Social groups are ternary, not binary, relations among third parties.

Evidence

It is a common error of many sociologists to stop at this point and treat the group as a binary relation (individual-community), whereas, in reality, it is a ternary relation. Indeed, this is something that no picture or sculpture could convey directly, in that the individual, as a third party, is connected, in the unity of a single praxis (and therefore of a single perceptual vista), with the unity of individuals as inseparable moments of a non-totalized totalisation, and with each of them as a third party, that is to say, through the mediation of the group… . And the relation of one third party to another has nothing to do with alterity: since the group is the practical milieu of this relation, it must be a human relation (with crucial importance for the diff erentiations of the group), which we shall call mediated reciprocity. — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre, 421

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘mediated reciprocity’ and the ternary structure of the group, key Critique of Dialectical Reason vocabulary.
• XREF: The ‘third party’ and non-totalized totalisation connect to Sartre’s later social theory and to Levinas’s Third who calls to justice. — connects to: Intergroup attitudes are constrained by relationship structure, not free-floating sentiment.; Any social group can act as individual or aggregate depending on its relational frame. — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 631; A social movement is defined by three-way interactions, not solo action. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 338

Broader Connections

• Intergroup attitudes are constrained by relationship structure, not free-floating sentiment. #expands (0.82)
• Any social group can act as individual or aggregate depending on its relational frame. #expands (0.78) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 631