6 Society, Social Structure and Social Organization, Community

Dr. Deepak Kumar Ojha

Contents of this Unit

Learning Outcomes

Objectives

1. Society: Meaning, Nature and Characteristic Features
2. Social Structure: Meaning and Concept, Definitions, Characteristic Features
3. Social Organization: Meaning and Features
4. Community: Meaning, Definition and Characteristic Features.

Learning Outcomes

After studying this module:

• You shall be able to get an informative background of the basic socio-anthropological concepts, like Society, Social Structure, Social Organization and Community.
• You will also learn the basic introductory background about all the basic social institutions.
• The module also provides knowledge about the meaning, definitions, conceptual understanding, nature and characteristic features of society and community.
• Adding to this, the module also attempts to give social anthropological perspectives as well as dimensions to these basic social institutions.

Objectives

The primary objectives of this module are:

• To give a basic understanding to the students about the meaning, definition, nature and characteristic features of Society, Social Structure, Social Organisation and Community.
• It also attempts to provide an informative background about different dimensions and perspectives of these social institutions.

1. Society

The term society is the most fundamental one in social anthropology. But still it is one of the most vague and general concepts in sociologist’s vocabulary. The term ‘society’ is derived from the Latin word ‘socius’, which means companionship or friendship. Companionship means sociability. As

George Simmel pointed out, it is this element of sociability which defines the true essence of society. It indicates that man always lives in the company of other people. ‘Man is a social animal’, said Aristotle centuries ago. Man lives in towns, cities, tribes, villages, but never alone. Loneliness brings him boredom and fear. Man lives in society for his living, working and enjoying life. Society has become an essential condition for human life to arise and to continue. Human life and society always go together where society is considered as a web of social inter-relationship.

1.1. Definitions of Society

1. According to Morris Ginsberg “A society is a collection of individuals united by certain relations or mode of behaviour which mark them off from others who do not enter into these relations or who differ from them in behaviour”.
2. “Society is the organized associations and institutions with a community” – G.D. M. Cole
3. “Society is the union itself, the organization, the sum of formal relations in which associating individuals are bound together”.
4. “The term society refers to a group of people, but to the complex pattern of the norms of interaction, that arise among and between them”.

1.2. Characteristics of Society

The basic characteristics of society are as follows:

• (i) Society consists of people: Society is composed of people. Without the students and the teachers there can be no college and no university. Similarly, without people there can be no society, no social relationships, and no social life at all.

• (ii) Mutual Interaction and Mutual Awareness: Society is a group of people in continuous interaction with each other. It refers to the reciprocal contact between two or more persons. It is a process whereby men interpenetrate with other members of society. It means that individuals are in continuous interaction with other individuals of society. The limits of society are marked by the limits of social interactions.

Social interactions are made possible because of mutual awareness. Society is understood as a network of social relationships. But not all relations are social relations. Social relationships exist only when the members are aware of each other. Society exists only where social beings ‘behave’ towards one another in ways determined by their recognition of one another. Without this awareness there can be no society. A social relationship thus implies mutual awareness.

• (iii) Society depends on likeness: The principle of likeness is essential for society. It exists among those who resemble one another in some degree, in body and in mind. Likeness refers to the similarities. People have similarities with regard to their needs, works, aims, ideals, values, outlook towards life, and so on. Just as the ‘birds of the same feather flock together’, men belonging to the same species called ‘Homo sapiens’, have many things in common.

Society, hence, rests on what F.H. Giddings calls consciousness of kind. “Comradeship, intimacy, association of any kind or degree would be impossible without some understanding of each by the other and that understanding depends on the likeness which each apprehends in the other. Society in brief, exists among like beings and likeminded beings.

• (iv) Society rests on difference too: Society also implies difference. A society based entirely on likeness and uniformities is found to be loose in socialites. If men are exactly alike, their social relationships would be very much limited. There would be little give-and-take, little reciprocity. They would contribute very little to one another. More than that, life becomes boring, monotonous and uninteresting, if differences are not there.

• (v) Co-operation and Division of Labour: primarily likeness and secondarily difference create the division of labour. Division of labour involves the assignment to each unit or group a specific share of a common task. For example, the common task of producing cotton clothes is shared by a number of people like the farmers who grow cotton, the spinners, the weavers, the dyers and the merchants. Similarly at home work is divided and shared by the father, mother and children.

Division of labour leads to specialization. Division of labour and specialization are the hallmarks of modern complex society. Division of labour is possible because of co-operation. Society is based on co-operation. It is the very basis of our social life. As C.H. Cooley says, ‘co-operation arises when men realize that they have common interests’. It refers to the mutual working together for the attainment of a common goal.

• (vi) Society implies Interdependence: Social relationships are characterized by interdependence. Family the most basic social group, for example, is based upon the interdependence of man and woman. One depends upon the other for the satisfaction of one’s need. As society advances, the area of interdependence also grows. Today not only individuals are interdependent upon one another, but even, communities, social groups, societies and nations are also interdependent.
• (vii) Society is Dynamic: Society is not static; it is dynamic. Change is ever present in society. Changeability is an inherent quality of human society. No society can ever remain constant for any length of time. Society is like water in a stream or river that forever flows. It is always influx. Old men die and new ones are born. New associations, institutions and groups may come into being and old ones may die a natural death. The existing ones may undergo changes to see the demands of time or they may give birth to the new ones. Changes may take place slowly and gradually or suddenly and abruptly.
• (viii) Social Control: Society has its own ways and means of controlling the behaviour of its members. Co-operation no doubt exists in society. But, side by side, competitions, conflicts, tensions, revolts, rebellions and suppressions are also there. They appear and reappear off and on. Clash of economic or political or religious interests is not uncommon. Left to themselves, they may damage the very fabric of society. They are to be controlled.

2. Social Structure

In the most general sense, the notion of “structure” refers to a set of relations between elements that has some measure of coherence and stability. It is, then, a concept with a heavy load of abstraction, a concept that we could, in principle, apply to any parcel of reality where we perceive a certain order. The way it is commonly used in the social sciences, it simply designates the deepest, most recurrent aspects of social reality, its framework or underlying form.

Structure refers to the pattern within culture and organization through which social action takes place; arrangements of roles, organizations, institutions, and cultural symbols that are stable over time, often unnoticed, and changing almost invisibly. Structure both enables and constrains what is possible in social life. If a building is presumed to be a society, the foundation, supporting columns and beams would be the structure which both constrains and enables the various 2 kinds and arrangements of spaces and rooms (roles, organizations, and institutions). Schemata and resources (material and human) through which social action takes place, becomes patterned, and institutionalized incorporates both culture and the resources of social organization. Social structures have a dual character, defined as composed simultaneously of schemas, which are virtual, and of resources, which are actual. Schemas function as fundamental tools of thought not the formally stated prescriptions but the informal and not always conscious schemas, metaphors and assumptions presupposed by such formal statements. Schemas are the effects of resources, just as resources act as the effects of schemas. The organized set of social relationships in which members of the society or group are variously implicated, patterned behavior and relationships. Social Structure is a relatively stable system of social relationships and opportunities in which individuals find themselves and by which they are vitally affected, but over which most of them have no control and of the exact nature of which they are usually unaware.

In this sense, it is often used to distinguish the fundamental elements of society from the secondary ones, the essential aspects from the superfluous ones, the stable ones from the contingent ones (Boudon 1968). The idea of social structure refers, in this general case, to the idea of an ordered or organized arrangement of elements (Smelser 1992). On other occasions, the structure of a social aggregate is equivalent to the distribution of its elements in given positions. Sometimes the structure of a social entity is simply identified with its form or shape.

The Latin source of the word structure is “struere”, which means “to build.” And the most general notion of this term does, in fact, refer to the framework of elements and materials that constitute and support a building (López and Scott 2000). Another relevant and more recent (nineteenth century) historical source of meaning for the term structure comes from the anatomy of living beings, where the term designates the relation of the parts to the organic whole. In his classic work on structuralism, Jean Piaget (1970) went far beyond the constructive and organic analogies to specify three important characteristics that define the idea of structure in a great variety of scientific fields and disciplines. Every structure is, first, a totality whose properties cannot be reduced to those of its constituent elements. Second, it is a system with its own laws or mechanisms for functioning. And third, it is a self-regulated entity that to some degree maintains itself or preserves itself throughout time.

Different understandings of the term can be derived from both the disciplines. Perhaps the concept of social structure has been made use of extensively in anthropology both in terms of elaboration into its constituent elements and application to the study of particular societies. Briefly defined, “social structure is the web of interacting social forces from which have arisen the various models of observing and thinking” (Mannheim 1936: 45). According to Ginsberg, “Social structure is concerned with the principal forms of social organisation, i.e. types of groups, associations and institutions and the complex of those which constitute societies” (Ginsberg 1947: 1). This apparently seems to be a framework manifesting the integrative pattern of any society under study. According to MacIver and Page,“The analysis of social structure reveals the role of the diverse attitudes and interests of social beings. ‘Group Structures’ represent the kind of reality into which we are born and within which we find work and recreation, rewards and penalties, struggle and mutual aid. All the various modes of grouping together comprise the complex pattern of social structure” (MacIver and Page 1962: 209).

More often, social structure refers to the institutions of society and the particular ways in which these institutions’ are arranged into patterned wholes. Often social structure is conceptualised as constituting a series of systems within a total system and in the investigation of individual societies or communities the goal is to determine the principles according to which the systems within a system keep each going in ways which are meaningful to the members of each society and in ways which are compatible with their values, motivations, beliefs and attitudes. By social structure Cohen means the positions in which individuals, families and other groups stand in relation to each other (Cohen 1961: 4). Bottomore endorses the views of Ginsberg in defining social structure as the complex of the combination of major institutions and groups that constitute the society (Bottomore 1962: 111). Among others Talcott Parsons define social structure as: “In the first instance, it is the kind of grouping of persons in roles that combined with their interlacings and criss-crossings, constitute the structure of the societies” (Parsons 1965: 239). R.K. Merton also defines social structure as comprising the patterned arrangements of role-sets, status sets and status sequences (Merton 1968: 41). This definition of Merton can be compared with the Parsonian interpretation of role relationships.

Well-developed meaning has been attached to the concept by various trendsetters in sociology and anthropology. In spite of all its specifications in scope and usage, the concept is frequently used in its wider connotation. Nadel (1957) has rightly observed that the concept of social structure has been used interchangeably with, and becomes a synonym for system, organization or pattern in fact, does not fall very short of society as a whole. A critique of the development of the concept of social structure reveals that Spencer and Durkheim were responsible for the broad and blanket use of the concept, and were the pioneers in setting the sociological and anthropological traditions in the study of social structure. Nadel (1957) observes that while in sociology the concept had to rest heavily on the writings of Spencer, in anthropology, Durkheim influenced Radcliffe Brown, under whose powerful leadership, the discipline of anthropology started picking up a new direction.

Although no less difference of opinion exists with regard to the definition of social structure in the domain of anthropology, the concept has been used specifically in its comparatively developed and refined meaning than in sociology. Picking up the cue from the writings of his intellectual mentor and particularly, being inspired by the idea of organismic analogy of Durkheim, the British anthropologist, Radcliffe Brown initially defined social structure in 1937 as the interrelationships or arrangements of ‘parts’ in some total entity as the ‘whole’. Fred Eggan, strongly influenced by Radcliffe Brown, finds the components of social structure in the interpersonal relations, which become part of the social structure in the form of status and social positions occupied by the individuals in the society. Instead of inter-personal relations, Evans-Pritchard searches for the uniformities, regularities and set-order in the social life is the structure of the society (Evans-Pritchard 1979: 19).

Another important dimension of the concept of social structure comes from the French school of anthropologists, pioneered by Claude Levi Strauss. Levi-Strauss contradicts the view points of Radcliffe Brown with the remark that social structure cannot be reduced to an ensemble of social relations, as observed by an anthropologist; rather it is an abstract model built by the researcher, on the basis of observed empirical realities (Bohannan and Glazer 1973: 375). Edmund leach carries the concept a little further, leaning heavily on the ideal socio-political rules of the society. For him, social structure consists of a set of ideal rules about the distribution of power between persons or group of persons. This power however refers to the institutionalized and socially regulated power, manifesting the structure of the society. Finally, S.F. Nadel has defined social structure in his own way, with his usual bent on Logic and Mathematics, that “……it is a property of empirical data – of objects, events or series of events,

something they exhibit or prove to possess an observation or analysis; and the data are said to exhibit structure in as much as they exhibit a definable articulation, an ordered arrangement of parts” (Nadel 1957).

The only reason for bringing together all these definitions of social structure from the disciplines of sociology and anthropology is precisely to expose their apparent lack of compatibility and uniformity in conceptualization and explanation. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to express that any attempt to seek for a mutually agreed and unified definition of social structure will culminate in sheer despair. A synthetic and integrative approach seems to be only viable, which has rightly been told by Robert Redfield (1955) that social structure is the holistic concept: the central organizing idea in terms of which everything else in the life of a community so far as it proves possible is seen. In this context, however, the explanation given by Evans-Pritchard seems equally appropriate that “A total social structure, that is to say the entire structure of a given society, is composed of a number of subsidiary structures or systems, and we may speak of its kinship system, its economic system, its religious system and its political system” (Evans-Pritchard 1979: 20).

3. Social Organization

An organization is a social arrangement which pursues collective goals, controls its own performance, and has a boundary separating it from its environment. The word itself is derived from the Greek word ‘organon’ meaning association of individuals. There are a variety of legal types of organizations, including: corporations, governments, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, armed forces, charities, not-for-profit corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, and universities. A hybrid organization is a body that operates in both the public sector and the private sector, simultaneously fulfilling public duties and developing commercial market activities. As a result the hybrid organization becomes a mixture of a government and a corporate organization.

In social sciences, organizations are the object of analysis for a number of disciplines, such as sociology, economics, political science, psychology, management, and organizational communication. The broader analysis of organizations are commonly referred to as organizational structure, organizational studies, organizational behavior, or organization analysis. A number of different perspectives exist, some of which are compatible:

• From a process-related perspective, an organization is viewed as an entity which is being (re-) organized, and the focus is on the organization as a set of tasks or actions.
• From a functional perspective, the focus is on how entities like businesses or state authorities are used.
• From an institutional perspective, an organization is viewed as a purposeful structure within a social context.

3.1. Definitions

1. According to Elliott and Merrill, “Social organization is a state of being, a condition, in which the various institutions, in a society are functioning in accordance with their recognized or implied purposes”.
2. According to M.E. Jones, “social organization is a system by which the parts of society are related to each other and to the whole society in a meaningful way”.
3. According to Ralph Piddington, “the most important basis of social organization are sex, age, kinship, locality, social status, political power, occupation, religion and magic, totemism and voluntary associations”.

3.2. Primitive Social Organization

M.J. Herskovits has classified the social classes into those based upon kinship and those not connected with kinship system. In the primitive society the family is the unit of social organization. Most of the needs of males and females are fulfilled in the family. These families, again, may be of different types such as nuclear family, joint family, matriarchal and patriarchal family, etc. after the family, the next unit of the social organization is the clan. Clan is the group of people considering themselves descending from a common ancestor. Like family the clan is also based upon kinship organization. Besides the clan, the primitive social organization includes what is known as phratry and dual organization, etc. again, another important part of primitive social organization is totem groups based upon totemism. Totemism is the belief according to which members of a clan are related to some natural object, tree, plant or animal in some super natural way. Therefore, the members of the clan express similar faith towards the object of totem. This commonness increases ‘we consciousness’ among the members of a clan. In the social organization the main elements are status and role, class system and other institutions and associations.

4. Community

The term community is very loosely used. It is given different interpretations and used in different ways to mean different things. In their causal talks, people often use the term community to refer to a racial community, a religious community, a national community, a caste community, a linguistic community or a professional community. In general terms, community refers to a group of people with a definite area or locality and having a strong sense of belongingness among each other.

4.1. Definitions of Community

• (i) According to Bogardus “community is a social group with some degree of ‘we feeling’ and living in a given area”.
• (ii) Kigsley Davis has defined “community as the smallest territorial group that can embrace all aspects of social life”.
• (iii) According to R.M.S MacIver “community is an area of social living marked by some degree of social coherence”.
• (iv) Ogburn and Nimkoff defined “community as a group or collection of groups that inhabits a locality”.

Community is therefore, a geographic area having common centres of interests and activities. A community is essentially an area of social living. It is marked by some degree of social coherence. Thus community is a circle in which common life is living. ‘Community’ is an all-inclusive term. It includes in itself all our social relationships. It includes a variety of associations and institutions. Within the range of a community the members may carry on their economic, religious, political, educational and other activities. Hence community is the total organization of social life within limited space. Example: village, town, tribe, city, district.

4.2. Elements of Community

• (i) Locality: A community is a territorial group. It always occupies some geographical area. Locality is the physical basis of community. Even the wandering tribe or nomad community, for example, has a locality, though changing habitation. A group of people forms community only when it begins to reside in a definite locality. In contrast with society, a community is more or less locally limited.
• (ii) Community Sentiment: Locality alone cannot make a group, a community. Sometimes, people residing in the same area may not have any contacts and communications. For example, people living in different extensions of a city may lack sufficient social contacts. They may not have common outlook and share no common interests. A community is essentially an area of common living with a feeling of belonging. There must be the common living with its awareness of sharing a way of life as well as the common earth.
• (iii) Stability: A community not only has locality and community sentiment, but also has stability. It is not a temporary group like a crowd or mob. It is relatively stable. It includes a permanent group of life in a definite place.
• (v) Size of the Community: Community involves the idea of size. A community may be big or small. A small community may be included in a wider community. A city and a village may be included in a wider community called the district. Hence, there are communities within communities. District, as a big community may enclose small communities like villages, towns, cities, tribes, etc. thus the term community is used in a relative sense.(iv) Naturalness: Communities normally become established in natural way. They are not deliberately They are not made or created by an act of will or by planned efforts. Individuals become its members by birth itself. Membership hence is not voluntary. Communities are spontaneous in their origin and development. Of course, they cannot come into being suddenly and automatically.
• (vi) Regulation of Relations: Every community develops in course of time, a system of traditions, customs, morals, practices; a bundle of rules and regulations to regulate the relations of its members. The sense of what they have in common memories and traditions, customs and institutions shapes and defines the general need of man to live together.

•  However, in modern times, the nature of community sentiment is gradually changing. Today, the interests of man are diverse and complex. Their attachment towards their community is gradually fading. In modernized highly industrialized urban communities, the spirit of community sentiment is very much lacking.

  4.3. Society and Community – Differences

  The terms society and community are relative terms. The terms are clearly distinguished in sociology.

  The following table clarifies the difference between society and community.