Sporatic Social Ananlysis

Okay, so I'm already debating the regular incorporation of social commentary. I guess, already, my title is a misnomer. Including something regularly or even with some frequency negates the sporatic nature.

I am particularly excited about the idea of social dynamics. Of course, we all have theories, but do we actually know why societies function? As much as we like to explain things, we really take a general, blase approach to relationships. Not so much the pursuit of relationships, intimate and friendly, but more the reasons behind our persistence to have relationships on varying levels. Perhaps it is the inherent nature of man, even on the molecular level. We have this underlying need for change and alteration. Stagnation and static molecules and cells are, well, dead. Dead sorta defeats the whole purpose, of life. But I'm not convinced that we pursue relationships just as a general drive. Instead there is the sick dynamic of social and physical/emotional drives.

Ja men HEJ. To start off with, I have these horrific theories about social dynamics in small social groups of 10 - 25. Social groups like division. Not the people, the groups. It seems that groups function better with some form of defferential heirarchy. A bunch of followers make a pretty sorry and unproductive group sans leader, and a group of leaders suck sans a bell curve(hello. hopkings, law school. Case in point!) or followers. Mostly, I think there are two dividing mechanisms: cliques and classes. Variants arise, especially in smaller, diffinitive groups and broad, over general groups. A decent cross-section normally falls under one of the two categories.

Clique or Class? Well, it would be interesting to see if there is actually any control over this on the individual level. As much as authority figures encourage unique behaviors, let's face it, we live in a group-mentality-driven society. I short, society, or the constituent group, will develop the mechanism most appropriate for its survival. What I am so enjoying about being here is slowly watching the group develop. I am fairly certain the current group will divide by class, with an underlying clique based upon common language.

Okay, so you are thinking, well no shit sherlock. Let me wrap up with these few thoughts. The group is international. So, inherently there should be an initial division by common connection. Moreover, there is exclusion on the same principal. When several group by the common element, it excludes those in the group not endowed with the same connection. Again, duh, I did this with Vehn diagrams when I was like in second grade. BUT, a mere common connection, I think, is insufficient to base a group division. Instead it becomes just an element to the hodgepodge of factors, or driving connection, creating this social beast.

If a smallish group could divide on the sole basis of language and background I don't think it would function well. Functioning well is, still, a matter of opinion, but clearly, the group strives for some driving connection. Thus, while a division exists there is another drive to connect the groups and to push the common background to the status of an undercurrent. I was trying to think of some stellar example, but I keep reverting to good and bad scenarios. Good and bad are clearly not in a common connection, but have an antagonistic connection superceding their underlying common connection. The common connection within the group is good guys pursue good, bad guys pursue bad or the opposite of good. The driving connection is the antagonism between the two units in the group. The common connection is there, but the driving connection is stronger. The common connection may also enflame the driving connection as in good is trying to stop bad or bad is trying to outdo good. It seems more intering to focuse on the conflict between good and bad, not the individual pursuits.

Jag men HEJ. I think my brain hurts now. I can't wait to get into explaining A groups. Several people already know, generally, what I think about grouping. They are all going, see I told you he was a nutter ... punks, I am not. Thoughts?