Whom are you serving?
Considering the way groups structure themselves, two options become visible. One is that the group aims to serve others, and the other is that the group exists to serve its members.
As both approaches can be intrinsically connected it can sometimes be challenging to decide which one is implied, and which one is active.
A way to think about this question is to evaluate how the group reacts to its situation and context. Does it see its purpose in protecting the interests of its members? There are many reasons why a group would want to do so. One may be there to invite critical thinking on the state of society as it is. All the reasons the group proposes will be perceived as legitimate by its members. However, the group’s larger context may see it differently. From the perspective of its context, the group can be considered as defending a territory or trying to win a territory. The relationship between the group and the context will then be one of seeking power.
On the other hand, a group that sees its purpose in providing support to others or the community is focused on the ability to contribute. Here again, the ideas represented by the group will suit its members, otherwise they would not have joined the group. They too cannot expect that their ideas will be unanimously accepted by others. I’d think that a contrast to the other type of group can be found in their need to establish their position related to the context they are acting in. They don’t have a territory to defend as it is a shared territory. What they’ll seek to defend is their idea of relevant actions and how they are contributing to their larger context. They’ll thus work mainly on being understood. If they try to persuade it will be by creating occasions where their actions will speak for themselves and be welcomed.
Both types of groups are relevant. Which one, one considers the better option is a matter of choice.
However, for society at large, I’m wondering how much fragmentation can be dealt with until dealing with the fragments becomes too complex.
