MVVVVVVVVVVS mvvvvv\vvvvvs

knw"tnK.Srntth Paradoxes
Dawdl\ Bng of GroupLife

lJnderstandingC onflicr,
Par aLysis,and Mouement
In FulLCollaboration in Group Dynnrnics

Publishers
Jossey-Bass
San Francisco
 &2 Paradoxesof Group..Li fe
conflid\,resoltrtion. When they are conceptualizcd thror-rgh a
par adox iial. p e rs p e c ti v e ,w e s e e th e v e ry concept and experi ence
of dependeiq y re l y i n g o n th e c o n cept arr.dexperi ence of
^
c ount er depen d \V a n d o n th e i n te ra c ti o n of the tw o. One does
not ex is t wit h o u t\ o th e r; th e e x p re s s ion of one i s al so the ex-
pr es s ion of bo th , s i n c q i t i s th e c o n tra s t w i th dependencv that
g iv es c ount er d e p e n d e n c )..i ts m e ry z i h g .In thi s sense,dependency
and c or . r nt erd e p e n d e n c y z i n q .rt6 t o p p o si tes but more l i ke S ra-
m es c t wins wh o s h a re ri ta f o rg a n s . T h e tw i ns are separatei ndi -
viduals, and yet the.r' are not. 'f\eir lives depend on each orher,
s inc e one iiv es o r d i e s i n d i re c t re l a ti i s q s h i pto the other, and the
at t it udes , m oo c i s r,' i n d h e a l th o f o n e tw i 4 are i nti matel v ti ed to
t he at t it udes ,..,tl ro o d sa, n d h e a l th o f th e other, often i n reci pro-
,(
cai or comBlementarv wal'5. What we are sr-rggtltingis that if we
wer e t o z i' c lo p at p a ra d o x i c a l fra me , th e v ery.ot' rfl i qtr that are so
overwheiming because our frames tell us that thej'are bad or
t hat t hey im p a i r g ro u p fu n c ti o n i n g mi g ht become l esl ,rmpor-
fant than the exploration of the "single source" represenied in
t he t wo s ides o f th e c o n fl i c t.
Paradox in Small Groups
Gror-rps, like all human relationships, evoke strong and
often conflicting or ambivalent reactions. Perhaps because of
t he ec hoes t h a t l i n g e r fro m o u r i n fa n c i es, parti ci pati on i n a so-
cial unit is often both comforting and discomforting, satisfying
and dissatisfying, supportive and alienating. The psychological
ex per ienc e of g ro u p me mb e rs h i p i n v o l ves the coexi stence of
t hes e r > ppos in ge m o ti o n s a n d re a c ti o n s , and the group provi des
a setting for managing the tensions that arise from "holding"
these conflicting and contradictory feelings. By managing these
tensions, group life maintains the tenuous but surprisingly
strong connection between individual and collective develop-
m ent . W hen g ro u p s s to p " h o l d i n g " th e o pposi tes and move i n-
s t ead t owar d e x tru d i n g o r s u b j u g a ti n g o ne " si de" of a confl i ct-
f ul is s ue, t he y o fte n g e t " s tu c k ," b e c a use the bal ancc i n the
gr oup s o nec e s s a ry fo r me mb e r i n v o l v e ment al d parti ci pati on
is t hr eat ened . It i s i n d e e d a p a ra d o x th a t w hi l e the exi stence of
q,
54
The S ourcesof P aracl ox ( ir oup [ ) 1'nam ics 83
confl i ct zurdopposi ti on t hr eat ens u ur oup's lif c, t he absence ol'
these same f< ;rcesi s al so a scr iot t s t hr eat . Em ot ionally, a gr olt p
that does not provi cl e ro om f or t he conf lict ing and am bivalent
reacti ons evoked by group lif e is not a place wher e eit her t he in-
di vi dual sor the groLl pas a whole can t hr ive.
A s w e have di scusse d, gr ot r ps of t en r espond t o t he t hr eat
and anxi et;' aroused by t hc Pr esence of opposit ion, cc. r nf lict ,
and contradi cti on throu gh t he m echanism sof split t ing and lt r o-
j ecti ve i denti fi cati on at t he individual and int cr per sonal levcls
and ethnocentri sm and social- com par ison pr ocessesat t he cr ll-
l ecti ve l evel s. Grol rps and t he ir nr em ber s seek wavs t o ext r ude,
di spl ace, or sr-rbj ugateone side or t he ot her of t he conf lict scr
as to reduce the tensi on ancl anxiet y associat eclr vit h it . Becat r se
thi s i s usual l v an unconscit - , t rpr s ocess, we lose sight of t he in-
herentl y paradoxi cal nat llr e of t his conf lict , of t hesecoexist ing
opposi tes, and enter the conf lict as if it wer e pc- r ssible and desir -
abl e to move forw ard by elim inat ing or com pr om ising one side
of the i ndi vi dual or col lect ive am bivalence.We lose sight of t he
common frame that gives meaning to the simultaneotts coexis-
tence of opposi tes, and it becom es har d t o see t he inher ent ly
paradoxi cal aspectsof gr oups t hat er pr ess a com Plex and of t en
anxiety-ridden "truth" abottt emotional life in groups. \\'hen we
l ose our abi l i ty to l ook t hr ough a par adoxical lens, we f ind it
i ncreasi ngl l ' di ffi cul t to see t he connect ions bet ween t he oppo-
si tes, to expl ore and cont ain t he cont r adict ions, and t o f ind a
producti ve path i n grou ps.
W e tum now to a n exam inat ion of som e of t he sit uat ions
and conditions in groups that evoke contradictory and conflict-
ing reactions. We present them in their paradoxical form, as if
these opposi ng reactions wer e expr essing a connect ion, a
" truth," about the emot ional lif e of gr oups.
 5
t
rE
E
q
rj

MVVV@VS
i
of Belonging:
Paradoxes
Identity, Involvement,
Individuality,and Boundaries

--r-
Ihere can be no g r oup unless people belong t o it . What
does bel ongi ng to a grou p ent ail? The par adoxes in t his chapt er
all involve the issue of membership. What are the conflicting
and often contradi ctory em ot ions ar onsed by t he f act of be-
l ongi ng? For i ndi vi dual s and f or t he gr oup as a whole, t heloin
i ng process i s a conti nu ous one. What m ust t he individual give
up i n order to bel ong, an d does t his change as t he gr oup changes?
H ow does a group come t o det er m ine what individuals can and
cannot bri ng i nto the group except t hr ough t he "in- put s" of it s
members?W hat does i t mean t o be "in"?
Each of the four paradoxes that follow illustrates an as-
pect of the paradoxi cal t ensions sur r ounding belonging t o
groups. The paradox of identity examines the link between indi-
vidual identity and group identity. Which one comes first?
Which one determines the other? Which gives way before the
other? W hi ch must be set t led and st able bef or e t he ot her can be
known? These questions seek to break apart the confusing
circularity of the paradox of identity. '[he paradox of inuolue-
ment explores the relationship between involvement and de-
tachment, observation and experience. Are these separate and
distinct aspects of belonging to a group? Can there be involve-

89

I ) ar at lo x c s o f ( i r o u p Liit
9t)
lllel]| \'\-iIlrOr-rtrvithc lr - ar v al, ilt - t l. , t hc t r r , ilSl) l. I llqlr t l t n l r L . ( ) l . n I ] ] ( ) l ]
[ ' llis s ec .l 'r c l p a r a c l c 'i r l , t - 'k s
s()Llfcc.l rvh at tt r - llc iut s t , beli) . u?
atbt lth the co ntra clit.r ic lns ir nc lt hc ( ] ( ) I llleCt iO lls iI lI ll e c o e r i s
tcrtcc tll.in vtllr,e tne t r t ; u. r d u, it hc lr alv al. , |' he p t L r a t | o x o J i n d i t t r l
'l
t ' ' nllc t t r or - r ' h e c Y i s t e r l c e o 1 ; l
Lt oL;t)' (:()nlu lue s t hc t hum e "f
m e m be r s ' T h e r e i s n o t h
groLlp re qltlre s conr t c c - t ion5 211r ) n$. it s
c r is t B t r t i f t h c c o n n e (
irlg *t tl"i.rr-tg to it nt . r s r - t c hc onnec ' - t ions
r f t he { r o t L P i s f . l r n c l e d i - 'r r
tirins n re for-rn de c l , n s in] ilar it r c s , . T 'h e
oI t he m dit'i d u a L . ? grtlrllr
srmila rities, the n r v hat bec om es
a ps \ . c holog i c a l l ; 'm e a n i n . q f t r l
caltn()t c()me tn to ex is t enc e as
ablc t o c \ Pr es s t h e i r i n c l i r i c l u a l i t i '
unit r-tt.rlcssinclivi c lr r als ar e
t an bc f o t r n d ' '\ {a i n ' t }r t '
their cii{fere nces, s o t lr at c ( ) nne c t ions
t r ns et t Ling' ' \ n c 1 a g a i n *'c s e a r r : l r
cir.ctrla rit;' is b oth 2iPPar ent and
| ilrtlratrvhichlin rsrl.' c ir r dir ic lual. Lr I ( lt hc c ollec t ir e.I . h'[ehpca r a
r ' v c ilegau ' llrrldamental
rlor o f' b o un cla rzt' : sic av c s r - ls r r ' her e
t . ' f belon g i n g t o rvhat' Horv
clt restio n o f b elo ng ing is t he qlles t i( ) r )
m n s t e x i s t before tht'
A gr or - r p
cio we kn ow lvh at t hc gr oup is ?
qllestio no fmern bcr, hip. , , - ' bec or . r s it ler ec l' Bolr nda r i e s d e f i n c
. ' hu tth.g r()LrPis,an d, r , . t t h. l. als r lc lef iner v } . r at it is n c l t . - [ h c r
belor - r ging an d t o r l o t b e l o n g r n r '
simulta ne ou sll' gr v e m eaning t o
t he g r o r - r p e n a b l e s ' e r e t r
P ar a cl,rxica lly, th e bot Lnc lar l' ar or - t nd
t he eutl t i o n s a r o t r r l c l b o 1 l r
iorce s .g rou p metnber s t o c onf r ont
I lor ' r r ld a r v s v m l l o l i z c s t h t
bclo ng ing a ncl n ot belonging. ' The
t t \ e t u' o ''o p p o s i t e " condi
ever-p re se nt re la t r ons l- t ip bt t " "t n
tion s.
[]re Pa ra d o x o f l d e n ti tl '
' I o be an i n c l i v i d u a l , a p c rs o tl rl l l ts t i nteE atc the varte1r'
Irl order to be a grotl P l i l
o f glolr ps t o lv l' ri c h h c o r s h e b e l o n g s '
of i nrl i
crl le c t ion i. d i v rc l ' a l s mr,rs ti .te e r a te th e l arge arrar
'f
re P re sent'These i rl di vi drri rl
vi dr - r iildif f er ence s th a t th e m e tn l l e rs
cl if f er enc es ,hor v e v c l ' , a re c l o s e l y l i n k e d to the groLrPmembel
-[he pi l rador
w i t h them'
ships t hat t he in d i v i d L ra l sc a rr-r'a ro ttn d
of i ndi r i dLra-land s the
o f ic ielr t it y is e rp re s s e d b 1 ' th e s trr' rg { 1 c
i dcnti n' $' here eacl l
g T( ) Lr pt o es t abl i s h a r-rn i q rtea tl c l n re :mi ttg fr -rl
i s an ir r t c gr alpr l u t o l th e o th e t.'
i tl r l u' i l rl )l vstnl q
\ \ hc n incl i ri < l L ra l sa p p ro a c h i I g r()ttp ' thcv
ts
E
#
*.{;. Paradoxcs o f []clortging 9l
.:3
*:
( ,r tl ct t,r l l c-
i g i e l r . 'i t l r r r . l t l t t l t c r a r c q,i 1 g to fr a yc l 9 g i r c L tp i l l
r vh o l c o l tctt cr p r r e l sse sc( ) l l ( l cr n o ve r
long. t.ikcrvisc, a g-roLrpas a
5,;
w h e t h c r i t s s t i p u l a t c c l p L r r p t.r se sczr n [c a ctr i cve ( l g i vt'n th c i n cl i -
'l
v i d u a l s o f r r h i c h i t i s c o nsti tr r te d . h cse l w i r t c.l i l cr n r ) l a sca n l e a d
!
membcrs to krok i t t . o r . tr r clfo r "g o <,r 1 " g r o L r p s' b v r vh i ch th e l '
indir itlLralit\ \'vi l 1 b e m i n i r n a l l l ' co m p r o r l i scd , and
mean that
''q o o d " m e tl l l r ct- s th a t i s, p co p l e
g r o u p s t o l t . r o k l t r o r t l l c l to r
w i l l i n g t o p r r t t h e g r o t r ; t a h e a d o f'th e n l scl ve s..fh c te n cl t:n cr fo r
i n d i v i d t r a l s a n c i g 'r ( ) t l P S to co n ce i ve o f i r l e n ti tr ci c- r 'cl o p r r i e r l t i n
s u c h e i t h c r / ( ) r t e r n r s c : u r l r c se e n i n a vzr r i ctY o f g r c,r - r pr i vtta m tcs.
F o r i l l r r s t r . a t i r e p l r r p o s c s . co n si d e r cl e vi a n cc a n cl i ts r e Ia ti t.r n sh i p r
t o t h e o f t c n c i i s c t t s s c c lt o pi c o f g r o tr p n ( ) r n l s.
\ r . , r n t s a r c i n f c . r r n r i r l g r o L r n r l n r l e s th a t p r c.,r 'i cl cg r r i d e l i n e s
a p p r o p r - i r i t c :r n cl i n a p p r o p r i a tc b e h a vi o r i n a g p o tl p '
conccmins
T h e . v a r e i n r p l r c i t l r L t n c i cr stc) o d b v m e n - r b cr s a n ( l a r e th c str b '
s t r a t a b e n c a t h b e h a r i o r i r r a n d o f th e g r ( ) L l p ' l l l tr l .'u tt \\'a ys. th e
"character" o f a g r c - , t r p ca n b c se e n i n i ts n o r m s. If l h c Il o r m s
are vcrv l o 's e ; u t d e a si l y a d j r - r ste cl fr o m o n e si tr te l l u tr to th e
n e x t . t h e l J r o l r p I r t a y h a ve a so m e w h zl t "l a i sse z- fa i i .c" i cl cr i ti t\" It
t h e y a r e v e ^ 's t r i c t . t h e ur o r - r p m a 1 'b e se e n a s "L r p ti g h t."
\ \ 'h c n t h e r e i s c o nfl i ct b e tw e e n h o r v a l i n cl i r i d r - r a l $ i sh e s
t o a c t a r r c l h o r r ' t h e n o r tn s p r e scr i b e th a t h c o r str c "sh o r i L d " b e '
h a v c , t h e p r e s s l r e i s i n r a r i a b l - v o n th e i l d i r i cl L r a l l o ch a l g e a n cl
a d a p t t o t h e o o t r p . " l f Vo r - t w a n t th e b e n e fi ts r - 'f b cl o r l g i n e tc- r
t h i s g r o u p , r 'o L r h a c l b e t te r l e a r n h o w to fi t i n '" C i r o tr p m e m b e r s
a r e r a r e h - a b i e t o s a v t o th e d e vi a ti n g i n d i vi d r r a l , "w e a r e g r a te '
f u l f o r y o u r d e v i a n c e , bcca l r se i t h e l p s to l o o se n L r p o l l r n o r l n s,
m a k e s t o l e r a b l e a ', r 'i d e l a r r a v o f b e h a vi o r s, a r - r d i n th c l o n s n tn
m a k e L l s a b e t t e r gl .o l tp , b cca u se w e w 'i 1 l b e m r - r ch b e tte r
will
a b l e t o a d a p t t o o t t r r v t .,r l cl ." Th e g r o u p 's r e sp o n se to d e vi a n ce l s
u s u z i l l . v t o k e e p i t i n c h e ck, L l se i t a s a n i n cl i ca to r o f w h a t i s n o t
a c c e p t a b l e , o r r e j e c t t h e i n d i vi d u a l ( s) e xp r e ssi n g th e d e vi a n t si d e
o f t h e g r o l r p . S i n c e t h e d e vi a n ce se e m s co u n te r to th e g r o l l p 's
n o r m s , t h e g r o t r p i s u n a bl e to se e th a t i ts ve r v n o r n l s cr e a te d th e
d e v i a n c r '.
'[ h e
c l e v i a n c l i s i n fo r m i n s th e g r o tl p a b o u t a si ) e cts o f
i t s n a t u r c o f u . 'h i c h i t n ,o r ,r l d p r e fe r to r e n ta i n i g n o r a n t. If th e
l t( ,t a s a n cr l tr e ssi o n tl f i tscl l b n t r n
g T o u p s ee s t h e c l c r i n n c r
steacl as a charactcristic o f th e i n d i r i cl L r a l l vh o i s cxp r e ssi r - r g i t,
I
t
!
*

92 P aracl oxcsof (i rouo Li [c
t hen t lt c gr ( ) rrp m a v e l c c t to e l i rn i n a tc t l rat i rrrl i vi cl tralor at l cast
his or her t r o u b l e s o rn e b c h a v i o rs .' l ' l rc uroLl p c2rn then pretencl
t hat it has l e p a i rc c l i ts c l t r,v i th o L rta tte n(l i ne to thc Iact that rt
hz r sjus t r c jec te d a p i e c e o f s e l f-k n o w l ec l cr' .S trr:hbchavi or by thc
gr oup is ir np l i c i tl y b a s e c l o n " fra n ri n g " i ts i :ol l ecti ve i denti tr
s t nr ggle as b e i n g i n o p p o s i ti o n to th e rdcnti ty strtregl csc-,fi ndi
virlr-rals.
lndii id u a l s g e t i n to a s i mi l a r p ()stLl rc w i th respect tc,
gr ( ) Lr ps .I t is n o t u n r-rs r-L['aol r a n i n d i ri d Lral rvho does not l i ke thr
r ) oJ J 15ir r a u ro r.rp to d c rc l o p a h c rt i t sl rn(c toual d r h;Lngi nr
t hr r gr or - r pin to s c .rm e th i n cth a t h e o r s f rc u' or-rl dw i sh to be part
ot . T his r eq u i rc s H e rc --u l c a ne ffo rts to make the groLrp i nto
s olnet hins t h a t i t i s n o t. S trc h th i n k i n s on the part of i rn i ncl i vi cl
ual m e nr ber i s fi l l e d r' v i th a Io g rc th a t ri cu' s the gror-rp' schar.rcter'
as dif f er ent fro m a n d i n c l e p e n d e n t o { 'the acti ons of i ts men.t
ber s . ln t his fra rn e , th e h c ro (i n e ) d o e s Ir()t see thc w a1 that thi s
" her ois m " is i ts e l f a n e rp re s s i o n o f rn aspect of the gror-rpand
ac c or dingly ' " l o c a te s " th e h e ro i c p o \v e r s i n sel f. H i s or hcr " rni s-
s ion" in t he g ro u p b e c o m e s fra m e d i n opposi ti onal tenns. W hen
t he gr oup su d d e n l ;' d i s p l a y s p o u ' e rfu i resi stancc, eqtral to thc
hc r u( inc ) ' s ( r\\rn e ffo rts . th e re s e e ms n o Jl cmati ve l t-r " rrppi ng
t hc ant e" an d fi g h ti n g e \c n mo re r.i g c.rr,rr-rsl-lr.-he cy.cl erepeats
it s elf unt il t h e i n d i v i d u a l c o n q r-re rso r l eel s conquered b1' the
gr ( ) Llp ( ) r , m o re a c c u ra tc l l , b r th e s e l f that rvas prrt i nto the
gf o Llp.
N' los to fte n , h o ' " v e v e r,th e c o n fl i ct [retw een i ndi r i dua] ancl
s r ( ) up ident i tf i s n o t p l a r e c l o r,rt i n s trch bol d col ors. It i s morc
us r . r : rtl o s ee th e te n s i o n s a s re q u i ri n g choi ces and cornpromi ses
t o be m ade b y th e i n d i r i d u a l a n d , o c casi onal i y, b1' the group.
Cuns idc r a g ro u p i n u h i c h th e ra n g c,,f tol erabl e behari or i s
v er y lim it ed , th e s ti p trl a ti o n s a b o u t w hat evervone must do at
dif f er ent t im e s a re v e n ' p re c i s e , a n d th e cost of nonc< -rmpl i ance
is quit c ex p l i c i t. T h i s n ri g h t c o n j r-rreup an i mage of a tensc
gr oup t hat w o u l d b e h a rd to b e a p a rt o f i f one l vanted room t()
ex pr es s one ' s i n d i v i d u a i i ty . If th i s w e rc :r fri endshi p group, most
m ight c t . , nch -rdth e a t i t i s n o t w o rth b e l c,ngi ngto. H or,verer.for a
qr ( ) Llp of s trrg e o n si n a l -rc -,s p i taul' h o s e task i s to contl rrct conr'
plex oper at i o n s , th e s c n ()rrn s m i g h t b c l ,oth toi erabl e ancl appr< -,-
d
*.
ss
fg:
*
,Y
P a r a <l cx, t 's t , f l l c l o n g i r r g 93
!:
pri atc. l n ortl cr tr,r u: t r r qcor r t o cxper icnct 'hiur - c, , rlr er seilint li-
vi dr-ral l ras a g()()(lsr r r ge( ) jr , t . hescn<- r r r ns
: r r c necessar ; . I hc st ir -
geon ci xl l t()t l tc " go t icl" r r nk: sst he er t . r r r pis "gr - r or i. " I n sr r chan
exan-rpl.e i t i s cr i cl c nt t hat individt r zr lcor nl) et cncc is ar - r er r cnt cd
w hen pc.pl c both cont r ibt r r c t heir inclir idLr alskills and sr r bor cli-
nate t-hei r i ncl i ri cl u alit ics t o t hc collect ile nor r ns. I n a sur siczLl
team, thc i ncl i ri dLriilsar e p( ) ( ) d wf r en t he gr or r p is r naclcgor . , d,
and the grol rp i s soor l w'hen it pr ovides a \ \ 'av f or it s indir idr r al
menrbersto be goorl.
.\ parackrri ciil zr ppr oach t o ident it v cc, ncept Lr alizcs t he
s thr-oush , . vhich bor h indir idual and gr oup iclent it ; ar c
P rocesse
formed as bei ng one ancl t ht 'sam e. I n t his f r am e, indir . idr r alsar e
seen as both r' reating and bcing cr eat eclbl't he gr ot r pst o nhic: h
they bckrnu. F.r' enent er t air ir g t his pr _r ssibilinI eelspar aclr . , xir : aJ,
because the si rnul taneit r ol t he t wo com plem cnt ar l. pr ( ) cesscs
creates a i oop * rat is dif f r cr r lt t o t oler at c, bot h int ellect Lr ally
.f
and emoti onal l r' . hc par aclox of ident it v conceivesof t he indi-
vi dual as cl eri ri ng rne: r ningf r c- r mm er nber ship in t he {r r . iup vr . hile,
at t]' re sarne ti me. the gr oup der ives m eaning f r om it s individueLl
members. H cnce. a nv concept ion t hat sepiir at esgr or r p and indi-
vi dr.ri Lli cl cnti tv i s ar - rover sir nplif icat ion. 'l'he st m ggle so of t en
obsened betu' eett th e ir - r diviclr Lal and t he gr oLr pis pr cdon- r inar lt ll'
a strLrggl eor:curri n s sim r , r lt uneot r clvwit hht t hc inclir idu: Llanci
w i thi n the gr' < .rr-rp orer how r o livc wit h t hc t ensionscr eat ed by
the mutr-ral processesof adjnst m ent of t he individr r als t o t he
groLrpand thc groLrpr o it s individual m em ber s.
.\ sreat ci eal of gr olr p lif e is involved wit h t hcse ident it y
struggl es. l ' hi s can be illust r at ed boldly by exam ining m ale-
female dvn:unics withrn a groLlp. All groups ha',.eto attenci both
to the i r-rl fi l l ntento f t heir pr im ar - v t asks and t o t he nur t r . ir zut ce
of thei r rnembership. - f o clo only one or t o do one at t he ex-
pense of thc other u, ill quickly im pover ish a gr oup. . . \ t som e
l evel of aw areness,all gr oups know t his. Hence, t hey der , elop
w a1' s of attcncl i ng t o t heir m ission and t <, rt heir self - ciuet akir r g
acti r,i ti es. It i s not unlr st r al f or t hese t asks t o be cast in gender
ternl s, rvi th nurtrrra r ce asst - r r : iat ed wit h t he f em inint - side ( ) f t he
grol l p, u' hi l c pl rrpo se ald goal sct t ing ar e labcleclas m a. sct r linc.
Gror.rps rvht.,scmem ber ship is pr ed1; m iliur t ly m all or f cm alc
 94 Paradoxesof (i roup Li l i '
may f ind t hem s c l v e su s i n g p re d r.' m i n a n tl y mascr.rl i neot' temi tti nt
te r m s . lt is c om m o n l y n o ti c e d th a t mu c h of the l a,ngrrage stnr(
tu r e of c or por a te A m e ri c a i s l a d e n w i th rnal e sp()rts tcrrns, rvhi i r'
soc ial welf ar e g r()L l p so fte n a d o p t fc m a -l emetaphors. l ' hesc trt,,
"s ides " m ay eve n b e l a b e l e d a s re s p e c ti v e l v hzrrdand soft, cspe
cially in t he la rg e r c u l tu re . T h e k e ,v q u esti on i s w hat happens
rv her . rt he nec e s s a rvp a rts o f g T O L l pl i fe a re seen i n gencl erternr.
and t he gr oup h a s b o th m e n a n d !v ()m e n i n i t? !\' i 11the femi i l c.
b e f r ee t o be " ma s c u l i n e " a n d v i c c v e rs a ?
W hen me n a n d w o m e n fee l s p l i t i n t o gender " camps" brrt
cor npellec l b. ' th e s r()u p to s ta v i n te g ra te d , thi s i s a cl ear exprcs
sion t hat bot h p a rts a re n e c e s s a ryf o r th e grori p' s w hol enessanrl
slr n' ir .al. llolv e v e r, o n c c s u b g ro u p s h a v e forrncci , i t i s di f f i crri r
[o r t he gr oup a s a l v h o l e to c o n c e i v e o f i n tegrati on i n anv tcrrns
o t her t han s om e j ()i n i n g to g e th c r .,f th e subgr< -rups. Gi ven tht
n at ur e of t he s p l i tti n g p h e n o m e n o n , i t may be hzrd for tht.
gr oup as a wh o l e to c o n c e i v e o f a fo rm of i ntegrati on rvhert
ra
individual members carry their own fair share of both caretak-
i ng and pr im a ry ta s k a c ti v i ti e s . Wh a t then happens to thc
womarl rvho vn,antsto be other than nurturer, or the man lvht-r
want s t o be a c a re ta k e r? T h e n a tu ra l re s ponseof the group i s t()
res is t t his , es p ec i a 1 l v i f th e i n i ti a ti v e s o r the resi stancesof an
i n div idua- l t hr e a te n th e " b a l a n c e " i n the r' vhol e. ' fhi s creates
q uit e a bind. H o w c l o e s s u c h a p e rs o n L l seor devel op the l vhol t
range of his o r h e r p e rs o n a l a n d p ro fe ssi onal ski l l s u' hen thc
g r oLr p has loc k e c l i ts e l f i n to th i s p a rti c trl ar fc,rm of " i ntegratecl
s ubgr oups " as a w a v o f s ta y i n g w h o l e ? A n d how does the grol rl )
Ie am about t h e w a v s i t i s i mp a i ri n g i ts e lf by i gnori ng or di mi n
i s hing s o m an v o f th e re s o u rc e s i ts me mbers col rl d potenti al l l '
m ak e av ailableto th e g ro u p ?
T he s olu ti o n to o o fte n s e e m s to b e that the group, the rn-
d iv idual c onc e m e d , o r th e s u b g ro rrp fe e ls pressuredto abandon
the dr iv e f or inte g ra ti o n i n re s p o n s e to th e needs of the " other."
T' y pic all1' , t his s i tu a ti o n i s s e e n i n e i th e r/or and confl i ct terms,
and t he c onf li c t i s th o u g h t o f a s h a v i n g e merged fr< ;m di fferent
sour c es , in t hi s c a s e m a l e n c s s a n d fe m a l enessi n the soci etV as a
w lt ole. - l he al te rn a ti re th a t ' ,i e w ,sth i s s p l i t as bei ne a m:ui i festa
tion of t he ero r-rp ' si n te ma .l l i l e , rl i s p l a ced i nto the rcspecti rt
m alc anr l lenra l e p a rts , i s n o t z rtc c s s i b l e to the qror.rp.' \s a rc
k **
P ararl oxesof l l cl ongi n e 95
sul t, thc rcl easc thut vvoulcl bc ar . 'ailat r leif t his cl; nanr ic wer e
framcd i n thi s ' " r' i n' i s ner er r ealizccl.I nst ead, t ht : "r vav out " in
vol ves ()ne sLrbgrorrpg aining r lom iniur ce,r cst r ict ing t lt c pr , t cnev
of thc othe r. ()r negoli. Lt ing. Lcor npr , r r niset hat bot h sr . r bur oups
can l i r e i .r' i th. F rom a par aclor ical per spect ir , c,t hc cr - , n1lictis
seen as har i ng cvol vccl f r om a com m ( ) n sollr ce, t he collcct ive
needs of the group. Resolr - r t ic- r ns f t - , ct r se
d on br inuing t oget her
those neccl sthat rvere "ar t if icial11'" split onll, end up r cinf t , r cing
the cor-rdi ti onsthev af c ut t cm pt ing t o over com e.
' I' he Par acloxof
I nvolvem ent
l l ccomi nq i nvc.r lr cclin : Lndwit h a gr oup r eqlr ir cssonr eI nii'
j or cornn-ri tmentsbotlt t o oncself ir nd t o t he gloup. \ lcr nbe r ship
means i nr' ol r' i ng oneself in t lie scar ch f r - , rwavs t o m csh inclivid-
ual needs and i vi shes n'it h u, hat t he gr or r p has t o of f er and de-
t
I
termi ni ng w hat onc r vill give in t l'ie t ight of r vhat t he gr oup
needs i rnd w ants. -\s r ve clisct r ssedin t he paladox of ident it l ,
these i ndi r i duai ard gr oup pr occsses ar e m ut Lr ai zind ccr - cr ccur .
' fhi s generatesa net\, dilem m a, bot h f or t he gr ot r p and I 'or it s
i ndi r,i drri i lmembers. I t t he par t s iind t he whole ar e so m r . trlr alll'
i nvol r ed that i ndi vi du: Ll iclent it l' cannot be pr esen, ed, t hen t he
group experi ence mar' [ ead only t o a diniinishing of t hc inclivid-
ual . On the other ha:i<1.if as a r esr , r ltoi t hr s m r , r t uaiinvolvem ent
the group becomes i mpair ecl br - t he loss of a par t of it self , t hen
i t ri sks bei ng r" rnabl eto m aint ain a coher ent senseof it s ident it v
as a n' hol e i n the face of inei'it ablc t ur n( ) \ 'er in m em bcr ship.
l ' here i s an asp ect of t his dilem m a t hat is cent r al t o our
understardi ng of an individr r ai's involvem ent in a gr oup and a
group' s i nvol vement in it s individual m em ber s. I f t hc pr ocesses
of i ndi vi duai and group ident it i' f or m at ion ar e so st r ongl!
l i nked, how does one avoid becom ing lost in a gr oup? And if
one does set l ost, hou 'cl<- les one t ake zr ct ionst o becom e m or e or
l ess i n' .ol ved? l -i keuise, what happens t o t ] r e gr oup whcn it
l oses i tsel f i n one oi 'it s m em ber s or in som e subgr oup? How
docs the group take lr ct ion t o clct er m ir r ewhet her it is ir r vest ing
too rrrrrt' hof i tscl f , tt , r lit t le or no bcncf it , in som c act i! 'it \ - ( ) l
concern of i rn i ndi r i clt r alpar t ?
(l orrsi cl erthc crper icnce of a gr ( ) up ol cngincr : r 'sin a lar ge
 Pa ra d o xcsof (i rouP [,i l t P aracl oxes
of [Jel ongi ne 97
96

come fuseclrvi rl r \\' :rl t' s.\\' alr st ar t : <l, t l t lt r : br illc lr s long as t hc
o rq l n i zat ion t hat hacl b e c o n l e rl e c p l y i n v o l v e d i n the 1l c' 9ht' l i srrt
o l ' o n e o{ ' it s m em be rs . \V l rl t h a c i j o i n e c l th e u ro rrp al ter scver' rl group gave hi nr enrrrgl t at t ct ) t i( ) n lr r t _- <: ist 'lr . *. lt cn hc needed it .
H e hacl trec.nrc, as i t gr ( ) . ll's
rn o n th s in a r c habilit a ti o n Pro g r2 l m .H i s c o ttn s cl ors had er)c()ttr' d ' ,vere.aclclict t : d
t . t lr c s. ppor t as a
" hi stori c:tl " method of hzutdl i nghi s udr licr ion r o alcohol.
a g cd h i r n t o t ell his p 0 re n ri a l e m p l o l ' e rs a b o rrt hi s
\\i th thc group' s l os s of a scnsc ol'ident it l. scpar at e f r om
p ro b l e r n wr t h t he br -rttl e .-l h c i r l ,i e w w a s th a t j t ,i ni ng 3n rl ndcr'
W al t' s, mcmbers beqan to lccl em r >t ic. , naJIblac.
sti u td i n g lv or k gr oup ,u r' t-,u l dfa c i l i ta te h i s re tr-rmtt-ra normi i l i l c' 1 km ailcclbv him .
t() h i s n e l ,nj 'o b , thc other \t' ()]k A l thc-,ughthi s r' as re saicl, r r t l'r r r l, incliridLr alscar ne t o be-
Ju st b c f or e \ \ ' alt lv a s a p p o i n te d ' t:r
h i s s i ttra ti t-)na n d \v e rc a skcclto spcrtk OLrt l i evc that i f thcr cl i rl not ci'e \ \ alt his, r vn *a1. , hi: w'r r lcl gr . r
crs l ve rc ac h' is t : cabor,tt
l
back tr the b.rri e. \\' al t' s needs secr nccl t , sar '. "l f I lail, vo.
i l th e t. had any c onc e rn s . Al l s a i d , " L e t' s g o ahcad." \\' al t hatl
l rr w i l l hare fai l ed. s()r' (/r had bet t cr r n: , r kest r r e t hat vr zr do evcr r ,
i rrrp rcs s edt hem $. irh h i s p ro fc s s i o n a l s k i l 1 s , a n d the $rotrp
b e happv to he l 1r thi ne necessarv so rhat I clon't 1r r il. " I ) r edict ablt , , t he gr oLr p
rvzrsj o ining t ook t he a tti l L l c l c th i rt th e y rv o ttl d
tl tt: cA rre to seei ts i rnperter:ti o r . ras s car r sedbr l|al t , ancl he cont inu_
' r t fr,rl l l a rti c rrl ati ng i t ttt
i n h i s r c l- iabilit at ion ..' \l th r-,L rg ltto
gr orrp rr_ c
rt.,k \\'
-,rr a l t' s " re s to rz Lti otl " as a P r()J(' I( al l r.' l el t responsi i rl cl i ,r the "qr ( ) Lr p'suar bage. "
p 0 i n t, t he wor k
fhe spcci al pr.bl em f , r t his qr ( ) . p ancl lir r \ \ 'ir lt , , vast hat
t,['i ts O wn. F ' or m lurr. mo n th s tl i i n g s w e re fi l l c. .\t ti mes of prr
n() ()ne cor.rl clsct srrl l i ci en t lr oLr t sir lco1 'uvhat, "vasor : c. r r r r ingt c_r
tcn ti a l weak nes s , \ \ ' a l t fo rrn d s ri p p o rt fro m h is col l easttcsarrtl
deci cl e u hether or l l ,,l v t() gct nt ( ) r ( ' ( ) r less inr . olver l. I t i, vasas
r.csi ste dt he r r r ge r ( ) r c tl u T r to c l ri n k i n g .' rh e g ro r -rpbecame P r(,rr(l
o f h i m and in s ( ) c lo i n g \\' a sc \p | c s s i n g p ri d e i n t he parts of i tscl l . tho.eh nei ther the urr.r.p n . r t he nr em ber shar l an'wa1'of t ak-
Lrecameth. i ne a l arger pcrspecti ' e.n t henr sc. l'es. 'l'ht : gr ( ) . p lackeci t he
th a t h a d ident if iec l w i th h i s s tn rg g l e .\v a i t' s s trr-rggl e
capaci tl - to see i tsel f f' rom a: r ext er 'al \ . ir nt agep<; inl analoo<_r us
g ro u p ' s s t r t r gele. F I i s s r,rc c e sbs e c a m e th e g ro t rp' s srtccess.' I' ht
to the .bsen' i ng ego i ' the inclividr r : r l.'r he sr ( ) . p scem ed t o ha'e
p ro b l em ar os e r v hen th e u ro r,rpi u td \v a l t b e g a n tct l ose a senser-rl
a sense.f rvhat \\' alr u,asc ioir - r gt o ir . anr l \ \ 'alt seem eclt o have a
w h a t was his and r v h a t rl ' a s th e g ro trp ' s .
vi e' " r'of rvl .ratthe gr()up l va s doing t . him , br rt t hese t wo vier vs
. \ t a par t ic t r l a rl v b r' ts vti rn e i n th e l i fe o f thc erorrp' mem'
rverc so enmeshed rhat ne it hcr r he {r ot r p nor t he indir , , idt r al
b crs fe lt t hat t he1. \ \' e re g o i n g to tte e n g u l fe d b V more tasks th;ur
coul cl see w hat each rvas cloing t r . rt hc ot her , or hor v t he act ions
th e y coulc l pos s it r lv h a n d l e . F { a ri n g e v e ry o n e r vork at hi gh e1fi
of each rverecontri buti ng to a dest nr ct ir . cpat t er n.
ci e n cy bec am e im p ()rta n t. F o r th e fi rs t ti me , \\' al t l el t si gni ti
One' s abi l i tv to take a per spccr iveon oneself depends on
ca rt s t r es s in t his j o b . a n d h e tu me d to h i s peers for hel p' ' \t
one' s abi l i tv to get outsi de of onc's exper ience while at t he
th e b e ginning of t h i s p rc s s u re p e ri o d ' \ta l t' s reqrtests l or hel l r
, , t oler at ec l b u r e v e n tl l a l l l ' p e o p l e b e g an to l vi sh that ht same ti me remai ni .s i nsi de t hat expcr ience. , \ lt ho. sh t his is ex-
w e re ,"
his o rv n p ro b l e m s . \\i a l t fe l t a bandoned, and, as tremel v drffi ctrl t. i t i s essent ial f or gr owt h and is n'hat is m eant
co u l d c ont ain
by the concept of an obsen'ins eso at t he individual level. Bt r t
h e th o ught nt or c a n d mo re o t d ri n k i n g a s a s ol r-rti on,hi s nectl
w hat happens i f one canno t do t hisl A classic, , solr r t ion" is r <t
to r g roup s it pp( ) r r i n c re a s e d . As me mb e rs s e nsed that he rt' i rs
' fhc try to pl ace thi s obsen' i ng f t r nct ion int o som eone else or som e
"l o si ng ii, " t hei, in v e s tme n t i n k e e p i n g \\ra l t d r)' reki ndl e d'
others and then use thei r r eact ions as t he subst it . t c f or one's
p ro sp ec t of lv alt ' s fa i i u re b e g a n to l o o k to the groLtp l i ke i ts
ow n. Thi s i s one possi bl epe r spect ive on, "vhat happened t o Walt .
c,wn f ailur e. A t t hi s p o i n t, th e g ro u p w a s ttn abl e to separatei t'
Manl ' group processes c:ar b e t hoir ght of as or iq. inat ingin t he ac-
se i f frc lm it s inv es t m e n t i n \\:a l t' s s ttc c e s si u rd i ts fear ol fai ]r-rrc,
ti " ' i ti es ,f marv al l rnem [ ) er st o lr czr t c t heir r >bse. u, ingegos
b o th ! v alt ' s and it s o u ,n . R e s c rri n g \\' a i t fro m thc potenti al abr ss 'r
rn
the g-.trp i . hrpes ,rf ha' i ng r cf 'lt 'tr ccl back t hat *hich *'r r lcl
b e ca m e all, im por r a n t, e v e n a t th c ri s k 6 f p o t c.tnpl e ti rrg esserl .
'l bc most erati tr i ng.
ti a l pr ojec t s . hc q -ro rrps s e n s t o f s u c c e s s i ul cl f ai l trrc had hc'

[^)
\^l
 . .r .ttrr \ft trl r ,fl)lllt
I lor v r loc s ;r q r()l tl ) l { (fl { )rrrs i tl t:i ts t:l l l or l l rt.
l rrr[),st. ol r.r.
l l c c t ing ( ) l) it s c l l .' ' l l rt: rl i l c rrrrrr:ri s tl ri rt tl r c
rrrrr1r ,l ,,,,srr,,t 1,,,r,.
.tll oly \ 1y l j1, q lru rt ti ,,n q 1 ,1 ,.,,.,1l r.r,rri c tl rt, rrrtl rrrcl tr:rl ;rnrl t,,l l t.,
ti' e ac r i, ns . f i ts rr.rn l rc rs . Ir.rt.c , th c i rcl i ri cl rral ,
l rs l r:rr.l,r ;r
cr( ) up, is pr one to u s c th c u ro trp l rs a l rz rrnc l ,,r-trnc.l crstl uttl rrrq
h i m . r her s el f; :u .rd tl rc s r()u p i , p .,,,r. t()
rrsc a I)i u_t,l i tscl l
('tt en it s i' di' id u i i l n rc mb c rs ) a s a fi -a m e1c.,r
'l h e undcrst:ui cl i ' q sr:l l .
dilem nr a is th a t rrre i n d i ' i rl L ra l w h e n .si ng
thc gr,rtrp,,,,,r
thc gr . r - r p when .s i rrs i ts i n d i r i d rr;rl m e m b crs
frr- scl l -refI..,.,,,,.
p L r r p( ) s esat t er n p t t() fc J e c t th c p a .t o r s e r f przrcc< l
ir scr
ti . g in plac e t h c p r-et' ,rrd i ti .n Ii rr th c r i ci orrs ' thers,
t;\ cl cs ol st:l l
renunc iat ion t ha t l e a c ls o i n c v i ta b l r to p a ra dox.
ln t he c a s c o l \\.rl t a n d th c { r.,L rp o l . engi nccrs,
the parl r
cl , x it : al dy nan' ri c s b e c rr' c r:l ea rc r i f w e c ,nti nue
thr: czrsc.I l rr.
sr ( ) Lr p had t r . , [ rri n c i ts e l 1 ' t. th c
Pri .t w,herc i t rl i d n0t c.r.
w liet her or not !!:rl L tc ,,a ,l .o h ' 1 . \\' he, thi s happencrl .
th e er not i. r nal b .l a r:k r'' c:ri ti r' e d
l i .g a n c l :i d c l i c ti o n becamc pui ,rfi ,l l r ,,1,
vl o Lr st o bot h \ ! ' a l t a .n c lth e r..,th e rsi n tfre group. -l
hen zi ndr.,nl i
th en c o. lc ' l t he e rr' p c o n te rn p l a te th e way,s
that i t cotrl d rr.
a n d, in f ac t , r v a s s u c c c s s fu l ,i n d e p e n d e n t of ,,vhat
l vas happcn
i n s t o walt . Lik e i .r' i s c ,th i s s e p a ra ti ()n ,w h i c h hacr
earri er. ,..-" ,t
so t hr eat ening t , \\' z rl t b e c a u s ei t fe l r ri k e a b andonment,
e.arrreri
h i m t ' c onf r ont th e i d c a th a t s i rb s ti tr-rti n gone
addi cti on for i r.
o th er m ight be n o s o l u ti o n . ' l h i s g a r,eh i m
the chance ro srcp
b a c k and t ak e t h c n e rt c ri ti r--z rl s te p i n h i s personalj ,,mcr.or-rr
o f s ubs t anc eadd i c ti o n .
O ne m ight s a v th a t b o tl i l f' a l t a _ n dthe group w oul cl
hare
b een m uc h bet te r o l f i f th e l ' h a d n e v e r come
tosether i n thi s
rn u t ual " pr ojec t." On rh e o th e r h a n d , b ecause
ti el both bc.
ca m e s o int ens el y i rtt' o l t,e d ,v i rtu a i l y l o s i n e ke y
boundari es. the
mut ually c r eat e d th e c .n d i ti t-rn s th a t e n a bi ed '
thcm to sai rr :r
p e r s pec t iv e t hat mi g h t r,.rth e ^ r,i s e h :rv e b een i mpossi bre."\t rth
srrrn. 1- , . , 0,t he g rc ,rrp l t.a rn c c la l .,c ,rrrrh c s i dc
uf i r rhrt rvas i rr.
re s t ed in t ak ing o n p ri -,j e c tsth a t w c re d e s ti ned
for fai l ,re. Li kc
ma n) ' gr oups , it w a s s trl rg g l i n gw i th h o w
to di sti n.ql ri shbetw ecn
p roduc t iv e and. " v a s te d e n e rg y z L n cto l c * t i t s l orr.-s.,n h,_,pel css
p r< - r jec tear s ll' en o u g h th a t i t l r.' a sn ,t c o n ti n lral l l
cl ri rcn r,rl rrr,n,
i 'a s alr ead; ' in' c s tc c l . F ' ' r th e g r().p . th i s
* . as the l earri nc that
l l rarl orcr ol l l cl orrgi rrg 1) l)
c:un(' l rorrr i l s i rrvoi r('nl( : nl ir r st . ilolr st . r . r . lr lior rlt, . lt r . r r ir r ullur f _
w orrl tl l r.nt' l rcr:rrrl i l l i r r r ir , il r r , t ir np. ssilr lt . , r r , it lr r t r t ir r volve_
nl cl r l .
;\l tl r.trgl r i t nruv sccr r , I r r ir r r s t lr at ir r <. r i'ir lr r als'
par t it : ipa
l i on i n . gr()up l urcla ur- . t r p s pur l ic'ipat ir n in ir . sr ncm lr cr sl, r ipr e-
qtri rc l rotl r cxpcri crrt:ca nr l ollscr - r ulit - , r r ,lict ion 4r r r l r - cf lcct i6r r ,
tl tcsc urc ni ost ol tcr-r t rnccpt u: dizccl as scpr u. : lt cancl , pposit e
anrl ur-t:tl rcrcl i .rretrcaterl as lr cir . r sn- r t r t t r a. llv t , r c. lusivc.I t is as if a
gr()trp rncmfrer i s t:ont:e ir cclr , l as eit hcr ': ur a( : t of r . , ran c_, bser - veL;
as i l a ert-rupi s nt-' t i nr.lr eci lvhcr r a. ( . r r ) t r t : r . is cngagt : clir r s'm e
actl ()ri ; as i 1 a group i n it s t , [ r sener st at t : is r r c- ,also t
act ing; as if
a Incrnbcr-' snoni ni .l vt:n r cr - t t is not lr lsc,lr gr ( ) up s noninr olr , . c-
mcnt i n i tsel f. ' I' hi s rr pc o1'scpar at ionlcr r cls. nc t c. rscc ur or - r plif e
i u a cl ash bet' " veenthc a r ct ir . eand t ht :
lr ussile, lr et r , vcen"clr er s"
i urd " re l l ecters," betr,r,eerr tisk t aker . siLr - r r isk l uvoicler - s.
I. parad,xi cal ter. . r s. t hc aLr ilit ' t ( ) [ ) c i'r '. lr er ] is t iecl r <r
the abi htr' ro be rcnr.r ed. I hc r c[ 'lct . t ir - . ,inf r r or r ns t hc act io',
and thc ucti .n ton' s th c basis I i, r r . el'lc. t i<- , rI.n
cases,ac-
ti on i urd refl ccti on.cctrr sim r r lt ar e. r - r sll ir gr - r Lr'rPs. r st
at t lr e ler . els
of both tl i e i ndi ri drra.lmer nber s r Lnclt hc g'ollp as a wh, le. it - e
obsc^e * ' hi l e * ' e erper ience. I I r vc at t cm pt t u ol) ser 'e bef or e
w e ha.' c experi cnced. th er e is t ' , bscr - e . [ , ikeivise,ob-
'ot hi. g
serv' i ngi s a form of exper ience
t hat it sell is a behar ior t hat can
. [ h. ugli
be .bsenecl and refl ect ed , n. r he pla1. i. e, 't , f t he
acti ,ns a-r-i the d obsen ations as in t he l|alt case,it bccr . r es pos,
si bl e tc, tal k abo.t the s im ult aneous cr i|f cr enceanclsir nil: r r it 1,ir - r
the pl t-rccsscs of acti on a r - r dr e f lect ion. l'his is t he par ad<_,of
x in_
vol ' "cmer t. I o de' el op t lr e ler cl o1' clct ac] r nrne ( necesszr r l,f or
sel f-rcfl ccti ' n demands a kind of in', h, em ent t hiit m akes dc-
tach' renr appear i mpos sible. I ) et achm ent t hr or - r ghin, u. . l'em ent
and i nr r.,l ' ement throue h det achm ent r r r e t he esscncc of t hr s
paracl ox.
I' he P ar adox of I ndividualit y,
I hc paradox of i ndividualit l, . is cr pr cssed br . t lic sr at e_
ment that the onl 1' rvav f , r a gr o, p t o becor ne a g- oir p is lor it s
menrbcrs t() e\pre ss their inclirir lualit v lur d t o r vr , , r k, r r clevel-

(^)
^R
 g l-lf
E
( ) pinl{ it lr . sl L rl l l l s p o s s i l rl c l u rrl tl u rt tl tc ottl \' \vrl v f()r i rrtl i vi tl *
r uils t o bec o rn c l ' rrl l y i rrc i i v i c l rrl tt:rli s l c.rrtl rcrn to l r(i ccpt antl tl t: ii:
! ' c l( ) p n) ( ) r e l L rl l y th c i r c o n r)c (ti ()n s [() t h(: l ar()up.
W c m c n ti o n e d tl i i s p a ra d o x i n c-,trrhi str.rri ul t rcvi ctr' ,,1
ear lier r ' v r ite rso n s ro L rp s . F ' re trd (1 9 2 2 ) cl abc.rratcrlor-rthc i ncl i
v ic lual s ic le o f th i s p a ra rl o x i n h i s c x p l a nati on of hor.vi ndi vi dLr;Ll
it , v dev elop s a s o n e w o rk s o n o n c ' s " g roupness." Ironi < :i i l l r' ,strg
ges t ed F r eu c i , i t i s th c i m p a i rme n t o f one ' s connccti ons to tht'
f am ilr ' t hat s ti rs th e i n tc n s c d e s i re to be i ndi ri drratcd i n the trrst
plac e. \ t ' he n o n e l e a ms h o rr' to c l e a l one' s gl otrpness,tl tt
" vi th
im por t ir nc e o f i n d i v i d L ra ti r-i nfa d es , a n d, through i ts i adi ng, i ndi
v iduat ion is re a l i z e d . Be n n e (1 9 6 1 ) p i cked up on the g' otrp si cl t
of t his para d o x i n h i s re fl e c ti o n o n the w av mcmbers di ri dc
r ) \ er uhc t h( r th e g ro u p c ri s ts f.,,ri ts m crnbers crr mcmbcrs cri st
f or t hc gr ( ) u p . Il e p o i n tc d o u t th e i m p ( )rtance of movi ng bevoncl
t his bipolar p e rs p e c ti l ' c to th e s ta s e rv here members l earn to ar"
c ept t heir g ro u p n e s s a n d th e s r()L rpl e arns to accept the i rnpor
t anc e of it s m e m b e rs . Ih e p a ra d o x i s that the goup gai ns i t.
s olidz uit y a s i n d i v i d u a l i ty i s l e s i ti mated, and i ndi vi cl ual i ty i s
es t ablis hed th e p ri m e c v o f th e !' roup i s affi rmed.
- f his "pvahra
en
d o x o f i n c l i i ' i d r-ra l i tvoften nrns counter to thc
ins t inc t s t h a t w e h a v e o n a p p ro a c h i n g a group for the fi rst ti me.
T o im agine th ro l v i n g o u rs e l v es i n to i t before w e have devel opecl
a c lear s en s e o f th e l a 1 - o f th e l a n d sorrnds i nsane. \l ost of rrs
hav e t he t en d e n c l ' to b e c a u ti o u s , to h ol d back ourenergi es, or.l )'
indiv idual w i s h e s , o u r s e c re ts .L rn ti l u ,e knol v n' hat the group i s
1ik e. S r - r c hre a c ti o n s a re a n a tu ra l re s ponse to the fear of l osi ng
par t s of ou rs e l v e s to th e n o rm s , d i c tates, and i mperati ves of a
gr oup. - [ ' he d i l e m m a i s th a t o u r v e ry rvi thhoi di ng i s u' hat con-
t r ibut es t o m a k i n g th e g ro u p u n s a fe . The refusal of members to
engage r na k e s th e g ro u p a h o l l o l v c o coon that no one rvants to
be par t of . A g ro trp c a n b e c o m e a g roup onl y w hen i ndi vi dr-ral s
put t hem s e l v e s i n to i t, fo r i t i s th e c o ntri buti ons of i ndi ri dLra-i s
t hat enz ibl e c o n n e c ti o n s a m o n g p e o pl e to form, c()nnecti ons
t hat bec om e w o v e n i n to a fa b ri c fro m w hi ch the fc-rur-rdati on of
t he gr or . r pi s c o n s tru c te d .' fh e re i s n o group l vi thout these con-
nec t ions , a n d y e t i t i s h a rd to d i s c o v e r connecti ons w i thout the
s r . lppor tor fo u n d a ti o n o f a g ro u p .
vJ
\
al ( l ( ) \c r 0r r ^ r r r r r Xrrt X
()ttt' of tl rt: sl lr : r : ilrirl or t ics t , l llr is 1t : r r lt t loxis t lr : r t t llt : lnlr t : r s
usrr;rl l r' .j oi rr;r { rottl l lr ccut t st 't lt ct lct 'l sot r t t :st : r t scol inat let lr r at ; y
ip oLr ps) ,t t . rt levclop ( r ( ) m pc-
-.t() (' ()pc ' ,vrtl tl tl on ct r css( 1'r it : r r <lslrgr
tcnci cs thl rt t attrtotb c acqt r ir c<lir t isolat ion ( t ldt r <'at ional gr ot r ps) '
to canr i rrcorrrc so that . t l- r cy 1'1u1 sr t n'ivc ( e lnplt - , r 'r ncnt gr ot r ps) '
l () nrcct i nti rnar:1-lur r lsoc: ialneccls ( lam ily'gr oLr ps or sr lPPor t
groups). IIcrtr:c, i nrlividt r als r : om c t o a gr or lP looking f or what
thcy czurgct. Y e t th e ovcr whelm ing m essagcis of t en "\ 'ot t can't
get anvthi ng I' rom hcr - ct r nt il yot r givt : 1" $1r r vr 1, . , , - ,t k'. , sec uhit t
others are g(' tti ng an d gir ing, as a \ vziy ot dct cr r nining r vhct her it
i s l vorth pntti ng i n t he r eqt r ir ed ener g\ ; . lVhat ue seeis am bist r -
orrs. " l t seen.rs l i ke y'ot t havc t o ioir t bcf or e it is evcn pr t ssilllet o
rvork out rvhctherj oining is a goocl idca. BLr tr vill t her r vallt t r lc- '
I shor,rl dput on a g ood f ace so t hef iike nt c; ot her nise, I 'll gct
nothi ng. B Lit i t rvas t - t 't pr im lLr ilv t he c. le sir c f r r Lt ot - t lir r ll: r t it . ,tnhlr t
brought rnc to thi s gr ot r p; it 's m v inader lt r at t -side - t hat I r vlult t o
have i ncl Lrl ged.If I can't br ing nlv inadequacies, what ilm I evcn
doi ng here? l ' r' e got enolr gh clr ainsolr m ) . 'eller g- \as : it is, t lcaling
w i th al l thi s al onen ess. . " I f it t t r r ns ot r t t hat ot her s: Lr ein t his
grorrp be carrsethe)' have sim ilzr r inadeqlt acies,r vhat t he individ-
ual erpects to be dem ancled of hir n or her is a cr - r nt r ibt r t ion
from thc verv w ell t hat is alr ead, v dlv, r naking it s em pt iness
seem even more tr oublesom c. NI t - r st 11', indir idt t als com ing t o a
group rvi th the hop c t hat kcv neecls r vill be m et llt - 'conleless
hopeful abor-rtthi s possibilin' as t her - act r r ill\ join t he gr oLt p.
B ei ng fLLl l r'an i ndi v idr . r alr vot r ld seem t o be pr oblent at ic in gr ot r ps.
\\' hen di scussingt he par ador of ident it r ', r ve not ed how
easy i t i s for i ndi v iduiils in adopt a her oit : st ance t owar d t he
groLrp.Out of the b elief t hat t he only lval t u becot ne one's uwn
person i s by' gai ni ng m ast er v of t he gr oup com es t he st r r - r ggle be-
tw een sel f ar-rdgrol lp, David zLndG oliat h. ln t l'r epar adox of indi-
vi dual i tl ,, rve fi nd a com plem ent ar y d1'nam ic t o t he her oic, ex-
presscdi n archetyp al f or m . O n one side, we f incl expr essionsof
the col l ecti ve good , t he call f or a com m it m ent t o a com m on
goal , the need for self - sacr ilice,socia. lconf or m it , v, anclt he com -
promi ses of the social cont r act . O n t he ot her side, we f ind t he
vi rtues of i ndi l i dualit v, cr eat ivit y, f r eedom of expr essior l, and
an d gr owt h lr om lvhich t ill ht r m an pr r lgr essis
the sti n.rnl ;rti r.rn
 r02 Pararl oxesof Group Li f.
. lhe
sc r - r lpt c d. te n s i o n s a re s v ml )o l i z c d i n tcrms t.rfthe col l ec' ti rr
j our nel' t hat h r-rmi u -i k i n dm u s t ta k e to g ethe r rrnti l l ve reach Lh(
p r or nis ed land, w h e n i t w i l l b e p t.,s s i l > ltr.' e bri ng f orth to ful l l i l ,
t hc m any c r ea ti o n s th a t c o m e fro m th e i nteracti on of di fl cr
e nc es and t he b o u n ti fu l v a ri a ti o n o f th e h uman speci es.
T ' hes e h e ro i c a r-rda rc h e t;' p a l fo rms often cl omi nate orrr
conc ept ions of th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f i n d i v i dtral i ty i n a group arrrl
cont r ibut e s ig n i fi c z rn tl y ' to m e m b e rs ' h ol di ng back r-rnti l ther
hav e det er m ine d w h e th e r th e g ro rrp i s to be strpported or fough t.
'I his wit hholdi n g , i n tn m , c re a te s th e v er1,ki ncl of group thi rt
leac ls m em bers to ta k e e i th e r a h e ro i c o r an anti heroi c posturt
when c onf r onte c l u i th th e fea r o f a re pressi l ' e col l ecti ve or :r
c lur ger ousr ene g a d e .
- f he par a d o x i c a l p e rs p e c ti v t--e mp hasi zes
that the grorrl r
ex is t s , gr olv s , i rn c l b e c c rm e s s tro n e a n c l resoLrrceftrlonl y,i f tht'
i ndiiiduaLt l' of i ts m e m b e rs c a n b e e x p resserl .A t the same ti rn('
that a gr oup re q u i re s c o n n e c ti o n s , c o n formi ty, and si mi l ari tr
for it s ex is t en c e , i t a l s o re q r-ri re sd i s c o n ti nui ti es and di fferences.
B ot h t he dif f e re n c e s th a t c o me a s e rp re ssi ons of i ndi vi dr,ri i l i tr
a nd t he s im ila ri ti e s , e x p re s s e da s c o n n e c tedness,si mul taneousl r
j eopar diz e and s tre n g th e n th e g ro l rp . In l i ke manner, the si mi
l ar it ies and t he d i ffe re n c e s b o th s u p p o rt ar-rdthreaten the i ndr-
' fh c
v idt r alit y of gr o u p me mb e rs . e rp re s si on of di fferences ri sks
in div idu a. ldis co n n e cti o n a n c l c o l l ec ti r.e d isi ntegrati on w hi l e p rt-,-
viding t he pos s i b i l i ty o f c o n n e c ti o n b a s e don personal l y meani ng-
f t r l c om m onali ti e s . S i mi l a rl l ' , th e c o n n e cti ons ri sk the stagnanc;
of c onf or m it y a n d th e re b e l l i o u s e x i t o f i ndi vi dr,ralmembers. Thc
par adox ic al stru g g l e i s a g a i n w i th i n th e rndi vi dud. and w i thi n
the group, to live r,vith the tensions that emanate from the
gr oup' s depen d e n c l ' o n th e i n d i r i d tra l i ty < -,fi ts members and thc
indiv idual' s de p e n d e n c y o n th e c o rn m o n a l i ty' of the group.
l'he Paradox of Boundaries
O ne c an n o t ta l k a b o u t s ro u p s w i th out i mpl i ci tl 1, i nvoki ne
' fh e re
t he c onc ept o f b o u n d a ri e s . a re b or:ncl ari esi n groups thal
ex plic it ly inc l i c a te rv h o b e l t.,n g s:rn d w ho cl oes not. ' f here arc
bor r ndar ies dra w n a ro u n d s u h 9 1 1 1 1 1 pthat 5 together form tht'
vl
s\
P aradoxesof B el onging 103
group as a rvhol e. I 'l. r er e: r . r e[ r oundr r r ies t h: r t link t he par t s.
There are l roundal i c s ar ound each of t l'r e incliviclr , r als t hat m zr kc
up the rnembcrshi p. I her e ar e lt c. r t r ndar ies lesse asilv point ed t r - , ,
thor,rghj r,rstas rea.l ,sr r r : has t he psy'chokr gicalscnscol beLr nging
that group members f eel and t he at t it r r r les t hat ar e accept abler >r
unacceptabl e to the sr ollp.
' l he concept of gr oup bounclar r -has been im por t ant in so-
ci al sci ence theor-i e s of collect ive behavior since t he wor k of
Lew i n on i i el d theor y. He dr er . v on t he pr evailing t hought in
mi l i tarl ' strategy-, an d so it seem s r easonable t o suspect t hat
thi s concept has bee n ar ound since hum iur kind began t o f ight
w i th i tsel f. I' he pl ac es wher e boundar v was m ( ) st m eaningf ull_v
el aborated as a pi vo t al cor t cept wer e, at lhe coller : t ive lelel, r n
generalsvstemstheon and, at t he inclir idual lcr el. in t he object
rel ati ons rvctrk of the ps_vchoiinall't icalschool and t hc cognit ive
theori es of P i aget. l n each t r adit ion, clcvelopr ncn t is r - r nder st ood
i n boundary-drarvi n g t er m s ( f or exam ple, lear ning t o <list inguish
betw een breast and self , m e and n( ) t m e, and so on) . O nce
boundari es have be en dr awn, t he possibilit i' oi r elat ionship
emerges. l \' i thotrt bor - r ndar y,t her e can be nr - .r' elat ionship. For
exampl e, onl l ' as th e inf ant builds a sense of a self t hat is dis
ti nct from mother can it develop a r elat ionshr p lvit h m ot her .
W i thout boundari es , t her e is f r - r sion.I n t his r egar d, boundar ies
are at the base of er. er 1't hingin gr oup lif e. For t he gr oup t o have
a senseof i tsel f as an ent it y capable of act ing as a whoie, it m ust
have cl ear external boundar ies. For t he gr oup t o develop al in-
tema-l senseof i tsel f, it m ust be able t o see m ult iple possibilit ies
for the arrangement of its internal parts. This reqr-riresthe dra"v-
i ng of di sti ncti ons bet '"veent he par t s.
' I' he paradox is t hat bounclar ies sim ult aneously m ake it
possi bl e for a group t o t ake act ions zr r d lim it t hose act ions by
w hat the boundari es def ine. For exam ple, when a gToup's
boundzui esare dravv n such t hat it is def ined as m anagem ent , t he
ful fi l l i ng of the mi magem ent f r . r nct ionbecom es pc- r ssible but t he
opti on of bei ng l abor is t aken away. 't his par adox of sim ult ane-
ous possi bi l i t,v and lim it at ion is m t , st evident in t he bot r ndar y'
del i neati on associ a t ed lvit h labeling. I n hum iur cr . r nsciousness,
the onl v l vay for rrs t c- rt hink is via t he sym br - , lst hat r ve use t o
 l0-+ P a r acl oxes< l f fi roup Li fe
'l
stor e ( ) Llrc x pc ri c r-i c e sr.' l tl re l l o rl c l . h e s c sl ml rol s rn:Lkci t pr-,s
si ble t o holc l s u ffi c i e n tl v c o r,s ta u i ti m a g c s o f crpe r-i enc.(' for us t()
re f lec t upt - r n t ho s e e rp c ri c rrr;e s .Orrr re fl e cti on, thr.rush,i s nr.rtrrr
tc r m s ol t hos e a c tu a .le x p e ri c n c e s b L rt i n t er.ms r.rf thc sy' mbol s
th at lv e Lls et ( ) s to re th o s c e rp e ri e n c e s .If l ve have l abel ed an ex
p c r ienc c in a pa rti c u l a r rv a y . th a t i s th e fr arne w i thi n w hi ch w e
will t hink abou t i t.' fo c l e v c l o p th i n k i n g b evond thc l i mi ts de
fi ned bv t he s y ' mb o l re q r,ri re su s to b re a k frame, brtt even therr
th e br eak ing ou t i s s h a p e d b y th a t w h i c h i s bei ng brc-,kenout of.
['h e deep par ad o x i s th a t w ' e re i t n o t f()r the s1' mbol s,experi -
e n c e c ould not b e s to re d a n d u ' o rrl d rro t be an ongoi r.rgpart oI
o ur ex per ienc r e ,y e t, a t th e s a m e ti me , th r.rseven' svmbol s con
str ain t he wa) ' s w e a re a b l e tr.re x p e ri e n r:cti r.,ththe past and thc
fu tu re.
\ \ ' c m r r s t a l s o p o i n t ()rrt th a t th e s ame pi uadox i s opera
ti v e wit hin oLr r u s e o f th c s rmb o l o f b o trn cl ar.v.A s a r-netaphor,
i t t ends t o s ug g e s t, a n d e v e n ta k e o n , p h ysi cal mani festati ons
l i ke t hos e of a fe n c e o r a ra l ' i n e . If w e fa l l i nto the trap of the
p ar ador t hat w e a re a tte mp ti n g to d e l i n eate, r.r,ecor-rl deasi l )'
st ar t t hink ing o f a re l a ti o n s h rp th a t c o n n ects w hat the bor-rnd-
a r ) ' s epar at es a s b e i n g th e a c trra l l o , a ti o n c,f the borrncl arl. .\
re lat ions hip is n o t a p l a c e rl h e re p a tte rn s c()nnect; ratl l er, i t i s a
co nc ept at a le v e l th a t h o re rs a b o re , w i t hi n, or beneath that
whic h it r ef er s t o .
-l o
ilh- r s tra teth i s p a ra d o x fu rth e r, c onsi der be l ongi ng to a
g roup engaged i n h o s ti l e e x c h a n g e s rv i th a peer group. \\:e may
ch oos e t o labe l th e o th e r a s " m i s tn rs te d enen-ry to be fc,ught
l v it h. " T hr s lab e l " e n e my " g i v e s u s a fra m e for stori ng oLl r ex-
p e r ienc es wit h th i s g ro L rp . l f th e e n e m y d oes somethi ng ki ndl l ' ,
we wlll c ode it a s e v i d e n c e o f n o n h o s ti l e behari or or of zrn at-
te m pt t o get us o [f g r.ra rd tt.' , l u l l u s i n to a n onvi gi l a.ntcondi ti c-rn,
u s . -I' h e
so t hat t hev c a n a tta c k k e y i s s u ei s that the i ni ti al symbol
"e nem v " pr ovi d e s a d o mi n a n t te m p l a te that then constrai ns
h o w our f ut ur e i n te ra c ti o n s a re c o d e d a n d experi enced. S l i otrl d
o u r gr oup s om e d a .vc o n c l r,rrl eth a t th e o ther group i s not real l l '
2 n enem Lr r v e 2 re l i k e l v to b re a k th e o l d svmbol of enemt.and
re plar c eit r t , it l. ra s i mi l a r o n c , s rrc h a s " fri e nci ." " F ri cnd" tnav bt-
an equailv ina p p ro p ri a te a rd c o n s tra i n i nc svmbol . w hi ch w c
\n
\l
Pararloxts 0| Ilclorrgi rrg I 05r
r ' \ \ 'c *( ) l, r t gcr see "cr l. r n\ . " I t r nat ir t :
fi nd me l Lni .gfrrl l rcr rt r s(
that nei tl i er." erl enrv r r 'r "ir . icnd" is appr t . , 1_r r iat e t hat lr , t ir
ancl
groups rnav j r.rst l )c tr ) inc t ( ) c( ) cxist w, it hir r a c. r . r nst r . aincd cnr r
ronment, oc' t.:asi c.rn ircet llt t ing in cac: hot her 's lr , a) aind necr ling
to make adj rrstrnentss( ) : t s t o ar oid being pr r sheclint o lr ehaving
destr-ucti vel \,tow ard e ach ot her .
-i he i mportance
ol bor _r ndar ies is m ost visible in t he cxpr : -
ri ences of those rvl ro have not been gir , enacle<1r _rboir at e ndar ics.
E xperi enci ng the (:()nst r aint sol'boundar ics gives t - lnet he chance
to rvork out ho' " r' one is going t o deal wit h t her n. lhis is er , ident
i n the experi ences of t hose who expect t o bt : r ejer : t eclor helcl
accountabl e bur a-re not . in a jr _r niorhigh l oLr t h clr r b. er . er t '
adr-rl tl eader know s th at kids cxpend a gr ear clr : aluf cner qv t cst .
i ng l i mi ts. Gangi ng r-rpand behaving "collnt er pr odr r ct ivelr . " ar e
often so much fun for t his agc g'loup, especiallv since t hel. f cel
constrai ned i n l ro,uvm ucl'r r - , f r his t he1. car t do at school r t r at
home. In a' " va1, ti re 1 'out h c: lt r ltis a f onr m w. hcr et he st eam can
be l et .ff. If, h' rvever , t he leader ship r ef 'ses t c, def ine and hr ld
cl ear boundar-i esfor rhe gr oup, it t akes a, vvaya lot of t he f ir n f or
the ki ds; more i mpc-' r t anr ,it depr ives t hem of t he necessar yles-
sons that ca:r be l ear - neclonll b1, encount er ing t hc lir nit s ar t d
then deal i ng u,i th the r n. F or Lhis r eason, t hc r est ing r . , f t he ar - r
thori tv fi gure cl oes r)o r nccesszlr ilvm ean t hat t he kids want t hc
authori tr tc-rchi rngc his or her behavior ; r at hcr , it m ay m eun
that thev l vant the er per iencc of t est ing t he aut hor it l, f igur e,
Thi s cannot be done if t he bor - r ndar iesar e inadequat ely.dr a. "r . n
or i f thev " gi ve" each t im e a kid bzu- r gs int o t hem . Even bound-
ari es that ma) seem cm el ar c m or e helpf r - r l devclopm ent allt
tha-nthose not tl rann.
One of the most cr it ical f lr nct ions t hat a gr oup's bor - r ncl-
ari es provi de i s bei ng a m et aphor ic cont ainer of t he anxiet ies
carri ed by i ndi vi dual mem ber s as a consequenceof t heir gr or . r p
membershi p. If rnemb er s ar e const ant ly put in t he pc, sit ion of
havi ng to bear al one the anxiet y of gr oup m er nber ship, t hen t he
group w i l l al w avs be a - nover r vhelm ingplace. I t is in t he gr oLr p's
i nterest to prori de zr \ vav f or it s m em ber s t o clealwt h t he r eac-
ti ons that thc group gener at esin t hem . [ 'he t cr m r : ont ainer t s, r
good onc, because the m ost r , isibleaspectof t he cont ainer is it s
 r06 P a racl oxesof (i roup Li ft'
b ounc lar v s v s t e m. l n t:rc t, i t rs th c o trl r. propet' tv that thc t r-rtt
tainc r has . l h e me ta p h o r o f g ro trp a s c()ntai ner i rnpl i es thi rl
"s t u f f " will not l e a k o trt a n d th a t i 1 I o rr l i ft the l i ci aprpropri atcl r
y ( ) u c r anpour " s tu ff" i n to i t. I' h e c ro l rp n e eds t< .rbc abl e to con-
tz iin t he " r age I' o r o rd e r" th a t m e m b e rs bri ng tr-i thei r erperi
e nc es of ' t he g ro L rp , to g e th e r w rth th e re b el l i ousncssemanati ng
from t he s am e i n d i v i c l u a l s ' " d n -rn k e n n e s sr ,vi thautonorn\.."
. J ; r ques( 1 9 5 5 ) a ru L re dth a t mr.rc ho f the desi re to strl rcnrrt'
ex per ienc es in g ro u p s c o me s o u t o f b o th the i ndrri drrzrl :i ncltht'
c ollec t iv e wis h to h a v e a c l e fe n s ea g a i n s t these anxi t:ti es.B rrt the
par adox ic al nr b a b o rrt " th e s e b o u n d a ri e s that contai n" i s thut
they er e t he v e rl ' p ro c e s s e s e x p e ri c n c e d a s stnrctl l res that creatr
th e r Lnx iet vin th e fi rs t p l a c e . l n d i ri d u a l s do have thei r ou,n i ncl i
v idur Ll anx iet ie s th a t th e l i m p o rl i n to th e urotrp. l ,rtt c,,l l ecti r,'
anx iet ies ar e c o a l e s c e d b y th a t w ' h i c h bi nds the members tc.r
s et her ; t hat is . th e g ro rrp ' s b o u n d a l i e s . l n recusni zi ng thi s, i t
w ould be t em p ti n g to s u g g e s t th a t i f the group' s boundanes
a;
c r eat e s uc h pr o b l e m s , th e n i t rv o u l d b e b e st to dnru, the botrnd-
a r ies in a dif f e re n t w a v o r to h a v e n o n e a t al l . B r-rtthi s provi des
n o s olut ion, at l e a s t i n a l y a b s o l u te s e n s e ,for bol i ndl essnesshas
i t s own s et of d y n a mi c s th a t h a v e to b e contai necli n some r!' av
o r ot her , and e a c h s tm c tu ra l c o n fi g r-rra t i onw i l l bri ng l vi th i t a
shac lowr , ' c oat ta i l .
S o, r v h i l e b o u n d a ri e s c o n s ti tu te a contai ni ng process,
thel' als o c ontri b u te to c re a ti n g th a t w h i c h they are desi gnedtcr
c ont ain. . \ not h e r i l l u s tra ti o n c a n b e s e e n i n the rel ati onshi p be
tween ins ider n e s s a n d o u ts i d e me s s . W hen the boundarf i s
dr ar v n s uc h t h a t c e rta i n i n d i v i d u a l s a re " i n" and others " ottt,"
t hos e who ar e o u ts i d e th e g ro u p a d j u s t to thi s fai rl v qui ckl y.
eit her by dec i d i n g th a t th e r.' d o n o t c a re abottt thc group after
a ll or by joinin g o th e r g ro u p s . It i s i e ft to someone or some sub-
s et on t he ins i d e o f th e g ro u p to n o w c a rry the fcel i ngsof out-
s ider - nes son b e h a l f o f th e g ro u p a s a w h ol e. The i rony i s that
som eone who i s " i n " b e g i n s to fe a r th e possi bi l i tr, of be' nc
" oLr t , ' and t he g ro u p h a s to d e v e l o p a way to contai n the emo'
t ion as s oc iat e dw i th o u ts i d e rn e s s .a n e m o ti on that i t has createci
b1 it s ac t ions to i n c h rd e . B u t i t n ru s t d o thi s i n a \\:av that i n-
c ludes ; ot henvi s e , i t rv i l l me re l l ' p u s h o r- rtagai n thi s aspectof i t-
s
H
$
P aracl oxesof l l ekrnsing 107
sel t' ancl rrnrl tl rrri ne t r r lr lr el t he ser r sc r l inclr isir n t lr . ir iht '
$ boLrrrdarvrvzus dcsi q r r edt o t 'r caic.
.\ spcci tLl( ()n se( lLlcn( .ol t : cf lcc.livc boLr ndar t .r lr . avr . ins
in a
*
*: groLrp i s that thc t ont lr iner ct t e ct clur m ake exper . icnr : csr . clv
{
much more potcnr t hiLn wor - r ld lr e t hc'case if t he lr or r ndar l'did
n.t cri st ,r i f i t rvcr c dr ar vr r m . r e l''sely. 'I 'his is c'ide nt
'cr v
i n rni utv e\pcri cn rr al gr or , r p- let Lr ninesc't t ings ( sLr r . lras gr - ( ) up-
rcl ati .ns corrfcrent r : s in t he [ 'ar ist ock t r adit i. n ) . ir r t hesc
groups, the bor-rnda. r ics ar e clr ar 'n s'vigor ousl, , . , lr . t l. r lr r . . t he
statf ard bv the rl e siqn of t he pr oer ar n, t hat t he n. r m lil salet v
vi i l ' cs .f l etti ng unr'a't e d , r dif f ii Lr lt em ot ior ) s "f lec" t hr c- r Lr gh
the " rval l s" ot' the tonf er cncc ar e cf f ect ivell. r cm or cd. 't 'his in-
creasL-sthe potenr r, , , f t he er t t t _r t ir _, ns t hat r - nent t r Crur s e ( . ( ) n-
frontecl rr.i th. IheV et : t t ( ) exper ience t he m aJ( ) r( . ( ) nseqLt ences.
constrtrcti ve i rncl cl esr r t r ct ive,oI har ing bor - r ndar ies t ieht lv uu't it :
ul ated. l ti most gr() up sit uat ions, t he er t er nal bot r nr lar ies ar e
drarvn ,,ri th sufi i ci c nr per m eabilit l t hat t r nr vanr edpar - t sr f t l'r e
group can be ptrshed ot r t side. Whcn t his is exper ienceclas not
possi bl c, the group f incls it sell'f ace t o f ace wit h clem ent s ol'it
sel f that i t mav not like and is conf r ont ed r vit h t hc icleaof deal-
i ngl vi th tl i em i n' " r' avs t hat it w. uld ne'er encount er in c, r dinar v
ci rcurnstances. [.i ker , , 'ise.t he gr oLLps ar c not f r ee t o im pr , r r t
7
thi ncs, such as di sr r - act ions,f r . m t he olr t side. Rcs'ur c. es f 'r r . r r r - r
i
outsi de are not ava ilable, ald t he gr oLlp has t o solve it s c, *. n
!
" probl ems" rvhen i t nr ight nor m allr . seek "help" I 'r c_, m wit hor - r t .
In sr-rchsetti ngs,i t is possible r o lcar n jr , r sthor v m r r ch of inside-
group l i fe i s normalll' a plaving t hr ough of out sic. leissuest hat
have been taken i nt o t he gr oup: r nd vice ver sa and how t his
bl unts the capaci n' of t he gr oup t o f eel and know t he f ull f or ce
of i ts orvn i ntemal rlvnam ics.
In i ts t' ol e as cont ainer , t he bor r ndar y is bot h t he lif e and
the death of the gro up. I t is t he essent ialpr econdit ion f or a c<. , 1-
l ecti on of i ndi vi duu ls t o have a lif e t oget her as a gr oLr p; at t he
sarne ti me, poorl l .de f ined, it can be t he r ehicle f or : r gr ot r p's de,
mi sc. -l ' oo ri gi dl i ' de f ined and t he gr oup f 'eedson it s on'n anr i-
eti cs unti l i t erpl orl e s out of exist ence; t oo por oLt s: r ndt he gr oulr
di l trtes i ts erperi cn(cs. even t o t ht : point r vher . ct he gr or , r p'slif e
i s total l v rl onri nrrte dir v r hc oLr t side,lr v t l- r at '"vhichit is not .
r0 8 Pa radoxesof (i roup Li fe

|he pala d o x o f b o u n d a ry p u ts s h a rpl v before trs that thc

co m pler pr oc e s s e so f u ro u p l i fe a n d c l e a t h come from the same
' l' o
so ur c e. ha n d l e th e m i n a w a y th a t presen' es l i fe w i thorrt
se par at ing it f ro m d e a th a n d v i c e v e rs a re qr-ri resa group' s l e arn-
i ng how t o liv e " i n " a n d " r,v i th " th e te n s i ons of the bounrl arl ' .
M\s2\s2\yv\gvvvvvNt
Conclusion

I r - r eac h o f th e fo u r p a ra d o x e s i n th i s chapter, tensi on i s

g ener at ed lv he n l i n k s b e tw e e n th e c o n tradi ctory emoti ons ancl
Paradoxesof Errgaging:
re ac t ions ev ok e d w i th i n i n d i v i d u a l s , w i th i n groups, and betu' een Disclosure,
Ti^ust,Intimacy,
i n div iduals and g ro u p s a re u n re c o g n i z e d . fhe anxi eti es eroked
by t he ques t ic )n so f b e l o n g i n g s e e m mo st debi l i tati ng for i ndi - anclRegression
vidua- lsand gr o u p s w h e n th e c o n n e c ti o n s b e trveen the opposi tes
g o unnot ic ed a n d i n s te a d o n l y th e i r e x c h -rsi veness i s attencl edto.
'fhe par adox es o f b e l o n g i n e s u g g e s t th a t i t rvoul d be strange i n-
deed t o f ind a g ro l rp w h e re th e re w a s a group i denti tv but no -r
l he par.adt,xesof belc- , nuingar e evoked bv t he com binat ion
i n div ic lr - r aliden ti ti e s , ()r e x p e ri e n c e b u t n o observati on, or devr-
of i ndi ri dual j oi ni n g a: - r dgr t - iLr p- 1'or r nat ion
pr ocesses.f hese pr r -
z r nc e but no co n fo rmi tl . O n e mi g h t w o nder abor-rtthe i ' i tal i n
cessesdc, not occu r exch- r sivelvat an) 'one point in a gr or - r p's
of gr oups in w h i c h th e s e p o l a ri ti e s rv e re not si mul taneousl r-i n
l i fe, but thel ' are mor e likely' dur ing it s ear ll'phiises. 'I he par a-
ev idenc e. ' lheir c o e x i s te n c e ma y b e a s i g n ncl t merel y of confl i ct
doxes of engagi ng ar ise w, hen m em ber s begin t o ask how. n. r r "r ch
:r nd dis agr eem e n tb u t o f th e d y n a mi c l i fe of the group.
of themscl res the\ ' ; r r e willing and able t o cont r ibut e t ( ) t he
I n t his ch a p te r, rv e fo l l o w e d a p ro g r essi on of thor-rghtthat
group i i nd horr' rnuch is r cqr r ir cd of t hem f or t he gr . oupt o l_r ecf -
m ov ed f r om id e n ti tl th ro u g h i n v o l v e m e n t and i ndi vi dua-l i tv to
fecti ve. In i ts l .nost concr . et c f or m , a gr ( ) up wor ks best r vhen
the t hem e of b o u n d a ri e s . N o w th a t w e h a' ,,etravel ed al ong the
members knorv each ot her 's st r engt hs and vveaknesses, abilit ies
c ont oLlr s of gro r-rpb e l o n g i n g i n th i s d i re c ti on, i t i s obvi ous that
and di sabi l i ti es, i m d when t he gr oup's t asks and am bit ions ar e
th e joum ey c o u l d e q u a l l y h a v e b e e n ta k e n another rvav. B ound-
w el l matched to the lim it at ions of it s m em ber s. But under what
a r y is at t he ro o t o f a n y a tte mp t to fo rmul ate the i denti tl .' of
condi ti ons w i l l mem ber s disclose t heir r espect ive st r engt hs and
i n div iduals ar i d /o r th e g ro u p s to w h i c h they bel ong, and the
w eaknesses?H ow much do t he m em ber s engageeach ot her and
boundan' dr aw i n g a s s o c i a te d ' " v i th i d enti ty devel opment i s
the issr,res that arise in the .group as a whole, and how mr,rchof
e s s ent ial f or b o th i n d i v i d u a l s a n d g ro u p s as they stmggl e w i th
themselr,esrvill they allow to be engaged by the demands and
hou, much to be involved and how to engagein the dvnamics of
concernsof the group?
s elf - r ef lec t ion. In tu rn , s e l f-re fl e c ti o n i s a form of boundarl '
The paradoxes descr ibed in t his chapt er seek t o addr ess
d r ar v ing t hat h e l p s to a rti c u l a te i n d i v i d u a l i ty. The processesof
some of these quest ions. 'I hey exam ine t he appar ent ly cont r a-
i n div idt r at ion s e t b o u n d a ri e s b o th fo r i n di vi dual s and for the
di ctorv and often conf r - r singdynam ics wit hin indir , idt r zils,be-
s et t ing being i n d i v i d u a te d fro m. In o th e r rvords, each of these
tl l ' een i ncl i ri drri l ,l sand t hc gr oup, and w'it hin t he gr ur r p as a
p ar ador es , alt h o u g h d i s c rL s s e ds e q u e n ti a l l\, both contai ns zrndi s
w hol e evoked b1' the issue c. , fensagem ent in gr ot r ps.O ncc again.
c ont ainec l by e a c h o f th e o th e rs .

109