Page 160 - Essencials of Sociology

Groups within Society 133

control of political machinery and access to free mailing, 90 to 95 percent of U.S.
senators and representatives who choose to run are reelected (Statistical Abstract
2006:Table 394; Friedman and Holden 2009).
The iron law of oligarchy is not without its limitations, of course. Regardless of their
personal feelings, members of the inner circle must remain attuned to the opinions of
the rank-and-file members. If the oligarchy gets too far out of line, it runs the risk of a
grassroots rebellion that would throw the elite out of office. This threat softens the iron
law of oligarchy by making the leadership responsive to the membership. The iron law of
oligarchy, then, is actually more like a copper law of oligarchy. In addition, because not
all organizations become captive to an elite, it is a strong tendency, not an inevitability.
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 a fundamental division of the world has far-reaching conse-
quences for our lives.
Implications for a Socially Diverse Society: Shaping Perception and Morality.
You know the sense of belonging that some groups give you. This can bring posi-
tive 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”
also leads 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 per-
ception of the world, your view of right and wrong, and your behavior. Let’s look at two
examples. The first you see regularly—prejudice and discrimination on the basis of sex.
In-groups produce this fascinating double standard:

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).
The “we” and “they” division of the world can twist people’s perception to such
an extent that harming others comes to be viewed as right. The Nazis provide one
of the most startling examples. For them, the Jews were an out-group who symbol-
ized 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. After the terrorist attacks of Sep-
tember 11, 2001, al-Qaeda became Americans’ number one out-group, so much so that
top U.S. officials concluded that being “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” to al-Qaeda
prisoners was not torture. Officials had one al-Qaeda leader waterboarded 180 times
(Shane and Savage 2011). (None of us would want to be waterboarded even once.)
Caught up in the torture hysteria of the times, Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard
Law School who usually takes very liberal views, said that we should make torture legal
so judges could issue “torture warrants” (Dershowitz 2004; Allhoff 2011). Can you see
how this works? Can you see that in-group/out-group thinking can be so severe that
even “good people” can support torture? And with a good conscience. in-group a group toward which
one feels loyalty
Shades of the Nazis!
In short, to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups, a natural part of social out-group a group toward which
one feels antagonism
life, produces both functional and dysfunctional consequences.