Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Evios · Feb 15, 2005, 05:07 am

Quote:

Quote by: Kenwyn Smith and David Berg in Paradoxes of Group Life p.100

A group can become a group only when individuals put themselves into it, for it is the contributions of individuals that enable connections among people to form, connections that become woven into a fabric from which the foundation of the group is constructed.

A group is defined as:

An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together
A number of individuals or things considered together because of similarities

Now according to Smith and Berg, to be a group, an individual must put themselves into it, ie: they must put forth effort towards the group to be in the group.

This is fundementally flawed. One does not have to be an active member of a group to be part of a group.

Example:
In a college class, all students are required to be in certain groups, participation in the groups is by choice alone, but they must be in the group. If student A chooses not to do any work in the group, hence no activity or contribution comes from this member, student A is not puting anything into the group. However, because student A is part of that group by definition, he is a group member without any connections being formed, hence no fabric is woven.

Thoughts?

Paavo · Feb 15, 2005, 05:49 am

Eh...

Quote:

...that enable connections among people to form, connections that become woven into a fabric from which the foundation of the group is constructed.

This only applies to a group that demands this from the people who make up the group.
It's how you interpret the definition of the word "group," nothing more IMO.

EDIT: "A number of individuals or things considered together because of similarities" <-- by this definition, the above simply doesn't work. People are defined into groups for things they haven't had the chance to choose, etc etc.

Suburbanite · Feb 15, 2005, 06:37 am

putting something into the group doesnt have to be positive or helpful. Their lack of participation is just the same.

Dadoo · Feb 15, 2005, 02:10 pm

Perfectly defining or capturing the true meaning of the term "group" Smith and Berg had in mind would help devolve this query.
In essence, based upon the statement in quotes, they are defining the very "groups" that are participatory on a voluntary level.
In friendship groups, the group is defined to each individual based upon the types and qualities of shared relationship toward other singular members of the group.
As a field, groups that are non-voluntary could mean little or much to the individual as well.
Even in the larger groupings, it is the actions of individuals that commits them to division or inclusion with others. It is then, the individuals' perception of their relationship to the group that will define how much extraneous participation they will submit. It is by default that their participation was originally noted based upon their prior, non-agendized activities.
Grouping is a fallible sport, and changes constantly generally through outside vectors of influence that shape internal opinion and thusly actions.
Dadoo

Gregory · Feb 15, 2005, 06:13 pm

It all really comes down to language more than anything. We could have different words for all the differenct kinds of "groups" but instead we just group them together and use them in context.

That's the issue.

Dadoo · Feb 22, 2005, 02:11 pm

Indeed!!!
That is the journey of my life; definition, meaning, clarity and contrast. To seek the ultimate meanings behind words well, one will note, whether with gladness or horror, that no two people use one word precisely the same way. This is the crux of EVERY argument.
All of the posts on this and every site, as well as all literature depend upon this to stand; not the contrary as most would suppose.
But, do we give up? Grow silent? Join another 'group'?
Or, smile and jabber on!
Dadoo

**Jack** · Feb 22, 2005, 02:46 pm

Words are indeed fascinating, but the concepts behind them are what interest me. I belong to many groups by default; white, male, American, etc. My decision to either ignore or participate in those groups is based on personal beliefs and experience. While I may enjoy the benefits of being a member of those groups, I cannot take any pride in belonging, as my membership is an accident of birth, not a choice. Groups I do choose to belong to will tell you more about me than judging me by my inclusion in groups where my membership is not voluntary.

Feb 15, 2005, 02:10 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Dadoo Pure Energy Posts: 440	Perfectly defining or capturing the true meaning of the term "group" Smith and Berg had in mind would help devolve this query. In essence, based upon the statement in quotes, they are defining the very "groups" that are participatory on a voluntary level. In friendship groups, the group is defined to each individual based upon the types and qualities of shared relationship toward other singular members of the group. As a field, groups that are non-voluntary could mean little or much to the individual as well. Even in the larger groupings, it is the actions of individuals that commits them to division or inclusion with others. It is then, the individuals' perception of their relationship to the group that will define how much extraneous participation they will submit. It is by default that their participation was originally noted based upon their prior, non-agendized activities. Grouping is a fallible sport, and changes constantly generally through outside vectors of influence that shape internal opinion and thusly actions. Dadoo Nothing is unknown.

Feb 15, 2005, 06:13 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Gregory Inconcievable! Location: Prescott, Arizona Posts: 157	It all really comes down to language more than anything. We could have different words for all the differenct kinds of "groups" but instead we just group them together and use them in context. That's the issue. Be still and know that I am God. Psalm 46:10

Feb 22, 2005, 02:11 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Dadoo Pure Energy Posts: 440	Indeed!!! That is the journey of my life; definition, meaning, clarity and contrast. To seek the ultimate meanings behind words well, one will note, whether with gladness or horror, that no two people use one word precisely the same way. This is the crux of EVERY argument. All of the posts on this and every site, as well as all literature depend upon this to stand; not the contrary as most would suppose. But, do we give up? Grow silent? Join another 'group'? Or, smile and jabber on! Dadoo Nothing is unknown.

Feb 15, 2005, 06:37 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	putting something into the group doesnt have to be positive or helpful. Their lack of participation is just the same.

Feb 22, 2005, 02:46 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 14,228	Words are indeed fascinating, but the concepts behind them are what interest me. I belong to many groups by default; white, male, American, etc. My decision to either ignore or participate in those groups is based on personal beliefs and experience. While I may enjoy the benefits of being a member of those groups, I cannot take any pride in belonging, as my membership is an accident of birth, not a choice. Groups I do choose to belong to will tell you more about me than judging me by my inclusion in groups where my membership is not voluntary.