Social Work with Groups: Interaction, Structure, and Change
**Individuals, Groups, and Networks: Perspectives on Social Work with Groups**
*1. Introduction*
The socialization process shapes our identity and culture, allowing us to be active members of society. In this process, the group plays a key role as a foundation for socialization. In situations of weakness, lack, or failure to adapt to the environment, group dynamics offers an excellent opportunity for treatment.
People are always involved in groups, from primary groups (relationships that generate support networks or personal networks) to secondary groups (in which relationships are impersonal and largely formalized).
Three theoretical perspectives on social interaction have greatly influenced the development of TSG: structuralism and functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. We will then analyze two features of contemporary society that we consider relevant: old and new risks, and new networks as a social structure. Finally, we will analyze the main classifications that have been proposed in the study of social groups.
The basic perspective from which to approach the study of group dynamics emphasizes the processes of social inclusion.
The goal of our discipline is to deal with situations of personal weakness and problematic situations, using group dynamics as an effective training mechanism. This improves the skills to solve problems, enhancing our ability to interact, to offer, and to find social support in situations of uncertainty.
*2. Theoretical Perspectives on Social Interaction*
Theoretical approaches in the social sciences throughout the twentieth century, psychology, and sociology (analyzed, each from their perspective, social groups in their functions, features, and types of communication) have been abandoning dual schemes. Examples include the contrast between conflict and consensus, the distinction between macro and micro scale, and the debate between individualism and collectivism.
There was a general movement that sought integration and synthesis to explain social and psychological processes that are resistant to any kind of theoretical reductionism.
Some theoretical approaches related to three characteristics of groups:
- They are social structures (structural and functional).
- There are processes of conflict and change (conflict theory).
- They are based on communicative interaction and exchange of its members (symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology).
**2.1. Structuralism and Functionalism**
Structuralism, along with functionalism, became the dominant theoretical paradigm in the 1950s and 1960s. It focuses on the notion of structure as a system or set of systems. The elements of the structure can only be understood in terms of its connections with other elements and the structure itself. (Character determinant of social structures, and greater stability.) Structures enable agency staff, but also constrain it.
The object of any of the social sciences is to isolate and describe the structures that a society uses to perceive, relate, and interpret its experiences. All these structures are what Levi-Strauss (1978-1922) called “culture.”
Functionalism analyzes the functions relating to the conditions of existence of the social system: “Functionalists believe in the existence of so-called universal functional requirements.” They argue that to survive, any social system must comply with certain functions or needs. Functionalists are set on how various social practices meet the main needs of a comprehensive system in which such practices are imbued.
The central figure of this movement was Talcott Parsons, followed by his disciple Robert K. Merton.
The general theory of action (Parsons) attempts to resolve the aporia between the structured nature of the action and the impossibility of reducing it to external conditions.
It is a mediation in which the actor sees an end but cannot ignore the situation. This situation is made up of two distinct elements: the conditions (uncontrolled) and means (or resources over which control exists).
The general scheme of Parsonian action consists of four subsystems:
- The human biological organism (which provides power to the individual and focuses on adaptation to the environment).
- The personality system (is aimed at the achievement of objectives and is the result of the socialization process, whose assimilation is different for each person).
- The social system (that promotes the party).
- The cultural system (which aims to maintain standards, providing the necessary values for the integration of the personality of the social actors in the systems).
“The social system is one of the three aspects of the structuring of a particular overall system of social action. The other two systems are the personalities of individual actors, and the culture system is established in their actions. Each of the three are independent (neither is reducible to the terms of any of the other two, or a combination thereof). Each is indispensable for the other two, in the sense that without figures and without culture there would be no social system, the same is true of the logical relationships between each of the systems and the other two. But this interdependence and interpenetration is very different from the reducibility…).
The term “system” is essential to his work:
- The definition of a social system: interaction of individuals, each member is both an actor (with goals, ideas, attitudes, etc.) and object orientation, so the other stakeholders as to himself. The social system is the permanent structure that organizes the relationship between an actor and a situation.
- The characteristics of any social system: structure, functional requirements, and internal dynamics (social systems change in an orderly manner).
- In Parsonian theory, we must highlight the role of the concept “function”: it involves all activities aimed at meeting the needs of the system.
Four basic needs (under four classes of functions):
- A (adaptation)
- G (attainment of objectives)
- I (integration)
- L (normative stability, which makes possible the maintenance of standards)
The relationships established between these four elements themselves account for the processes of evolution and change.
Society can be defined as “a kind of social system in any universe of social systems, reaching the highest level of self-sufficiency as a system in relation to their environments (Parsons).” When the social system acquires a “persistent” one, we can speak of “society.” Such an outcome of stability and permanence in social systems depends on functional prerequisites or guarantees of cohesion between the three levels outlined: natural, personal-motivational, and cultural.
Robert K. Merton, a disciple of Parsons, developed a functionalist theory of society based on wrong principles critical to the first functionalism. He made a distinction between functions, positive for the stability and system integration, and disruption, which reduces the adaptation or adjustment of a given system.
He also distinguished non-functional elements: those that are not relevant or irrelevant to a given social system. In discussing the functions, he introduced the concepts of “latent” and “manifest.”
Latent function: that which is unintentional.
Manifest function: that which is intentional.
Finally, he integrated into his theory the concept of “unintended consequences” that can lead to the final result being opposite to the intentionality of social actors.
The functional analysis was based on the following principle: there are several levels of functional analysis (the general public, organizations, institutions, groups). Facing the great theory of Parsons, Merton calls for mid-level theory, which focuses on analyzing a bounded area of social phenomena, thus favoring the establishment of proper connections between theoretical and empirical research.
**2.2. Conflict Theory**
Its principal exponent is Ralf Dahrendorf. Society always has two aspects: conflict and consensus. These must be analyzed: how to integrate values in society, how conflicts of interest emerge, and what is the nature of the link that enables any company to hold together.
Conflict and consensus processes are interrelated. He developed a theory of conflict based on the analysis of authority, which lies in the positions occupied by people (not themselves), and the object of conflict theory to analyze the conflict between these positions.
He analyzed what he called “conflict groups” and the processes of conflict and change. “Dahrendorf claimed that, once established, the conflict groups engage in actions that cause changes in social structure. When the conflict is acute, the changes are radical. When accompanied by violence, it is sudden. Sociologists should take into account the relationship between conflict and change, and the relationship between conflict and the status quo.” The proper management of conflicts, the role of authority and leadership within the group, and personal and group change are crucial in the development of the life of a group.
**2.3. Symbolic Interactionism and Ethnomethodology**
The TS considered three types of problems:
- Those related to the structure of the group (how to structure and give cohesion).
- Derivatives of conflict and change within the group.
- Those related to interactions between participants (based on language).
Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology focus on communicative practices and the micro level for the TS. Herbert Blumer coined the term “symbolic interactionism” and ran the program as a theoretical alternative to functionalism.
Mead: the social dimension of the person rests in the communication process.
Socialization is a process of interaction in which each person is self-regulating, internalizing the general pattern of action, while they can evaluate and redirect it in a permanent review exercise.
What constitutes a person is the social process of influencing others in a social event and then adopting the attitude of others. This has been caused by the stimulus and finally, in turn, reacting against this reaction.
Mead, “personality-society relationship (me and my) refers to a specific amount of individuals in their interaction, changing their own psychology and the intersubjective reality even global. The “self” is the social individual that settles the fruits of introspection (or dialogue with himself), hits the “gestures” of others, and develops answers.” The self or personality is structured through two intertwined phases: the self (the body’s response to the actions of others) and me (“the organized set of attitudes of others which one himself assumes”). The “I” is the new element; the “me” is the one for the “generalized other.” I live in the creative aspects of self; it is the source of innovation. I reside in the set of attitudes and norms of others that have been internalized and assumed by the actor. In my social control resides.
Through social interaction, we assume roles, we organize our experiences and develop, through the representation of the prospect of another general, abstract thinking and objectivity, forming personality. There is no character before the social interaction. It produces the internalization of social attitudes that constitute the self. In this process, the uniqueness of each person is eliminated; the house self has its own peculiarities, its own unique guidelines.
Blumer made what Mead called “symbolic interactionism”: Its main objective is the analysis of symbols that mediate the interaction. Four premises:
- The creativity of the subject and its capacity for interaction.
- Social order depends on recurrent practices based on identical interpretation, and social change is possible because people redefine their actions and establish estimates that lead to new types of behavior.