Page |1

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PROJECT TITLE
SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA
IMPACT OF LAW ON SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

SUBJECT

SOCIOLOGY

NAME OF THE FACULTY

PROF. M. LAKSHMIPATHI RAJU

Name of the Candidate : K.PAVAN KARTHIK

ROLLNO : 2018050

Semester : 1 ST
 Page |2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected SOCIOLOGY Professor, M.
LAKSHMIPATHI RAJU for giving me this golden opportunity to take up this project regarding “IMPACT
OF LAW ON SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS”. I have tried my best to collect information about the project in
various possible ways to depict clear picture about the given project topic.

ABSTRACT
SUBJECT : SOCIOLOGY

PROJECT TOPIC : IMPACT OF LAW ON SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

 Page |3

Social institutions are a system of behavioral and relationship patterns that are densely interwoven and
enduring, and function across an entire society. They order and structure the behavior of individuals by
means of their normative character. Institutions regulate the behavior of individuals in core areas of society:
a) family and relationship networks carry out social reproduction and socialization; b) institutions in the
realm of education and training ensure the transmission and cultivation of knowledge, abilities and
specialized skills; c) institutions in the labor-market and economy provide for the production and
distribution of goods and services; d) institutions in the realm of law, governance and politics provide for the
maintenance of the social order; e) while cultural, media and religious institutions further the development
of contexts of meaning, value orientations and symbolic codes We saw that each of us as individuals,
occupies a place or location in society. Each one of us has a status and a role or roles, but these are not
simply what we as individuals choose. They are not like roles a film actor may or may not opt to do. There
are social institutions that constrain and control, punish and reward. They could be ‘macro’ social
institutions like the state or ‘micro’ ones like the family. Here in this chapter we are introduced to social
institutions, and also to how sociology/social anthropology studies them. This chapter puts forth a very brief
idea of some of the central areas where important social institutions are located namely: (i) family, marriage
and kinship; (ii) politics; (iii) economics; (iv) religion; and (v) education. In the broadest sense, an institution
is something that works according to rules established or at

least acknowledged by law or by custom. And whose regular and continuous operation cannot be understood
without taking those rules into account. Institutions impose constraints on individuals. They also provide
him/her with opportunities. An institution can also be viewed as an end in itself. Indeed people have viewed
family, religion, state or even education as an end in itself

SUBMITTED BY :

K. PAVAN KARTHIK

2018050 SECTION – A

SOCIOLOGY SEMESTER - 1
 Page |4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………….. 5
2. MARRIAGE ……………………………………………………………... 7
3. WORK AND ECONOMIC LIFE ……………………………………… 10
4. THE FAMILY …………………………………………………………… 12
5. KINSHIP SYSTEM ……………………………………………………… 14
6. THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM ………………………………………. 19
7. THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM …………………………………………… 22
8. THE POLITICAL SYSTEM ……………………………………………. 24
9. RELIGION ……………………………………………………………….. 27
10. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………..... 29
11. BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………….... 30

INTRODUCTION

Most people for most of history have deployed various social institutions—i.e., their kinship systems,
community organizations, religions, norms, languages, and networks—as their primary instrumental
 Page |5

resource for survival (“getting by”) and mobility (“getting ahead”); they have also regarded these institutions
as intrinsically central to their identities, to shaping their values, aspirations and preferences, and to how
they make sense of the world. In only a small fraction of human history—perhaps the last 2,500 of the
previous 100,000 years—has something other than social institutions guided order, meaning, and exchange.
Even in recent centuries, with the advent of the modern state and its associated legal systems, the influence
of social institutions has merely changed rather than receded. The constant throughout this long (and
ongoing) human journey—or what Albert Hirschman delightfully calls “the epic adventure of
development”2— has been the indelible manner in which the development process has both transformed
social institutions and been transformed by them, often in idiosyncratic and unsettling ways that routinely
defy technocratic attempts to fully anticipate, understand and respond to them. In poor and rich countries
alike, development processes—expanding education access and quality, improving physical infrastructure,
raising health outcomes, increasing prosperity, ensuring greater social inclusion and economic opportunity,
enhancing the effectiveness and legitimacy of political institutions— both alter and are altered by social
institutions. Development processes change, among other things, the basis on which wealth and inequality
itself is determined, the nature and extent of our social interactions, the conditions under which the
boundaries defining “us” and “them” become politically salient, the terms on which people relate to one
another, the accommodations and legitimacy conferred upon elites, how status is attained, how events
(whether beneficial or harmful) are interpreted, how and by whom disputes are resolved, what is considered
normal and normative (of self, others, the government), and how the “social contract” binding citizens and
the state is structured and negotiated. Whether and how these vexing issues are addressed during the
development process—and the potentially existential grievances they elicit—has a major bearing on the
legitimacy accorded the change process itself, and thus its long-term viability. their own way, OECD
countries, no less than those in South Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, all face these very
concerns today, and will continue to do so; “the epic adventure of development” is epic precisely because its
social institutional challenges are never finally resolved. Development is always and everywhere a
contested, fraught, and fragile process. Compounding these challenges is the fact that our prevailing
international aid architecture was primarily established to address concerns pertaining to macroeconomics,
finance, trade, and infrastructure, not social change, institutional reform, service delivery, and governance
(see Ekbladh 2010). Moreover, the design, implementation, and assessment of development interventions
that explicitly engage with social institutions requires recourse to theory and methods from across the social
sciences—put differently, it requires access to an ecology of ideas and epistemologies best suited to
addressing the array of particular questions that social institutions generate. These challenges are especially
stark in the sectoral realms of risk management, dispute resolution, governance reform, service delivery and
economic exchange—since every society, to be a society, has some form of prevailing system for addressing
each of them, which “development” then challenges and—whether by design or circumstance— changes, at
best benefiting many but always hurting some. As such, the enduring development challenge remains one of
 Page |6

incrementally forging coherently complementary relationships between social and “formal” institutions,
relationships that can function equitably, at scale, under stress, and that are a product of processes perceived
to be locally legitimate. This article explores these claims in greater depth, concluding with some of the
implications of them for contemporary policy and practice, especially as it pertains to incorporating social
institutions into development strategies. A functionalist view understands social institutions as a complex set
of social norms, beliefs, values and role relationship that arise in response to the needs of society. Social
institutions exist to satisfy social needs. Accordingly we find informal and formal social institutions in
societies. Institutions such as family and religion are examples of informal social institutions while law and
(formal) education are formal social institutions.
A conflict view holds that all individuals are not placed equally in society. All social institutions whether
familial, religious, political, economic, legal or educational will operate in the interest of the dominant
sections of society be it class, caste, tribe or gender. The dominant social section not only dominates political
and economic institutions but also ensures that the ruling class ideas become the ruling ideas of a society.
This is very different from the idea that there are general needs of a society.

MARRIAGE

Perhaps no other social entity appears more ‘natural’ than the family. Often we are prone to assume that all
families are like the ones we live in. No other social institution appears more universal and unchanging.
Sociology and social anthropology have over many decades, conducted field research across cultures to
 Page |7

show how the institutions of family, marriage and kinship are important in all societies and yet their
character is different in different societies. They have also shown how the family (the private sphere) is
linked to economic, political, cultural and educational (the public) spheres. This may remind you of why
there is a need to share and borrow from different disciplines. According to the functionalists the family
performs important tasks, which contribute to society’s basic needs and helps perpetuate social order. The
functionalist perspective argues that modern industrial societies function best if women look after the family
and men earn the family livelihood. In India studies however suggest that families need not become nuclear
in an industrial pattern of economy (Singh 1993: 83). This is but one example to show how trends based on
experiences of one society cannot necessarily be generalized. The nuclear family is seen as the unit best
equipped to handle the demands of industrial society by the functionalists. In such a family one adult can
work outside home while the second adult cares for the home and children. In practical terms, this
specialization of roles within the nuclear family involves the husband adopting the ‘instrumental’ role as
breadwinner, and the wife assuming the ‘affective’, emotional role in domestic settings (Giddens 2001). This
vision is questionable not just because it is gender unjust but because empirical studies across cultures and
history show that it is untrue. Indeed, as you will see in the discussion on work and economy how in
contemporary industries like the garment export, women form a large part of the labour force. Such a
separation also suggests that men are necessarily the heads of households. This is not necessarily true as the
box which is given below shows. Variation in Family Forms
A central debate in India has been about the shift from nuclear family to joint families. We have already seen
how sociology questions common sense impressions. The fact is that nuclear families have always existed in
India particularly among deprived castes and classes. The sociologist A.M. Shah remarks that in post-
independent India the joint family has steadily increased. The contributing factor is the increasing life
expectancy in India according to him. It has increased from 32.5 – 55.4 years for men and from 31.7– 55.7
years for women during the period 1941– 50 to 1981 - 85. Consequently, the proportion of aged people (60
years and above) in the total population has increased. “We have to ask” writes Shah:
“in what kind of household do these elderly people live? I submit, most of them live in joint household”
(Shah 1998).
This again is a broad generalization. But in the spirit of the sociological perspective, it cautions us against
blindly believing a common sense impression that the joint family is fast eroding. And alerts us to the need
for careful comparative and empirical studies. Studies have shown how diverse family forms are found in
different societies. With regard to the rule of residence, some societies are matrilocal in their marriage and
family customs while others are patrilocal. In the first case, the newly married couple stays with the
woman’s parents, whereas in the second case the couple lives with the man’s parents. A patriarchal family
structure exists where the men exercise authority and dominance, and matriarchy where the women play a
major role in decision-making in the family. While matrilineal societies exist, the same cannot be claimed
about matriarchal societies. The Institution of Marriage
 Page |8

Historically marriage has been found to exist in a wide variety of forms in different societies. It has also
been found to perform differing functions. Indeed, the manner in which marriage partners are arranged
reveals an astonishing variety of modes and customs.
Forms of Marriage
Marriage has a large variety of forms. These forms can be identified on the basis of the number of partners
and rules governing who can marry whom. In terms of the number of partners that can legitimately enter
into matrimony, we have two forms of marriage, namely, monogamy and polygamy. Monogamy restricts the
individual to one spouse at a time. Under this system, at any given time a man can have only one wife and a
woman can have only one husband. Even where polygamy is permitted, in actual practice, monogamy is
more widely prevalent. In many societies, individuals are permitted to marry again, often on the death of the
first spouse or after divorce. But they cannot have more than one spouse at one and the same time. Such
monogamous marriages are termed serial monogamy. Remarriages on the death of a wife have been a norm
for men for the most part. But as all of you are aware that the right for upper caste Hindu widows was denied
and that the campaign for widow remarriage was a major issue in the 19th century reform movements. What
you are probably less aware is that today in modern India nearly 10 per cent of all women and 55 per cent of
women over fifty years are widows (Chen 2000:353). Polygamy denotes marriage to more than one mate at
one time and takes the form of either: Polygyny (one husband with two or more wives) or Polyandry (one
wife with two or more husbands). Usually where economic conditions are harsh, polyandry may be one
response of society, since in such situations a single male cannot adequately support a wife and children.
Also, extreme poverty conditions pressurize a group to limit its population.
The Matter of Arranging Marriages: Rules and Prescriptions
In some societies, the decisions regarding mate selection are made by parents/relatives; in some other
societies individuals are relatively free to choose their own mates.
Rules of Endogamy and Exogamy
In some societies these restrictions are subtle, while in some others, individuals who can or cannot be
married, are more explicitly and specifically defined. Forms of marriage based on rules governing eligibility/
ineligibility of mates is classified as endogamy and exogamy. Endogamy requires an individual to marry
within a culturally defined group of which he or she is already a member, as for example, caste. Exogamy,
the reverse of endogamy, requires the individual to marry outside of his/her own group. Endogamy and
exogamy are in reference to certain kinship units, such as, clan, caste and racial, ethnic or religious
groupings. In India, village exogamy is practiced in certain parts of north India. Village exogamy ensured
that daughters were married into families from villages far away from home. This arrangement ensured
smooth transition and adjustment of the bride into the affinal home without interference of her kinsmen. The
geographical distance plus the unequal relationship in the patrilineal system ensured that married daughters
did not get to see their parents too often. Thus parting from natal home was a sad occasion and is the theme
of folk songs, which depict the pain of departure.
 Page |9

Defining Some Basic Concepts, Particularly those of Family, Kinship and Marriage
A family is a group of persons directly linked by kin connections, the adult members of which assume
responsibility for caring for children. Kinship ties are connections between individuals, established either
through marriage or through the lines of descent that connect blood relatives (mothers, fathers, siblings,
offspring, etc.) Marriage can be defined as a socially acknowledged and approved sexual union between two
adult individuals. When two people marry, they become kin to one another. The marriage bond also,
however, connects together a wider range of people. Parents, brothers, sisters and other blood relatives
become relatives of the partner through marriage. The family of birth is called family of orientation and the
family in which a person is married is called the family of procreation. The kin who are related through
“blood” are called consanguine kin while the kin who are related through marriage are called affine. As we
move on to the next section on work and economic institutions, you will notice how the family and
economic life are closely interconnected.

WORK AND ECONOMIC LIFE

As children and young students we imagine what kind of ‘work’ we will do when we grow up. ‘Work’ here
quite clearly refers to paid employment. This is the most widely understood sense of ‘work’ in modern
times. This in fact is an oversimplified view. Many types of work do not conform to the idea of paid
employment. Much of the work done in the informal economy, for example, is not recorded in any direct
way in the official employment statistics. The term informal economy refers to transactions outside the
 P a g e | 10

sphere of regular employment, sometimes involving the exchange of cash for services provided, but also
often involving the direct exchange of goods or services. We can define work, whether paid or unpaid, as the
carrying out of tasks requiring the expenditure of mental and physical effort, which has as its objective the
production of goods and services that cater to human needs.
Modern Forms of Work and Division of Labour
In pre-modern forms of society most people worked in the field or cared for the livestock. In the industrially
developed society only a tiny proportion of the population works in agriculture, and farming itself has
become industrialised — it is carried on largely by means of machines rather than by human hand. In a
country like India, the larger share of the population continues to be rural and agricultural or involved in
other rural based occupations. There are other trends in India too, for instance an expansion of the service
sector. One of the most distinctive characteristics of the economic system of modern societies is the
existence of a highly complex division of labour. Work has been divided into an enormous number of
different occupations in which people specialise. In traditional societies, non-agricultural work entailed the
mastery of a craft. Craft skills were learned through a lengthy period of apprenticeship, and the worker
normally carried out all aspects of the production process from beginning to end. Modern society also
witnesses a shift in the location of work. Before industrialisation, most work took place at home and was
completed collectively by all members of the household. Advances in industrial technology, such as
machinery operating on electricity and coal, contributed to the separation of work and home. Factories
owned by capitalist entrepreneurs became the focal point of industrial development. People seeking jobs in
factories were trained to perform a specialized task and receive a wage for this work. Managers supervised
the work, for their task was to enhance worker productivity and discipline. One of the main features of
modern societies is an enormous expansion of economic interdependence. We are all dependent on an
immense number of other workers-stretching right across the world- for the products and services that
sustain our lives. With few exceptions, the vast majority of people in modern societies do not produce the
food they eat, the houses they live in or the material goods they consume.
Transformation of Work
Industrial processes were broken down into simple operations that could be precisely timed, organized and
monitored. Mass production demands mass markets. One of the most significant innovations was the
construction of a moving assembly line. Modern industrial production needed expensive equipment and
continuous monitoring of employees through monitoring or surveillance systems. Over the last decades there
has been a shift to what is often called ‘flexible production’ and ‘decentralization of work’. It is argued that
in this period of globalization, it is the growing competition between firms and countries that makes it
essential for firms to organize production suiting the changing market conditions. To illustrate how this new
system operates and what the implications may be for the workers, read the quote from a study of the
garment industry in Bangalore.
 P a g e | 11

The industry is essentially part of a long supply chain, and the freedom of manufacturers is to that extent
extremely limited. There are, in fact more than a hundred operations between the designer and the final
consumer. In this chain, only 15 are in the hands of the manufacturer. Any serious agitation for a rise in
wages would lead manufacturers to shift their operations to other localities, beyond the reach of unionists...
whether it is the payment of the existing minimum wage, or its substantial revision upwards, what is
important is to enlist the support of the retailer in order to create the necessary pressure upon the government
and local agencies for a higher wage structure and its effective implementation. Thus the vision here is that
of the creation of an international opinion forum (Roy Choudhury 2005:2254).
Read the above given report carefully. Notice how the new organization of production and a body of
customers outside the country have altered the economics and the politics of production.

THE FAMILY

Marx maintained that relations between family members and even the average size of families are
influenced by changes in the economic system. For example, under an agrarian economic system, in which
work was centered on the family, families were large so that they would produce many workers to till the
land and produce crops. When societies became industrialized and work shifted into factories and other
 P a g e | 12

centralized locations, families became smaller. The move from farm to city meant that families could no
longer feed themselves through producing more food in the fields. More children meant more mouths had to
be fed through low-wage work in factories. According to Karl Marx’s writing partner, Friedrich Engels,
families maintain the economic system of capitalism and the existing class structure. Legal marriages were
created so that men would be able to know clearly who their heirs were so that they could bequeath their
wealth to their male offspring. A marriage contract transferred a kind of ownership of the bride from her
father, whose name she bore, to the husband, whose name she adopted. The traditional patriarchal family
structure also worked to perpetuate the capitalist economic system because it allowed men to devote
themselves to making money while the wives took care of them, their children, and their home (for no pay).
This system also contributed to the maintenance of gender inequality. Whereas conflict theorists use a
macro-level approach to see connections between families and economic systems, symbolic interactionists
use a micro-level analysis to focus on how institutions influence. the roles men and women play and the
status they assume in the family. Even today, and even in the litariannations in the world, gender
socialization within families contributes to inequality between men and women. A sociological study that
examined power dynamics among two income couples in Sweden indicates socialization can trump earning
power even in one of the most gender litarian societies in the world. Gender-based socialization is prevalent
even in Sweden. Growing up, Swedish girls are more likely than Swedish boys to be taught that they should
think of others before themselves. This gender-based socialization resulted in the fact that the women in The
study tended to feel more responsible for taking care of such house hold needs as buying food and clothes
for the children. They often used the iron money to buy goods for the household. Even though they each had
the same amount of money to spend, the women ended up having less money to use for themselves and,
therefore, less power to determine how the couple’s joint income should be spent.As the authors described
the situation,
the women in the study seemed to subordinate their own needs to those of other family members, yet did not
see their behavior as sacrifice. Instead, it seemed to be something that they did without reflecting over the
reasons or consequences.
Therefore, even though both husbands and wives in Sweden are likely to say they should share their income
equally, the “women seemed to experience less influence over economic decision making and less access to
personal spending money.”3 However, even though gender inequality remains, the institution of the family
is changing. Across the globe, the marriage rate is fall in gland the cohabitation rate is rising. For example,
whereas the divorce rate in the United States remains relatively consistent (at almost 50%), the percentage of
babies born tuned parents has increased steadily since the late 1990s.According to the Center for Disease
Control’s “National VitalStatisticsReport2003,”4 34.6%ofallbabiesintheUnitedStatesare now born to
unmarried women. As Stephanie Coontz, the author of Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or
How Love Conquered Marriage, states, “From Turkey to South Africa to Brazil, countries are having to
codify the legal rights and obligations of single individuals and unmarried couples raising children,
 P a g e | 13

including same-sex couples.”5 The pattern is clear: Fewer children are being raised by married parents.
Other changes to the institution of the family are now taking place. For example, same-sex marriage is now
legal in Massachusetts. Also, most mothers now work outside the home (as well as in it). Today, 72% of
mothers between the ages of 15 and 44 work outside the home. The percentage of mothers with infants who
are employed has also increased dramatically over the past 20 years (31% in 1976 to 55% today).6 It’s
important to note that this is not a new phenomenon for women in poverty, particularly women of color.

Kinship: Meaning, Types

Kinship is one of the main organizing principles of society. It is one of the basic social institutions found in
every society. This institution establishes relationships between individuals and groups. People in all
societies are bound together by various kinds of bonds.
 P a g e | 14

The most basic bonds are those based on marriage and reproduction. Kinship refers to these bonds, and all
other relationships resulting from them. Thus, the institution of kinship refers to a set of relationships and
relatives formed thereof, based on blood relationships (consanguineal), or marriage (affinal).

‘The social relationships deriving from blood ties (real and supposed) and marriage are collectively referred
to as kinship. ‘Kinship is the socially recognized relationships between people in a culture, who are either
held to be biologically related or given the status of relatives by marriage, adoption, or other rituals. Kinship
is a broad-ranging term for all the relationships that people are born into or create later in life that are
considered binding in the eyes of their society. Although customs vary as to which bonds are accorded more
weight, their very acknowledgement defines individuals and roles that society expects them to play. ‘Kinship
is the recognition of relationships between persons based on descent or marriage. If the relationship between
one person and another is considered by them to involve descent, the two are consanguine (“blood”)
relatives. If the relationship has been established through marriage, it is affinal.’ ‘Kinship is a system of
social relationships that is expressed in biological idiom using terms like “mother”, “son”, and so on. It is
best visualized as a mass of networks of related- ness, not two of which are identical, that radiate from each
individual. Kinship is the basic organizing principle in small-scale societies like those of the Aborigines and
provides a model for interpersonal behavior.’

Types of Kinship:

In any society, kin relationships are based either on birth (blood relations), or marriage. These two aspects of
human life are the basis for the two main types of kinship in society.
 P a g e | 15

1. Consanguineal Kinship: It refers to the relationships based on blood, i.e., the relationship between
parents and children, and between siblings are the most basic and universal kin relations.
2. Affinal Kinship:
It refers to the relationships formed on the basis of marriage. The most basic relationship that results from
marriage is that between husband and wife. Degree of Kinship:
Any relationship between two individuals is based on the degree of closeness or distance of that relationship.
This closeness or distance of any relationship depends upon how individuals are related to each other.

Primary Kinship: Primary kinship refers to direct relations. People who are directly related to each other are
known as primary kin. There are basically eight primary kins—wife father son, father daughter mother son,
wife; father son, father daughter, mother son, mother daughter; brother sister; and younger brother/sister
older brother/sister.

Primary kinship is of two kinds:

Primary Consanguineal Kinship: Primary consanguineal kin are those kin, who are directly related to each
other by birth. The relationships between parents and children and between siblings form primary kinship.
These are the only primary consanguineal kin found in societies all over the world.

Primary Affinal Kinship: Primary affinal kinship refers, to the direct relationship formed as a result of
marriage. The only direct affinal kinship is the relationship between husband and wife.

Secondary Kinship: Secondary kinship refers to the primary kin’s of primary kin. In other words, those who
are directly related to primary kin (primary kin’s primary kin) become one’s secondary kin. There are 33
secondary kin.

Secondary kinship is also of two kinds:

Secondary Consanguineal kinship: This type of kinship refers to the primary consanguineal kin’s primary
consanguineal kin. The most basic type of secondary consanguineal kinship is the relationship between
grandparents and grandchildren. In the Figure 3, there is a direct consanguineal relationship between Ego
and his parents. For Ego, his parents are his primary consanguineal kin. However, for Ego’s parents, their
parents are their primary consanguine kin. Therefore, for Ego, his grandparents are his primary consanguine
kin’s (his parents) primary kin. For him, they become secondary consanguineal kin. Secondary Affinal
Kinship: Secondary affinal kinship refers to one’s primary affinal kins primary kin. This kinship includes the
relationships between an individual and all his/her sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law, and parents-in-law. For an
individual, his/her spouse is his/her primary affinal kin, and for the spouse, his/her parents and siblings are
his/her primary kin. Therefore, for the individual, the parents of brother/sister-in-law will become his/her
 P a g e | 16

secondary affinal kin. Similarly, any sibling’s spouse or sibling’s parents-in-law will become secondary
affinal kin for an individual.

Tertiary Kinship: Tertiary kinship refers to the primary kin of primary kin’s primary kin or secondary kin of
primary kin primary kin of secondary kin. Roughly 151 tertiary kin have been identified.

Like other two degrees of kinship, tertiary kinship also has two categories:

Tertiary Consanguine Kinship: Tertiary consanguine kinship refers to an individual’s primary consanguine
kin (parents), their primary kin (parents’ parents), and their primary kin (parent’s parent’s parents). Thus, the
relationship is between great grandchildren and great grandparents, and great grand aunts and uncles, and
consequently the relationship between great grand uncles and aunts and great grand nieces and nephews.

In Figure 3, Ego’s primary kin are his parents, their primary kin are his grandparents and his grandparent’s
primary kin (who are Ego’s primary kin’s primary kin’s primary kin) are his great grandparents. Thus,
tertiary kin are primary kin’s primary kin’s primary kin.

This relationship can be seen in different ways – Ego’s tertiary kin are his primary kin’s (parents) secondary
kin (father’s grandparents), thus showing that tertiary kin are primary kin’s secondary kin. Another way of
looking at this same relationship is by showing that Ego’s tertiary kin are his secondary consanguine kin’s
(his grandparents) primary kin (grandfather’s parents), which proves that tertiary kin can be secondary kin’s
primary kin.

Tertiary Affinal Kinship: Tertiary affinal kinship refers to primary affinal kin’s primary kin’s primary kin, or
secondary affinal kin’s primary kin, or primary affinal kin’s secondary kin. These relationships are many,
and some examples will suffice at this stage of tertiary affinal kin can be spouse’s grandparents, or grand
uncles and aunts, or they can be brother or sister-in-law’s spouses or their children. Let us try and understand
these relationships with the help of an illustration.

Importance of Kinship in Rural Society

It is important to study kinship, as it helps in sociological and anthropological theory building. Pierre
Bourdieu, Levi Strauss and Evans Pritchard are some of the theorists, who have constructed various theories
on the basis of kinship relations. However, except a few, no substantial work has been done on villages.
 P a g e | 17

Kinship relations have been studied by the Indian sociologists or anthropologists. Most of them have
concentrated on village, caste, family and other social institutions in rural areas. Few sociologists and
anthropologists, such as, Irawati Karve, Rivers, and T. N. Madan have made certain notable contributions to
the institution of kinship.

The importance of kinship in tribal/rural societies can be understood from the following discussion:

a. Kinship and its Relation to Rural Family, Property and Land: The prime property of any rural family is
land. So, land is related to all the kin members of the family. The sons, grandsons and other kins, who are
related by blood and marriage, have their economic interests in land. Now-a-days, women are becoming
aware that they are also entitled to get an equal share from the ancestral property.

The emancipation movement of women demands that women should not be deprived of the inheritance
rights and should get all equal share of the property. In most of the village studies, property and kinship are
discussed in relation to each other.

The family members also gain status by the ownership of land. Even political status is determined by kinship
relations in some cases. In the case of kin relations, related by blood and marriage, many economic and
political concessions are given to the members of the kin. However, it does not mean that kinship relations
are important only in rural society as they are also there in urban society too. As the urban community is
widespread, there is hardly any chance for kin members to participate and meet in the social gatherings of
the family.

b. Kinship and Marriage: In every society, marriage has certain rules, such as endogamy, exogamy, incest
taboos and other restrictions. These rules are applicable to all the kins of the family. Usually, the rural people
are more serious and strict in observing the rules related to marriage. Exogamy is commonly followed in
most of the villages of India. The members of the villages do not prefer to marry within their own village.
However, this rule can vary on the basis of the severity of rules of marriage.

Irawati Karve and A. C. Mayer in their studies on kinship have reported on the village exogamy. Mayer, in
his study of Kinship in Central India, informs that village exogamy is violated in some of the cases, but it
brings disrepute to the parties involved. It must be observed here that the study conducted by Mayer is an
important document on village ethnography. Mayer further informs that inter-caste marriages, in all cases,
are looked down by the village people.

c. Kinship and Rituals: The role and importance of the kin members lies in the degree of close relationships
among them. Their importance can be seen during the occasions, such as cradle ceremony, marriage and
 P a g e | 18

death. During a naming ceremony, it is the father’s sister, who has to give a name to the newborn. There are
certain rites and rituals, which have to be performed by mother’s brother during the marriages of daughters.

The daughter’s parents make the payment in cash or kind to the son-in-law’s sister, who occupies an impor-
tant place during a Hindu wedding, especially in South India. It is obligatory on part of the close kin
relatives to offer gifts to the newly wed couples and in the same manner, these close relatives are equally
rewarded from both sides (parents of the couple). During the occasions of death also, it is obligatory for the
kinsmen to observe mourning for about 11 to 14 days

Changes in the Kinship Relations in Rural Society:

Many changes are taking place in all the institutions of the rural society, including kinship relations. These
changes can be noted as demand for ownership titles by women, rules of marriage are being challenged and
the traditional rules regarding divorce are also getting weakened.

Though some of the aspects of kinship are losing their importance, few others are gaining prominence.
Kinship is playing an important role in the field of politics, especially in rural elections to Panchayati Raj
Institutions. Favoritisms, while distributing jobs, is being observed among the kinsmen. Due to the
emergence of such new forces, kinship may acquire new structure and form.

THE EDUCATION SYSTEM

Education is a life–long process, involving both formal and informal institutions of learning. Here we are
however confining ourselves only to school education. We are all aware how important getting admission
into a school is. We also know, for many of us, school is a step towards higher education and finally
employment. For some of us it may mean acquiring some necessary social skills. What is common in all
 P a g e | 19

cases is that there is a felt need for education. Sociology understands this need as a process of
transmission/communication of group heritage that is common to all societies. There is a qualitative
distinction between simple societies and complex, modern societies. In the case of the former there was no
need for formal schooling. Children learnt customs and the broader way of life by participating in activities
with their adults. In complex societies, we saw there is an increasing economic division of labour, separation
of work from home, need for specialized learning and skill attainment, rise of state systems, nations and
complex sets of symbols and ideas. How do you get educated informally in such context? How would
parents or other adults informally communicate all that has to be known to the next generation? Education in
such social context has to be formal and explicit. Furthermore modern complex societies, in contrast to
simple societies, rest on abstract universalistic values. This is what distinguishes it from a simple society that
depends on particularistic values, based on family, kin, tribe, caste or religion. Schools in modern societies
are designed to promote uniformity, standardized aspirations and universalistic values. There are many ways
of doing this. For example one can speak of ‘uniform dress for school children’. Can you think of other
features that promote standardization? For Emile Durkheim, no society can survive without a ‘common
base-a certain number of ideas, sentiments and practices which education must inculcate in all children
indiscriminately, to whatever social category they belong’ (Durkheim 1956:69). Education should prepare
the child for a special occupation, and enable the child to internalize the core values of society. The
functionalist sociologist thus speaks in terms of general social needs and social norms. For the functionalists,
education maintains and renews the social structure, transmits and develops culture. The educational system
is an important mechanism for the selection and allocation of individuals in their future roles in the society.
It is also regarded as the ground for proving one’s ability and hence selective agency for different status
according to their abilities. Recall our discussion on the functionalist understanding of roles and
stratification in Chapter 2. For the sociologists who perceive society as unequally differentiated, education
functions as a main stratifying agent. And at the same time the inequality of educational opportunity is also a
product of social stratification. In other words, we go to different kinds of schools depending on our socio-
economic background. And because we go to some kind of schools, we acquire different kind of privileges
and finally opportunities. For instance some argue that schooling ‘intensifies the existing divide between the
elite and the masses.’ Children going to privileged schools learn to be confident while children deprived of
that may feel the opposite (Pathak 2002:151). However, there are many more children who simply cannot
attend school or drop out. For instance a study reports You are seeing some children in the school now. If
you come during the cultivation season you may see almost zero attendance from the SC and ST children.
They all take some household responsibilities while the parents are out to work. And the girl children of
these communities seldom attend school as they do various kinds of work both domestic and income
generating. A 10-yearold girl picks dry cow dung to sell, for example (Pratichi 2002:60). The report
indicates how gender and caste discrimination impinge upon the chances of education. Recall how we began
this book in Chapter 1 about a child’s chances for a good job being shaped by a host of social factors. Your
 P a g e | 20

understanding of the way social institutions function should help you analyses the process better now.
Education is a social institution through which a society’s children are taught basic academic knowledge,
learning skills, and cultural norms. Every nation in the world is equipped with some form of education
system, though those systems vary greatly. The major factors affecting education systems are the resources
and money that are utilized to support those systems in different nations. As you might expect, a country’s
wealth has much to do with the amount of money spent on education. Countries that do not have such basic
amenities as running water are unable to support robust education systems or, in many cases, any formal
schooling at all. The result of this worldwide educational inequality is a social concern for many countries,
including Canada. International differences in education systems are not solely a financial issue. The value
placed on education, the amount of time devoted to it, and the distribution of education within a country also
play a role in those differences. For example, students in South Korea spend 220 days a year in school,
compared to the 190 days (180 days in Quebec) a year of their Canadian counterparts. Canadian students
between the ages of 7 and 14 spend an average of 7,363 hours in compulsory education compared to an
average of 6,710 hours for all member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) countries (Statistics Canada 2012). As of 2012, Canada ranked first among OECD
countries in the proportion of adults aged 25 to 64 with post-secondary education (51 percent). Canada
ranked first with students with a college education (24 percent) and eighth in the proportion of adults with a
university education (26 percent). However, with respect to post-secondary educational attainment of 25-
to 34-year-olds, Canada falls into 15th place as post-secondary education attainment rates in countries like
South Korea and Ireland have been surpassing Canada by a large margin in recent years (OECD 2013). Then
there is the issue of educational distribution within a nation. In December 2010, the results of the Program
for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests, which are administered to 15-year-old students
worldwide, were released. Those results showed that students in Canada performed well in reading skills
(5th out of 65 countries), math (8th out of 65 countries), and science (7th out of 65 countries) (Knighton,
Brochu, and Gluszynski 2010). Students at the top of the rankings hailed from Shanghai, Finland, Korea,
Hong Kong, and Singapore. The United States on the other hand was 17th in reading skills and had fallen
from 15th to 25th in the rankings for science and math (National Public Radio 2010). Analysts determined
that the nations and city-states at the top of the rankings had several things in common. For one, they had
well-established standards for education with clear goals for all students. They also recruited teachers from
the top 5 to 10 percent of university graduates each year, which is not the case for most countries (National
Public Radio 2010). Finally, there is the issue of social factors. One analyst from the OECD, the
organization that created the test, attributed 20 percent of performance differences and the United States’ low
rankings to differences in social background. Canadian students’ average scores were high over all but were
also highly equitable, meaning that the difference in performance between high scorers and low scorers was
relatively low (Knighton, Brochu, and Gluszynski 2010). This suggests that differences in educational
expenditure between jurisdictions and in the socioeconomic background of students are not so great as to
 P a g e | 21

create large gaps in performance. However, in the United States, researchers noted that educational
resources, including money and quality teachers, are not distributed equitably. In the top-ranking countries,
limited access to resources did not necessarily predict low performance. Analysts also noted what they
described as “resilient students,” or those students who achieve at a higher level than one might expect given
their social background. In Shanghai and Singapore, the proportion of resilient students is about 70 percent.
In the United States, it is below 30 percent. These insights suggest that the United States’ educational system
may be on a descending path that could detrimentally affect the country’s economy and its social landscape
(National Public Radio 2010).

THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Economies organize how a society creates, distributes, and uses its goods and services. Today, we live in a
global economy in which the economic system of capitalism dominates. Goods and services are created and
sold, for profit, across national borders at an increasingly rapid pace. Inequality among nations is related to
what each contributes to and takes from the global economy. “Global north” nations (most postindustrial
 P a g e | 22

nations like the United States, Western European

nations,andJapan)primarilycontributeserviceworkintheknowledge economy, with high skilled workers,8
whereas “global south” nations (e.g.,mostLatinAmerican,African,MiddleEastern,andAsiannations) tend to
produce raw materials and/or provide cheap labor to produce goods consumed in global north nations. To
participate in the knowledge economy, nations need strong educational, banking, and legal systems, like
those found in global north countries. The nations with those assets have benefited the most from the
globalization process while using their economic advantage to increase their power in determining global
governance and the future of the global economy.
Othersectorsoftheworldhavenotbenefitedasmuchfromglobalization. The World Trade Organization (WTO),
which oversees the terms of global trade; the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which
managesglobalfinancialmarkets;andtheWorldBank,whichprovides loans for economic development, are
primarily controlled by global northnationsandinfluencedbytheconcernsofglobalcorporations.For
themostpart,theseorganizationshavehadaneteffectofincreasingthe power and wealth of global north nations
while decreasing the power, wealth,andqualityoflifeinglobalsouthnations.Forinstance,between
1984and1990,IMFandWorldBankloansresultedinthenettransferof wealth and resources from global south
nations to global north nations ofmorethan$150billion.9 Forthemostpart,alreadypoornationshave
becomeevenpoorerasaresultofthenewglobaleconomyandtherules that give advantage to the already affluent
nations. African, Latin American,andmostAsiannationshaveverylittlebargainingpowerin
theglobaleconomyandmustfindwaystocompeteinaneconomicsystemlargelycontrolledbyglobalnorthcorporatio
nsandinstitutions. For example, the United Nations’ 2005 “Report on the World Social Situation: The
Inequality Predicament” notes that the cumulative result of [global-north-encouraged] structural reform in
Latin America over the past two decades has been a rise in inequality. . . . [Moreover], protectionist practices
and agricultural subsidies in developed countries have led to a drop in agricultural productivity and, in turn,
agricultural income. At present, the Latin American and Caribbean region imposes an 8.5 percent duty on
non-agricultural imports from industrialized countries, but its own agricultural imports are subject to a 20.4
percent duty in industrialized countries, perpetuating rural poverty. Growing levels of inequality can also be
seen within global north nations. In the United States, inequalities have steadily increased over the past 20
years, despite consistent growth in most measures of national economic health. In most states, middle-
income families have seen a drop in their incomes during the 1990s, adjusting for inflation whereas incomes
increased substantially among the wealthiest 20%.11 Whereas the richest 1% of Americans possessed 20%
of the wealth in 1975, by 2001, the richest 1% of Americans owned a full one-third (33%) of the wealth of
all Americans.12 A June 2005 article in The New York Timesentitled “Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich
Far Behind” pointed out that, in recent years, the richest Americans “have pulled far ahead of the rest of the
population,...[and] have even left behind people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.”13 Even
more startling is the fact that the poorest 20% of people (more than 50 million Americans) have actually
become poorer since 1980.14 One of the most drastic outcomes of these trends in wealth and poverty is that
 P a g e | 23

there are currently nearly 40 million Americans living in or at-risk of hunger.15 Many of the hungry are the
working poor. College students have been some of the most powerful opponents of sweatshops. On
campuses across the nation, undergraduates have been striving to make sure that the apparel sold on their
campus is made in sweat-free factories. More than 40 universities (such as Boston College, Michigan State
University, Yale, University of Southern Mississippi, and UC Irvine), have joined the United Students
Against Sweatshops’ (USAS) “Sweat Free” Campus Campaign.

THE POLITICAL SYSTEM

Political institutions are concerned with the distribution of power in society. Two concepts, which are critical
to the understanding of political institutions, are power and authority. Power is the ability of individuals or
groups to carry out their will even when opposed by others. It implies that those who hold power do so at the
cost of others. There is a fixed amount of power in a society and if some wield power others do not. In other
 P a g e | 24

words, an individual or group does not hold power in isolation, they hold it in relation to others. This notion
of power is fairly inclusive and extends from family elders assigning domestic duties to their children to
principals enforcing discipline in school; from the General Manager of a factory distributing work among
the executives to political leaders regulating programmer of their parties. The principal has power to
maintain discipline in school. The president of a political party possesses power to expel a member from the
party. In each case, an individual or group has power to the extent to which others abide by their will. In this
sense, political activities or politics is concerned with ‘power’. But how is this ‘power’ applied to achieve its
aim? Why do people comply with others’ commands? Answers to these questions could be found with
reference to a related concept of ‘authority’. Power is exercised through authority. Authority is that form of
power, which is accepted as legitimate, that is, as right and just. It is institutionalized because it is based on
legitimacy. People in general accept the power of those in authority as they consider their control to be fair
and justified. Often ideologies exist that help this process of legitimation.
Stateless Societies
Empirical studies of stateless societies by social anthropologists over sixty years ago demonstrated how
order is maintained without a modern governmental apparatus. There was instead the balanced opposition
between parts; cross-cutting alliances, based on kinship, marriage and residence; rites and ceremonies
involving the participation of friends and foes. As we all know, the modern state has a fixed structure and
formal procedures. Yet are not some of the informal mechanisms mentioned above as features of stateless
societies present also in state societies?
The Concept of the State
A state exists where there is a political apparatus of government (institutions like a parliament or congress,
plus civil service officials) ruling over a given territory. Government authority is backed by a legal system
and by the capacity to use military force to implement its policies. The functionalist perspective sees the
state as representing the interests of all sections of society. The conflict perspective sees the state as
representing the dominant sections of society. Modern states are very different from traditional states. These
states are defined by sovereignty, citizenship and, most often, ideas of nationalism. Sovereignty refers to the
undisputed political rule of a state over a given territorial area. The sovereign state was not, at first, one in
which citizenship carried with it rights of political participation. These were achieved largely through
struggles, which limited the power of monarchs, or actively overthrew them. The French Revolution and our
own Indian independence struggle are two instances of such movements. Citizenship rights include civil,
political and social rights. Civil rights involve the freedom of individuals to live where they choose; freedom
of speech and religion; the right to own property; and the right to equal justice before the law. Political rights
include the right to participate in elections and to stand for public office. In most countries governments
were reluctant to admit the principle of universal franchise. In the early years not only women, but a large
section of the male population was excluded as holding a certain amount of property was an eligibility
criterion. Women had to wait longer for the vote. The third type of citizenship rights are social rights. These
 P a g e | 25

concern the capacity to use military force to implement its policies. The functionalist perspective sees the
state as representing the interests of all sections of society. The conflict perspective sees the state as
representing the dominant sections of society. Modern states are very different from traditional states. These
states are defined by sovereignty, citizenship and, most often, ideas of nationalism. Sovereignty refers to the
undisputed political rule of a state over a given territorial area. The sovereign state was not, at first, one in
which citizenship carried with it rights of political participation. These were achieved largely through
struggles, which limited the power of monarchs, or actively overthrew them. The French Revolution and our
own Indian independence struggle are two instances of such movements. Citizenship rights include civil,
political and social rights. Civil rights involve the freedom of individuals to live where they choose; freedom
of speech and religion; the right to own property; and the right to equal justice before the law. Political rights
include the right to participate in elections and to stand for public office. In most countries governments
were reluctant to admit the principle of universal franchise. In the early years not only women, but a large
section of the male population was excluded as holding a certain amount of property was an eligibility
criterion. Women had to wait longer for the vote. The third type of citizenship rights are social rights. These
concern the prerogative of every individual to enjoy a certain minimum standard of economic welfare and
security. They include such rights as health benefits, unemployment allowance, setting of minimum level of
wages. The broadening of social or welfare rights led to the welfare state, which was established in Western
societies since the Second World War. States of the erstwhile socialist countries had far-reaching provision in
this sector. In most developing countries, this was virtually non-existent. All over the world today these
social rights are being attacked as liabilities on the state and hindrances to economic growth. Nationalism
can be defined as a set of symbols and beliefs providing the sense of being part of a single political
community. Thus, individuals feel a sense of pride and belonging, in being ‘British’, ‘Indian’, ‘Indonesian’
or ‘French’. Probably people have always felt some kind of identity with social groups of one form or
another — for example, their family, clan or religious community. Nationalism, however, only made its
appearance with the development of the modern state. Contemporary world is marked both by a rapid
expansion of the global market as well as intense nationalist feelings and conflicts. Sociology has been
interested in the broader study of power, not just with the formal apparatus of government. It has been
interested in the distribution of power between parties, between classes, between castes, and between
communities based on race, language and religion. Its focus is not just on what may be called specifically
political association, such as state legislatures, town councils and political parties but also associations such
as schools, banks and religious institutions whose aims are not primarily political. The scope of sociology
has been wide. Its range has extended from the study of international movements (such as women or
environmental) to village factions.
 P a g e | 26

RELIGION

Religion has been a subject of study and reflection for a very long time. In Chapter 1, we have seen how
sociological findings about society are different from religious reflections. The sociological study of
religion is different from a religious or theological study of religion in many ways. One, it conducts
empirical studies of how religions actually function in society and its relationship to other institutions. Two,
 P a g e | 27

it uses a comparative method. Three, it investigates religious beliefs, practices and institutions in relation to
other aspects of society and culture. The empirical method means that the sociologist does not have a
judgmental approach to religious phenomena. The comparative method is important because in a sense it
brings all societies on level with each other. It helps to study without bias and prejudice. The sociological
perspective means that religious life can be made intelligible only by relating it to domestic life, economic
life and political life. Religion exists in all known societies, although religious beliefs and practices vary
from culture to culture. Characteristics that all religions seem to share are: set of symbols, invoking feelings
of reverence or awe; ´ rituals or ceremonies; ´ a community of believers The rituals associated with religion
are very diverse. Ritual acts may include praying, chanting, singing, eating certain kinds of food (or
refraining from doing so), fasting on certain days, and so on. Since ritual acts are oriented towards religious
symbols, they are usually seen as quite distinct from the habits and procedures of ordinary life. Lighting a
candle or Diya to honor the divine differs completely in its significance from doing so simply to light a
room. Religious rituals are often carried out by an individual in his/her personal everyday life. But all
religions also involve ceremonials practiced collectively by believers. Regular ceremonials normally occur
in special places — churches, mosques, temples, shrines. Religion is about the sacred realm. Think of what
members of different religions do before entering a sacred realm. For example covering one’s head, or not
covering one’s head, taking off shoes, or wearing particular kind of clothes, etc. What is common to them all
is the feeling of awe, recognition and respect for sacred places or situations. Sociologists of religion,
following Emile Durkheim, are interested in understanding this sacred realm which every society
distinguishes from the profane. In most cases, the sacred includes an element of the supernatural. Often the
sacred quality of a tree or a temple comes with the belief that it is sacred precisely because there is some
supernatural force behind it. However, it is important to keep in mind that some religions like early
Buddhism and Confucianism had no conception of the supernatural, but did allow sufficient reverence for
things and persons which they considered sacred. Studying religion sociologically lets us ask questions
about the relationship of religion with other social institutions. Religion has had a very close relationship
with power and politics. For instance, periodically in history there have been religious movements for social
change, like various anti-caste movements or movements against gender discrimination. Religion is not just
a matter of the private belief of an individual but it also has a public character. And it is this public character
of religion, which has an important bearing on other institutions of society. We have seen how sociology
looks at power in a wide sense. It is, therefore, of sociological interest to look at the relationship between
political and religious spheres. Classical sociologists believed that as societies modernized, religion would
become less influential over various spheres of life. The concept secularization describes this process.
Contemporary events suggest a persisting role of religion in various aspects of society. Why do you think
this is so? A pioneering work by Max Weber (1864-1920) demonstrates how sociology looks at religion in
its relationship to other aspects of social and economic behavior. Weber argues that Calvinism (a branch of
Protestant Christianity) exerted an important influence on the emergence and growth of capitalism as a mode
 P a g e | 28

of economic organization. The Calvinists believed that the world was created for the glory of God, meaning
that any work in this world had to be done for His glory, making even mundane works acts of worship. More
importantly, however, the Calvinists also believed in the concept of predestination, which meant that
whether one will go to heaven or hell was pre-ordained. Since there was no way of knowing whether one has
been assigned heaven or hell, people sought to look for signs of God’s will in this world, in their own
occupations. Thus if a person in whatever profession, was consistent and successful in his or her work, it
was interpreted as a sign of God’s happiness. The money earned was not to be used for worldly
consumption; rather the ethics of Calvinism was to live frugally. This meant that investment became
something like a holy creed. At the heart of capitalism is the concept of investment, which is about
investing capital to make more goods, which create more profit, which in turn creates more capital. Thus
Weber was able to argue that religion, in this case Calvinism, does have an influence on economic
development. Religion cannot be studied as a separate entity. Social forces always and invariably influence
religious institutions. Political debates, economic situations and gender norms will always influence
religious behavior. Conversely, religious norms influence and sometimes even determine social
understanding. Women constitute half of the world’s population. Sociologically therefore it becomes
important to ask what relationship this vast segment of human population has with religion. Religion is an
important part of society and is inextricably tied to other parts. The task of sociologists is to unravel these
various interconnections. In traditional societies, religion usually plays a central part in social life. Religious
symbols and rituals are often integrated with the material and artistic culture of society. Read the extract
which is given below in the box to get a sense of how sociology studies religion.
 P a g e | 29

CONCLUSION

In sociology the study of social institution is very important in society generally social institutions are
considered more important than individuals. The social institution determine the standard of human
character although theoretically social institutions seem to be simple, but practically they are very
complicated the functions of almost all social institutions are more or less universal. Eg: In all societies the
functions of the family are same such as breading rearing and caring of the childrens and education etc.
social institutions strength the human relationship.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 P a g e | 30

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com

ACHARYA, HEMLATA. 1974. ‘Changing Role of Religious Specialists in Nasik — The Pilgrim
City’, in ed. RAO, M.S. An Urban Sociology in India : Reader and Source Book. Orient Longman, New
Delhi, pp. 391-403.

APPLE, MICHAEL W. 1979. Ideology and Curriculum. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LONDON.

CHUGTAI, ISMAT. 2004. Tiny’s Granny in Contemporary Indian Short Stories; Series 1. Sahitya Akademi,
New Delhi.

DUBE, LEELA. 2001. Anthropological Explorations in Gender : Intersecting Fields. Sage Publications,
New Delhi.

DURKHEIM, EMILE. 1956. Education and Sociology. The Free Press, New York.
http://socialobservatory.worldbank.org/