User:Melody04/theory
The Triad (sociology)[edit]
Intro[edit]
A dyad is a group consisting of only two individuals while a triad is the addition of one individual to a dyad to make a total of three individuals within the group. The sociologist Georg Simmel made powerful contributions with his work on the dyad and triad. He was more concerned with the forms of each group rather than the interactions between the individuals within the groups. Simmel stated that by adding to the size of a group would not have made as much of a difference as adding one person to the dyad (Ritzer, 2007,2003:47-8).
Simmel came up with many facts about the concern of large and small groups. Concerning small groups, like the dyad, Simmel says they tend to burn up their energy while larger groups, like the triad, maintain their strength. He also suggests that norms cover a wide range of behaviors in small groups than in larger ones but also involve a broader range of tolerance. One main point that he came up with was that stress within a dyad can end up in solidifying the group or causing it to collapse while in the triad it reduces it into two part systems; an individual and a pair. Small groups tend to hold meaning for complex conflicts while large ones are more capable of controlling and minimizing their conflicts [1].
Triads and Social Structure[edit]
Simmel examines forms of group process and the arrangement of the relationships within it. A dyad relationship differs from all other types of groups because the two individuals are only confronted by one another. Because the dyad depends only on two individuals, the withdrawal of one would destroy the whole group. "A dyad depends on each of its two elements alone--in its death though not in its life: for its life it needs both, but for its death, only one." The lack of structure demands absorption of the individuals in the dyad. Each individual holds dependence in the group and each one is responsible for any action. Because each person in the dyad deals with only one other individual, neither of the two can deny responsibility and neither can hold the group responsible for what they have done or have not done. When a dyad is formed into a triad, the fact that one member has been added actually brings about a major change upon the group. In the triad, as in all associations involving more than two persons, the individual participant is confronted with the possibility of being outvoted by a majority. The triad is the simplest structure in which the group as a whole can achieve domination over its members. The dyad relies on immediate reciprocity, but the triad can impose its will upon one member through the formation of a coalition between the two others. In small groups, members typically have a chance to interact directly with one another; once the group exceeds a relatively limited size, such interaction must be mediated through formal arrangements. No large group can function without the creation of offices, the differentiation of status positions, and the delegation of tasks and responsibilities. This is the reason larger groups become societies of unequals: in order to maintain themselves, they must be structurally differentiated. [2].
The dyad, unlike all other groups, has no meaning beyond its meaning to each of the two individuals that are occupied within the dyad. It simply consists of two people interacting with one another. Within the dyad, the relationship can usually be considered straightforward. Each individual within the group is able to present themselves to the other person that maintains their own identity. Also, either person is able to end the relationship at any point. In a triad there are changes of interactionism. In a triad, some things may lead to competition, alliances or mediation. It is more likely to develop a structure that is independent of the individuals in it unlike that of the dyad [3]. There is no threat in a dyad and intimacy is a key essential between the two. An intimate relationship with another individual or a friendship between only two people is an example of a dyad. The two within the dyad only see one another. Simmel also suggested that in a dyad there are no alliances and the members do not have an alternative audience (Levine et al, 1976:1116). [4]. On the other hand, adding an individual to the dyad completes a triad and this poses a threat to the individuals within the group. Simmel believed that because of this an individual group structure was possible. His proposition was that the primary tendency in the triad was segregation among a "pair" and an "other." The more active members form a bond and the least active member is totally isolated by the other two (Caplow, 1956: 490). [5].
Forms of Triadic Structures[edit]
Within the triad each individual acts as an intermediary for the other two. Simmel speculated upon the tendency of the three-person group to subdivide into a pair and an other, the odd man functioning as mediator, exploiter or instigator in relation to the pair [6]. This addition of the third member as a mediator can also enable them to gain power and control over both by exploiting the disputes that occur between the two individuals and then being able to instigate them. It can also cause two of the members to actually compete with one another for the favors of the new member. Also, within a triad, two members are more than likely to "gang up" on the lone member and recognize them as an intruder [7] [8]. Simmel also points out that a weak man within the triad, including two equally strong individuals can profit more by associating themselves with one of the two more powerful members. The quantity of his power is determined by the strength of one of the other members (Stryke, 1960: 219). The more power one has gives them the superiority of the three. According to Simmel, the context in which the weak may obtain the maximum amount of power is one of contention between two powerful persons. If there is no strife between the two, the third member's advantage is limited because he can no longer hold power within the group. This profit depends on his choice of who he will share his strength with [9]. The scapegoat within the dyad breaks apart while it may serve briefly as a rebuilding possibility within the triad [10].
References[edit]
- ^ Mills, Theodore M. Some Hypotheses on Small Groups from Simmel. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63, No. 6, Emile Durkheim- Georg Simmel, 1858-1958. (May, 1958), pg.647
- ^ Coser, Lewis A. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. Second edition. New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977. pp. 186-189
- ^ Ritzer, George. Sociological Theory. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992), third edition, pp.166.
- ^ Levine, Donald N., Ellwood B. Carter and Eleanor Miller Gorman. Simmel's Influence on American Sociology. II. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 81, No. 5. (Mar., 1976), pp. 1112-1132
- ^ Caplow, Theodore. A Theory of Coalitions in the Triad. American Sociological Review, Vol. 21, No. 4. (Aug., 1956), pp. 489-493.
- ^ Arnold, Arthur. The Implications of Two-Person and three-Person Relationships for Family Psychotherapy. Journal of Health and Human Behavior, Vol. 3, No. 2. (Summer, 1962), pp. 94-97.
- ^ Ritzer, George. Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots. The Basics, Second Edition. New York:McGraw-Hill, 2007, 2003.
- ^ Bean, Susan S. Two's Company, Three's a Crowd (in Brief Communications). American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 72, No. 3. (Jun., 1970), pp. 562-564.
- ^ Stryke, Sheldon and George Psathas. Research on Coalitions in the Triad: Findings, Problems and Strategy. Sociometry, Vol. 23, No. 3. (Sept., 1960), pp. 217-230
- ^ Mills, Theodore M. Some Hypotheses on Small Groups from Simmel. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63, No. 6, Emile Durkheim- Georg Simmel, 1858-1958. (May, 1958), pp. 642-650
See Also[edit]
Hyperlinks[edit]