Introduction
Some aspects of social life have a strong connection to group size. Particularly, more significant classification tends to be associated with higher levels of structural differentiation and low personal interaction. The lack of intense relationships can be observed in urban areas where people are independent, private, and differentiated. Some examples of small groups include religious sects, aristocracies, and socialism, while large is the mass. Although some aspects of social life can be done with many people, others can only be maintained if there is homogeneity, the possibility of surveillance, and solidarity.
Discussion
Socialism is an example of a group that works best when members are alike such that they can individually see the contributions of others despite the division of labor. Notably, in a large group, when every person has their specialization, they carry over their private life. The other example is a religious sect in which solidarity in the assembly contrasts with what the larger groups believe. The Mammon Church, for instance, have specific beliefs that distinguish them from other mainstream Christians and make them attached. In some groups like aristocracies (such as the British royal family), members must be observed and restricted from the mass. The affiliates must be able to identify the entire household so that there are no instances of impersonation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Simmel rightly states that the size of a group can have significant implications for the members. Some dynamics gives restriction that makes it hard for large numbers of people. A few of the confining aspects include associations, acquaintances, and solidarity, among others. The royalties must know each other, cults thrive in solidarity of belief systems, and socialism is maintained when each individual can see the contributions that the other brings. The implication is that strong ties are broken when people increase, leading to ineffectiveness.