Variations on the Theme of Primary Groups: Forms of Social Control Within School Staffs*

Выходные данные статьи:

Warren, Donald I. Variations on the Theme of Primary Groups: Forms of Social Control within School Staffs, Sociology of Education, Vol. 43, Issue 3 (Summer, 1970), pp. 288-310.

Variations on the Theme of Primary Groups: Forms of Social Control Within School Staffs

Donald I. Warren

University of Michigan

Four mechanisms of social control are analyzed in relationship to a typology of school staffs which in several respects resemble primary groups. Mechanisms of selective recruitment and selective expulsion are used extensively by staffs whose members internalize and share values. The mechanism of socialization is important in a school staff with a heterogeneous membership when the members interact informally away from the work setting. Isolation is employed to punish deviants in a staff whose members interact frequently in the course of their work. However, variations in the elements that define the staff types, or the degree to which a school staff is successful in achieving consensus, can lead groups to employ several control mechanisms. External controls can help or hinder the within-group control efforts. Data from eighteen elementary schools in a large urban center are used to test hypotheses.

Since Becker's (1952) descriptive work on the horizontal processes of teacher career patterns was published, inquiry concerning colleague and school system effects on teachers has been neglected. School climate as it relates to pupil socialization has been discussed, but teacher socialization has not.[1] The present report pursues this area of inquiry by suggesting some theoretical views of social groups and social control phenomena and testing some of these views with survey data from a large metropolitan school system.

Essentially we ask two questions: (1) What qualitative differences in the structure of colleague relations exist between school staffs? (2) What mechanisms of social control within school staffs are most effective under the conditions set by these differences?

To answer the first question we will present a typology of peer groups that is based on the elements of the primary group as defined by Cooley (1909:23-31; 1933:55-60 and 208-215). To answer the second question we will consider four familiar ways that group members exercise influence over their peers, relating these to the group types to discover which control mechanisms may be effective m given school staffs. We shall not consider external administrative controls on teaching staffs. Effects of external controls are considered elsewhere (Warren, 1969).

The framework is clearly sociological. As Freidson (1964) pointed out, the analysis of the professions tends to point to individual deficiencies or improper training as causal factors in the failure of a professional to perform well–that is, according to the highest standards of the profession–when after more careful analysis the work environment or setting is frequently seen to have important effects on individual professional behavior. Quite aside from the gross physical features of a school building, the social setting of a school staff can differ from that of another school that is otherwise comparable within a community and a school system. "^

Elements of Primary Group Structure in Work Groups

In his classic definition of primary groups Cooley (Cooley et al., 1933:208-215) identified several essential properties: (a) face-to-face interaction, (b) diffuse and unspecialized interaction, (c) relative permanence, (d) "sympathy and mutual identification for which 'we' is the natural expression," and (e) small size. (The last, size, is not considered here.) Cooley's definition is an ideal type, the elements of which contrast in most respects with properties of secondary or "formal" groups. Cooley's definition of primary groups was not originally meant to be divisible in the sense that given elements may be present or absent. These elements, however, can be considered as independently varying attributes and can be measured. An association of individuals in a work setting who share a common formal status, such as teachers in an elementary school, forms a distinct kind of primary group according to the values taken by each of the four elements. By measuring the degree to which each element is present in a work group we can discover the differences between groups. Thus it is useful to recognize the heuristic function of Cooley's formulation.[2]

Figure 1 illustrates our conception of three types of peer groups: Consensual, Diffuse, and Job-specific. The figure also includes the ideal-typical primary and secondary groups for conceptual comparison. Each type is defined by the degree to which each of four elements–face-to-face contact, diffuse interaction, solidarity, and membership stability–is present. Our purpose is to suggest, from particular combinations of the elements, three types of peer social groups whose elements facilitate or hamper the use of given mechanisms of social control.

Each of the four elements may be present or absent, maximal or minimal among work peers in a given social setting. Together these elements retain the essence of Cooley's primary-group concept, but separately they offer the means of empirically assessing peer relationships. Treating them separately serves two functions. (1) It points out that the arbitrary dichotomizing of "primary group" versus "secondary group" (or "formal" versus "informal" organization) is oversimplification; it should be replaced by a conceptual scheme that recognizes several group attributes. (2) Each element of Cooley's definition has particular consequences for

figure 1

Elements of Primary Groups

group functioning; therefore at the points at which empirical situations differ in a given element, the group's strength or weakness should be specifically definable.

Face-to-face contact here denotes peer surveillance in role performance, subtle or intended. Persons working in the same place, such as teachers in the same building, observe and communicate With one another if the job requires it. This aspect of face-to-face contact has been treated extensively in work-group studies of the 1930s and later. It is predominant in the Job-specific peer group (see Figure 1), which is typified primarily by interaction within the job context alone. Although face-to-face contact is often a key element of primary-group relationships, it is not related either to high group cohesiveness or to strong identification with the group.[3] In the "typical" primary group, the family, this is apparent: even frequent interaction does not necessarily promote value-sharing, especially in times of rapid social change (a "generation gap" can occur). But face-to-face contact does aid all group members in understanding both the similarities and the differences between individual normative orientations–that is, in being aware of, if not in agreement with, the values held by other group members.

When authority is delegated to one's peers, as is the case with teachers or other professionals when direct surveillance by superiors is traditionally limited, the Job-specific peer group may come to resemble the secondary group. The coercive power of punishment for rule violation or the use of legitimate authority serves effectively as a control when values and attitudes are not internalized.[4]

Diffuse interaction denotes the informal contacts that sometimes develop when work peers perform in a shared setting. Such leisure-time interaction can stimulate discussion and influence values and attitudes toward work. A crucial difference between diffuse interaction and face-to-face contact is that social relations off the job are voluntary and selective; face-to-face contact occurs within the job context in the process of handling tasks and is neither voluntary nor selective. The predominance of diffuse interaction in the Diffuse peer group, as conceptualized in Figure 1, occurs when social acceptance among work peers is established as a central value. Once an individual has won social acceptance and participates fully in the interaction of his peer group, he begins to internalize the group values to which his earlier conformity may have been simply utilitarian.[5] Thus socialization of members to group values is characteristic of Diffuse peer groups.

Diffuse interaction is particularly effective in converting new members and does not rely on an initial selection of peers by experience, homogeneity of background, or personal values (selective recruitment). At least part of the positive incentive for conformity to group norms comes from a feedback of supporting communication that breaks down the individual's earlier insulation between personal values and work requirements. This is quite similar to the interaction processes described by Homans (1950).

Group solidarity refers to intense identification, similar to Cooley's description of "we-feeling." It is clearly akin to the reference-group concept and is an important element in the Consensual peer group (see Figure I). The awareness of consensus, mutual attractiveness among peers, and shared values is strongly salient.

When "we-feeling" is isolated from the other elements of the primary group, the emphasis is on homogeneity of interests. Here cohesiveness becomes a product of the initial composition of the group. Similarity of background creates a highly subjective sense of unity and solidarity; neither frequent contact nor an elaborate socialization process is required.[6] Consensus develops as a "natural" response from common values and orientations to any problem that members may take to the group. Consensus is a direct outgrowth of perceived common bonds. Cohesion results from prior selection of group members, intended or unintended. Homogeneity provides a basis for social control of "significant others" in the group and maximizes internalization of social norms because of a shared frame of reference. For these reasons and because the group tends to define itself on the basis of them, face-to-face contact and diffuse interaction are low in the Consensual peer group; they are unnecessary.

Membership stability is perhaps the most easily defined of the elements described by Cooley. Groups are primary, he wrote, "in the sense that they do not change in the same degree as more elaborate relations" (Cooley, 1909:27). A low turnover of group members can be an operational measure of Cooley's concept of stability. The development of a deep-seated identification, such as occurs in the ideal-typical family group, may be dependent on membership stability. In the absence of a high rate of interaction, the cumulative impact of even the most formal modes of social contact may take on qualities otherwise associated with intense and intimate contacts as long as the roles that individuals occupy are constant.

While it is possible to imagine stable groups without face-to-face member contacts maintaining a primary-group relationship because of the strengthening effect of membership stability on "we-feeling," it is difficult to expect such solidarity to develop if membership turnover is high. For this reason we view membership stability as an important element in Consensual peer groups and as important but not crucial in Diffuse peer groups. Membership turnover is likely to be high in the Job-specific group in which members have little feeling of solidarity or fellowship; in Job-specific peer groups the roles are formalized and can be occupied by others without detriment.

To summarize, in the Consensual group, solidarity ("we-feeling") and membership stability are of the essence; in the Diffuse group, off-the-job socializing predominates; and in the Job-specific group the inevitable daily interaction with peers of equal status in the work context is most typical.

Social structures are not static. The proportional relationships of the elements of primary groups can vary over time (e.g., school staffs experience changes in personnel that can alter group structure). A group is clearly Job-specific (or Diffuse or Consensual) at a given point in time may undergo changes in the values of certain of the four elements relative to one another and thus move into a new category. For example, in a new school building membership stability is low among the staff of "new" teachers, and face-to-face contact will tend to be high as teachers "learn the ropes" and adjust to their new environment. The teachers are too new to each other for diffuse, off-the-job interaction; and membership homogeneity, even if present, is not likely to be accompanied initially by a sense of solidarity among the staff. Thus we find a typical Job-specific peer group.

In time, membership will stabilize and face-to-face contact diminish as work becomes routine. Other characteristics of the teaching staff, perhaps similarities of training or social background, or an increasing rate of off-the-job interaction, then will tend to shape emergent group properties toward the Consensual or Diffuse types. To some degree the proportions of the four elements in a group can be manipulated either by a peer group member or by an outside authority, but they must first be recognized and their effects on group functioning realized.

Four Social Control Mechanisms Used in Peer Groups

What mechanisms of social control are most effective in each of the three peer group types?

Figure 2 illustrates a hypothetical relationship between four mechanisms of social control and the three types. These relationships are meant to be comparative, neither absolute nor mutually

FIGURE 2

Control Mechanisms Related to Three Conceptual Types of Primary Groups by Degree of Use

exclusive. All mechanisms of control may be found to occur together, as might peer-group elements, although certain elements of peer groups tend to facilitate or undermine the operation of one or more of those mechanisms.

The relationships illustrated in Figure 2 exclude any external acts of social control directed to the group or its members. This is not to say that a given peer-group type is uniquely insulated from external authority, but only to suggest the distinction between internal peer and external administrative control. An attempt to exert a certain kind of external control when peers already exercise it may be superfluous. Conversely, a social control mechanism that is not operant may have to come from an outside source if if-J-s needed.

Selective recruitment insures that new members will come to the peer group with similar values, attitudes, or work habits. In a school system, apart from the administrative application of appointment standards, selective recruitment can operate through an informal grapevine that leads individuals to avoid or seek appointment to a given school.

Socialization defines the role of individual work settings as they mold or reshape the attitudes and values of members. It may be a general occupational socialization or a more local process among peers. Novice teachers, for example, can be "clued in" by veteran teachers.

Selective expulsion is simply the departure of deviants. It may be an expression of the unresolved pressures of adjustment to the work setting. High turnover of membership in itself does not measure the selective expulsion mechanism, but it may be symptomatic of it.

Isolation is the use of ostracism by peers. An individual is excluded from, or excludes himself from, a high rate of involvement with peers, especially when (1) interaction is voluntary, (2) it reflects group solidarity, and (3) it offers a way to reward social acceptability. Isolation can function to delay full acceptance of newcomers or to punish a long-term group member who resists group pressures.

A peer group that maintains consensus via the value-sharing of its members – a Consensual peer group – is more likely than any other type of group to employ the mechanism of selective recruitment (see Figure 2). Selective expulsion is equally important in Consensual peer groups because this type of group depends on the implicit identity of interests and values of its members; an individual who does not "belong" is expelled. Expulsion is seldom a formal or clear-cut procedure in small groups, but even without the trappings of ceremony or official reprimand it is effective. The socialization mechanism is ineffective in the Consensual peer group because there is a relatively low rate of interaction in this group type. Isolation also requires a high rate of interaction and face-to-face contact in order to communicate to the deviant his lack of acceptance and is therefore used infrequently Consensual groups as a means of control.

Socialization is the most significant means of control in Diffuse peer groups because of the high rate of interaction in this type of group and because the frequent informal contacts among members redefine values and attitudes. The deviant can be converted and the newly-arrived member shaped by the socialization mechanism. At the same time the isolation mechanism is used to limit a newcomer’s participation until he has proved himself and to ostracize the deviant long-term member.

Selective expulsion is least useful in the Diffuse type. Deviance can serve positive functions in a group by reinforcing the behavior of the non-deviants and by creating a boundary around the normative system of the group. (Views on the functional consequences of deviance are given by Dentler and Erikson, 1959; Erikson, 1962; Coser, 1962.) Since membership in Diffuse peer groups does not rely on value-sharing, a functional differentiation of roles can emerge and the Diffuse peer group will embrace the deviant where the Consensual peer group could not. Selective recruitment is also of only moderate importance in the Diffuse peer group as compared to Consensual; socialization compensates for it. Initial differences between members matter little (and may even be welcome) to members of Diffuse peer groups.

Isolation is most useful in Job-specific peer groups because of the high degree of face-to-face, work-defined interaction coupled with relatively little off-the-job contact. Without a means of creating internalized commitments to group norms, the Job-specific peer group must use overt means to achieve conformity; punishment for deviation is isolation. In most teaching situations, in which peer surveillance is somewhat limited as compared with some other occupations, isolation is less effective than it is in industrial work groups in which peers are constantly visible to one another. Thus isolation may be found in combination with selective expulsion, since ostracism may be a first step in a dual-control procedure.

Socialization occurs to some extent in the Job-specific peer group, but with low levels of shared values and off-the-job interaction, the opportunities to socialize a member are limited. As for selective recruitment, this is essentially external to the Job-specific peer group. When it does occur as a result of group member activity, the motive for selective recruiting is not grounded in commitment to the group. A staff vacancy may exist, for example, and one teacher informs another of it. A Job-specific peer group is not likely to have any special interest or role in the recruitment procedure.