5.6 Conclusion
Thinking back to the story at the beginning of this chapter, Lyle Crawford died during the 2021 heat wave. His sister, Donna, in Virginia, had called his former girlfriend to check on him. When he didn’t answer the door, Donna called the police who found him in his home. His sister said, “He would have answered the door if someone knocked, and that might have done it. An actual human being. But how can there be enough human beings to go to the door of every older person?” (Guernsey and Vines 2021).
His death is part of a larger social pattern, where people that are socially isolated and living alone face dire consequences during heat waves (Klinenberg 2001). As we have discussed in this chapter, Americans have grown more socially isolated. In Multnomah County, 48 of the 72 people that died during the 2021 heat wave lived alone (Ehrlich 2022). As sociologist Eric Klinenberg notes, when someone dies alone in their home, it symbolizes social abandonment and social failure. For seniors, living alone leaves them vulnerable during crises. They have no one to help identify emerging problems or help draw support from their networks (Klineberg 2001).
As we saw in the introduction, public and non-profit organizations played a crucial role in the response to the heat wave. However, these organizations were not prepared for the heat wave. While cooling centers help, not having strategies in place to get people to the cooling centers is a problem. Some argue that socially isolated people need to be checked on. At the time of the heat wave, the state of Oregon did not have an early warning and response system for heat. Government and non-profit employees had a hard time communicating with the people that needed the most help (Kaplan 2021).
There is also the larger issue of our social infrastructure needing to be repaired to be able to adequately respond to extreme weather events. Leaving inequities in housing or health care only exacerbates the problem and leaves our most disadvantaged at risk (Kaplan 2021). What will happen next time the Northwest faces an extreme weather event or a major earthquake? How will our social networks and organizations respond?
5.6.1 Review of Learning Objectives
In this chapter we explored a variety of topics that exist in between individuals and the large institutions of society. We explored the different types of groups we belong to and how they can impact our behavior. We then discussed the importance of social networks and social ties. We ended by looking at the many different organizations we participate in. In the next chapter we will explore how sociologists have understood deviance and crime.
5.6.2 Key Terms
Bureaucracies: organizations that have a clear division of labor, a hierarchy, and formal rules and procedures.
Charismatic authority: type of power legitimated by perceived extraordinary characteristics that inspire devotion and obedience from followers.
Coercive organization: organizations we are forced to join.
Collectivist organization: organizations concerned with pursuing their mission or values. Often the opposite of a bureaucratic organization.
Crowds: people who happen to be in the same place at the same time but who do not interact or share a sense of identity.
Dyad: a two member group.
Group: a collection of two or more people who share an identity and interact with each other.
Homophily: similarity within networks.
In-group: a group we belong to and towards which we hold favorable opinions.
Isomorphism: process by which organizations come to look similar and homogeneous.
Normative or voluntary organizations: organizations we join based on shared interest.
Out-group: a group we do not belong to and which we may hold negative attitudes towards.
Primary groups: those that are involved in our earliest socialization experiences. This includes our families, close friends, and significant others.
Rational legal authority: a type of power legitimized by laws, rules, norms, and procedures.
Reference groups: a group that people compare themselves to.
Secondary groups: impersonal groups that are task oriented and interactions are typically formal, based on roles and statuses.
Social capital: using social connections and networks as a resource.
Social networks: a set of relationships that link an individual to other individuals.
Strong tie: people in your network that you know and have regular contact with.
Traditional authority: a type of power legitimized on the basis of long-standing customs
Triad: a three member group.
Utilitarian Organization: organizations we join based on seeking a material reward.
Weak tie: people in your network that you are not that close to.
5.6.3 Discussion Questions
- What in-groups do you belong to? How does that group membership impact your life? What are your reference groups?
- How would you characterize the leadership of your employer? What kind of authority do they have? Why?
- Why do you think Americans are socially isolated? What are some of the consequences of this isolation? How can we become less socially isolated?
- Pick an organization. Would you characterize it as: voluntary, coercive, or instrumental; for-profit, public, or non-profit; bureaucratic or collectivist?
5.6.4 Licenses and Attributions for Conclusion
“Conclusion” by Matthew Gougherty is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
5.6.5 Chapter Bibliography
Aboud, France E. 2003. “The formation of in-group favoritism and out-group prejudice in young children: Are they distinct attitudes?” Developmental Psychology 39(1): 48–60.
Aboud, Frances E., & Amato, Maria. 2001. “Developmental and socialization influences on intergroup bias.” Pp 65-85 In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook in social psychology. New York, NY: Blackwell.
Anheier, Helmut K. 2005. Nonprofit Organizations: Theory, Management, Policy. New York: Routledge.
Bauchamp, Zack. 2021. “How a “March for Trump” Rally Led to Clashes at the Capitol.” Retrieved September 1, 2022. https://www.vox.com/22217039/capitol-attack-trump-rally-election-biden-explained
Bennett, Mark, and Martyn Barrett, Rauf Karakozov, Giorg Kipiani, Evanthia Lyons, Valentyna Pavlenko and Tatiana Riazanova. 2004. “Young children’s evaluations of the ingroup and of outgroups: A multi-national study.” Social Development 13(1):124–141.
Castelli, Luigi and Luciana Carraro. 2010. “Striving for difference: On the spontaneous preference for ingroup members who maximize ingroup positive distinctiveness.” European Journal of Social Psychology 40(6): 881–890.
Chen, Katherine K. 2009. Enabling Creative Chaos: The Organization Behind Burning Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DiMaggio, Paul and Filiz Garip. 2012. “Network Effects and Social Inequality.” Annual Review of Sociology 38:93-118.
DiMaggio, Paul and Walter W. Powell. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48(2):147-160.
Ehrlich, April. 2022. “Exactly One Year Since ‘Heat Dome,” Portland Remembers Those Lost.” Retrieved September 1, 2022 https://www.opb.org/article/2022/06/27/portland-remembers-people-died-heat-dome-one-year-ago/
Etzioni, Amitai. 1975. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates. New York: Free Press.
Flaccus, Gilliam. 2021. “Oregon Heat Wave Victims Older, Lived Alone, Had no AC.” Retrieved September 1, 2022 https://apnews.com/article/canada-environment-and-nature-oregon-heat-waves-76bb82bebd17c6bef7fd8af97c311984
Flamino, James, Boleslaw K. Szymanski, Ashwin Bahulkar, Kevin Chan and Omar Lizardo. 2021. “Creation, Evolution, and Dissolution of Social Groups.” Scientific Reports 11:Article Number 17470. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96805-7
Fine, Gary Alan. 2012. “Group Culture and the Interaction Order: Local Sociology on the Meso-Level.” Annual Review of Sociology 38:159-179.
Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Granovetter, Mark. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360-1380.
Guernsey, Jessica and Jennifer Vines. 2021. “Preliminary Review of Excessive Heat Deaths.” Retrieved September 1, 2022 https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/preliminary_review-heat_deaths-07-14-21_2.pdf
Guilfoil, Kyla. 2022. “4 Dead in Oregon as Heat Wave Bakes Pacific Northwest.” Retrieved September 1, 2022. https://abcnews.go.com/US/dead-oregon-heat-wave-bakes-pacific-northwest/story?id=87547792#:~:text=During%20a%202021%20heat%20wave,116%20degrees%20at%20its%20peak.
Hamlin, J. Kiley, Neha Mahajan Zoe Liberman and Karen Wynn. 2013. “Not like me = bad: Infants prefer those who harm dissimilar others.” Psychological Science 24(4): 589-594.
Hastings, Dorothy. 2021. “ ‘Abandoned by Everyone Else,’ Neighbors are Banding Together During the Pandemic.” Retriever September 1, 2022 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-mutual-aid-networks-came-together-in-a-year-of-crisis
Hewstone, Miles. 1990. “The “ultimate attribution error”? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution.” European Journal of Social Psychology 20(4):311–335.
Kaplan, Sarah. 2021. “Heat Waves Are Dangerous. Isolation and Inequality Make Them Deadly.” Retrieved September 1, 2022 https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/07/21/heat-wave-death-portland/
Klinenberg, Eric. 2001. “Dying Alone: The Social Production of Urban Isolation.” Ethnography 2(4):501-531.
Kivisto, Peter and Thomas Faist. 2010. Beyond a Border: The Causes and Consequences of Contemporary Immigration. Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press.
Lewis, Tanya. 2021. “Why Extreme Heat Is So Deadly.” Retrieved September 1, 2022. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-extreme-heat-is-so-deadly/
Linville, Patricia W. Edward E. Jones. 1980. “Polarized appraisals of out-group members.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38(5):689–703.
McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin and James M. Cook. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:415-444.
Meissner, Christian A. and John C. Brigham. 2001. “Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 7(1): 3–35.
Ostrom, Thomas M and Constantine Sedikides. 1992. “Out-group homogeneity effects in natural and minimal groups.” Psychological Bulletin 112(3): 536–552.
Parigi, Paolo and Warner Henson II. 2014. “Social Isolation in America.” Annual Review of Sociology 40:153-171.
Perrow, Charles. 1991. “A Society of Organizations.” Theory and Society 20(6):725-762.
Pinter, Brad and Anthony G. Greenwald. 2011. “A comparison of minimal group induction procedures.” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 14(1): 81–98.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rainey, Hal, and Paula Steinbauer. 1999. “Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a Theory of Effective Government Organizations.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1: 1-32.
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2001. “Gender, Status, and Leadership.” Journal of Social Issues 57(4):637-655.
Ritzer, George and Jeffrey Stepnisky. 2022. Sociological Theory. 11th edition. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Shelton, J. Nicole and Jennifer A. Richeson. 2005. “Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88(1): 91–107.
Simmel, Georg. 1950 [1902]. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Toletino, Jia. 2020. “What Mutual Aid Can Do During a Pandemic.” Retrieved September 1, 2022. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/18/what-mutual-aid-can-do-during-a-pandemic