Response paper Assignment | Get Homework Help

Response papers are critical reflections of the readings and are not a simple repetition of the material; instead, they are designed as a critique and reflection.Chapter 6
•
oc1a
Learning Objectives
After you have read this chapter, you should be able to:
6.1 Summarize the main characteristics of these types of societies: hunting
and gathering, pastoral and horticultural, agricultural, industrial,
postindustrial, and biotech.
6.2 Discuss the main characteristics of primary groups, secondary groups,
in-groups and out-groups, reference groups, and social networks.
6.3 Be familiar with the effects of group size on stability, intimacy,
attitudes, and behavior; the types and styles of leaders; the Asch
experiment on peer pressure; the Milgram experiment on authority;
and the implications of groupthink.
He wasn’t always called Monster. Cody was his real name, and he was only 13 years old when
they started calling him Monster.
Cody was proud of his new name. He wore it like a badge of honor.
And it was.
Here’s what happened.
Cody lived in East Los Angeles, a tough part of the city. And he lived in a tough part of
that tough part, an area where gangs-violent gangs-were part of everyday life. Shootings,
robberies, rape, and beatings were not strangers to those who lived there.
Cody wanted to be part of the Crips.
The problem was that Cody was just 11 years old. He looked up to these older boys and
young men in his neighborhood, and he admired what he saw. They were brave and tough,
just like men ought to be, he thought.
Looking into Cody’s eager eyes, Huck said that he might be able to join up, but he
added that Cody needed to be sure about it, that once someone is a Crip, no one backs out.
He told him that ”bangin,” being a gang member, is serious. He said that bangin’ is not
part-time, that bangin’ becomes your life.
Cody nodded. He said he understood.
To make sure that Cody really did understand, Huck pressed the matter. He told Cody that if
he was serious, he had to a be ready to kill–or get killed–for a ”homie,” (a fellow gang member).
Cody said he was ready.
With no warning, Huck hit Cody on the head, knocking him to the floor. Another gang
member kicked Cody in the stomach. Others joined in the beating.
Cody was stunned by the blows, but he managed to get to his feet and start hitting
back. In his anger, his blows were wild, but he kept hitting.
After a few minutes, the beating stopped.
Huck said that Cody did OK. Trey Ball told him that he had potential.
Cody had just gone through an initiation ritual. The second part of his initiation into
the Crips was about to follow.
Trey Ball handed Cody a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun.
Cody held the gun like he had won the top prize in school. And he had.
Huck told Cody that he had 8 shots and not to come back with any of them.
All armed, they piled into the car and headed to surprise their enemy, the Bloods, who
didn’t live far away.
Cody was ready to show that he would kill for the Crips–or die for them.
As Cody crept up on the Bloods, he hid in the shadows of houses and bushes. As soon
as he had the chance, Cody shot. And he kept firing as the Bloods screamed and ran, even
stepping over bodies as he emptied the gun at the fleeing Bloods.
Afterwards, while they drank beer and smoked marijuana, they talked and laughed
about the attack.
Two years later, when Cody was 13, he stomped a Blood into a coma. As the police
looked at the gruesome scene, one officer remarked that a ”monster” had done it.
The name stuck. From then on Cody’s name was Monster. And he wore it proudly.
Monster went on to a life of crime, with violence part of his life both in and out of
prison. He remained loyal to the Crips, which became his friends and family all rolled into
one. The Crips became his purpose for living.
(These events are reconstructed from a marvelous book, Monster (1994) in which Monster Cody
Scott describes his life of crime and violence and his time in prison).
Could you be like Kody and shoot people in cold blood just because others tell you to
Societies to Social Networks 151
group
people who interact with one
another and who believe that
what they have in common is
significant; also called a social
group
society
people who share a culture and
a territory
pull the trigger? Although none of us wants to think that we could, don’t bet on it. In this hunting and gathering society
chapter, you are going to read some surprising things about groups-people who inter- a human group that depends
act with one another and who think of themselves as belonging together. As we move on hunting and gathering for its
into this topic, let’s first look at the big picture, how societies have changed over time. survival
Societies and Their Transformation
6.1 Summarize the main characteristics of these
types of societies: hunting and gathering, pastoral
and horticultural, agricultural, industrial,
postindustrial, and biotech.
The largest and most complex group that sociologists study
is society, which consists of people who share a culture and
a territory. Society, which surrounds us, sets the stage for our
life experiences. The sociological principle is that the type of society
we live in is the fundamental reason for why we become who we
are. Not only does our society lay the broad framework for
our behavior, but it also influences the ways we think and
feel. Its effects are so significant that if you had grown up in a
different society, you would be a different type of person.
To see how our society developed, look at Figure 6.1. You
can see that technology is the key to understanding the sweeping
changes that produced our society. Let’s review these
broad changes. As we do, picture yourself as a member of
each society. Consider how your life even your thoughts and
values would be different if you grew up in these societies.
Hunting and Gathering Societies
The members of hunting and gathering societies have
few social divisions and little inequality. As the name
implies, in order to survive, these groups depend on
hunting animals and gathering plants. In some groups,
Figure 6.1 The Social Transformations of Society
The First Social Revolution:
Domestication
(of plants and animals)
The Second Social Revolution:
Agricultural
(invention of the plow)
The Third Social Revolution:
Industrial
(invention of the steam engine)
The Fourth Social Revolution:
Information
(invention of the microchip)
The Fifth Social Revolution?:
Biotech
Hunting and
gathering society
Horticultural
society
Pastoral
society
Agricultural
society
Industrial
society
Postindustrial
(information) society
I
I
Emerging
I
t
(decoding of human genome system?)
Biotech
society?
SOURCE: By the author.
152 Chapter 6
shaman
a tribe’s healing specialist who
attempts to control the spirits
thought to cause a disease
the men do the hunting and the women the gathering. In others, both men and women
(and children) gather plants, the men hunt large animals, and both men and women
hunt small animals. The groups usually have a shaman, an individual thought to be
able to influence spiritual forces, but shamans, too, must help obtain food. Although
these groups give greater prestige to the men hunters, who supply most of the meat, the
women gatherers contribute about three-fourths of their total food supply (Hansen et al. 2012).
Because a region cannot support a large number of people who hunt animals and
gather plants (group members do not plant- they only gather what is already there),
hunting and gathering societies are small. They usually consist of only twenty-five to
forty people. These groups are nomadic. As their food supply dwindles in one area,
they move to another location. They place high value on sharing food, which is essential
to their survival. Because of disease, drought, and pestilence, children have only
about a fifty-fifty chance of surviving to adulthood (Gurven and Kaplan 2007).
Of all societies, hunters and gatherers are the most egalitarian. Because what they
hunt and gather is perishable, the people accumulate few personal possessions. Consequently,
no one becomes wealthier than anyone else. There are no rulers, and most decisions
are arrived at through discussion. Because their needs are basic and they do not
work to store up material possessions, hunters and gatherers have the most leisure of all
human groups (Sahlins 1972; Narvaez 2013).
As in the photo, all human groups were once hunters and gatherers. Until several hundred
years ago, these societies were common, but only about three hundred remain today
(Hill et al. 2011). Some were wiped out when different groups took over their lands. Others
moved to villages and took up a new way of life. The hunting and gathering groups
that remain include the pygmies of central Africa, the aborigines of Australia, and various
groups in South America. With today’s expanding populations, the few remaining groups
The simplest forms of societies are called hunting
and gathering societies. Members of these
societies have adapted well to their environments.
With the domestication of plants and animals
came horticultural and pastoral societies.
Many pastoral groups are nomadic, following
their animals to fresh pasture. This Peul woman
of Chad is moving her home.
(
• •
of hunters and gatherers seem doomed to a similar fate, with their way of life disappearing
from the human scene (Lenski and Lenski 1987; Bearak 2010).
Pastoral and Horticultural Societies
About ten thousand years ago, some groups found that they could tame and breed
some of the animals they h unted-primarily goats, sheep, cattle, and camels. Others
discovered that they could cultivate plants. As a result, hunting and gathering societies
branched into two directions, each with different means of acquiring food.
The key to understanding the first branching is the word pasture; pastoral (or herding) societies
are based on the pasturing of animals. Pastoral societies developed in regions where low rainfall
made it impractical to build life around growing crops. Groups that took this tum remained
nomadic: They follow their animals to fresh pasture. The key to understanding the second
branching is the word horticulture, or plant cultivation. Horticultural (or gardening) societies
are based on the cultivation of plants by the use of hand tools. Because they no longer had to abandon
an area as the food supply gave out, these groups developed permanent settlements.
We can call the domestication of animals and plants the first social revolittion. As
shown in Figure 6.2, the d omestication revolution changed human history. The changes,
which occurred over thousands of years, touched almost every aspect of human life. The
more dependable food supply allowed groups to grow larger. With it no longer necessary
for everyone to work at providing food, a division of labor developed. Some people began
to make jewelry, others tools, others weapons, and so on. This led to a surplus of objects,
which, in tum, stimulated trade. As groups traded with one another, they began to accumulate
objects they prized, such as gold, jewelry, and utensils.
From Figure 6.2, you can see how these changes led to social inequality. Some families ( or
clans) acquired more goods than others. This led to feuds and war since groups now possessed
animals, pastures, croplands, jewelry, and other material goods to fight about. War,
in turn, opened the door to slavery, since people found it convenient to let captives do their
drudge work. Social inequality remained limited, however, because the surplus was limited.
As individuals passed their possessions on to their descendants, however, wealth grew
more concentrated. So did power, and for the first time, some individuals became chiefs.
Note the pattern that runs through this transformation: the change from fewer to more
possessions and from more to less equality. Increasingly, where people were located within
their society became vital for determining what happened to them in life.
Agricultural Societies
The invention of the plow about five or six thousand years ago once again changed
social life forever. Compared with hoes and digging sticks, using animals to pull plows is
immensely more efficient. Plowing the earth returned more nutrients to the soil, making
the land more productive. The food surplus of the agricultural revolution was unlike
anything ever seen in human history. It allowed even more people to engage in activities
other than farming. In this new agricultural society, people developed cities and what
is popularly known as “culture,” activities such as philosophy, art, music, literature, and
architecture. The other inventions of this era-the wheel, writing, and numbers-were so
profound that this period is sometimes referred to as “the dawn of civilization.”
The social inequality of pastoral and horticultural societies turned out to be only a
hint of what was to come. The surpluses of agricultural societies became a tempting prize
worth fighting over. As some gained control of these resources, inequality became a fundamental
feature of life in society. To protect their expanding privileges and power, the victorious
groups surrounded themselves with armed men. They demanded protection money
(called tribute or taxes) from others, who then became their “subjects.” As conflict theorists
point out, this concentration of resources and power-along with the oppression of
people not in power-was the forerunner of the state.
No one knows exactly how it happened, but during this period, females also became
subject to males. Sociologist Elise Boulding (1976) theorized that this change occurred
Societies to Social Networks 153
Figure 6.2 Consequences
on Animal Domestication and
Plan Cultivation
Animal
husbandry
Plant
cultivation
More dependable
food supply
Food surplus
Larger
human groups
Division of labor
Trade
Accumulation
of objects
Feuds and wars
Slavery
•• •• •• •• •• l
Social inequalities
as some people
accumulate more
Inherited wealth
Concentrated
wealth and power
Changes in types
of leadership
SOURCE: By the author.
154 Chapter 6
pastoral society
a society based on the pasturing
of animals
horticultural society
a society based on cultivating
plants by the use of hand tools
domestication revolution
the first social revolution, based
on the domestication of plants
and animals, which led to pastoral
and horticultural societies
agricultural revolution
the second social revolution,
based on the invention of the
plow, which led to agricultural
societies
agricultural society
a society based on large-scale
agriculture
Industrial Revolution
the third social revolution, occurring
when machines powered by
fuels replaced most animal and
human power
industrial society
a society based on the harnessing
of machines powered by
fuels
because men were in charge of plowing and the cows. She suggested that when metals
were developed, men took on the new job of attaching the metal as tips to the wooden
plows and doing the plowing. As a result,
The shift of the status of the woman farmer may have happened quite rapidly, once there
were two male specializations relating to agriculture: plowing and the care of cattle. This
situation left women with all the subsidiary tasks, including weeding and carrying water
to the fields. The new fields were larger, so women had to work just as many hours as
they did before, but now they worked at more secondary tasks . … This would contribute
further to the erosion of the status of women.
Boulding’s explanation does not answer basic questions. Why did men take over
metal work and plowing? For plowing, perhaps the answer is that plowing requires more
upper-body strength (Alesina 2014). But metal working? And it says nothing about why
men control societies in which women are in charge of the cattle. In short, we are left in the
dark as to why and how men became dominant, a reason likely to remain lost in human
history. This leaves us a topic perfect for endless speculation, as we try to tie together different
strands of history. What do you think? We will explore more theories in Chapter 11.
Industrial Societies
The third social revolution also turned society on its head. The Industrial Revolution began
in Great Britain in 1765 when the steam engine was first used to run machinery. Before this,
a few machines (such as windmills and water wheels) had helped to harness nature, but
most machines depended on human and animal power. The resulting industrial society
is defined by sociologist Herbert Blumer (1990) as one in which goods are produced by
machines powered by fuels, instead of by the brute force of humans or animals.
The efficiency of the steam engine, greater than anything that preceded it, was
another push toward even more social inequality. The cities held massive supplies of
desperate labor, people who had been thrown off the lands that their ancestors had
farmed as tenants for centuries. Homeless, they faced the choices of stealing, starving,
or being paid the equivalent of a loaf of bread for a day of work. Some of the men who
first harnessed the steam engine and employed these desperate workers accumulated
such wealth that their riches outran the dreams of royalty.
Workers had few legal rights. They could not unionize, and they didn’t even have
the right to safe working conditions. If workers protested, they were fired. If they
returned to the factory, they were arrested for trespassing on private property. Strikes
were illegal, and strikers were arrested or beaten by the employer’s private security
force. During the early 1900s, some U.S. strikers were shot by private police and even by
the National Guard. Against these odds, workers persisted, and they gradually won the
right to unionize and to improve their working conditions.
Industrialization brought an abundance of goods, and as workers won what we call
basic rights, a surprising change occurred-the pattern of growing inequality was reversed.
Home ownership became common, as did the ownership of automobiles and an incredible
variety of consumer goods. Today’s typical worker enjoys a high standard of living in
terms of health care, food, housing, material possessions, and access to music, books, and
education. On an even broader scale of growing equality came the abolition of slavery, the
shift from monarchies to more representative political systems, greater rights for women
and minorities, and the rights to vote, to a jury trial, and to cross-examine witnesses. A
recent extension of these equalities is the right to set up your own Internet blog where you
can bemoan life in your school or criticize the president and organize protest rallies.
Postindustrial (Information) Societies
If you were to choose one word to characterize our society today, what would it be? Of
the many candidates, the word change would have to rank high. We live in the midst of
changes so sweeping that they are transforming our lives. The primary source of these
changes is the development of technology centering on the microchip.
The changes are so vast that sociologists say that a new type of society
has emerged. They call it the postindustrial (or information) society.
What are the main characteristics of this new society? Unlike industrial
society, its hallmark is not turning raw materials into products. Rather,
its basic component is information. Teachers pass knowledge on to students,
while lawyers sell their specialized understanding of law, physicians their
expertise on the body, bankers their skills with money, and interior decorators
theirideasregardingcolorschemes. Unlikethefactoryworkersof anindustrial
society, these individuals don’t produce anything. Rather, they transmit or
apply information to provide services that others are willing to pay for.
The United States was the first country to have more than half of
its workers in service industries: banking, counseling, education, entertainment,
government, health, insurance, law, mass media, research,
and sales. Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and western Europe soon
followed. This trend away from manufacturing and toward selling
information and services shows no sign of letting up.
Societies to Social Networks 155
The changes are so profound that they have led to a fourth social
revolution. The surface changes of this new technology are obvious. Our
purchases are scanned as we make them and then billed in some remote
place. While we ride in cars, trucks, boats, and airplanes, we can call
home or talk to people on the other side of the globe. With driverless
cars on the horizon, soon we will be able to sleep as we ”drive.” We
probe remote regions of space and examine the surface of Mars. We pay
out billions of dollars on Internet purchases, and millions of children
(and adults) spend countless hours battling virtual video villains.
As society-the largest and most complex type of
group-changes, so, too, do the groups, activities, and,
ultimately, the type of people who form that society.
What social changes can you identify from this photo?
Biotech Societies: Is a New Type of Society
Emerging?
• Tobacco that fights cancer. (”Smoke your way to health!”)
• Tobacco that stops rabies. (”Dog bite you? Smoke our brand.”)
• Corn that blocks herpes and prevents pregnancy. (”Cornflakes in the morning and
safe sex all day!”)
• Goats’ milk that contains spider silk to make body armor. (”Got milk? The best bulletproofing.”)
• Part-human animals that produce medicines for humans. (” Ah, those liver secretions.
Good for what ails you.”)
• Bacteria that excrete diesel fuel. (”Put our germ droppings in your gas tank.”)
Suchproductsmaysoundlikesciencefiction,butwealreadyhavethegoatsthatcanmakebody
armor. Human genes have been inserted into animals (”transanimals”), and they do produce
medicine (Osborne 2002; Cowan2010; USFDA2017). We also have the bacteria that produce diesel
fuel, although they aren’t harvestable yet (Yarris 2012). And through the magic ofbiotransgenics,
those death-producing cigarettes might be transformed into health aides (Saidak 2013).
The changes swirling around us are so extensive that we may be stepping into a new
type of society. If so, the economy of our new biotech society will center on applying and altering
genetic structures both plant and animal-to produce food, medicine, and materials.
If there is a new society and this is not certain when did it begin? There are never
firm edges to new societies, as the new one overlaps the one it is replacing. For a biotech
society, the opening could have been 1953, when Francis Crick and James Watson identified
the double-helix structure of DNA. Or perhaps historians will trace the date to the
decoding of the human genome in 2001.
Whether the changes that are engulfing our lives are part of a new type of society
or just a continuation of the one before it is not the main point. Keep your eye on the
postindustrial (information)
society
a society based on information,
services, and high technology,
rather than on raw materials
and manufacturing
biotech society
a society whose economy
increasingly centers on modifying
genetics to produce food,
medicine, and materials
156 Chapter 6
sociological significance of these changes: As society is transformed, it sweeps us along with it.
The transformations we are experiencing are so deep that they will change even the ways we think
about the self and life. We might even see changes in the human species, an implication of
the following Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape.
Sociology and Technology: The Shifting Landscape
”So, You Want to Be Yourself?” Cloning and the Future of Society
As the old merges into the new, the edges of a new
type of society are fuzzy. With time speeded up, our
information society has barely arrived, and it looks as
though a biotech society is hard on its heels. Let’s try to
peer over the edge of today’s society to glimpse the one
that might be pressing in on us. If it arrives, what will life
be like? We could examine many issues, but since space
is limited, let’s consider just one: cloning. Since human
embryos have been cloned, it seems inevitable that some
group somewhere will complete the process. If cloning
humans becomes routine-well, consider
these two scenarios:
You find out that you can’t have
children, so you go to the cloning
clinic, pay the standard fee, and clone
yourself. Instead of a daughter or son,
though, is this child your sister or
brother? Or is this little boy or girl, in
effect, yourself as a child?
Or suppose that you love your mother dearly, and
she is dying. With her permission, you decide to clone
her. Who is the clone? Would you be rearing your own
mother?
When we have genetic replicates, we will have to wrestle
with new questions of human relationships: What is a clone’s
relationship to its “parents”? Indeed, the question is likely
to become what are “parents” and “children”?
SOURCES: Based on Smith et al. 2012; Baylis 2013; Baker 2014;
Biase et al. 2016.
For Your Consideration
—+ You might have heard people object that cloning is
immoral. But have you heard the opposite, that cloning is
our moral choice? How could this be? Let your imagination
soar. Let’s suppose that mass cloning becomes possible.
Let’s also assume that geneticists trace
creative ability, intelligence, compassion,
and a propensity for peace to specific
genes. They also identify a genetic base for
the ability to create beautiful poetry, music,
and architecture; to excel in mathematics,
science, and other intellectual pursuits;
even to be successful in love. Why, then,
should we leave human reproduction to
people who have inferior traits-genetic
diseases, low IQs, perhaps even the propensity to be
violent?
—+ Granted these genetic conditions, shouldn’t we select people
with the finer characteristics to reproduce-and to clone?
—+ If such cloning is moral and we decide to follow it, who
should make the choices of who should be cloned?
IN SUM The boundaries that societies set around their members have deep consequences
for their lives. Consider how your life would be different if you lived in a hunting
and gathering society. On the obvious level: You would not be listening to your favorite
music, watching TV, playing video games-or taking this course. On a deeper level: You
would not feel the same about life, have the beliefs you now have, or hold your particular
aspirations for the future. Actually, no aspect of your life would be the same. You would
be locked into the attitudes and views that come with a hunting and gathering way of life.
Introducing you to these major historical shifts in societies is just the beginning of
what we want to do in this chapter. The goal is to help you understand how groups influence
your life. So let’s continue.
Groups within Society
6.2 Discuss the main characteristics of primary groups, secondary groups, in-groups
and out-groups, reference groups, and social networks.
Our society, as huge and dominating as it is, can create a bewildering sense of not belonging.
Sociologist Emile Durkheim (1893/1933) called this condition anomie (AN-uh-mee).
Small groups, he said, help prevent anomie by standing as a buffer between the individual
and the larger society. By providing intimate relationships, small groups give us
a sense of belonging, something we all need. Because small groups are essential for our
well-being, let’s look at them in detail.
But first, let’s distinguish two terms that are sometimes confused with “group”:
aggregate and category. An aggregate consists of individuals who are temporarily sharing
the same physical space, but they don’t see themselves as belonging together. Shoppers
standing in a checkout line or drivers waiting at a red light are an aggregate. A category
is simply a statistic. A category consists of people who share similar characteristics, such
as all college women who wear glasses or all men over 6 feet tall. Unlike group members,
the individuals who make up a category don’t think of themselves as belonging
together, and they don’t interact with one another.
Primary Groups
As you will recall from Chapter 3, a major point about socialization is that you didn’t
develop “naturally” into a human adult. Your social experiences shaped you into what
you have become. In this shaping process, it is hard to overestimate how significant your
family has been. It was your family that laid down your basic orientations to life. Then
came friends, where your sense of belonging expanded. Family and friends are what
sociologist Charles Cooley called primary groups. By providing intimate, face-to-face
interaction, your primary groups have given you a self, an identity, a feeling of who you
are. Here’s how Cooley (1909 /1962) put it:
By primary groups I mean 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.
From our opening vignette, you can see that youth gangs are also primary groups.
PRODUCING A MIRROR WITHIN We humans have intense emotional needs. Among
them are a sense of belonging and feelings of self-esteem. Because primary groups provide
intense face-to-face interaction as we are being introduced to the world, they are
uniquely equipped to meet our basic needs. They can make us feel appreciated even that
we are loved. When primary groups are dysfunctional, however, and fail to meet these
basic needs, they produce dysfunctional adults, wounded people who make life difficult
for others.
Regardless of the levels at which your primary groups have functioned-and none is
perfect-their values and attitudes have been fused into your identity. You have internalized
their views, which are now lenses through which you view life. Even as an adult-no
matter how far you move away from your childhood roots-your early primary groups
remain “inside” you. There, they continue to form part of the perspective from which
you look out onto the world. Your primary groups have become your mirror within.
Secondary Groups
Compared with primary groups, secondary groups are larger, more anonymous, and
more formal and impersonal. Secondary groups are based on shared interests or activities,
and their members are likely to interact on the basis of specific statuses, such as
president, manager, worker, or student. Examples include college classes, the American
Sociological Association, and political parties. Secondary groups are part of the way we
get our education, make our living, spend our money, and use our leisure time.
Secondary groups are necessary for contemporary life, but they often fail to satisfy our deep
needs for intimate association. Consequently, secondary groups tend to break down into primary
groups. At school and work, we form friendships. Our interaction with our friends is so important
that we sometimes feel that if it weren’t for them, school or work would “drive us crazy.”
The primary groups that we form within secondary groups, then, serve as a buffer between ourselves
and the demands that secondary groups place on us.
These concepts are illustrated in the following photo montage.
Societies to Social Networks 157
aggregate
individuals who temporarily
share the same physical space
but who do not see themselves
as belonging together
category
people, objects, and events that
have similar characteristics and
are classified together
• primary group
a small group characterized by
cooperative, intimate, long-term,
face-to-face relationships
secondary group
compared with a primary group,
a larger, relatively temporary,
more anonymous, formal, and
impersonal group based on
some interest or activity
Categories, Aggregates, Primary and Secondary Groups
Groups have a deep impact on our actions, views, orientations, even what we feel
and think about life. Yet, as illustrated by these photos, not everything that appears
to be a grot1p is actually a group in the sociological sense.
The outstanding trait that these three people have in common does not make them
a group, but a category.
Why are these contestants in the Etluuc New
England Pageant an example of a secondary
group?
Primary gr
d oups such as th i .
evelopment of the self A e am.i.ly play a key role in th
serves as a buffer from t~e s ~ small group, the family a1:
known as society Th c . o e11-threatening 1arg o
· e tam.ily h b er group
cance in form· as een of ri .
Will b £ 1ng the basic orientati p mary s1gnifie
or their daughter . ons of this couple, as 1. t
Why are the people watching this street performer in York, England, an aggregate?
In-Groups and Out-Groups
What groups do you identity with? Which groups in our society do you dislike?
We all have in-groups, groups toward which we feel loyalty. And we all have out-groups,
groups toward which we feel antagonism. For Monster Kody in our opening vignette,
the Crips were an in-group, while the Bloods were an out-group. That the Crips-and
we-make such fundamental divisions of the world has far-reaching consequences for
our lives. They even shape our perception and morality.
SHAPING PERCEPTION AND MORALITY You know the sense of belonging that some
groups give you. This can bring positive consequences, such as our tendency to excuse the
faults of people we love and to encourage them to do better. Unfortunately, dividing the world
into a “we” and “them” can also lead to discrimination, hatred, and as we saw in our opening
vignette, even murder. From this, you can see the sociological significance of in-groups: They
shape your perception of the world, your views of right and wrong, and your behavior.
A fascinating result of in-groups/ out-groups is the nurturing of double standards,
such as prejudice and discrimination on the basis of sex:
We tend to view the traits of our in-group as virtues, while we perceive those same traits
as vices in out-groups. Men may perceive an aggressive man as assertive but an aggressive
woman as pushy. They may think that a male employee who doesn’t speak up “knows
when to keep his mouth shut,” while they consider a quiet woman as too timid to make it
in the business world (Merton 1949/1968)
This example illustrates how dividing the world into “we” and “they” twists
people’s perceptions. The twisting can be so severe that harming others can become
viewed as right. The Nazis provide one of the most startling examples. For them, the
Jews were an out-group who symbolized an evil that should be eliminated. Many ordinary,
“good” Germans shared this view and defended the Holocaust as “dirty work”
that someone had to do (Hughes 1962/2005).
An example from way back then, you might say-and the world has moved on. But
our inclination to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups has not
moved on-nor has the twisting of perception that accompanies it. When
al-Qaeda became Americans’ number one out-group after 9 /11, top U.S.
officials ordered “cruel and inhuman” treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners.
Interrogators waterboarded one prisoner 83 times (“Ex-FBI Official … ”
2015). (None of us would want to be waterboarded even once.)
Perhaps this prisoner’s account of his treatment at U.S. hands at
Guantanamo will provide more insight into the extreme consequences
that can arise from out-group thinking:
Suddenly a commando team consisting of three soldiers and a German
shepherd broke into our interrogation room. . . . punched me violently,
which made me fall face down on the floor . .. . His partner kept punching me
everywhere, mainly on my face and my ribs. He, too, was masked from head
to toe . . . . The third man was not masked; he stayed at the door holding the
dog’s collar, ready to release it on me …. I saw the dogfighting to get loose.
One of them hit me hard across the face, and quickly put the goggles on
my eyes, ear muffs on my ears, and a small bag over my head. I couldn’t
tell who did what. They tightened the chains around my ankles and my
wrists; afterwards, I started to bleed. All I could hear was cursing,
“F-this and F-that!” (Sandberg 2015)
Societies to Social Networks 159
• in-group
a group toward which one feels
loyalty
out-group
a group toward which one feels
antagonism
1″‘•
Shades of the Nazis!
“So long, Bill. This is n1y club. You can ‘I con1e i11.”
In short, to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups, a natural
part of social life produces both functional and dysfunctional consequences.
How our participation in social groups shapes our selfconcept
is a focus of symbolic interactionists. In this
process, who we are not is as significant as knowing who
we are.
160 Chapter 6
Reference Groups
Suppose you have just been offered an incredible job. It pays double what you hope to
make even after you graduate from college. You have only two days to make up your
mind. If you accept the job, you will have to drop out of college. As you consider the offer,
thoughts like this may go through your mind: ”My friends will say I’m a fool if I don’t
take the job … but Dad and Mom will practically go crazy. They’ve made sacrifices for
me, and they’ll be crushed if I don’t finish college. They’ve always said I’ve got to get my
education first, that good jobs will always be there . … But, then, I’d like to see the look
on the faces of those neighbors who said I’d never amount to much!”
reference group EVALUATING OURSELVES This is an example of how people use reference
a group whose standards we groups, the groups we refer to when we evaluate ourselves. Your reference groups
refer to as we evaluate ourselves may include your family, neighbors, teachers, classmates, co-workers, or the members
Ill
of your church, synagogue, or mosque. If you were like Monster Kody in our opening
vignette, the ”set” would be your main reference group. Even a group you don’t
belong to can be a reference group. For example, if you are thinking about going to
graduate school, graduate students or members of the profession you want to join
may form a reference group. You would consider their standards as you evaluate your
grades or writing skills.
Reference groups exert tremendous influence on us. For example, if you want to
become a corporate executive, you might start to dress more formally, try to improve
your vocabulary, read The Wall Street Journal, and change your major to business or
law. In contrast, if you want to become a rock musician, you might get elaborate tattoos
and body piercings, dress in ways your parents and even many of your peers consider
extreme, read Rolling Stone, drop out of college, and hang around clubs and rock groups.
EXPOSURE TO CONTRADICTORY STANDARDS IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY
From these examples, you can see how you use reference groups to evaluate your life.
When you see yourself as measuring up to a reference
· group’s standards, you feel pleased. But you can experience
inner turmoil if your behavior or aspirationsdoes
not match the group’s standards. Although wanting
to become a corporate executive would create no inner
turmoil for most of us, it would for someone who had
grown up in an Amish home. The Amish strongly disapprove
of such aspirations for their children. They ban high
school and college education, suits and ties, and corporate
employment. Similarly, if you want to join the military and
your parents are dedicated pacifists, you likely would feel
deep conflict, because your parents would have quite different
aspirations for you.
Contradictions that lead to inner turmoil are common
because of two chief characteristics of our society:
social diversity and social mobility. These expose
us to standards and orientations that are inconsistent
with those we learned during childhood. The ”internal
recordings” that play contrasting messages from different
reference groups, then, are one price we pay for our
social mobility.
All of us have reference groups-the groups we use as standards
to evaluate ourselves. How do you think the reference groups of
these members of the KKK who are demonstrating in Jaspar, Texas,
differ from those of the police officer who is protecting their right of
free speech? Although the KKK and this police officer use different
groups to evaluate their attitudes and behaviors, the process is
the same.
Social Networks
Although we live in a huge and diverse society, we don’t
experience social life as a sea of nameless, strange faces.
This is because of the groups we have been discussing.
Societies to Social Networks 161
•
The smallest part of social networks is our friends and acquaintances, the people we hang out with. This part of our social networks
overlaps with and forms a core part of our reference groups. From these two photos, can you see how the reference groups and social
networks of these youths are not likely to lead them to the same social destination?
Among these is our social network, people who are linked to one another. Your social
network includes your family, friends, acquaintances, people at work and school, and
even ”friends of friends.” Think of your social network as a spider’s web. You are at
the center, with lines extending outward, gradually encompassing more and more
people.
If you are a member of a large group, you probably associate regularly with a few
people within that group. In a sociology class I was teaching at a commuter campus, six
women who didn’t know one another ended up working together on a project. They got
along well, and they began to sit together in class. Eventually, they planned a Christmas
party at one of their homes. This type of social network, the clusters within a group, or its
internal factions, is called a clique (cleek).
You are going to face a lot of challenges in your coming career, especially because of
the ways that work has changed in the postindustrial or information society. The following
Applying Sociology to Your Life explores how you can apply social networks to help
your career.
Applying Sociology to Your Life
The New World of Work: How to Keep a Paycheck Coming
in the New Global Marketplace
Here’s how it used to be Here’s how it is now
social network
the social ties radiating outward
from the self that link people
together
clique
a cluster of people within a larger
group who choose to interact
with one another
For blue collar workers: After you finished high school and
took a job in a factory, you could expect to work in the same
company until you retired and then collect a small pension for
the rest of your life. If you graduated from college and took
Three major changes have undermined this general
a job in the white-collar world of management, you could
expect a comfortable retirement pay in return for your many
years of loyal service to the company.
Although there were many exceptions to this broad
outline, this was the general course of events for workers
who stayed with a particular company. Workers expected
continuous employment and a pension, and in general
the companies delivered. The retirement pay might not be
generous, but workers could generally count on it.
stability of the workplace: globalization, outsourcing, and
subcontracting. Factories close up when their products
are no longer competitive with those produced in lowwage
countries. To remain competitive in this new global
marketplace, some firms outsource: They find it cheaper to
have other companies (in the United States or elsewhere) bid
on producing the components of their products. They also
subcontract: Jobs that were previously done “in house” by
the company’s workers are contracted out to independent
workers or to another firm.
It is no mystery why globalization, outsourcing, and
subcontracting are part of the new world of work: Companies
162 Chapter 6
can avoid the costs of unemployment insurance, workmen’s
comp insurance, Social Security, sick days, vacation days, and
that ongoing, lingering expense of retirement pay. The end result
is a severe undermining of the security of workers. In this new
world of work, you never know if your job will be outsourced to
workers in China, India, Indonesia, or Mexico, or if your job will
be subcontracted to someone in your own city.
Be systematic about your networking. Try to develop
a strong network, one that is not just extensive but that
includes key people in organizations. This might seem
impossible, but it is doable. The more you cultivate your
network, the more people it will include. Your participation
will eventually be noticed by leaders, and always you will
be in contact with people who know someone who knows
someone who …
So how can you apply sociology?
The key to keeping your paycheck rolling in when you can’t
depend on continued employment by the company that hires
you is social networking. Develop as many contacts as you can.
Use the social media to participate in groups that share your
professional interests. Join local, state, and national associations
related to your career goals. Attend and participate in their
meetings. Volunteer to work on committees. Get to know these
people, even online, and stay in contact with them. Your goal
should be to develop a list of people you can call and consult with.
When you look for a new job, you will know who to
contact. Or when someone knows of a new job opening,
they will think of you. Keep in mind that good jobs circulate in
networks, and job openings often are filled through personal
contacts-even before they are formally announced.
For Your Consideration
~ How will you apply social networking to help your career?
Be precise in laying out the steps you will take.
THE SMALL WORLD PHENOMENON If you list everyone you know, and each of
these individuals lists everyone he or she knows, and all of you keep doing this, would
almost everyone in the United States eventually be included on those lists? This takes us
to a question social scientists have asked: Just how extensive are the connections among
social networks?
It would be too cumbersome to test this question by drawing up such lists, but
psychologist Stanley Milgram (1933- 1984) came up with an interesting idea. In a classic
study known as ”the small world phenomenon,” Milgram (1967) addressed a letter to
”targets”: the wife of a seminary student in Cambridge and a stockbroker in Boston.
He didn’t mail the letters to these people, but instead sent them to ”starters”; people
who did not know these individuals. He asked them to send the letter to someone they
knew on a first-name basis who might know the ”target.” Those recipients, in turn,
were asked to mail the letter to a friend or acquaintance who might know the ”target,”
and so on. The question was, Would the letters ever reach the ”target”? If so, how long
would the chain be?
Think of yourself as part of this research. What would you do if you were a ”starter,”
but the ”target” lived in a state in which you knew no one? You would send the letter to
someone that you think might know someone in that state. This, Milgram reported, is
just what happened. Although none of the senders knew the targets, the letters reached the
designated individual in an average of just six steps.
Milgram’ s research caught the public’s fancy, leading to the phrase ” six degrees of
separation.” This expression means that, on average, everyone in the United States is
separated by just six individuals. Milgram’s conclusions became so popular that a game,
”Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon,” is built around it.
IS THE SMALL WORLD PHENOMENON AN ACADEMIC MYTH? Psychologist Judith
Kleinfeld (2002b) decided to replicate Milgram’s study. At Yale University Library where
she went to get more details, she went through Milgram’ s papers. To her surprise, she
found that Milgram had stacked the deck in favor of finding a small world. As mentioned,
one of the ”targets” was a Boston stockbroker. Kleinfeld found that this person’s ”starters”
were investors in blue-chip stocks. She also found that, on average, only 30 percent of the
letters reached their ”target.”
Since most letters did not reach their targets, even with the deck stacked in favor
of success, we can draw the opposite conclusion: People who don’t know one another
are dramatically separated by social barriers. As Kleinfeld says, “Rather than living in
a small world, we may live in a world that looks like a bowl of lumpy oatmeal, with
many small worlds loosely connected and perhaps some small worlds not connected at
all.” Somehow, I don’t think that the phrase “lumpy oatmeal phenomenon” will become
standard, but it seems reasonable to conclude that we do not live in a small world where
everyone is connected by six links.
But not so fast. The plot thickens. Although research with thousands of e-mail
chains showed that only about 1 percent reached their targets (Dodds et al. 2003; Muhamad
2010), other research confirms Milgram’s conclusions. Research on 250 million
people who exchanged chat messages showed a link of less than seven, and a study
of 700 million people on Facebook showed a connection of less than five (Markoff and
Sengupta 2011). This topic fascinates computer specialists, and their research continues
(Mehrabian 2017).
Why such disparity? The problem seems to be the choice of samples and how
researchers measure links. These definitions must be worked out before we can draw
solid conclusions. Maybe Milgram did stumble onto the truth. We’ll find out as the
research continues.
BUILDING UNINTENTIONAL BARRIERS Besides geography, the barriers that divide
us into separate small worlds (lumpy or not) are primarily those of social class, gender,
and race-ethnicity. Overcoming these social barriers is difficult because even our own
social networks contribute to social inequality, a topic that we explore in the following
Applying Sociology to Your Life.
Applying Sociology to Your Life
Do Your Social Networks Perpetuate Social Inequality?
Societies to Social Networks 163
Suppose that an outstanding job-great pay, interesting
work, opportunity for advancement-has just opened up
where you work. Who are you going to tell?
Consider some of the principles we have reviewed. You
are part of in-groups, people with whom you identify;
you use reference groups to evaluate your attitudes and
behavior; and you interact in social networks. Your
in-groups, reference groups,
stranger? Not likely. Most likely it will be a friend or someone
to whom you owe a favor. And most likely your social
network is made up of people who look much like yourselfsimilar
to your age, education, social class, race-ethnicity,
and, probably also, gender. Can you see how your social
networks both reflect the inequality in our society and help to
perpetuate it?
and social networks are likely
to consist of people whose
backgrounds are similar to your
own. If you are like most of us,
this means that just as social
inequality is built into society,
so it is built into your relationships.
One consequence is that
you, like the rest of us, tend to
perpetuate social inequality.
How can I make such a
statement?
Go back to the extract
that opens this box. Who will
you tell about the opening for
this outstanding job? Will it be a
When we learn of opportunities, we share this information
with our networks. Opportunities then flow to people whose
characteristics are similar to ours.
Consider a network
of white men in some
corporation. As they learn
of opportunities (jobs,
investments, and so on), they
share this information with
their networks. This causes
opportunities and good jobs
to flow to people whose
characteristics are similar
to theirs. This perpetuates
the “good old boy” network,
bypassing people who have
different characteristics-in
this example, women and
minorities. No intentional
discrimination needs be
164 Chapter 6
involved. It is just a reflection of our contacts, of our
everyday interactions.
For Your Consideration
The perpetuation of social inequality does not require intentional
discrimination. Just as social inequality is built into
society, so it is built into our personal relationships.
To overcome this barrier and advance their careers,
women and minorities do networking. They try to meet
“someone who knows someone” (Kantor 2009). Like the
“good old boys,” they go to parties and join clubs, religious
organizations, and political parties. They use Facebook
~ How do you think your social network helps to perpetuate
social inequality?
and other online networking sites. One result is a “new girl”
network in which women steer business to one another
(Jacobs 1997). African American leaders have cultivated their
own network, one so tight that one-fifth of the entire national
African American leadership knows one another personally.
Add some “friends of a friend,” and three-fourths of the
entire leadership belong to the same network (Taylor 1992).
~ How do you think we can break this cycle?
~ How can we create diversity in our social networks?
What are the assumptions on which you are basing your
answer?
~ Should we try to break the cycle? What are the assumptions
on which you are basing your answer?
group dynamics
the ways in which individuals
affect groups and the ways
in which groups influence
individuals
small group
a group small enough for everyone
to interact directly with all
the other members
dyad
the smallest possible group,
consisting of two persons
Group Dynamics
6.3 Be familiar with the effects of group size on stability, intimacy,
attitudes, and behavior; the types and styles of leaders; the Asch
experiment on peer pressure; the Milgram experiment on authority;
and the implications of groupthink.
Group dynamics is a fascinating area of sociology. This term refers to how groups influence
us and how we influence groups. Most of the ways that groups influence us lie
below our awareness, however, so let’s see if we can bring some of this to the surface.
Let’s consider how even the size of a group makes a difference and then examine leadership,
conformity, and decision making.
Before doing so, we should define small group, which is a group small enough
so that each member can interact directly with all the others. Small groups can be
either primary or secondary. A wife, husband, and children make up a primary small
group, as do workers who take their breaks together. Students in a small introductory
sociology class and bidders at an auction form secondary small groups. You
might want to look again at the photos that illustrate categories, aggregates, primary,
and secondary groups.
Effects of Group Size on Stability
and Intimacy
Similarity of appearance, activity, and belief help to fuse group identity and
loyalty. These Buddhist monks in Myanmar are on their way to collect alms.
In the early 1900s, sociologis t Georg Simmel
(1858- 1918) analyzed how group size affects people’s
behav ior. He used the term dyad for the
smallest possible group, which consis ts of two
people. Dyads, which include marriages, love
affairs, and close friendship s, show two distinct
qualities. First, they are the most intense or intimate
of human groups. Because only two people
are involved, the interaction is focused on both
individuals . Second, dyads tend to be unstable.
Because dyads require that both members participate,
if one member loses interest, the dyad
collapses. In larger groups, by contrast, if one
person withdraws, the group can continue, since
its existence does not depend on any single member
(Simmel 1950).
A triad is a group of three people. As Simmel noted,
the addition of a third member changes the group in
fundamental ways. One of the most significant changes
is that interaction between the first two members of the
group decreases. This can create strain. With the birth
of a child, for example, hardly any aspect of a couple’s
relationship goes untouched. Attention focuses on the
baby, and interaction between the husband and wife
decreases. The marriage, though, usually becomes stronger.
Although the intensity of interaction is less in triads,
they are inherently stronger and give greater stability to
a relationship.
Yet, as Simmel noted, triads, too, are unstable. They
tend to produce coalitions-two group members aligning
themselves against one. This common tendency
for two people to develop stronger bonds and prefer
one another leaves the third person feeling hurt and
excluded. Another characteristic of triads is that they
often produce an arbitrator or mediator, someone who
Societies to Social Networks 165
Group size has a significant influence on how people interact. When a
group changes from a dyad (two people) to a triad (three people), the
relationships among the participants undergo a shift. How do you think
the birth of this child will change the relationship between the mother
and father?
tries to settle disagreements between the other two. In one-child families, you can
often observe both of these characteristics of triads-coalitions and arbitration.
triad
a group of three people
coalition
The general principle is this: As a small group grows larger, it becomes more stable, but its
intensity, or intimacy, decreases. To see why, look at Figure 6.3. As each new person comes
into a group, the connections among people multiply. In a dyad, there is only 1 relationship;
in a triad, there are 3; in a group of four, 6; in a group of five, 10. If we expand the
group to six, we have 15 relationships, while a group of seven yields 21 relationships. If
we continue adding members, we soon are unable to folthe
alignment of some members
of a group against others
low the connections: A group of eight has 28 possible relationships;
a group of nine, 36; a group of ten, 45; and so on.
It is not only the number of relationships that makes
larger groups more stable. As groups grow, they also tend
to develop a more formal structure. Leaders emerge and
more specialized roles come into play. This often results
in such familiar offices as president, secretary, and treasurer.
This structure provides a framework that helps the
group survive over time.
Effects of Group Size on Attitudes
and Behavior
You probably have observed one of the consequences
of group size. When a group is small, its members act
informally, but as the group grows, the members lose
their sense of intimacy and become more formal with
one another. No longer can the members assume that
the others are “insiders” who agree with their views.
Now they must take a “larger audience” into consideration,
and instead of merely “talking,” they begin to
“address” the group. As their speech becomes more formal,
their body language stiffens.
Figure 6.3 The Effects of Group Size on Relationships
A Dyad
One relationship
A Group of Five
c
Ten relationships
A Triad
c
Three
relationships
A Group of Six
A
Fifteen
relationships
A Group of Four
A
Six relationships
A Group of Seven
Twenty-one
relationships
166 Chapter 6
Groups break into smaller groups.
Here you see a group of just ten that
has broken into four smaller groups.
“Talk lines” are one reason. What
other reasons can you suggest?
You probably have observed a second aspect of group
dynamics, too. In the early stages of a party, when only a
few people are present, almost everyone talks with everyone
else. But as more people arrive, the guests break into
smaller groups. Some hosts, who want their guests to mix
together, make a nuisance of themselves trying to achieve
their idea of what a group should be like. The division into
small groups is inevitable, however: It follows the basic
sociological principles that we have just reviewed. Because
the addition of each person increases connections (in this
case, ”talk lines”), conversation becomes more difficult.
The guests break into smaller groups in which they can
look at each other directly and interact comfortably with
one another.
Let’s turn to a third consequence of group size:
Imagine that you are taking a team-taught course in social psychology and your professors
have asked you to join a few students to discuss how you are adjusting to college life.
When you arrive, they tell you that to make the discussion anonymous, they want you
to sit unseen in a booth. You will participate in the discussion over an intercom, talking
when your microphone comes on. The professors say that they will not listen to the conversation,
and they leave.
You find the format somewhat strange, to say the least, but you go along with it.
You have not seen the other students in their booths, but when they talk about their experiences,
you find yourself becoming wrapped up in the problems they are sharing. One
student even mentions how frightening it is to be away from home because of his history
of epileptic seizures. Later, you hear this individual breathe heavily into the microphone.
Then he stammers and cries for help. A crashing noise follows, and you imagine him lying
helpless on the floor.
Nothing but an eerie silence follows. What do you do?
Your professors, John Darley and Bibb Latane (1968), staged the whole thing, but you
don’t know this. No one had a seizure. In fact, no one was even in the other booths.
Everything, except your comments, was on tape.
Some participants were told that they would be discussing the topic with just one
other student, others with two, and still others with three, four, or five. Darley and Latane
found that all students who thought they were part of a dyad rushed out to help. If they
thought they were in a triad, only 80 percent went to help and they were slower in leaving
the booth. In six-person groups, only 60 percent went to see what was wrong and
they took even longer to leave the booth.
This experiment demonstrates how deeply group size influences our attitudes
and behavior: It even affects our willingness to help one another. Students in the
dyad knew that no one else could help the student in trouble. The professor was
gone, and it was up to them. In the larger groups, including the triad, students felt
a diffusion of responsibility: Giving help was no more their responsibility than anyone
else’s.
LABORATORY FINDINGS AND THE REAL WORLD Experiments in social psychology
can give insight into human behavior- but at the same time, they can woefully miss
the mark. Darley and Latane’s classic laboratory experiment has serious flaws when it
comes to real life. Look at the photos that I snapped in Vienna, Austria, and you’ll see
something entirely different than what they reported. Many people strangers to one
another were passing one another on the sidewalk. But as you can see, no diffusion of
responsibility stopped them from immediately helping the man who had tripped and
fallen. Other norms and values that people carry within them are also at work, ones that
can trump the diffusion of responsibility.
As I was Wal.kin in v·
Helping a Stranger
Serendipity sometimes accompanies sociologists
as they do their work, which was certainly the
case here. The entire episode took no more
than three minutes, and I was fortunate to
a er hin g ienna a city f
as g noise behind ‘ o almost 2 million
to the sidewalk . me. I turned, and see. people, I heard
I
capture it with my camera. Real
life sometimes differs sharply
from that portrayed in research
laboratories.
•• I
beginnin ‘ quickly snapped this . mg that a man had fa]
g to help the man . picture. You can se en
after the man fell . This photo was tak b e strangers
. en a out three seconds
Two strangers are helping the man, with another two ready to pitch
in. They have all stopped whatever they were doing to help a man
they did not know. • • Vienna
The man is n ow on his feet, but still a bit
helped him up are still expressin t . shaky. The two who have
young woman. g herr concern, especially the
; :: . AUSTRIA·.
LAND
JO
Cc
n,,
N
yp
By