Social values form an important part of the culture of the society.

Values account for the stability of social order. They

provide the general guidelines for social conduct. Values such as fundamental rights, patriotism, respect for human dignity,
rationality, sacrifice, individuality, equality, democracy etc. guide our behaviour in many ways. Values are the criteria
people use in assessing their daily lives; arrange their priorities and choosing between alternative course of action.

G.R. Leslie, R.F. Larson, H.L. Gorman say, “Values are group conceptions of the relative desirability of things”.

According to H.M. Johnson, “Values are general standards and may be regarded as higher order norms”.

Young and Mack write, “Values are assumption, largely unconscious, of what is right and important”.
Thursday at 3:31pm
Yenna Cayasa
Michael Haralambos says “A value is a belief that something is good and worthwhile. It defines what is worth having and
worth striving”.

According to Peter Worsley, “Values are general conceptions of “the good”, ideas about the kind of ends that people should
pursue throughout their lives and throughout the many different activities in which they engage”.

In simple words, values may be defined as measure of goodness or desirability.

Values are standards of social behaviour derived from social interaction and accepted as constituent facts of social structure.
They are objects that social conditions desire. These are culturally defined goals and involve “sentiments and significance.”
These consist of “aspirational reference.” alues are expected to be followed for judging and evaluating social interaction,
goals, means, ideas, feelings and the expected conduct. Without such evaluating standard, it would be difficult to judge
individual behaviour or social action. Values aim to integrate expected individual behaviour and social action. It tends to
forestall tension and as such have tension management role.

Relation between Norms and Values:

Norms and values have salient relation. Norms are specific, values are not. There may be, in a particular situation, delusion
of norms, but values are commanding. Norms are rules for behaving: they say more or less specifically what should or
should not be done by particular types of actors in given circumstances. Values are standard of desirability that are more
nearly independent of specific situations.

The same value may be a point of reference for a great many specific norms; a particular norm may represent the
simultaneous application of several separable values. Thus, the value premise “equality” may enter into norms for
relationships between husband and wife, brother and brother, teacher and student and so on.

On the other hand, the norm “a teacher must not show favouritism in grading” may in particular instance involve the value
of equality, honesty, humanitarianism and several others. Values, as standards (criteria) for establishing what should be
regarded as desirable, provide the grounds for accepting or rejecting particular norm.

Functions of Values:

1. Values provide goals or ends for the members to aim for. . Values provide for stabilities and uniformities in group
interaction. They hold the society together because they are shared in common. Some sociologists argue that shared values
form the basis for social unity. Since they share the same values with others, the members of society are likely to see others
as “people like themselves”. They will therefore, have a sense of belonging to a social group. They will feel a part of the
wider society.

3. Values bring legitimacy to the rules that govern specific activities. The rule are accepted as rules and followed mainly
because they embody the values that most people accept. The Americans for example, believe that the capitalist
organization is the best one because it allows people to seek success in life.

4. Values help to bring about some kind of adjustment between different sets of rules. The people seek the same kinds of
ends or goals in different field of their life. Hence, it is possible for them to modify the rules to help the pursuit of this end.

For example, if the Indian people cherish the value of “the principle of equality”, then they will have to modify the rules
governing the interpersonal relationship of husband and wife; and man and woman. As and when new activities emerge,
people create rules in the light of their beliefs about what is ‘good’ and ‘right’.

WHAT IS SOCIAL VALUE?

Social value is the quantification of the relative importance that people place on the changes they experience in their lives.
Some, but not all of this value is captured in market prices. It is important to consider and measure this social value from the
perspective of those affected by an organisation’s work.

Examples of social value might be the value we experience from increasing our confidence, or from living next to a
community park. These things are important to us, but are not commonly expressed or measured in the same way that
financial value is.

At Social Value UK, we believe that social value has a huge potential to help us change the way we understand the world
around us, and make decisions about where to invest resources. By changing the way we account for value, we believe that
we will end up with a world with more equality and a more sustainable environment. You can join us on this journey by
becoming a member.

We believe anyone can start to account for their social value, no matter the size of the organisation or the amount of
resources available. Click on the following links to find out more:

Types of Social Structure

Talcott Parsons has described 4 principal types of social structure. His classifications is based on four
social values – universalistic social values, particularistic social values, achieved social values and
ascribed social values. Universalistic social values are those which are found almost in every society
and are applicable to everybody. Particularistic social values are the features of particular societies and
these differ from society to society. When the statuses are achieved on the basis of efforts it means
that such societies attach importance to achieved social values. When the statuses are hereditary even
the society gives importance to ascribed social statuses.

Universalistic –achievement pattern-This is the combination of the value patterns which sometimes
opposed to the values of a social structure built mostly around kinship,community,class and race.
Under this type of social structure, the choice of goal by the individual must be in accord with the
universalistic values. His pursuits are defined by universalistic moral norms. Such a system is
dynamically developing norms. Such a system is dynamically developing system with an
encouragement for initiative.
 Universalistic ascriptions pattern-under this type of social structure the elements of value-orientation
are dominated by the elements of ascription. Therefore in such a social structure strong emphasis is
laid on the status of the individual rather than on his specific achievements. The emphasis is on what
an individual is rather than on what he has done. Status is ascribed to the group rather than to the
individuals. The individual derives his status from his group. In this type of social structure all
resources are mobilized in the interest of the collective ideal.

Particularistic-Achievement Pattern-This type combines achievement values with particularim.The

primary criterion of valued achievement is found not in universalistic terms such as conformity to a
generalized ideal or efficiency but these are focussed on certain points of reference within the relational
system itself or are inherent in the situation. The emphasis on achievement leads to the conception of
a proper pattern of adaption which is a product of human achievement and which are maintained by
continuous efforts.

Particularistic-ascriptive pattern- In this type also the social structure is organized around the relational
reference points notably those of kinship and local community but it differs from the particularistic
achievement type in as much as the relational values are taken as given and passively adapted to
rather than make for an actively organized system. The structure tends to be traditionalistic and
emphasis is laid on its stability.

Universal value
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A value is a universal value if it has the same value or worth for all, or almost all, people. Spheres of human
value encompass morality, aesthetic preference, human traits, human endeavour, and social order. Whether
universal values exist is an unproven conjecture of moral philosophy and cultural anthropology, though it is clear
that certain values are found across a great diversity of human cultures, such as primary attributes of physical
attractiveness (e.g. youthfulness, symmetry) whereas other attributes (e.g. slenderness) are subject to aesthetic
relativism as governed by cultural norms. This objection is not limited to aesthetics. Relativism concerning
morals is known as moral relativism, a philosophical stance opposed to the existence of universal moral values.

The claim for universal values can be understood in two different ways. First, it could be that something has a
universal value when everybody finds it valuable. This was Isaiah Berlin's understanding of the term. According
to Berlin, "...universal values....are values that a great many human beings in the vast majority of places and
situations, at almost all times, do in fact hold in common, whether consciously and explicitly or as expressed in
their behaviour..."[1] Second, something could have universal value when all people have reason to believe it has
value. Amartya Sen interprets the term in this way, pointing out that when Mahatma Gandhi argued that non-
violence is a universal value, he was arguing that all people have reason to value non-violence, not that all
people currently value non-violence.[2] Many different things have been claimed to be of universal value, for
example, fertility,[3] pleasure,[4] and democracy.[5] The issue of whether anything is of universal value, and, if so,
what that thing or those things are, is relevant to psychology, political science, and philosophy, among other
fields.

Contents
[hide]

 1Perspectives from various disciplines

o 1.1Philosophy
 o 1.2Sociology
o 1.3Psychology and the search for universal values
 2See also
 3Notes
 4References
 5External links

Perspectives from various disciplines[edit]

Philosophy[edit]
Philosophical study of universal value addresses questions such as the meaningfulness of universal value or
whether universal values exist.

Sociology[edit]
Sociological study of universal value addresses how such values are formed in a society.

Psychology and the search for universal values[edit]

S. H. Schwartz, along with a number of psychology colleagues, has carried out empirical research investigating
whether there are universal values, and what those values are. Schwartz defined 'values' as "conceptions of the
desirable that influence the way people select action and evaluate events". [6] He hypothesised that universal
values would relate to three different types of human need: biological needs, social co-ordination needs, and
needs related to the welfare and survival of groups. Schwartz's results from a series of studies that included
surveys of more than 25,000 people in 44 countries with a wide range of different cultural types suggest that
there are fifty-six specific universal values and ten types of universal value. [7] Schwartz's ten types of universal
value are: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-
direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and security. Below are each of the value types, with
the specific related values alongside:

 Power: authority; leadership; dominance, social power, wealth

 Achievement: success; capability; ambition; influence; intelligence; self-respect
 Hedonism: pleasure; enjoying life
 Stimulation: daring activities; varied life; exciting life
 Self-direction: creativity; freedom; independence; curiosity; choosing your own goals
 Universalism: broadmindedness; wisdom; social justice; equality; a world at peace; a world of beauty;
unity with nature; protecting the environment; inner harmony
 Benevolence: helpfulness; honesty; forgiveness; loyalty; responsibility; friendship
 Tradition: accepting one's portion in life; humility; devoutness; respect for tradition; moderation
 Conformity: self-discipline; obedience
 Security: cleanliness; family security; national security; stability of social order; reciprocation of
favours; health; sense of belonging

Schwartz also tested an eleventh possible universal value, 'spirituality', or 'the goal of finding meaning in life', but
found that it does not seem to be recognised in all cultures.[8]Some consider love to be a universal value.[citation needed]

Value system[edit]

A value system is a set of consistent values used for the purpose of ethical or ideological integrity.
Consistency[edit]
As a member of a society, group or community, an individual can hold both a personal value system and a
communal value system at the same time. In this case, the two value systems (one personal and one
communal) are externally consistent provided they bear no contradictions or situational exceptions between
them.

A value system in its own right is internally consistent when

 its values do not contradict each other and

 its exceptions are or could be
 abstract enough to be used in all situations and
 consistently applied.

Conversely, a value system by itself is internally inconsistent if:

 its values contradict each other and

 its exceptions are
 highly situational and
 inconsistently applied.

Value exceptions[edit]
Abstract exceptions serve to reinforce the ranking of values. Their definitions are generalized enough to be
relevant to any and all situations. Situational exceptions, on the other hand, are ad hoc and pertain only to
specific situations. The presence of a type of exception determines one of two more kinds of value systems:

 An idealized value system is a listing of values that lacks exceptions. It is, therefore, absolute and can
be codified as a strict set of proscriptions on behavior. Those who hold to their idealized value system and
claim no exceptions (other than the default) are called absolutists.
 A realized value system contains exceptions to resolve contradictions between values in practical
circumstances. This type is what people tend to use in daily life.

The difference between these two types of systems can be seen when people state that they hold one value
system yet in practice deviate from it, thus holding a different value system. For example, a religion lists an
absolute set of values while the practice of that religion may include exceptions.

Implicit exceptions bring about a third type of value system called a formal value system. Whether idealized or
realized, this type contains an implicit exception associated with each value: "as long as no higher-priority value
is violated". For instance, a person might feel that lying is wrong. Since preserving a life is probably more highly
valued than adhering to the principle that lying is wrong, lying to save someone’s life is acceptable. Perhaps too
simplistic in practice, such a hierarchical structure may warrant explicit exceptions.

Conflict[edit]
Although sharing a set of common values, like hockey is better than baseball or ice cream is better than fruit, two
different parties might not rank those values equally. Also, two parties might disagree as to certain actions
are right or wrong, both in theory and in practice, and find themselves in an ideological or physical
conflict. Ethonomics, the discipline of rigorously examining and comparing value systems [citation needed], enables us to
understand politics and motivations more fully in order to resolve conflicts.
An example conflict would be a value system based on individualism pitted against a value system based
on collectivism. A rational value system organized to resolve the conflict between two such value systems might
take the form below. Note that added exceptions can become recursive and often convoluted.

 Individuals may act freely unless their actions harm others or interfere with others' freedom or with
functions of society that individuals need, provided those functions do not themselves interfere with these
proscribed individual rights and were agreed to by a majority of the individuals.
 A society (or more specifically the system of order that enables the workings of a society) exists for the
purpose of benefiting the lives of the individuals who are members of that society. The functions of a society
in providing such benefits would be those agreed to by the majority of individuals in the society.
 A society may require contributions from its members in order for them to benefit from the services
provided by the society. The failure of individuals to make such required contributions could be considered a
reason to deny those benefits to them, although a society could elect to consider hardship situations in
determining how much should be contributed.
 A society may restrict behavior of individuals who are members of the society only for the purpose of
performing its designated functions agreed to by the majority of individuals in the society, only insofar as
they violate the aforementioned values. This means that a society may abrogate the rights of any of its
members who fails to uphold the aforementioned values.

EXPLAIN THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL VALUES?

Meaning: -Social Values are values (standards) concerned with social aspects of
human life. For example, truth, honesty, justice, kindness, generosity, tolerance,
patriotism, perfection, excellence, etc. the business organisations are expected to
participate in the development of social values through educative advertising, cultural
programmes, national integration programmes , assistance to educational institutions,
etc.

1. Economic Progress: -Social Values foster economic progress of a society.

For instance, if truth and honesty are practised by every body, it will promote
fair dealings in all walks of life such as business, education, political, social
services, etc.

2. Social Development: -Social Values foster social development also, for

instance, several industrialists and charitable institutions have shown generosity
and started schools, colleges, hospitals, cultural centres for the benefit of
common people.

3. Social relations: -Social values like co-operation, tolerance, respect for

seniors, etc. tend to improve social ties or relations. When a person extends his
hand of co-operation to others, even the enemies will have to check their
inimical relations.

4. Regional Co-operation: -Social Values like co-operation, patriotism, and

tolerance can help to mitigate the differences between the regions, states and
countries. These three values, if practised it will promote social and economic
development of the nations.

5. Love, peace and happiness: -Values like respect for others, co-
operations, tolerance develop a bond of togetherness. As a result, conflicts and
clashes get solved through mutual understanding.

6. Standard of living: - Values of perfection and excellence enables people

to develop new methods, process and techniques. As a result, new and better
products and services become available in the market. This ultimately led to
raising the standard of living.

SOCIAL VALUES AND ORGANIZATION

Philippines Table of Contents

The great majority of the Philippine population is bound together by common values and a
common religion. Philippine society is characterized by many positive traits. Among these
are strong religious faith, respect for authority, and high regard for amor proprio (self-
esteem) and smooth interpersonal relationships. Philippine respect for authority is based on
the special honor paid to elder members of the family and, by extension, to anyone in a
position of power. This characteristic is generally conducive to the smooth running of
society, although, when taken to extreme, it can develop into an authoritarianism that
discourages independent judgment and individual responsibility and initiative. Filipinos are
sensitive to attacks on their own self-esteem and cultivate a sensitivity to the self-esteem of
others as well. Anything that might hurt another's self-esteem is to be avoided or else one
risks terminating the relationship. One who is insensitive to others is said to lack a sense of
shame and embarrassment, the principal sanction against improper behavior. This great
concern for self- esteem helps to maintain harmony in society and within one's particular
circle, but it also can give rise to clannishness and a willingness to sacrifice personal
integrity to remain in the good graces of the group. Strong personal faith enables Filipinos
to face great difficulties and unpredictable risks in the assurance that "God will take care of
things." But, if allowed to deteriorate into fatalism, even this admirable characteristic can
hinder initiative and stand in the way of progress.

Social organization generally follows a single pattern, although variations do occur,

reflecting the influence of local traditions. Among lowland Christian Filipinos, social
organization continues to be marked primarily by personal alliance systems, that is,
groupings composed of kin (real and ritual), grantors and recipients of favors, friends, and
partners in commercial exchanges.

Philippine personal alliance systems are anchored by kinship, beginning with the nuclear
family. A Filipino's loyalty goes first to the immediate family; identity is deeply embedded
in the web of kinship. It is normative that one owes support, loyalty, and trust to one's close
kin and, because kinship is structured bilaterally with affinal as well as consanguineal
relatives, one's kin can include quite a large number of people. Still, beyond the nuclear
family, Filipinos do not assume the same degree of support, loyalty, and trust that they
assume for immediate family members for whom loyalty is nothing less than a social
imperative. With respect to kin beyond this nuclear family, closeness in relationship
depends very much on physical proximity.

Bonds of ritual kinship, sealed on any of three ceremonial occasions--baptism,

confirmation, and marriage--intensify and extend personal alliances. This mutual kinship
system, known as compadrazgo, meaning godparenthood or sponsorship, dates back at
least to the introduction of Christianity and perhaps earlier. It is a primary method of
extending the group from which one can expect help in the way of favors, such as jobs,
loans, or just simple gifts on special occasions. But in asking a friend to become godparent
to a child, a Filipino is also asking that person to become a closer friend. Thus it is
common to ask acquaintances who are of higher economic or social status than oneself to
be sponsors. Such ritual kinship cannot be depended on in moments of crisis to the same
extent as real kinship, but it still functions for small and regular acts of support such as gift
giving.

A dyadic bond--between two individuals--may be formed based on the concept of utang na

loob. Although it is expected that the debtor will attempt repayment, it is widely
recognized that the debt (as in one's obligation to a parent) can never be fully repaid and
the obligation can last for generations. Saving another's life, providing employment, or
making it possible for another to become educated are "gifts" that incur utang na loob.
Moreover, such gifts initiate a long-term reciprocal interdependency in which the grantor
of the favor can expect help from the debtor whenever the need arises and the debtor can,
in turn, ask other favors. Such reciprocal personal alliances have had obvious implications
for the society in general and the political system in particular. In 1990 educated Filipinos
were less likely to feel obligated to extend help (thereby not initiating an utang na
loobrelationship) than were rural dwellers among whom traditional values remained
strong. Some observers believed that as Philippine society became more modernized and
urban in orientation, utang na loob would become less important in the political and social
systems.

In the commercial context, suki relationships (market- exchange partnerships) may develop
between two people who agree to become regular customer and supplier. In the
marketplace, Filipinos will regularly buy from certain specific suppliers who will give
them, in return, reduced prices, good quality, and, often, credit. Suki relationships often
apply in other contexts as well. For example, regular patrons of restaurants and small
neighborhood retail shops and tailoring shops often receive special treatment in return for
their patronage. Suki does more than help develop economic exchange relationships.
Because trust is such a vital aspect, it creates a platform for personal relationships that can
blossom into genuine friendship between individuals.

Patron-client bonds also are very much a part of prescribed patterns of appropriate
behavior. These may be formed between tenant farmers and their landlords or between any
patron who provides resources and influence in return for the client's personal services and
general support. The reciprocal arrangement typically involves the patron giving a means
of earning a living or of help, protection, and influence and the client giving labor and
personal favors, ranging from household tasks to political support. These relationships
often evolve into ritual kinship ties, as the tenant or worker may ask the landlord to be a
child's godparent. Similarly, when favors are extended, they tend to bind patron and client
together in a network of mutual obligation or a long-term interdependency.

Filipinos also extend the circle of social alliances with friendship. Friendship often is
placed on a par with kinship as the most central of Filipino relationships. Certainly ties
among those within one's group of friends are an important factor in the development of
personal alliance systems. Here, as in other categories, a willingness to help one another
provides the prime rationale for the relationship.

These categories--real kinship, ritual kinship, utang na

loob relationships, sukirelationships, patron-client bonds, and friendship--are not exclusive.
They are interrelated components of the Filipino's personal alliance system. Thus two
individuals may be cousins, become friends, and then cement their friendship through
godparenthood. Each of their social networks will typically include kin (near and far,
affinal and consanguineal), ritual kin, one or two patron-client relationships, one or more
other close friends (and a larger number of social friends), and a dozen or more market-
exchange partners. Utang na loob may infuse any or all of these relationships. One's
network of social allies may include some eighty or more people, integrated and
interwoven into a personal alliance system.

In 1990 personal alliance systems extended far beyond the local arena, becoming
pyramidal structures going all the way to Manila, where members of the national political
elite represented the tops of numerous personal alliance pyramids. The Philippine elite was
composed of weathly landlords, financiers, businesspeople, high military officers, and
national political figures. Made up of a few families often descended from the ilustrados,
or enlightened ones, of the Spanish colonial period, the elite controlled a high percentage
of the nations's wealth. The lavish life-styles of this group usually included owning at least
two homes (one in Manila and one in the province where the family originated),
patronizing expensive shops and restaurants, belonging to exclusive clubs, and having a
retinue of servants. Many counted among their social acquaintances a number of rich and
influential foreigners, especially Americans, Spaniards, and other Europeans. Their
children attended exclusive private schools in Manila and were often sent abroad, usually
to the United States, for higher education. In addition, by 1990 a new elite of
businesspeople, many from Hong Kong and Taiwan, had developed.

In the cities, there existed a considerable middle-class group consisting of small

entrepreneurs, civil servants, teachers, merchants, small property owners, and clerks whose
employment was relatively secure. In many middle-class families, both spouses worked.
They tended to place great value on higher education, and most had a college degree. They
also shared a sense of common identity derived from similar educational experiences,
facility in using English, common participation in service clubs such as the Rotary, and
similar economic standing.

Different income groups lived in different neighborhoods in the cities and lacked the
personal contact essential to the patron-client relationship. Probably the major social
division was between those who had a regular source of income and those who made up
the informal sector of the economy. The latter subsisted by salvaging material from
garbage dumps, begging, occasional paid labor, and peddling. Although their income was
sometimes as high as those in regular jobs, they lacked the protection of labor legislation
and had no claim to any type of social insurance.