Groups, Teams, Cliques, and Gangs - Part One

First, a disclaimer.

What follows is based on my own observations and opinions. I won't have a lot of linked references for this post, or for its sequel. I'm talking about things I've seen, lived through, seen others live through. Things I've pieced together and interpreted with little or no input from anyone face to face, even from mental health professionals I have known as colleagues.

I will do my level best, however, to credit people whose writing has helped me to think about this issue, and there are a number of such people and books. I've listed them at the end of the second post in this series. If anything I write here strikes a chord, reminds a reader of something they've read elsewhere, please chime in. I think I've listed all of my 'prime movers', but I don't want to leave anyone unacknowledged; just as importantly, if other voices are discussing the same issue in similar terms, that kind of synchronicity can be incredibly valuable.

A large part of the reason for this disclaimer is that I find much of the writing on social psych issues to be quite neutral in terms of values. For me, though, the continuum that leads any bunch of people from a group through a team to a clique to a gang is all about values, all about emotions, all about intentions, and not neutral at the most important points in the progression.

Which also makes it all about choices.

That being said... I shall now proceed to cheat. I've just Googled the definition of 'group', to see how far my understanding deviates from the norm. Not much. The definitions I find are mostly variations on the theme of 'a bunch of people who happen to be connected in some fashion or other'. And I'd be inclined to agree. I'm not talking about 'group' in a special context, like 'special interest group', 'encounter group', etc.

I'll define a group, then, as a collection of individuals who happen to be 'grouped' together by virtue of location, occupation, or interest. That covers the people standing on the platform waiting for Metro, people who work together in offices without being particularly 'bonded' to one another, the patrons who happen to be in any particular restaurant on any given evening, or the entire University of Maryland Class of 1986 [to select a random place and year].

In this context, a group is emotionally neutral. And, precisely because of that neutrality, people will feel limited 'connection' to a group. There won't be a strong sense of duty or commitment to it, there won't be any feeling that 'the whole is larger than the sum of its parts'. I don't think there's a huge sense of group togetherness, one for all and all for one-ness, among folks trying to pile in to a Metro car during the morning rush hour. If anything, the opposite seems to be true: it's every person for him- or herself.

A team, to me, is the first step away from the emotional neutrality and ... non-affiliativeness ... of a simple group. A team is a group with a common goal, and the members of a team - unlike the members of most groups - generally have specific roles to play, and rules to play by as well. These roles and rules are usually quite overt, openly specified, and clear to all participants. In fact, without the roles and rules, there isn't a team. The roles and rules may be fairly flexible, as on a beach volleyball team - where everyone's a player and there's not much worrying over who calls the shots. They may be quite rigid, as on a surgical team. My qualitative observation has been that the rigidity of the roles and rules in a team correlates very well to the intensity of the team's focus on its particular goal. For beach volleyball, the goal is basically to have a good time and play a structured activity more or less by the rules; for a heart transplant team, the goal is a lot more serious, and there's a great deal more at stake.

I also see the intensity of emotional commitment to a team as being a function of the intensity of its goal -- for the duration of time the team spends working together on that goal. That little temporal qualifier is important. Football teams had better be able to pull together, commit to the common goal of winning the game, and put any interpersonal differences aside, while the game is on. But afterwards, the various team members may go quite separate ways, even making arrangements to leave this team for a primary rival. Transplant surgical teams had better be able to pull together similarly. After the patient is in the recovery room, the scrub nurse can shake his or her head over the prima donna qualities of the lead surgeon - or vice versa, to be fair - but in the crucial minutes of that surgery, personal differences must be set aside. Teams of any kind that cannot do this will fail, often spectacularly.

From group to team, then, we move from having some loose association to having a shared purpose, and from having no particular emotional bonds to having at least an emotional commitment to the team's stated task. We also move from loose roles and rules or none at all, to roles and rules that are more or less specific depending on the purpose of the team. And interestingly, teams also often wear unique, special attire - team uniforms, surgical scrubs, or single-breasted grey worsted suits, vs. double-breasted black ones - when they are acting as a team, when members are in their specific roles.

[Part Two follows immediately.]

Groups, Teams, Cliques, and Gangs - Part Two

The emotional investment of a team as I define it here is, in my observation, primarily focused on getting the job done - and this is very important. The job, per se, is the reason for the team's existence; the team's existence is not, in itself, the primary goal. Witn one exception - sports teams, which often do exist partly in order for there to be a sports team in a particular city. This is a special case, but unfortunately, it can and does lead to 'gang' style behaviors among fans and, at times, among the players themselves. More on this shortly.

A clique, in my definition, is a [usually] small, tight-knit set of people that can exist within either a group or a team. Cliques definitely have roles, and very definitely have rules; and here is where neutrality goes out the window. Because cliques have one primary purpose, regardless of where they exist. Cliques are about being 'better than'. And in order to be 'better than', it is necessary to have either an individual or a set of individuals who are designated as 'worse than'.

A clique can be regarded, for all practical purposes, as a small team with a specific negative purpose, which functions as a bullying entity. I am going to define bullying simply as a consistent pattern of abusive behavior towards an individual or group of people. Cliques bully by exclusion or by withholding information from individuals outside the clique [particularly common, and nasty, in workplace water-cooler cliques]. They bully more actively by a variety of scapegoating behaviors including 'active exclusion', or deliberate snubbing/shunning, rumor-mongering [a form of group backstabbing], and other forms of relational aggression. In a clique, there is always an Alpha member [the 'top dog'] and there are usually Beta members [second lieutenants]. The roles are rigid, and the rules, while more covert and less complex than those of teams, are also quite rigid. A clique member does not express humankindness to anyone 'targeted' by the Alpha, without experiencing severe reprisals. A clique member also does not resist domination by the Alpha, without severe reprisals.

The degree of emotional affiliation in a clique is much more intense than in a team - because a clique exists for specifically emotional reasons. The need to be 'better than' is a purely emotional need. And unlike most teams, because of the emotional needs it serves, a clique is 'on task' continuously. In realspace, a workplace clique is 'on' from the minute two members are present together at the job site. In cyberspace, a clique essentially operates 24/7. Clique members may or may not dress or otherwise attempt to look alike; cyberclique members may never see one another, for example, so that this demonstration of solidarity would be meaningless for them, and members of workplace cliques may or may not resemble one another. The members of high school 'mean girl' cliques, on the other hand, routinely tend to look and dress very much alike.

A clique that has passed a certain point in terms of its overall hostility and rigidity becomes, in my estimation, a gang. At this point, conformity in appearance can become fetishistic - you may see gang colors, specific tattoos, specific hairstyles. The roles become a codified hierarchy, and the rules, while often unwritten, are extremely well known to all members, and rigid to the point that infringement may be punishable by death. And where I consider the purpose of a clique to allow its members to feel 'better than' individuals outside the clique, I believe the primary purpose of a gang is actually to destroy targeted individuals, emotionally, financially, or physically.

Consider this last statement carefully, because when this definition is applied, many supposed 'cliques' can be seen to be something much more sinister. Any middle school or high school clique that has hounded a child to the point of attempting suicide is not a clique. It is a gang. Any workplace clique that has snubbed, excluded and harassed a co-worker to the point where they've suffered a stress breakdown is not a clique. It is a gang. If your Homeowners Association is trying to harass the little old lady in the corner townhouse in order to force her to move away... they are a gang. And unfortunately, when undisciplined fans of a particular sports team go on a rampage against fans of an opposing team, as may happen in high school settings or World Cup matches... this is a special type of short-lived gang activity. We call this a mob.

This continuum, from group to team to clique to gang... or mob... can be seen across the entire range of human endeavors. I don't restrict the definition of a 'gang' to the kinds of organizations that law enforcement professionals usually target with anti-gang activities. Not all gangs hang out on street corners selling illicit drugs. Many, far too many, are found in churches [cult survivors take note], schools, workplaces, and cyberspace.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Credit where due, with thanks and praise:
M. Scott Peck, M.D., "People of the Lie", for a discussion of group evil that provided the basis for this continuum model.
Suzette Haden Elgin, Ph.D., "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense", for a discussion of presuppositions in thought and language that taught me how to recognize abusiveness in context.
Patricia Evans, "The Verbally Abusive Relationship", which helped me understand the fundamental destructive intent behind emotional abuse.
Chauncey Hare, Ph.D., and Judith Wyatt, Ph.D., "Workplace Abuse: How to Recognize and Survive It", for a discussion of group destructiveness in the workplace.
Tim Field [see link at right], "Bully In Sight", for additional, invaluable insight into the group dynamics of workplace bullying.
Anna Valerious,
Kathy Krajco,
CZBZ, and
Jordie
[please see links at right, and frequently!] for their invaluable insights into the group dynamics associated with narcissism and bullying - especially the group dynamics of bullies' second lieutenants.
Demian Eliané Yumei, who has written extensively about relational aggression
Daniel Goleman, Ph.D., "Vital Lies, Simple Truths" - a book that contains one of the most concise and edifying descriptions of groupthink I've ever seen.
Robert Hare, Ph.D., "Without Conscience" - a discussion of psychopathy which includes a fascinating description of the fans of psychopaths.
Primo Levi, "The Drowned and the Saved" - a description of the group dynamics of abuse written by a Holocaust survivor, and one of the most profound, and saddest, books that I have ever read.
Viktor Frankl, "Man's Search for Meaning", equal in stature to Levi, but better known.
Erich Fromm, "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness".

And anonymous credit to every bully, operating alone or in groups, I've ever encountered personally or observed at a distance, from kindergarten on.