Subgroups
My sense is that the oscillations can be understood as the
inevitable consequence of a group dynamic that
does not contain the ability to subgroup
Since the person joining the list is crossing a boundary
(lurker->poster) in doing so some attention
couldbe paid to the experience of crossing the boundary and thereby continuously
reinforce the context of the list space as distinct from not-list space.
The work of the person would be to identify themselves and to join the list
at the level of a specific subgroup (thread) rather
than a reply to a person. This would effect a shift in
role away from the person to the member. The shift
in role and the identification with a subgroup would most likely continue
to reinforce the boundary around the work of that particular subgroup and
thereby reduce the disturbance of a new members' joining.
The technique of subgrouping is one of resonant communication
from one member to another with the goal of joining with and deepening the
exploration of their experience in the here and now. There is no real need
for f2f contact in order to effect subgrouping. It
is the absence of this type of interaction that leads to the
oscillating dynamic present in listserv dialogue
and cyber group dynamics in general IMHO.
My general question is, how could an online group like this
one diversify and specialize while still maintaining a sense of unity and
integrity?
The women and men ooze from one affinity group to another as
the subject changes and the resonating groupings are affected by both the
social experience of the poster's gender and the
biological imperatives that lay just beneath.
Individual identities are voluntarily subsumed in the group
identity for limited periods determined by the individual. A sub-group's
identity is likewise subsumed in the larger group voluntarily depending upon
the extent of overlay of mutual purposes and
processes.
But there's content there and I expect he's forming a subgroup in what appears
to still be a bid for power phase here.
this seems contrived to me, at least for a mailing list like
this. I've thought that one of the things to consider an advantage is the
fact that anyone can respond to anyone else
on anything that attracts their interest. . . .To be sure I'm hoping that
at some point some specific task-oriented groups
might take shape but I'd be loath to try to set it up or partition it off
such that people "confined themselves to focused replies to their subgroup
members..."
Your expression of unwillingness is often a voice for a significant
subgroup in all early developing groups, that of the members who are taking
a 'wait and see' attitude.
I think we've been looking for subgroups with a magnifying glass.
We are all, the eighteen of us who post with some regularity, members of
a single subgroup, the talkers. The lurkers must
divide into their own subgroups, perhaps lurkers who read everything, lurkers
on digest, lurkers who delete most of their stuff undread. Maybe in an electronic
medium, subgroups are as subgroups do.
Subgroups will form and close themselves off, based on some
shared identity or purpose. That's sad if you miss the broader experience
the net offers, good if you have some serious work to get done.. . . A cult
at one extreme, an anarchy at the other.
You wait until you feel that you can join the subgroup with
a feeling that is at least at the same level or slightly deeper. The experience
you have is what you share, without all the trappings of well worn
rationalizations or the like. This way you are sharing what is fresh and
immediate for you and are responding to similar expressions from the members
of your subgroup who are all working toward deepening their own and the
subgroup's experience in the here and now.
We seem to have plenty of sub-grouping here. What we're lacking
is a _commitment_ to any particular _strategic_ grouping. Are we a
group? Yes. Are we a team? No. Why? Because
we haven't committed ourselves to a division of effort and direction that
would enable us to provide a product that would
be attributable to the group (team).
Subgroups seem to bubble up out of the soup, last for a while,
then disappear.
I'm in the subgroup of feeling
irritated and alienated
Communicating across subgroup boundaries serves to dilute the
subgroup development and hence the group's capacity to contain energy and
focus it on growing up.
What if I want to talk to someone that is not in my subgroup?
Am I forbidded?
As an Excessively Trained Mental Health Professional (tm) I'll
allow that in structured therapeutic or instructional settings, it's common
practice to divide up into groups, speak to absent people as though they
were there, role-play, emote on cue, "interpret"
the behavior of others, and many other such oddities. Kidding aside, these
have great value in certain well-defined situations. To use them at a party
would be silly -
I decided a long time ago not to take any of Marvin's subgroup
posts seriously. I read them. Then I delete them, which is what I do to
everybody's posts unless I find something really spectacular
So you've finally found a subgroup we both belong in? So what
should we call it? The narcissitically wounded subgroup? The I won't play
unless you play by my rules subgroup? The victims of scolding and and other
forms of persecution subgroup?
Return to Index