Group formation and culture of Galle Face protesters

by Sena Thoradeniya

Galle Face Protesters (GFP) have brought the relationship between youth, politics and culture to the focus of cultural critics. Nobody has ventured into study this phenomenon in detail in the uprisings of 1971, 1988-89 and Eelam war, although fragmentary references were made into JVP’s post-1971 ‘Vimukthi Gee’ (of Nandana Marasinghe fame, assassinated by JVP/DJV; a stern warning for those upper class elements who pamper the GFP coining some adorable names such as ‘Aragalists’ and ‘Gotagamians’!) , Nanda Malini’s ‘Pawana’ and ‘Sathyaye Geethaya’ during JVP’s second insurrection and LTTE’s ‘Pongu Thamil Eluchchivila’ celebrations.

In this two-part article, we first discuss about formal and informal groups and characteristics of informal groups. In the second part we intend to discuss the culture of Galle Face Protesters arising as a blend of individual level variables of group members and group level variables.

Since saving space is more important, we, in this short piece, do not intend to define what is meant by youth, politics and especially culture. It is also not necessary to discuss the “political demands” of the GFP or what they understand by politics and how they interpret the current political situation, some are well known, some are in vague and undefined and others uncertain and concealed. The main focus of this article is on “Galle Face Culture”, which we do not believe that it will be sustained, developed or become a permanent feature in the cultural landscape of Sri Lanka, although we do not deny that some aspects of it can penetrate into the wider society. Some other arguments against this may arise, questioning our premise whether it is scientific to examine a culture among some loosely knitted individuals, not inhabiting a particular locality permanently. But some sort of a culture is discernible among groups of train travellers, parents who chaperon their children to school, students sitting next to each other in a classroom, devotees of Bacchus who habitually go to the same barroom, people living in one lane or adjoining apartments or different floors, etc. With the advent of Facebook, WhatsApp and other social media platforms another method of group formation receives our attention. Newspaper reports are in abundance of Facebook parties organised by people who have not met each other physically or engaged in face-to-face communication. It is common knowledge that the GF protest had originated with the work of some WhatsApp groups.

In Organisation Behaviour (OB), groups are defined as consisting of people who interact frequently over a period of time and who share similar interests, attitudes and see themselves as a group. Although a universal definition of groups does not exist, students who read this article are requested to refer how sociologists and management and OB theorists had defined groups, group formation and characteristics of groups as it is outside our scope.

There are two types of groups: formal and informal groups. Although the Galle Face protest has passed more than 60 days to this day and some occupy the Galle Face Green turning it into a “village”, according to Group Dynamics (area of study that is concerned with the interactions and forces between group members in a social situation), we still define it as an informal group. This informal group was spontaneously composed of likeminded people, as a result of interactions through social media platforms, attractions and a common need: chasing out GR. There is no dispute that the protesters have come from different economic, social and cultural backgrounds, making it a heterogenous mix of individuals. One of the many attributes of group formation is propinquity or spatial or geographical proximity of individual who join groups. We argue now with the advent of social media platforms, proximity described by earlier theorists has taken a new dimension; technological proximity had taken precedence and had become more active, effective and faster than physical proximity. Friendship has outweighed economic, political or cultural needs and other issues of group formation.

Theoretically speaking, age, gender, marital status, personality characteristics, values, attitudes, emotions, perceptions, ability levels and learning, motivation are the individual level variables they have brought into this informal group. They had to adjust themselves to group level variables such as group behaviour, group standards, communication patterns, leadership styles, power and politics and also conflicts, all integral components of a group. Their culture is determined by the interplay of these two types of variables.

It also can be defined as an open group having free entry as well as free exit which allows more diverse individuals to shape standards, attitudes, values and behaviours of the rest. People are attracted to informal groups for satisfaction of their needs (in this situation their needs are numerous: personal needs such as gaining recognition, status and pride,) and to share a common goal, “GotaGoHome”, basically an emotional response of anger. Individuals who experience this emotion seek others who have the same emotion. That is one reason for Galle Face Protesters for not being able to produce their own political leaders. In the initial stages, we observed that this group inclined to become structured, establishing their external networks, norms or rules of conduct. Emergence of informal leaders and spokespersons which were numerous was a part of this structure. This structure, also can be described as a part of group development through mutual acceptance and open communication; some members volunteering to undertake certain roles and assigning of roles to others by informal leaders, showing some sort of a division of labour.

As the Galle Face group is a large informal group, a “mixed clique” in management jargon, we tend to observe the emergence of sub-groups and contending forces with some intriguing names, each calmouring for leadership arousing internal conflicts; goals becoming inconsistent and unachievable. Theoretically, the emergence of leaders who are acceptable to all and maintaining cohesiveness in a large informal group like Galle Face Green is unattainable and all leaders who emerge in an informal group are informal leaders, who are not formally recognised by all. Imbalances have already occurred. Some self-appointed leaders were chased out attaching the ignominious label “Left”. This leadership crisis was the reason behind it becoming an easy prey for organised political parties.

With the ascendance of Ranil Wickremesinghe, it lost its steam, compelling many to decamp. At present the so-called “village” has turned into an urban ghetto, which shapes its culture now; vagabonds occupy some tents and the communal kitchen has become a “dana shalawa” to many who search for food. Only future will tell us who were the real architects of the Galle Face protest, who benefited from it and who were taken for a ride!

(The writer in his long career had taught Management, Organisation Behaviour and Research Methodology to undergraduates, Senior Managers and Senior Officers of the Tri Forces, although his interests are different.)