Social Work with Groups: Theoretical Perspectives & Social Interaction
ITEM 1: INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, AND NETWORKS: PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS
1. INTRODUCTION
Through a long process of socialization, we acquire basic skills to integrate and change our behavior and environment. Groups play a key role in this process. In situations of weakness, lack, or absence of adaptation, group dynamics offers an excellent opportunity for treatment, as it is precisely through such groups that individuals acquire basic skills for social inclusion.
Social Work with groups utilizes the group experience as a primary source of change. People are always involved in groups: primary groups (stable primary relationships) and secondary groups (formal and impersonal relationships). The characteristics of groups evolve, acquiring new nuances in terms of technological innovation, globalization, individualization of relations, and the emergence of new models of internet-related social interaction.
The basic perspective from which we study emphasizes group dynamics in the processes of social inclusion. The major challenge facing the citizens of the 21st century from the perspective of Social Work with groups is how to strengthen our social skills and capabilities to address problematic situations in a changing world. We are in a constant process of adaptation, with new forms of virtual communication, and traditional institutions (family, labor market, welfare state, etc.) are changing very fast.
The goal of our discipline is to deal with situations of personal weakness and problems, utilizing group dynamics as an effective training mechanism that improves problem-solving skills, enhances our ability to interact, and offers and finds social support in times of uncertainty.
2. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL INTERACTION
Theoretical approaches in the social sciences throughout the 20th century have moved away, little by little, from the dual schema (conflict versus consensus, individualism versus collectivism debate, etc.). There was a general movement that sought integration and synthesis, with the ultimate aim to explain social and psychological processes that are resistant to any kind of theoretical reductionism.
2.1. Structuralism and Functionalism
Structuralism and functionalism became the dominant theoretical paradigm in the 1950s and 1960s.
Structuralism focuses on the notion of structure, understood as a set of systems. The elements of the structure can only be understood in terms of their connections with other elements and the structure itself.
Structures enable agency but also limit it.
The object of any of the social sciences, including Social Work with groups, is to isolate and describe the structures that a society uses to perceive, relate, and interpret their experiences. The sum of all these structures is “culture.”
Functionalism takes as its point of departure for its analysis the irreducibility of society and social institutions to individuals. It analyzes the tasks relating to the conditions of existence of the social system, arguing that to survive, any social system must comply with certain functions or needs (called “universal functional requirements”).
Throughout the 20th century, functionalism has played a key role in the social sciences. The central figure of this movement was Talcott Parsons, and secondly, his disciple Robert K. Merton.
The general theory of action of Parsons (1940s and 1950s) attempts to resolve the contradiction between the structured nature of action and the irreducibility of the latter to external conditions. The actors are immersed in what he calls an “action system,” a structured set of guidelines for action based on pattern variables that satisfy a set of basic needs from certain functions and is subject to change processes over time.
The general scheme of Parsonian action consists of four subsystems:
- The biological organism (which provides power to the individual and focuses on adaptation to the environment).
- The personality system (is aimed at the achievement of objectives and is the result of the socialization process, whose assimilation is different for each person).
- The social system (which pursues the integration of the parties).
- The cultural system (which aims to maintain standards, providing the necessary values for the integration of the personality of the social actors in the systems).
The social system is one of the three aspects of the structuring of a particular overall system of social action. The other two aspects are the personality systems of individual actors and the cultural system as set out in their actions. Each of the three systems must be regarded as somewhat independent of the organization of the elements of the action; in turn, each is indispensable for the other two, in the sense that no personalities and culture would not exist without any social system.
The term “system” is essential to his work, but not always used in one way. We can distinguish three fundamental issues around it: the social system is the permanent structure that organizes the relationship between an actor and a situation; the social systems change in an orderly manner; in his theory, it is stressed the role played by the concept “function” as a set of activities aimed at meeting the needs of the system. An action system can only exist insofar as the fulfillment of its four basic needs (which correspond to four kinds of function): Adaptation (A), Goal Attainment (G), Integration (I), and Latency (pattern maintenance) (L). The relationships they establish with each of these four elements of the AGIL scheme account for the processes of evolution and change.
The social system is the result of the integration of the units. When the social system acquires a “persistent” character, one can speak of “society” itself. Such an outcome of stability and permanence in social systems depends on functional prerequisites or guarantees of cohesion between the three levels outlined (natural, personal-motivational, cultural).
Merton developed a functionalist theory of society based on critical principles that challenged the first functionalism. He established a distinction between functions and dysfunctions. And next to them, he distinguished non-functional elements: those that are irrelevant to a given social system.
In analyzing the functions, he introduced two concepts: latent (a latent function is one that is NOT intended) and manifest (an intended function).
This categorization allowed him to approach the analysis of social transformations, providing more complex and analytical skills to the functionalist theory.
Finally, he integrated into his theory the concept of “unintended consequences” that can lead to a final result opposite to the intentionality of social actors.
The functional analysis was to leave, therefore, the following principle: there are several levels of functional analysis (the general public, organizations, institutions, groups).
Aporia: An insuperable logical difficulty of reasoning or its conclusion.