1.

SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

The Role and Scope of Sociology

It is fifty years since I took up the study of Chinese society. In the

summer of 1930, when I was twenty, I decided to switch from medicine
to social science. I left Dongwu (Soochow) University for Yenching in
Peiping. My reason was that, as a medical doctor, I might cure the
afflictions of a few; but not those of hundreds of millions engendered
by an irrational society. What ailed society must be cured first.

-Comment of a Chinese sociologist, Fei Hsiao Tung, Toward a

Peoples Anthropology, in China Studies Series (Beijing, China:
New World Press, 1981), p. 1.

What will you say when you go home next weekend and your Lola
asks, Sociology? What is sociology? If you reply, Sociology is the
scientific study of human social relationships with special emphasis
upon groups and institutions, she may say Oh? and you will guess
that she is confused as you are. If you tell her Sociology is the scientific
study of social problems like ace relations, crime, divorce and such
things, this will give her some idea of what sociology is all about and may
be a pretty good answer to give someone not familiar with the subject. This
answer, however, will not be entirely correct, for sociology is much more that
the study of social problems. As a student of sociology, you need a better
understanding of just what it involves.

The Sociological Perspective

The word sociology is derived from the Latin word socius, meaning
associate and the Greek word logus or science. Thus, sociology may be
defined as the science of associates, or more broadly, as the scientific study
of human society. This means that sociologists (scientists who specialize in
the field of sociology) are interested in describing and explaining human
behavior, especially as it occurs within the social contexts. Sociologists study
social groups, social institutions or entire societies. Typically, they are
interested in whether behavior that takes place within these social contexts
conforms to some systematic pattern. For example, a sociologist might find
that members of street gangs tend to come from poorer urban families or
that university students tend to act in certain predictable ways in the
classroom.

Natural scientists tell us that human beings have very few inborn
biological instincts. If this is so, then how is it possible for human behavior to
follow such regular patterns? For a sociologist, the answer must lie in the
many ways by which different social groups and relationships affect our lives.
If you pause to reflect upon your own life, this point should become quite
clear. Your growth as a person has been uniquely affected by your social
relationships. Think, for example, of how your parents have influenced you,
both by what they taught you and by the opportunities which they have (or
have not) been able to provide. Similarly, the teachers you have had a great
deal to do with the type of person you are.

Sometimes, social influences are harder to identify. For example,

decisions about the annual budget of the government of the Philippines is to
be spent may have a great influence upon all our lives, yet, most of us are
not aware of how these decisions are made or how the budget is apportioned
among the various government agencies. Similarly, the rapid growth of
population is a farming community may result in a pattern where the
average farm becomes smaller every year. Even though this may
substantially reduce levels of living, the changes may occur so slowly that
most members of the community are unaware of them. The intellectual
challenge of sociology stems largely from the fact that it is up to the
sociologist to trace these important, sometimes hidden, interconnections.

Some sociologists use the term social forces to describe the social
factors, which may influence the behavior of individuals or groups. Our
thoughts and actions usually conform to those which are seen as normal
and proper by other group members. Our chances for success in life will
also be affected by the groups or social categories to which we belong. Thus,
whether someone is rich or poor, Muslim or Christian, male or female has a
very important influence upon the course of his or her life.

A good example of sociological perspective is provided by Magdalenas

study of conflicts which occurred between Muslims and Christians in the
Mindanao-Sulu region during the early 1970s 1970s.For a sociologist, the
occurrence of conflict is not, strictly, a random process. That is it does not
occur merely because of chance. Nor would sociologists simply assert that
conflict can happen anywhere because it is simply human nature; rather, a
sociologist would look for a certain social forces that set the stage for the
occurrence of intergroup tensions and violence. Since these conditions are
not equally present in all communities, it follows that some settings are more
likely to be characterized by violent clashes than are others.

A good novelist or even a newspaper reporter might also try to explain

why Muslims and Christians were fighting with one another during this
period, but they would be more likely to concentrate on some single violent
incident, perhaps one they witnessed personally or heard about. They would
also be unable to offer any real proof that what happened followed a more
general pattern.

A sociologist would try to overcome these limitation. He or she would

collect information on many cases of inter-group violence as on cases where
the Muslim and Christians were able to live together peacefully. Then, the
sociologist would see if the communities characterized by violent incidents
were in any way different from those free from this problem. If such
differences could be found the sociologist would feel closer to understanding
the social causes of intergroup conflict.

In Magdalenas case, he collected information for a sample of 80

municipalities in the Mindanao-Sulu region. From this, he recorded the
number of violent incidents reported in the national news which occurred
between Muslim and Christians between the 1970 and 1972. He then
checked the census to see if communities which had a higher level of such
incidents were also characterized by certain indicators of social strain. He
found a strong evidence that this was indeed the case. Towns with a large
number of violent incidents were, moreover, found to have high levels of
relative deprivation (education levels high, but level of living still low). In
addition, these communities were characterized by populations which were
largely Muslim, but which had high levels of in-migration by Christian
settlers. Apparently, this pattern of rapid in-migration had resulted in power
struggles between the two religious groups which, eventually, resulted in
intergroup tensions and violence.

Although these examples of sociological perspective have focused on

two important social problems of Philippine society (rural poverty and
intergroup violence), it should be noted that sociologists are interested in all
forms of human behavior, even those which do not have any obvious
problems. Thus sociologists have studied such varied topics as child
rearing practices, Philippine folk religious beliefs, relationships between
market vendors and clients, and even the spot of cockfighting.

Use of the Scientific Method in Sociology

Science is not only a collection of statistics or facts. It is also a means

for collecting and verifying information. This procedure is known as the
scientific method. Since sociology is a science, we will take a look at how
the scientific method operates, as well as review, briefly, some of the specific
research techniques that are most commonly used.

Perhaps the most basic characteristic of the scientific method lies in

the fact that the scientist bases his conclusions on empirical observations.
The scientist must also be objective as possible and concerned about
the validity andreliability of his measures. In general, scientific research must
be conducted in such a way that it may be replicated in further studies. But
what do all these terms mean?

For a sociological study, to be empirical, it must be based on

observations of actual human behavior and not on commonly accepted ideas
or the writing of noted philosophers. For example, it is a common belief that
persons living in urban-slum communities are poorly educated, lazy, and
prone to join revolutionary political groups. Before asserting that this is, in
fact, the case, the sociologist would collect information about the
background and values of people who live in slum areas. Having done this,
he would be in better position to judge the characteristics of slum dwellers
than if he had relied on personal impressions or images from the mass
media.

Sociologists also strive to be objective. They should not let their

personal values or beliefs influence their conclusions. For example, a
sociologist who is very sympathetic to the plight of the urban poor would be
careful that this personal viewpoint did not lead to biased picture.

Ideally, scientific studies should be widely circulated among other

members of the scientific community as well as among the government
policy makers and the general public. This increases their practical utility and
also provides opportunity for criticisms and further improvement. Individual
scientists may make errors in collecting or analyzing their data and this can
be discovered and corrected by others. In publishing the results of their
studies, scientists should also provide a description of the data-collection
procedures they used, so other scientists can replicate (repeat) their
analysis. If these further replications provide evidence different from the
original study, the conclusions may have to be re-studied and altered.

In making their observations on human behavior, sociologists must

also be as precise as possible. This means they must always be concerned
about the possibility of error in their measuring of concepts and variables.
For example, persons asked by interviewers to state their income may not
want to reveal this information to a stranger. Similarly, official records of
crimes or of births and deaths may be incorrect because certain cases are
never reported to the proper authorities.

Sophisticated research techniques have been developed to help

improve the quality of sociological data. Where these techniques cannot be
used, the sociologist has an obligation to caution the reader about the
limitations of the study. In all cases, attention should also be given to the
reliability and validity of sociological data. (Reliability means the extent to
which ones measure will continue to give the same results when used
repeatedly. The validity of a measure refers to the degree to which it is
providing a true picture.)

Although we have emphasized the empirical nature of sociology, this

does not mean that sociologists should be content to be what David has
termed simple census takers or well-equipped peeping Toms. It is not
enough to go out into the field simply to collect data on human behavior,
since some types of data are more crucial than others. Ultimately, the
sociologist must concentrate on observing and measuring that small portion
of social reality which he feels is most useful in explaining the study problem
at hand. In order to do this, the sociologist should be guided by the major
concepts and theories in the field. Thus, Magdalena gathered information on
certain indicators of social strain such as relative deprivation and rates of
in-migration, because previous studies in the field (conducted, perhaps, in
settings very different from the Philippines) indicated that these factors
played an important role in escalating levels of intergroup conflict.
Research Techniques Commonly Used by Sociologists

One of the most common techniques employed by sociologists is to

conduct a survey. Typically, a survey concentrates on asking a set of

standardized questions to a portion, or sample of the general population. If

this sample has been chosen randomly (in such a way as to ensure that all
potential respondents have an equal chance of being selected), statistical
procedures may be used to estimate with some known probability or error
the extent the studys findings may be said to apply to the larger group or
population from which the respondents were chosen.

Surveys are a great help in determining the characteristics of a

population, such as its average level of education, or the attitudes toward
various family planning techniques. As we have noted, however, responses
to interviews and questionnaires are not always accurate. Respondents may
not understand some questions or may wish to conceal their true opinion or
behavior. In other cases, answers to survey questions may be somewhat
superficial. That is, they may not have been well thought out or may not
reflect the respondents deepest feelings.

Sociologists, who are concerned about the limitations of survey

research, choose a more qualitative technique, such as participant
observation. In this approach, the sociologist becomes friendly with the
members of a group and joins them in their daily activities. Instead of asking
them a set of standardized questions, he simply talks with them and
observes their activities until the underlying patterns of their behavior
become apparent. For example, Santos used participant observation to study
marijuana use among a group of college boys in Luzon. This technique was
appropriate, since it was doubtful if truthful responses could be gained on
this sensitive (illegal) behavior from a survey. Maintaining objectivity may,
however, be difficult in using this method as the sociologist may identify too
closely within the group joined.

An offshoot of the participant on the observation technique which

seems especially appropriate for the Philippines is known as participatory
action research. As described by Ledesma, this technique is:

(1) participatory in that data-gathering, analysis, and reporting are

done by and for the local communities themselves;
(2) it is action-oriented in that research findings are utilized
immediately by local communities to help solve (their problems) . . .
and
(3) it is research in a systematic manner adhering to the basic
norms of social science investigation it

Thus, participatory action research may be used as a device for

democratizing social science research and for helping people to recognize
and solve their problems. However, as Ledesma points out, certain
preconditions must necessarily exist (e.g. some basic level of community
organization) before this method can be utilized effectively.

These are some of the methods of data collection most commonly used
by Philippine sociologists. None is completely without some limitations. Thus,
when sufficient time and funding is available, the researcher might decide to
employ more than the one of these methods, so the strengths of one can be
used to offset the weaknesses of another. For example, a researcher may,
initially, employ some form of participant observation to gain greater insight
into the thoughts and actions of the study population. At some later date, a
survey would be conducted to see if statistical evidence can be gained to
confirm previous insights.

The Development of Sociology

In contrast to such discipline as biology or chemistry, sociology is a

relative newcomer to the field of scientific inquiry. Indeed, the word

sociology was not even used until the nineteenth century, when it was
coined by the French social philosopher, August Comte.

The fact that sociology was first begun about a century and a half ago
in Europe is due to two main factors. First, this was a period of
unprecedented social change, exemplified by the Industrial Revolution, the
rise of large urban centers, and increasing contact with non-European
societies in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Socially-aware persons began to
wonder about the forces bringing about these massive changes, as well as
how to alleviate some of the social problems which seemed to result.

A second important factor was the intellectual climate of the times.

During the so-called enlightenment period, philosophers had
increasingly concentrated on the ways by which human reason could be used
to improve the world. The natural science, too, were just beginning to show
how new knowledge and inventions would result once the scientific method
was systematically applied. Eventually, the connection was made why not
apply the tools of science to the study of our social surroundings?

Some of the major founding fathers of sociology include Emile

Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber. While these three thinkers differed on
fundamental issues, they all had a burning passion for uncovering the social
forces at work in the societies in which they lived. Thus, Durkheims major
work, entitled Suicide, described some of the social conditions of his time
which he felt were operating to increase suicide rates. According to this early
sociologist, European societies were becoming increasingly fragmented and
individualistic, so new social groups were needed which could claim the
whole-hearted allegiance of modern man while, at the same time, imposing
the social discipline that comes from following the basic rules (norms) of
society.

In contrast, Karl Marx stressed the ways material and economic factors
were changing society. He argued that changes in the means of production

(economic technology) were affecting relations between social classes. For

example, the rise of the factory system was soon translated into increased
political power for the capitalist class, paralleled by a decline in the power
held by the landed-agricultural nobility. Marx argued that the economic
conditions of the laboring classes were growing worse and felt that a political
revolution was needed to restore economic and social equality.

Like Marx, Max Weber believed that economic factors play a key role in
bringing about social change. Of additional importance, however, are the
values imparted to men by their society. Thus, the great religious changes
which took place in Europe during the period of the Protestant Reformation
were seen by Weber as having some resulting effects, such as the growth of
the capitalistic economy. For this reason, Weber argued that sociologists
must try to understand how the people whom they study view the world as
well as to measure more objective factors, such as technology or economic
relationships.

During the past half century, sociologists from the United States have
played in an increasing role in the discipline. American sociology has tended
to emphasize empirical observation and statistical methods. The sample
survey technique and public opinion polls were first developed in the United
States and continue to be used regularly by American sociologists this has
led to a greater mathematical rigor than was possible in the early years of
sociology, but is not without drawbacks. Thus American sociologists have
often been charged with being more interested in methodological and
statistical issues than in asking the big questions about the changing
nature of contemporary society.

Because Philippine sociology has been greatly influenced by contacts

with American social scientists, some of these same criticisms may be made
of sociological research conducted in the Philippines. As described by Abad
and Eviota, however, Philippine sociologists have recently been developing
concepts and methodological strategies which account for the uniqueness

of Philippine culture. Recently more attention has been focused on such

major Philippine social problems as rural poverty, land reform, rapid
population growth, economic inequality, and changes in the traditional
cultural outlook. In many cases as a critical stance has been taken and
Philippine sociologists have been influenced as much by concepts and
theories developed in other Third World setting as by those from the United
States.

One of the dilemmas faced by contemporary Philippine sociologist is

that they may feel pressured, either by the sponsors of research or by their
own value commitments, to slant research reports. However, yielding to that
temptation ends their usefulness. Unless research is considered honest, it
loses credibility and is of no value to anyone. It is difficult and perhaps
impossible, to be completely objective, but a rigorous adherence to scientific
methods will minimize individual bias.

Sociology and Revolution

Whether or not sociological inquiry is a debunking process supporting

radical action against the status quo depends both on the situation and on
the general approach of the sociologist. There may, indeed, be occasions
when the claims of the existing social order are so far from realities that
honesty requires complete rejection. Usually though, the situation is not this
clear and the social order in question has both defenders question has both
defenders and opponents among serious scholars. In this case the sociologist
who compares the society with his idea of perfection becomes a radical critic
whose views call for an all-out attack on existing structures. If, however, his
criterion is not perfection but rather the level of performance usually found in
human society, his reaction may be different. In this case the sociologist is
likely to warn that perfection is unattainable, the revolutionary change is
costly, and that all social ties are fragile. Hence, the radical attack may do

more harm than good and we should not seek change which threatens the
virtues of the present social arrangements.

Confusion on this issue is increased because the sociologist wears two

hats. As a citizen, he is, quite rightly, engaged in all struggles in which other
citizens are involved. When one is acting as a sociologist, the situation is
different. But it is not always easy to distinguish which hat is being worn and
there is still argument as to how one should act while wearing the
sociological headgear. Sociologist Babbie puts the question as follows:

In recent years, both within sociology and outside it, there have
been heated debates over whether sociologists support or resist social
reform in their activities as sociologists. Some people think that
sociologists are out to restructure society through socialism, for
example. Others, however, feel the study of the social order as it exists
inevitably supports the maintenance of that order.

Both tears and hopes are often expressed about the effect which the
study of sociology may have on the values cherished by certain institutions.
Actually, sociology is the science which, like physics or chemistry, may be
used for purposes which serve very different goals. The study of group
organization, for example, is important for any group and would be equally
useful to Christians or Muslims, democrats or fascists, capitalists or
communists. The principles of public opinion formation may be used to
convert the heathen, promote foreign policy, conduct a political campaign,
sell soap or promote any other activities in which people are interested. The
sociologist as an individual will probably prefer some groups to others but
sociology as a science is neutral.
Models of Society: Competing Perspectives
As with practitioners of any science, sociologists seek to generalize
about the phenomena they study. This means they would like to discover
some underlying principle or idea which can explain all occurrences, not just
a few cases. Magdalenas study of the factors which underlay many different

instances of Muslim-Christian conflict provides one example of this type of in

approach.
Currently, two of the major theories in sociology are provided by the
functionalist and conflict models of society. A brief review of these
theories is in order and can serve to illustrate some important differences in
the thought of sociologists today.
According to the functional model, the different parts of society are
closely inter-related. Like the different organs of the body, the institutions of
society are seen as distinct in structure but united in their contribution to the
proper functioning of society as a whole. For example, the family system
serves the larger social needs of biological reproduction and child rearing,
while educational institutions serve to transmit certain skills and values to
the younger generation.
Given this particular view of society, functional theorist are prone to
focus on the contributions which some form of institutionalized behavioral
pattern is likely to make the larger society or to one of its component parts.
Thus, functionalists have pointed out that the preference since children
provide many economic and emotional functions for their parents. In an
agricultural setting, children can be put to work on the family farm. They can
also be of help in supporting their parents in their old age, given that such
settings do not have any institutionalized form of social security or pension
plans. Finally, children help to cement the marriage bond between the
husband and wife and can serve as the focus for the emotional life of the
family.
Functionalists are also interested in investigating how changes in one
part of society are likely to have resulting effects on other social patterns. For
example, the change from agrarian to an industrial economy may have many
effects on the family. The type of family system which worked most
effectively in the rural, agricultural economy may no longer function well in
an urban, industrial setting.
In contrast to the functional approach is the conflict model of society.
According to proponents of this theory, social institutions are seen as having
arisen, not so much because they serve the interests of society as a whole,
but because they worked to the advantage of certain socially powerful
groups. Moreover, since society is seen as composed of groups which are in
conflict over scarce and socially-valued resources, one groups gain will be
translated into a loss for the remaining members of society.
Conflict theorists tend to be most interested in answering the question
Cui bono? (Latin for who benefits?). In general they see institutions of
social control, such as the police and military, more for the protection of the

rich and their property than for the good of the community as a whole.
Similarly, various organs of the mass media are seen by conflict theorists as
controlled by socially powerful groups to manipulate and control public
opinion. Even programs designed to bring economic developments to a
country may be viewed as a means for enriching the upper social classes
rather than a device for the benefit of the general public.
Throughout the discussion, reference will occasionally be made to the
functionalist and conflict models of society. This is to show how the various
specialized studies conducted by sociologists may be related to the broader
sociological theories. It will be well to keep in mind, however, that these
competing models are still very much open for debate. Clearly, they should
not be considered equally factual in nature as, for instance, an estimate of
the Philippine birth rate or even a listing of major Philippine values. What
these competing models can do, however, is to enrich the students
understanding of how all of us (both professional sociologists and students
taking this course) can use the sociological perspective to better understand
our society and the role we play in it.
CONFLICT AND FUNCTIONAL VIEWS
Functional
Society is a web of cooperation.

Conflict
Society is the field of conflict.

Social class enables people to work Social class enables one group to
cooperatively.
exploit another.
Values evolve by social consensus.
Churches and schools cultivate
common values.
Government enforces rules for the
common good.

Value consensus is an illusion

maintained by a dominant group for
its own interests.
Churches and schools cultivate
values which protect the privileged.
Government enforces rules which
guard privileges of dominant class.

Careers in Sociology
An undergraduate major or minor in sociology is not, in itself, adequate
preparation for a professional career. Graduate degrees are needed for a
career as a sociologist. Undergraduate majors and minors are useful mainly
as background preparation for other careers. (1) In social work the better

jobs demand a graduate degree in social work with undergraduate courses in

sociology usually recommend. (2) The professions medicine, law,
engineering, and the clergy are increasingly urging more undergraduate
sociology for their students, since some understanding of people and society
is needed for success in these professions. (3) Civil Service positions often
include sociology among desirable educational qualifications.
A career as a sociologist requires a graduate degree, at least an M.A.
and preferably a Ph.D. Most sociologists are employed by colleges and
universities in teaching, research and administration. Other sociologists are
found in a wide variety of positions. Some are employed by government
agencies, business concerns, and social welfare organizations (as
consultants, research technicians, and administrators). The largest nonteaching field is in research community studies and area surveys, and
many others. Government agencies employs sociologists in various
capacities, including the planning of local action programs of many types.
There are relatively few sociologists in the Philippines and demand for their
services is growing.
Summary

The purpose of this discussion has been twofold: first, to explain what
sociology is all about and, secondly, to briefly describe how sociologists
work. Sociology is the science which specializes in the analysis of human
societies. The sociological perspective seeks to explain the foundations of
human behavior by examining how such behavior patterned as well as by
discovering which factors, or social forces, might be causing these regular
patterns.

In conducting their studies, sociologists employ the scientific method.

This means they take an empirical and objective approach to their subject.
Sociologists employ various research techniques, among which are the use of
publicly available data, surveys, participant observations, and participatory
research.

Sociological thinking is based, not only on observations collected in

empirical research, but also on the broader concepts and theories which
have been developed in the discipline.

Undergraduate courses in sociology are useful in providing preprofessional background. To pursue a career in sociological teaching or
research, one needs a Master or Doctor of Philosophy degree.

2.

THE NATURE AND ROLE OF GROUP BEHAVIOR

Bureaucratic processes in large organization have instilled in

most government employees a respect for technocratic knowledge and
expertise and a disdain for their clients capabilities in conceptualizing,
designing, and implementing programs.

Ma. Concepcion P. Alfiler, Philippine Journal of

Public Administration, January 1983, p. 35.

The foregoing statement is another way of saying that people with

presumed expertise are often ignorant of the requirements of successful
group activity. It is here that the sociologists may make a contribution to the
planners of government programs and the promoters of private business all

of whom are doomed to failure unless they can be successfully involve

groups of people in the plans they expect to implement.

The human group is the fundamental object of scientific

analysis for the sociologist just as the living organism is for the
biologist. Thus a logical way to approach the study of sociology is to
examine the concept of groupfrom a sociological perspective.

The Individual and the Group

Group life is indispensable to the individual. If it were not for the

protection, care, and attention that an infant receives from his group, it is
doubtful if he could survive. When a child is born he is physically,
psychologically, and socially helpless. He is completely dependent upon
other human beings for his physical needs and organic wants. As he grows
older and develops physically and socially, he plays with other children in the
neighborhood. He begins to realize that more and more pleasures are
possible only in groups. A child cannot play hide and seek by himself; a boy
cannot play baseball alone, nor can he indulge in other competitive games
by himself. He has to belong to a team in order to enjoy certain types of fun.
Many satisfactions in life are thus enjoyed only through human association
and group life.

An individual finds himself belonging to a complex of social groups.

He belongs to the family group, the play group of children, and the
neighborhood group. When he goes to school, he joins the school group,
clubs, athletic societies, debating teams, and religious organization. As he
matures he joins groups in which he works for a living for himself and his
dependents. He becomes a member of church groups in order to satisfy his

need for religious guidance and inspiration; he fraternizes with other

members of his group for the pleasure of social interaction.

Sociology is primarily concerned with studying man in his social

relationships. Two of the most important factors in social relationships are
the interaction with others which takes place within the group and the
culture which is transmitted by the group. This discussion and the following
are devoted to the nature and influence of culture and group interaction. The
rest of the discussions is concerned mainly with an elaboration of the themes
in different areas of social life.

Definition of a Group

The group is defined as any number of persons who share a

consciousness of membership and interaction. A group is not a mere
collection of individuals but an aggregate of personalities acting and
interacting with one another in the process of living. To be a member of the
group, one must participate in the common life and activities of the group.

For example, a collection of people on a bus is a mere collection of

persons, not a group. They are bound up with their individual desires, lack
any kind of feeling of unity with each other, and are thrown together merely
because they use a common method of transportation. But let some event
happen which draws them together and the situation is entirely different. If
the bus is stopped by the bandits and the passengers are forced out of the
vehicle, then the processes of group life begin to operate. A feeling of a
significant common identity emerges, some individuals become leaders and
others become followers: the response to the situation is in terms of the
group as a unit. Under these circumstances or any others, which give the

passengers a common concern and sense of responsibility, genuine group of

life emerges.

Nature and Character of Groups

While there is some evidence that the tendency for grouping is not
confined solely to humans, there are certain characteristics that make
human groups unique and different from the bonding together of the lower
forms of animals, such as a pack of wolves, a school of fish, or a colony of
ants.

In human groups there is a level of consciousness that accompanies

the process of group formation. Lower animals do not, in all likelihood, give
any thought to their relationships with one another. Dogs would hardly think
of forming a canine relations committee to promote a harmonious
relationship among different breeds. On the other hand, humans worry about
whether they are in the right company, whether marriage with a right person
from another race or religion is the right thing, and they verbalize their
pleasure in getting to know others. Much of human behavior is influenced
by this consciousness as people attempt to initiate and sustain desirable
relations and to terminate or avoid undesirable ones.

Another aspect of human consciousness as related to group

membership is the degree to which the group is determined by
the meaning that persons have one another. With animals, living together
refers to immediate physical presence. A wolf pack, for example, is simply a
number of wolves who travel together. With man the situation is quite
different. Isolation the absence of group membership is by no means
synonymous with physical separation. Being lonely in a crowd is a

recognition of the fact that a person may often feel dissociated from other
people in his immediate group. On the other hand, people may feel quite
close to loved ones from whom they are far removed physically. A man and a
woman may be married even though separated and communicating only by
letter or telephone. No sociological study of human groups can avoid a
concern with the way people themselves conceive their relationship with
others.

The moral indoctrination of the young in society is likely to be laden

with rules related to the formation of group membership: marry your own
kind, choose the right friends, join the Scouts, the YMCA, the Catholic
Womens League, etc. In choosing associates and maintaining relations with
them, a person is likely to be made continually aware that he is conforming
to, or deviating from, the expectations of others.

The Effect of Isolation

Group life is indispensable to all humans. Individual strength and

character come from association with the group. All people, regardless of
race or culture, find personality fulfillment through group life. When an infant
is born, he is completely dependent upon other humans for his physical,
social and emotional needs. Without the protection, care, and attention of
the group, survival would be doubtful. The process of becoming human
takes place through the group. Most human activities cannot be enjoyed
apart from a group.

There is a certain case such of a child named Anna. The story goes
this way, entitled as Achievement and Isolation:

At 5 months, Anna was brought into her grandfathers house.

She spent the next 5 years lying on a bed in a dark and scarcely
furnished room upstairs. Annas mother worked all day on the farm
and was away from home most evenings, so Anna saw almost nothing
of her or anyone else. She was seldom fed, seldom cleaned, seldom
moved, and, apparently, never spoken to or loved.

When Anna was discovered at age six, she was malnourished,

sick, and filthy. She was totally lacking in any of the social skill that
primary relations normally provide. She could neither walk nor talk.
She gave no evidence of intelligence or communication

After about two years of professional care, Anna demonstrated a

mental development approximately that of a one-year old. She could
walk and feed herself, but she still could not talk. By the time of her
death at ten years of age, she was talking at about the level of a
normal two-year old and had made further progress in caring for
herself and dealing with others.

- Kingsley Davis, Final Note on a Case of

Extreme Isolation,
American Journal of Sociology
52 (March 1974): 432-437.

This case is one of the several in which individuals, deprived of group

contact, failed to develop what are usually considered minimal human
capabilities.

Much of what we call human nature are really traits and characteristics
acquired through cultural exposure and interaction with others. Speech is
one example. Children are not born predisposed to speak one language or
another. This illustrated by a story, possibly, apocryphal, concerning a
deliberate attempt to avoid language socialization:

Seven hundred years ago, Frederick II, Holy Roman emperor,

conducted an experiment to determine what language children would
grow up to speak if they had never heard a single spoken word. Would
they speak Hebrew then thought to be the oldest tongue or Greek
or Latin or the language of their parents? He instructed foster mothers
and nurses to feed and bathe the children but, under no
circumstances, to speak or prattle to them. The experiment failed, for
every one of the children died.

Whether or not this story is historically true, it illustrates an important

aspect of human development. Our potentialities are not developed
automatically with age, but are dependent on the kind of group contact we
experience. This applies not only to language but to art, sports, religion,
business, school work, and every kind of activity.

Kinds of Group Life

Human social groups may be classified in numerous ways. Many

attempts have been made to do this, and the most common basis to
differentiation has been according to function and structure. Social groups
may be voluntary or involuntary, social or anti-social, permanent or
impermanent, public or private. However, all groups, regardless of the basis

of their classification, may be considered under the heading of primary or

secondary.

Primary groups are small face-to-face groups in which

contacts are direct, personal, and immediate. They are
characterized by a strong we feeling. The term primary groups was
popularized in sociological literature byCharles Cooley, who called them the
nursery of human nature. He describes them as:

those characterized by intimate face-to-face association and

cooperation. They are primary in several senses, but chiefly in that
they are fundamental in forming the social nature and ideals of the
individual. The result of intimate association, psychologically, is a
certain fusion of individualities in a common whole, so that ones very
self, for many purposes at least is the common life and purpose of the
group. Perhaps the simplest way of describing this wholeness is by
saying that it is a we; it involves the sort of sympathy and mutual
expression. One lives in the feeling of the whole and finds the chief
aims of his will in that feeling.

These groups become very effective because they are personal in

nature; they have the elements of intimacy. Although such direct contact as
face-to-face relationship is generally present, it is not absolutely
indispensable. What is indispensable is the intimacy and fusion of
personalities. It is possible that two persons may carry on a correspondence,
as between pen pals before or nowadays as text mates, having all the
elements of a primary relationship even when they have not met. The
relationship involves identification and subordination of ones wishes and
ambitions to the good of the group.

The primary groups, because of their intimate contacts, exercise a

tremendous influence on the individual members. They exert a direct and
lasting influence upon the origin and growth of a persons basic ideals in life.

The family, the neighborhood group, the work group, the school group, and
the play group of children are examples of primary groups.

It was Cooleys view that primary groups are the central and crucial
unit of social organization down through the ages and in all societies. They
are fundamental because they express and respond to a universal human
nature. Cooley pointed out that no matter how rational, formalistic, and
complex a society grows, the need for small, informal, responsive, affective,
inclusive, and spontaneous relationships always exists. Primary groups will
persist in a secondary group-dominated world because the human need for
intimate, sympathetic association is continuous need. People cannot function
well unless they belong to a small group of people who really care what
happens to them. Whenever people are ripped from family and friends and
thrust into large, impersonal, anonymous groups, as in a college dormitory or
an army camp, they feel such a great need for primary groups that they
promptly build them again.

Primary Groups Socialize the Individual

The family provides companionship and fellowship. Its members

acquire the we feeling; their contacts are intimate, personal, and face-toface. In the family the members learn to cooperate with one another and to
recognize the feeling of responsibility and duty to the people.

A child is born into the group as a helpless being devoid of knowledge

of the social world. He is born with certain potentialities, impulses,
tendencies, muscular coordination with his parents and those immediately
around him develop his feelings, attitudes, and habits. As the child acts,
those around him react by showering him with encouragement, approval,

and praise when he is good; but they will also rebuke, frown, blame, and
even punish him when he is bad. Through the process of reward and
disapproval, the child learns early in life the patterns of behavior expected of
him by his primary group.

Primary Group are Sources of Fundamental Social Ideals

We have mentioned that groups consist of a number of interacting

personalities. Interaction consists of cooperation or conflict. In the life of an
individual, there are clashes of interests, wishes, values, or attitudes. At the
same time, there is cooperation; through processes of adjustment, the
fundamental human values emerge in the personality of the individual. This
situation constantly occurs within the primary groups. In the quarrels of the
childhood, the individual obtains his first lessons in tolerance, understanding,
sympathy, cooperation, mutual regard and respect for one another. Within
the family group the child learned the fundamental and basic patterns
connected with sex, parenthood, and kinship. The ideals of service, freedom,
justice, and toleration are formed largely in the experiences of neighborhood
life.

Secondary Groups

Secondary groups are those which do not necessarily involve face-toface association or intimate and personal relations. The members are aware
of them and take cognizance of them, but they do not feel that their lives are

bound up in them except in time of social crisis. The members may be

separated from one another by distance or by lack of personal physical
contact. Their contact may be through correspondence, through the press,
through the radio, telephone, and other means.

The essential characteristics of secondary groups is their casualness in

contact. Relationships within the secondary groups lack the intimacy and
that we feeling so conspicuous within the primary groups, but the face-toface contact may not be excluded. For instance, a student in a very large
class sees and hears the lecturer, but he may never get to know him. Many
teachers and businessmen are members of professional organizations, but
their participation in these groups has not extended beyond paying the
annual fees.

Secondary groups may be governmental units, political parties,

religious organizations, athletic and social clubs, and business corporations.
The possibilities are varied and numerous; society is full of different types of
groups. The primary groups existed from primitive times, and for a
considerable number of years they were the only forms of human
association. The secondary groups are a later development and did not
emerge until civilization was far advanced.

Acuff and his associates cite as one of the paradoxes of the secondary
group the fact that it frequently requires persons to become nonpersons
(only roles) by not allowing their emotional or affective involvement to enter
the situation. They use as an illustration the example of an old man who had
been struck by a car and was being undressed in the hospital emergency
room. He resisted because there were women present. The young, impatient
intern then bluntly told him: Those are not women; they are nurses. In this
particular secondary social setting, the nurse was a nonperson.

Primary groups are concerned with relationship; secondary groups are

justified by their ability to reach goals. A good Mah Jongg group is one that
has fun; a good business corporation is one that makes money.

The concepts of primary and secondary groups are often confused

because the two overlap. A work, for instance, may have both primary and
secondary aspects. The work group is organized to get a job done and this is
a trait of secondary groups. However, the work groups is also concerned with
relationships and pakikisama. Its members tell stories, crack jokes, and
encourages intimacy on a first-name basis. This is the primary group aspect
and it may either reinforce the secondary goals or work against them. If the
group sees its interests and those of the employer as the same, it will
encourage mutual helpfulness in reaching production goals. But if conflict is
present, the group may limit production and hold back ambitious workers
who are regarded as rate busters.

Most secondary groups also harbor primary groups and thus are
committed both to goal attainment and to fostering pleasant primary
relationships. The factory, office, or school have definite secondary goals to
meet, but also develop small-scale associations of mutually agreeable
persons who derive an emotional satisfaction from the relationship. In fact,
some husbands or wives may be jealous of the primary group attachments
their spouses form with the opposite sex in the work place.

Gemeinschaft and Gesselschaft

Somewhat similar to the concepts of primary and secondary groups are

the concepts of gemeinschaft and gesselschaft developed by the German
sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies. These terms do not have any direct

translation in English or in Filipino, so sociologists continue to use Tonniess

original terms. There is a rough English equivalent in the terms
community (gemeinschaft)and society (gesselschaft), but by no
means do these represent the same thing in the two languages. In Filipino,
the closest equivalent to the concept ofgemeinschaft is the popular
term bayanihan which suggests mutual helpfulness and implies the
existence of a small intimate group.

Gemeinschaft is a social system in which most relationship are

personal or traditional and often both.

The concept of gemeinschaft was inspired by the lingering German

peasant communities which still carried some of their feudal heritage. These
were communities in which written agreements were rare and people lived
on the basis of customary arrangements. People were surrounded by
relatives, and the exchange of money was less important than the direct
barter of goods and services. Except for occasional feast days, life was
monotonous but seldom lonely. The resemblance to the rural barrios in the
Philippines is obvious.

There seems to be no Filipino word which quite captures the meaning

of gesselschaft either, and there is no exact English equivalent. In the
gesselschaft the community of tradition and unwritten custom has been
replaced by the society of bargaining and contracts. People are separated
from their relatives and live among strangers. The gesselschaft flourishes in
the modern metropolis. Some of the contrasting aspects of
the bayanihan. Some of the contrasting aspects of the bayanihan and the
gesselschaft relationships are summarized in the following:

COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS
_________ _____________________________________
Bayanihan

Gesselschaft

______________________________________________

Customary

Efficient

Communal

Individual

Personal

Impersonal

Informal

Formal, Contractual

Sentiment

Realistic

General

Specialized

General Character of Groups

In-Group and Out-Group Feeling. During the Japanese occupation of

the Philippines, guerilla units were formed everywhere. One such unit was
organized in Polo (now Valenzuela), Bulacan, which is not far from the city of
Manila. Nearness to the city and the fact that Polo is a town directly in the
path to the central provinces attracted many strangers who were either
evacuees or just passers-by. Whenever any of these persons were in town,
the first thing the townsfolk did was to find out who the stranger was, what
his purpose was, and how long he was staying. Any outsider from the group
was considered a prospective Japanese spy, and therefore an enemy. He
belonged to the out-group and the in-group would not accept him until
he could prove his motive and identity himself completely with the ingroup.

The out-group and in-group relationships exist whenever there is a

feeling of strangeness or enmity between groups. We feel suspicious,
antagonistic, and scornful toward the members of the out-group, but we are
predisposed to be understanding and sympathetic to anyone in the in-group.
An illustration of the in-group, out-group feeling may be seen in the
sentiments and attitudes of many Filipino Muslims who consider Christian
Filipinos su mga Filipino aya (those Filipinos). Similarly, both Christians and
Muslims talk of Moros rather than of Muslim Filipinos.

In groups and out-groups are important because they affect behavior

and attitude. We expect support and understanding from fellow members of
an in-group. We expect indifference or hostility from those in the out-group.
Among some primitives the in-group was determined by kinship. When two
strangers met, the first thing they did was establish a relationship. If kinship
could be established, they were friends both members of the in-group. If no
relationship could be established, they were enemies and acted accordingly.

Modern society is based upon many ties beside those of kinship, but
the establishment and definition of in-groups is equally important. People
placed in a new social situation will usually make cautious conversational
feints to find out whether or not they belong. When they find themselves
among people who are of the same social class, the same religion, the same

political views, people who enjoy the same sports or music, then they have
some assurance that they are in the in-group. Members of the in-group are
likely to share certain sentiments, laugh at the same jokes, and define with
some unanimity the activities and goals of life. Members of the same cultural
traits, but they lack certain essentials to break into this particular social
group.

The out-group and in-group feeling can be found in either the primary
or the secondary group. In modern society, we find that individuals belong to
so many groups that they may have a number of both in-group and outgroup relationships which overlap. One may be a member of a senior class in
which a freshman will be considered as belonging to an out-group; yet the
same senior and freshman may both be members of an athletic team in
which case, they have an in-group relationship to each other. Thus, we find
that in modern social groups the in-group or out-group relationship does not
have the same meaning and intensity as it would in a more simple society.
Some in-group, out-group relations are more salient than others. A Catholic
Cebuano physician might feel less social distance with Protestant Tagalog
physicians than with Catholic Cebuano laymen. On the other hand, a Muslim
farmer might feel closer to Muslim jeep drivers than to Christian farmers.

Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism is the extreme preferential feeling which individuals

have for the customs of their own group. It is the idea that ones group is
more important than any other. It is an expression of group solidarity
combined with antagonism toward outside groups.

Under the Nazi government of Germany, the Germans were taught that
they belonged to the master race which was superior to all others. The
Japanese before the World War II believed that they were the chosen
people to lead all Asiatic races in a co-prosperity sphere. The Americans
think of the United States as the most democratic country in the