David Gesell

05 September 2001

Inequality and Solidarity: Are they siblings?

Homans’ law of inequality predicts that within any group the emotional attachments among members will be stronger among persons of similar rank than among members of different ranks (Stark 2). Social solidarity refers to the density and emotional intensity of attachments within a group (Stark 15). There have been several studies into the relationships developed between individuals in many different ranks and organizations. Though there have been a number of studies done on social behavior, sociologists generally agree that inequality and solidarity exist in almost every aspect of our daily lives.

I will show how Homans’ law of inequality, group solidarity, and social solidarity affect all of us in every aspect of our lives. As Americans we pride ourselves as being equal and fair. We compare ourselves with other countries, other communities and even with other families. Most of us judge our own success by the success of others. Our actions are usually dictated by what is considered to be ‘normal’ by the people around us. We live our lives seeking the approval of the people who are important to us. I do not believe our claim, as being equal, is an accurate depiction of Americans and our daily lives. People in America are more preoccupied with individual rights than with group solidarity, while the Japanese for example, cultivate a sense of group identity and solidarity, trying to derive life satisfaction and security from their group affiliations (Hirayama). I will show you several examples of American mindsets and how we display these actions. I will highlight some of the differences in both professional work places and in residential communities. I will examine the differences in a company and how their very structural organization encourages inequality and solidarity. I will show the many differences in the military, including policies enforcing Homans’ law and solidarity with the threat of punishment. I will also examine how inequality and solidarity is encouraged in the housing market and how we try to locate our homes in neighborhoods with other people of the same status and values. As a law enforcement officer I will also discuss group solidarity in more depth from a police officers point of view. By understanding how these concepts are intertwined and seen in our daily lives, we can better understand why the other person does what he does, and hopefully learn how to get along with each other better in the process.

To better understand this issue we must first understand the concept of solidarity. As Stark has shown, social solidarity refers to the density and emotional intensity of attachments within a group. In other words, group members tend to generate a sort of glue that enables them to stick together, to "belong", and to be loyal (15). I believe the need for people to "belong" and have a place in life is a major driving force in our lives. Groups surround us with warmth, affection, and a deep sense of belonging, they also increase the potential for bitter conflicts with outsiders, especially with other groups that also have high levels of solidarity (Stark 15). In many ways group solidarity is the same as social solidarity. The emotions and the needs to belong do not change from one to the other. The main difference is that group solidarity is looked at on a much smaller scale. Where as social solidarity reflects an entire society and social system, group solidarity looks at smaller groups where people know the others in the group and strive to "belong". As Stark mentions, we learn to "fit in", to behave in ways that earn us the affection and respect of our associates. The cost of high solidarity within a group is intense pressure for conformity (83). In many ways this could also be seen as peer pressure. I am sure we have all faced these pressures in some aspect of our lives.

As we shift from role to role and from situation to situation, we usually conform to the norms that define how we are supposed to act (179). When we violate the norms, our behavior is called deviance (179). However, the actions that one group considers deviant may not be considered deviant to another group. As many sociologists will tell you, deviance is a matter of perspective. During my lifetime I have had several different perspectives on life. I have also found several more perspectives during my research. I will discuss deviance later as it relates to the different issues.

Most of us have at least one thing in common; we work for a living. It is unavoidable to meet other people in the course of your work. Regardless of how you feel about the people you work with you have some sort of relationship with them. Most people will tell you that if you want to succeed at work you need to get along with the people you work with. Good relationships are vital to a productive work environment. Hodson noted that coworker conflict is negatively associated with job satisfaction and good relations with management. Conversely, coworker solidarity generates high levels of job satisfaction. Further, coworker solidarity is associated with better relations with management. From my personal experience I can tell you that I have had jobs where I did not like or get along with the people I worked with. Every day felt like an eternity. Consequently, I did not enjoy the job and left with the hopes of finding better people to work with. When I finally did find a job I enjoyed, with people I liked, I was very happy and did not want to leave it. I am sure you will agree, being in a job you do not like is not much fun.

Ketchum, the Chief Executive Officer for a company in Oregon, stated in a personal interview, that she has a classic pyramid structure in her organization. She has noted that there are definite social groups within the organization. By far, the social groups are more active within the lower classes of the pyramid. The lower classes regularly get together for social gatherings, where as the upper management does not. Another important factor to mention here is that the lower level employees are predominantly single and live in the same part of town. Ketchum has implemented two mechanisms of forced socialization to encourage group solidarity, an annual meeting and a golf tournament. I believe she is on the right path for a more productive work environment. As with many other companies, she has enforced a policy against nepotism. This in fact is following the principle of Homans’ law.

Social status is carried over into the housing market as well. I believe there is an overall appearance and status that people try to portray. In many situations they live their lives by what the norm is for the social group they want to be a part of. This can easily be seen in the housing market. The upper ranks of corporations tend to do more formal entertaining in their home and thus shop for a home that will accommodate guests with a formal living and dining room. The housing market is also separating the social groups by the cost and size of the different houses. As Lindstrom noted, people intentionally seek housing and communities that mirror their values and preferences, creating economically and socially homogeneous communities. This segregation, in turn, recreates for the individuals residing in each community, solidarity based on shared lifestyles, social positions and statuses. I believe people will also tend to choose a neighborhood that complements their own values and lifestyle. Drawing on interview and questionnaire data from 50 newly purchased households, respondents simultaneously located themselves with others who share their values and preferences and asserted their social status and social identity to others (Lindstrom).

I spent six years in the US Navy and I can tell you that there are a countless number of groups. There are an equal number of ranks as well. The differences in rank can easily be seen. There are three main differences in ranks within the Navy: officer, chief, and enlisted. There are several more differences in rank within each rank. The major difference is the uniforms. There are also differences in where the ranks eat, where they live, as well as what each rank is paid. The very nature of the Navy is to separate the ranks. This is a prime example of Homans’ law and the promotion of group solidarity. The Navy even has regulations enforcing Homans’ law and solidarity. As stated in the Navy Fraternization policy, Personal relationships between officer and enlisted members that are unduly familiar and that do not respect differences in rank and grade are prohibited as well as relationships that may be prejudicial to good order and discipline. Violation of this instruction subjects involved members to disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (1). This regulation can be enforced under article 92: Failure to obey an order or regulation, or article 134: General article (UCMJ).

My career path is in the field of law enforcement. I have been a Deputy for some time. I will say that life as a cop is filled with group solidarity and unit cohesion. By the very nature of the job, a strong bond grows between you and your fellow officers. You must be able to trust and count on your partner. But on the other side of the coin, most of the people I deal with as a cop are in the lower class of the population. A lot of the time I deal with gang members. I have a unique insight to how a gang operates and the bonds they form within. Although you hear about gang activity on the news occasionally the crime is usually against a rival gang. Most of the time it is because of a violation into their territory or some action taken against one of their members. The involvement of non-gang members and innocent bystanders is usually unintentional. Fighting between gangs builds internal cohesion (Gould 1). Most fighting within a gang is used to settle disputes and to achieve rank. As Gould shows, group violence occurs because groups are plagued by the tension between collective interest and individual interest. Incidents of collective violence are demonstrations of solidarity by groups whose cohesiveness has been cast into doubt by their failure to persuade adversaries to back down (2).

As mentioned earlier, within any given situation there are deviants from the norm. From a sociological perspective, deviant behavior is most simply defined as "rule-breaking behavior" (Young1). I submit that we all, at one time or another, have been a deviant whether we have committed a crime or not. There are an infinite number of ways that a person can be deviant. What if you were the only blond haired person in Japan? You would be a deviant from the normal black haired person in that part of the world. Imagine what the Japanese people would think about you? What if you were a law-abiding citizen? Anyone who broke the law would be a deviant from your norm. Yet, the members of any given "criminal" subculture do not necessarily consider themselves deviant, rather it is their way of life (Young 1). As I said before, deviance is a matter of perspective. In many subcultures, deviance to one person is group solidarity to another.

I have shown several examples and areas where inequality and solidarity go hand in hand and could even be called siblings. I have also pulled deviance into the issues as a stepchild. I believe they are all very closely tied together and they exist symbiotically, you can’t have one without the other. Hopefully you have learned a little about how to look for these things in your daily life. With any luck this will help you to understand why people do the things they do and teach you a way to get along better in your own social group.

Works Cited