Toward an Empirical Concept of Group LLOYD SANDELANDS and

Lynda St. Clair

Abstract:What is to be made of the idea of “the group”? Is it a collection of personsliterally a gathering together? Or, is it something more-a real presence over and above its members? In unguarded moments, when the line is not held either way, the concept of the group may even flit between the two involuntarily, and maddeningly, like one of those reversible figures in psychology textbooks that won’t let the eye settle on a single image. This duality of the group it seeming to be both a multiple of persons and a single entity is a basic problem of the theory of the group. This confusion about groups is deeply ingrained in language. Familiar words such as ‘couple’, ‘group’, ‘collective’, ‘organization’, and ‘society’ convey the idea, not just of multiplicity, but also of totality. The phrases ‘ a couple’ or ‘the organization’ convey the idea of a single entity. Other languages communicate an even more profound sense of the group as a primary fact so much so that it is more difficult in them to convey the idea of a multiplicity. For example, the Melanesian and Micronesian languages employ personal pronouns as suffixes for the names of social relationships, and particularly of kinship. According to Levy-Bruhl ( I 93 I ) , the Melanesians: