stage.
Projection, projective identification
(i-dent-ification), the transference. The evolution of the chreod on the
individual as substrate, and on the group as substrate --in fractal reiteration.
Etc. (Somebody else say it more matter-of-factly?)
Return to Index