Homogeneity. Sociologists abound and their studies are legion. This is no scientific analysis of human behavior. It is simply some observations regarding humankind's proclivity to flock with like birds.
What portion of homogeneous divisions among us are natural and what percentage of them are artificial would be an interesting study. Also, who believes what regarding these divisions would be of interest.
I recall an incident that occurred during my tenure as a public school administrator in which we were proposing a cross-graded continuous progress segment, a school-within-a-school, so to speak, in which students from ages six through eleven would be grouped together. Ignoring the obvious fact that this is a homogeneous group in some broader definition, we found that when we opened the proposal for public discussion some on either end of the liberal/conservative spectrum wanted to ignite a firebomb and throw it into the mix;
The ultra-conservative members of the community were armed and ready with charts and arguments all the way back to Adam and Eve to demonstrate that the "natural order" of things required that children should be grouped in much narrower homogeneity, namely traditional graded age groups, else society would ultimately topple.
On the other hand there were those who adamantly pursued their own agenda, that is pipe-dream, that no order should be imposed at all, that the natural developmental processes of the human social and intellectual growth would take care of themselves, should we simply let children "decide" in their own time when they are ready for any given stage.
Our proposal was ultimately approved and a large number of students over a period of years functioned quite well in the broader "family" setting, but that is not the point of my rambling.
Last evening I attended a meeting of a group of people of "a certain age." These people could correctly be identified as older people, but we are given to euphemisms, e.g., "Seasoned Citizens," "Keen Agers," "the Golden Years," and so forth. Our group is called "Best Years Fellowship."
I have lived long enough now that I have been lumped in with the very students I taught when they were children in the public schools, for a number of the members of the group did indeed sit in my elementary classroom, lo those many years ago.
Where is the homogeneity? Well, the groups would ultimately get pretty small. There were but two people in the room besides me who were my age or older. And the ninety-six-year-old guy could comprise a group all by himself. I mean within our social reach, he has no peers.
The whole "age" thing is pretty dumb, anyway. We are born, we live, some longer than others, and we die. What our group has in common more than "age" is like-mindedness with regard to the way the world works and the ways in which we should work within it. Instead of developing insular social groups in which people of like age "relate" to one another, why not a broad spectrum which includes everyone relating to each other?
I do not need interaction with other old poops so much as I need the stimulation of new ideas, new ways of viewing things. And where will I find that? Younger people, of course. And trust me, the younger people would be well -advised to get close enough to their elders to allow some of the wisdom to rub off onto them.