Annamalai University: Master of Social Work (MSW)

470E1140
1 – 14
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY
DIRECTORATE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Master of Social Work (MSW)

First Semester
MAN AND SOCIETY

LESSONS: 1 – 14
Copyright Reserved
(For Private Circulation Only)
FIRST SEMESTER
MAN AND SOCIETY
Editorial Board
Chairman
Dr. N.Ramagopal
Dean,
Faculty of Arts
Annamalai University
Members
Dr.R. Singaravel
Director Director,
Directorate of Distance Education Directorate of Academic Affairs
Annamalai University Annamalai University
Dr.K. Somasundaran Dr. R. Gurumoorthy

Associate Professor and Head Associate Professor and Deputy
Dept. of Sociology and Social Work Co-ordinator
Annamalai University Sociology Wing, DDE
Internals
Dr.P.Christuraj Dr.K.Maharajan
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Social Work Department of Sociology and Social Work
Annamalai University Annamalai University
Externals
Dr.V. Lakshmanapathi Dr. J.Chandrasekar
Assistant Professor Associate Professor
Department of Social Work Madras School of Social Work
Arignar Anna Govt. Arts College Casa Major Road, Egmore
Karaikal Chennai
Lesson Writer
Dr. R.Gurumoorthy
Associate Professor and Deputy Co-ordinator
Sociology Wing, DDE,
.
i

FIRST SEMESTER
MAN AND SOCIETY
SYLLABUS
Learning Objectives
LO1 - To provide students a sociological perspective of social life
LO2 - To make them to understand concepts of society, culture and
institutions
LO3 - To develop knowledge about social stratification, social control and social
work
Course Outcomes
Upon completion of this course students will
CO1 - Understand the basic concepts in sociology and their relevance in
present day society
CO2 - Comprehend the significant place occupied by sociology among social
sciences.
Unit I Society – Elements, characteristics of society – Individual – Socialization
– Heredity and Environment – Agencies of socialization – Importance of
socialization.
Unit II Culture – Definition, Elements, Characteristics and Functions of Culture
– Types of Culture – Cultural lag theory and its application to Indian
Society.
Unit III Concept and meaning of religious, economic, educational, social (caste,
kinship, marriage and family) and political institutions – Their structures and
functions.
Unit IV Social stratification in India - The concept of stratification - Concepts of
clan and caste, social inequality and social mobility.
Unit V Social control – Concept, types and functions – Major agencies of social
control in India – Family, religion, education, law, customs and mores -
Social change – Concepts, factors, types and processes of social change.
Books for Reference
1. Anthony Giddens. Introduction to sociology, New York, W.W. Norton &
Company INC., 1996.
2. Shankar Rao,C.N. Sociology, New Delhi, S.Chand & Company Ltd., 1997.
3. Alex Inkeles, what is sociology? An introduction to The Discipline and
Profession, Englewood, cliffs, N.J. Prentice Hall, 1964.
4. Doob, C.B. Sociology: An Introduction, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
1985.
5. Bierstedt, Robert, The Social Order, New York: McGraw Hill, 1957.
6. Semelser, N.J. Sociology. New York: Prentice Hall of India Ltd., 1993.
7. Goode, W.J. Principles of Sociology. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill Publishing
Co., Ltd., 1977.
ii

FIRST SEMESTER
MAN AND SOCIETY
CONTENTS
Lesson
Lesson Title Page No
No.
1 Individual and Society 1
2 Socialisation 11
3 Culture 19
4 Economic Institutions, Education, Religion, Government 32
5 Social Institutions 45
6 Social Stratification 57
7 Social Interaction 73
8 Social Control 91
9 Social Change 103

LESSON – 1
INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY

1.1. INTRODUCTION
In this lesson the relation between individual societies, its significant features
and theories of social thinkers pertaining to origin of the society are discussed. The
importance and role of heredity and environment is brought out in the analysis and
interpretation of human personality.
1.2. OBJECTIVES
After going through this unit you should be able to understand
 the relationship between Individual and society.
 the two prominent theories.
1. Social contract theory 2. Organisimic theory
 the importance of Heredity and Environment.
 the approaches of inseparability and relative importance of Heredity and
Environment.
1.3. CONTENTS
1.3.1. Individual and Society
1.3.1.1. Social Contract Theory
1.3.1.2. Organisimic Theory of Society
1.3.2. Heredity and Environment
1.3.2.1. Heredity
1.3.2.2. Environment
1.3.3. Respective Roles of Heredity and Environment
1.3.4. Inseparability and Relative Importance of Heredity and Environment
1.3.1. Individual and Society
The relation of the individual to society is the central problem and the starting
point of social investigation. Social nature is the fundamental attribute of a human
being. It does not mean that man is born with social attributes. Sociability is
becoming in the process of human growth in social environment. To escape
isolation, every person becomes a member of the group. The capacity for relating
oneself to other members is not inborn but a matter of experience and training.
Such experience and training is social. Since several centuries, many thinkers have
contemplated to explain the relation of individual to society. There are several
theories formulated by many social thinkers. In western social thought, there are
two prominent theories to explain the relation of individual to society. They are 1)
Social contract theory and 2) Organisimic theory of society.
1.3.1.1. Social Contract Theory
Social contract theory is an age old concept. The early social philosophers of
the 5th Century B.C. contended that human society is a contrivance set up by men
2
for the satisfaction of certain desires. The social contract was theoretically
formulated by the thinkers of 17th and 18th Centuries. Prominent thinkers of social
contract theory are Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith, William Rousseau and John
Locke. During 17th Century, Thomas Hobbes profounded that society is a means
for the protection of men against the consequences of their selfish nature.
According to Thomas Hobbes, human beings originally lived in a state of nature by
being selfish, snobbish, brutish and quarrel-some. In order to resolve their
conflicting tendencies, they entered into an agreement or contract in the nature of
society. Adam Smith and his followers viewed society as an artificial device of
mutual economy. During 18th Century, William Rousseau remarked that all men
are born free and equal in a state of nature, but held in chains everywhere.
Consequently for social conveniences of order and protection, they established a
social contract. John Locke is another prominent social theorist who profounded
that men devised the social contract for civic regulation through law. The social
contract theories advance the belief that society is not natural but an artificial
creation. It is based on the false assumption that human beings lived outside
society. It is erroneous to think of individuals and society as seperate entities. In
the history of human development, men are consistently social. Every individual is
born in social environment and cannot claim independent existence apart from
society. Individual and society are inseparable concepts, and there is no priority in
their existence.
1.3.1.2. Organismic Theory of Society
This theory is propounded by Herbert Spencer, a biosociologist. According to
him, society is a biological organism in its structure and functions having similar
laws of development and decline. Individuals are regarded as organic cells and the
institutions are like the organs and systems of the body. The theory supposes that
society passes through the organic processes of birth, growth and decline. It is an
organic analogy to the social system. An extreme development of this theory is that
society has an inclusive mind. This theory is diagonally opposed to the social
contract theory, by giving importance to society, as against the individual who is a
link in the system. The inclusive social mind presupposes that society alone lives
and every individual is just an expression of the social mind. Thereby, it reduces
the individual to an automatic part of the social system. It must be clearly
understood, that society exists because of self-conscious individuals, who have a
measure of autonomy. There is nothing like a social mind. Social consciousness is
in reality a derivation of individual’s social participation. Individuals do not belong
to society as cells of the body. No individual is an automatic part of the social
system. Even society is not an complementary processes in social life. Organic
analogy of the social system is erroneous.
The social contract theory and the organismic theory are based on the false
assumption of the priority of individual or of society. Society cannot be understood
without individuals and their relations. Individual is not an isolated and self-
contained unit. A human being is human only because of his membership in
3
society. Social contract theory presupposes the existence of individuals in a state of

nature, as independent units. Organismic theory gives importance to social system
and treats individuals as cells in a body. Both theories are inadequate. Individuals
are self- conscious centres of activity, with feelings, thought and experience. They
are a part of society which trains them for social experience. Neither individual nor
society are abstract entities. Each derives meaning from the other.
The interdependent relation between individual and society leads to an
understanding of two fundamental concepts-social unity and individuality. Social
unity is different from organic unity. It is a system of social relationships in the
different aspects of social life. It is a product of the common ends or purposes of
individuals. It implies harmony and coordination. Social unity is not abstract and
independent of individuality. It is the creation of individual’s roles in the
satisfaction of common interests. Individuals are self-conscious in their relation to
one another. Individuality is not a physical or biological unit, but a product of
social participation. It is the sociological sense revealed in self-expression of the
individual. Individuals are differentiated in their capacities for social adoptation. As
such, individuality has different expressions in terms of personality.
Individualisation refers to the autonomy of the social being to act according to his
conscience and will, without depending on others to act for him. He acts not
because others do so, but because we has a self to approve a form of behaviour.
Individuality in sociological sense, is the quality by which an individual is more
than a mere member of the group, by the expression of self, which he thinks is his
own. He is neither suggestible nor imitative. It is an aspect of personality. But, it is
based on society, a system of norms and values. In reality, society and individuality
go hand in hand. Individuality is not individualism, which denotes egoism. No one
can be an absolute individualist, nor can society exist without individuals, by their
self-expression. Individual and society interact and depend on one another.
The relation between individual and social unity is not always harmonious.
There are certain limitations. Firstly, social unity is not a complete picture of
human relations. Society consists of conflicts and deviations from social norms. In
every social group, there are opposing interests. Social unity is not absolute and
totally harmonious.
Secondly, there are chances of individuality being frustrated by social
conditions. In modern complex society, individual functions mechanically, in the
large apparatus of society. Scope for individuality is limited since behaviour is
routinised.
Thirdly, the attitudes and ideas in modem society are standardised by patents,
propaganda and advertisements. The control of the individual by mass media
curtails individuality. Inspite of these limitations, the essential features of social
unity and individuality are constant. Society is a fundamental requisite for
development of individuality. Individuality derives meaning and status only in the
context of society.
4
The significance of individuality to human beings rests on their social

relations. Social unity is based on the cooperation of individuals. A person is said to
have more individuality when he participates in society with a wide range of
interests. Social unity is based on the harmonious relationships of individuals. It is
more integetrated when it can eater to a large variety of interests without
discrimination among members. Restraints and deviations cause social disruptions.
Society is fundamental for individuality.
More there is individuality, more it depends on society and more it can give to
society.
1.3.2. Heredity and Environment
Heredity and Environment are two fundamental concepts in the analysis and
interpretation of human personality. Personality or self-hood is a product of
individual’s participation in society. Human beings are first of all biological
organisms before becoming social. But, nowhere on the earth’s surface, human
beings live in organic isolation. Every newly born individual is moulded into a social
being- This process of transformation from the organic to a social being is known as
socialisation. The process of socialisation is responsible for the formation and
development of human personality Personality is a product of two distinct modes of
transmission, namely, heredity and environment. It is by the interplay of these two
factors, a concrete individual obtains personality in social existence. Much has
been discussed about the interplay and relative importance of these two concepts in
human personality. A conceptual analysis of these two factors in their role and
correlation provides a knowledge of how the individual is transmitted from the
organic to a social being in terms of personality.
1.3.2.1. Heredity
Heredity is the inheritance of organic traits from the parents to the off-spring.
The flesh and blood individual is unique by virtue of what he inherits from his
parents. It is an age-old observation that the like begets the like, since the blood of
parents flows in their children. The inheritance of biological traits is noticed not
only within a generation but also in successive generations. The inheritance of
physical traits in each generation is of course indisputable. Biologists are of the
opinion that the organic traits like skin colour, shape of the nose, colour of the
eyes, stature, hair texture are transmitted from parents to offspring such
transmission has also links with ancestral inheritance. Social biologists extend
their argument that even physical and mental qualities of health and intelligence
are factors of inheritance.
Biological inheritance of some traits is recognisable by similarities between
parents and children. But it is not certain that all traits are transmissive. There are
differences in the traits of individuals and their parents. Even among the
individuals of the same generation there are variations in physical traits. Heredity
is the transmission of certain organic traits but not an equal sharing of those traits.
Heredity is a biological concept. It is the mechanism of genes, chromosomes and
reproduction. But, it is subjected to variation. In terms of reproduction, heredity
5
has to be counted on combination of male and female characteristics, emerging

from two different genetic progenies. There is organic diversity even among children
of the same parents. The sharing of genes by children from either parent is not
proportionate and as such variations in physical inheritance appear. Each
generation is a new beginning. It can never be an exact replica of the old. Heredity
is not all-inclusive. It is limitted by variations in the transmission of organic traits.
Heredity is distinguished from the concept of hereditary which refers to social
inheritance. Man is born in a social environment consisting of various customs,
morals and other cultural forms and this constitutes his social inheritance.
Heredity is biological, whereas hereditary is social. Both heredity and hereditary are
subjected to changes from generation to generation. Heredity is not fixed and
absolute. It is influenced by the conditions of environment. Biological adoptation
depends on social conditions- There are many social impositions to control and
alter the process of biological adaptation. Cross-fertilisation between members of
different groups distorts the inheritance of biological traits in ancestral lineage.
What-ever be the proportionate ways in which biological traits are transmitted from
a rents to off-spring, heredity is recognised in terms of biological inheritance. Many
of the organic traits indicate similarities among members of ancestral progeny and
heredity is supposed to be an important factor in the composition of human
personality.
1.3.2.2. Environment
Environment literally means what environs or surrounds. It refers to all
external conditions.- a complex phenomenon consisting of all things, animate and
inanimate. It is closely related to life. All forms of life from plant to man need
environment for existence and survival. Environment is the pre-requisite of life. Life
and environment are correlatives. There can be no life without environment. But
environments consists of various conditions in nature apart from its relation to the
different forms of life. Every form of life has a particular environment for
adaptation. Environment is infinitely various. It is not static or unchanging. It is
subject to change by natural sequence as well as the capacities of adaptation by
different forms of life. It moulds life and is also modified by the form of life. Changes
in modes of adaptation create changes in environment. Environment conditions the
nature of adaptation. At the human level, society is not restricted to the process of
natural selection in environment. People vary in habits and values by social
selection, which sets limits on natural selection. Man is a creature as well as a
creator and critic of environment.
There are three kinds of human adaptation with environment. They are
physical adaptation, biological adaptation and social adaptation. Physical
adaptation is conditional irrespective of our will, striving or aims. Everywhere,
nature makes demands for adaptation. The process of life and death are
conditioned by nature. Physical adaptation is compulsive. The process of physical
adaptation should not be confused with the human effort to improve health and
6
prolong life. It is only an adjustment with physical conditions. Nobody can avoid
death. Death is the final statement of physical adaptation.
Biological adaptation is the fitness of a particular form of life to survive under
requisite conditions of environment. Biological adaptation is based on physical
adaptation. Because, every form of life whatever be its organic capacity demand
certain natural conditions for survival. Fishes survive only in water. Many other
animals can survive in cold or hot climatic conditions depending on their organic
capacity. Man survives with certain variable natural conditions by artificial devices.
But, his capacity for biological adaptation is limited to conditions favourable to
habitation. Social adaptation is an extension of physical and biological adaptation.
Several sociologists speak of social adaptation as adjustment and accommodation.
Adjustment or accommodation is only an adaptation to given conditions; but it does
not imply the relation of the social being to the human environment as a whole. It is
the social environment which operates through norms and values. Man creates an
appropriate environment by his intelligence for the fulfilment of various wants. He
modifies certain physical and biological conditions for his social requirements.
Society is a system of values. Physical and biological adaptation, though conditional
have neither value nor merit. Social adaptation is conditional to all human beings
and implies valuation. Social environment is present from the beginning of human
life. It is even present long before man is born. Social circumstances in the nature
of folkways, mores, courtship, marital selection, customs associated with pregnancy
are pre-set in the birth of the individual and also denote the kind of life he has to
lead. Direct socialization begins only after the birth of the human being.
Social adaptation is a complicated phenomenon as it includes for forces of
physical and biological adaptation, to be modified for social requirements. It
involves adjustments and maladjustments due to differences in the capacities and
needs of individuals in different cultures. It is social environment with which a
great deal of human adaptation is found. The impact of social environment is one of
the major issues in the analysis and determination of human personality. Even
though man is born in a social environment with certain pre-set conditions, he
becomes social only in the context of social environment. The influence of the social
environment in the life process of birth, growth and development is recognised as a
potential factor, in the determination of human personality. Social environment,
unlike physical and biological conditions, is dynamic. It changes rapidly. More over,
it is variable with many forms of culture. Every individual is subjected to conditions
of his social environment for survival.
7
1.3.3. Respective Roles of Heredity and Environment

Heredity is the inheritance of physical traits commonly found among all
animals. Biological inheritance in man is highly complex. Human genetic factors
are multifarious and there are chances of crossing and recrossing through many
generations. It is therefore difficult to demarcate the physical traits which are
summarily inherited. Heredity is considered as a biological mechanism of genes,
chromosomes and reproduction. Several bio-sociologists have conducted researches
on individuals and groups to indicate the importance of heredity in the
determination of human personality. The investigations of Francis Gallon and Karl
Pearson are significant. In 1869, Francis Galton published in his book Hereditary
Genius the case studies of children of intelligent parents gifted with higher ranking
than those of dollars. Karl Peason continued Gallon’s investigations by the study of
several social groups in America. He emphasised from his findings, that heredity is
even seven times more important than environment. According to his
investigations, men of royal families produce children of higher social rank and
intelligence; families of the clergy in America have produced notable personalities.
Certain case studies of the whites and the Negroes among army recuits reveal that
the whites have superior intelligence. Many comparative studies of occupation
groups like merchants, clergy, agriculturists and labourers reveal different levels of
intelligence, which is attributed to heredity. Study of criminal families of Jukes and
Kallicks indicate the inheritance of criminal behaviour by children. It is contrasted
from the prosperous distinguished lineage of Adams and Edwards families.
Case studies of identical twins reared in different environments has been
recognised as unsubstantive evidence of the impact of heredity. New man, a
statistician studied 19 pains of twins brought up in separate homes. He concluded
that physical traits are least affected; but in most cases, the influence of
environment revealed differences in intelligence. Personality characteristics are
most affected by environment. There are also case studies of identical twins reared
together. Thorndike, an educational psychologists has pointed out from such
studies, that there are noticeable differences both in physical and mental traits. As
such, even heredity is found to be a variable phenomenon. Studies of children of
different parentage reared together have revealed according to Miss. B. S. Burks,
that the contribution of heredity is very much higher than that of environment.
Differences among children reared by foster parents, and of those reared by proper
parents also indicate the greater influence of heredity.
There are divergent opinions regarding the respective roles of heredity and
environment in human personality. Human beings are the same everywhere. They
differ in terms of race, which is supposed to be a biological concept of heredity.
These variations in heredity among different races are not strictly biological- They
are subjected to the constant conditions of different environments in the life style of
nodal groups- Hereditary differences may appear due to changes in habits of food,
habitation in different climatic conditions. Heredity is not constant by virtue of
inheritance of physical traits from parents to offspring. A Scheinfeld observes,
8
“From the moment of conception through puberty, innumerable factors bear upon
the action of the stature genes. The mother’s health, gland disorders, food habits,
climate, living conditions, occupation, exercise, modes of walking and sleeping, all
influence the body structure.” According to Mendel, the child inherits traits not only
from its parents, but from grand-parents is ancestry extending to seven
generations.
Case studies of children chosen from different occupational groups, progeny of
criminal families, twins reared together in similar or different environments,
children of different parentage reared together do not however provide conclusive
evidences of heredity being constant and potential. Intelligence tests are vague
since intelligence varies in the performance of takes in different cultural situations.
According to C.D. Stoddard, “Intelligence tests are to a considerable degree simple
knowledge tests scored relatively to the achievements.” Intelligence is based on
social back-ground much more than biological inheritance. Differences in the social
environment of different occupational groups reveals the difference in social ranks
and equipment. Occupational groups are not fixed and hereditary. Intelligence is
not produced by genes, but it is a product of social experience. There are cases of
individuals in lower occupational groups being superior in intelligence to those of
higher occupational groups. Regarding degenerate families of Jukes and Kallicks,
social investigations are partial and one-sided. The environment to which the
families are accustommed by criminal habits is mistaken, as the inheritance of
criminal behaviour. Change of environment can mould their behaviour. Heredity
need not be the cause of degeneration.
Experimental studies of twins in the context of similar and different
environments do not substantiate the predominance of heredity. In many cases,
physical traits are constant but achievements result from environment. According
to H.S. Jennings, “What heredity can do, environment can also do”. The study of
twins reveals differences in both heredity and environment. It is a comedy of errors.
H.D. Carter remarks; “The whole array of twin studies seems to suggest the futality
and artificiality of the idea of the untangling nature and nurture influences in the
sense of ascertaining the percentage contributions of each in any general sense.”
Case studies of children of different parentage reared together present different
conclusions:
These investigations tend to show that both heredity and environment are
needed in the social development of an individual- Environment is always complex
and changing. Heredity is not fully understood. If heredity is counted on several
generations, in the context of a particular environment, and likewise, environment
in terms of single generation is studied, the conclusion would be misleading.
Environment is as essential as heredity. The absence of environment leads to the
decline of heredity. Isolation from environment creates maladjustment and decay.
Heredity is always associated with environment. Absence or deprivation of
environment curbs the manifestation of the traits of heredity; case studies of
Kamala and Amala. Anna and Isabella, and Wolf-bay Ramu have revealed that
9
absence of social environment causes atrophy of physical traits. Heredity without

social environment is absured and meaningless.
1.3.4. Inseparability and Relative Importance of Heredity and Environment
There are many speculations and acrimonious controversies regarding the
relative importance of heredity and environment- All forms of life are related to
environment and also biologically inherit traits for adaptation. At the human level,
both heredity, and environment are complicated processes. Human adaptation is
the result of both heredity and environment. Heredity is biological inheritance of
potentialities and needs environment for expression. Environment evokes and
makes actual what is latent in the form of heredity. Both heredity and environment
combine in the formation are development of personality. Neither heredity nor
environment can exist independently nor can each function separately. What has
created confusion and controversy is not the presence or negation of either concept,
but their relative superiority in their influence on human personality. Heredity is
potentiality made actual in suitable environment. The demand of environment
depends on the content of potentiality. Various case studies are after-all partial
explanations and many of them are conjectures. It is futile to argue about the
superior or inferior influence of either heredity or environment. In many cases, the
nature of importance may be apparent but it is deceptive Biologists, Psychologists
and Sociologists argue in their own ways, about the importance of either heredity or
environment. But, their findings are inconclusive with many exceptions. Both
heredity and environment are potential factors of human personality and neither of
these concepts can be regarded in terms of superiority or inferiority- Both concepts
are complex and subtle. The life process as a whole depends on the interplay of
heredity and environment.
1.4. REVISION POINTS
1. Every individual is born in Social environment and cannot claim
independent existence apart from society.
2. Organismic theory is propounded by Herbert Spencer, a biosociologist.
3. Heridity and Environment are two fundamental concepts in the analysis and
interpretation of human personality.
1.5. INTEXT QUESTIONS
1. Write an essay on individual and Society.
2. Explain how Heredity and Environment shaped personality?
1.6. SUMMARY
Social nature is the fundamental attribute of human being. Sociability is
becoming in the process of human growth in social environment. Every person
becomes a member of the group. The capacity for relating oneself to other members
is not inborn but a matter of experience and training. Such experience and training
is social. Two prominent theories explain the relation of individual to society.
10
1.7. TERMINAL EXERCISE

1. Social contract theory is an age old concept. – Discuss.
2. Organismic theory is diagonally opposed to the social contract theory, by
giving importance to society. Explain.
1.8. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
1. Sociological Bulletin.
2. Related journals.
1.9. ASSIGNMENTS
1. Explain organigimic theory of society.
2. Discuss the respective roles of Heredity and Environment.
1.10. SUGGESTED READING/REFERENCE BOOKS/SET BOOKS
1. Shankar Rao,C.N. Sociology, New Delhi, S.Chand & Company Ltd., 1997.
2. Goode, W.J. Principles of Sociology. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill Publishing
Co., Ltd., 1977.
1.11. LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Group discussions, seminars on the related topic of individual and society
heredity and environment. Socialization need for socialization. Process and stag –
Agents of socialization – Adult socialization
1.12. KEY WORDS
Organism, Social contract, Heredity, Environment
❑
11
LESSON – 2
SOCIALISATION
2.1. INTRODUCTION
Socialisation in a broad sense is defined as a process of moulding the new-
born child into a social being. The transmutation of the human animal to a human
being is a mysterious process which is not fully discovered in the study of
Sociology. The human infant is as organic being reacting in terms of physical needs
and comforts. By a gradual process of learning in social context, the child
internalizes the attitudes, values, likes, dislikes, goals and purposes. This takes
place by the interaction of children and parents or other members of the social
group. It is a learning process which turns the human animal to a social being.
According to Harry Johnson, “Socialisation is the learning that enables the
individual to perform roles in his culture. The process of transformation of the
organic being to a social being has been described as socialisation- Many thinkers
have defined socialization in several ways. P.B. Paul and C.L. Hunt define
socialisation as “a learning process which turns an individual from an animal into a
person with a human personality. It is formally a process whereby one internalises
the norms of the groups among whom one lives so that a distinct “self emerges
unique to this individual.” Burgess observes that “socialisation is the process of
working together, of developing group personality, of being guided by the welfare
needs of others.” According to William Ogburn, “Socialisation is the process by
which the individual learns to conform to the norms of the group.” According to
Lundberg, “Socialisation is the complex process of interaction through which the
individual learns the habits, skills, beliefs and standards of judgement that are
necessary for his effective participation in social groups and communities.” In all
these definitions, there is a common idea that characterises socialisation as learned
behaviour from the organic to the social level.
2.2. OBJECTIVES
After studying this unit, you should be able to
 understand socialization. As a process of moulding the new born child into a
social being.
 understand the need for socialization.
 know about the different stages of socialization
2.3. CONTENTS
2.3.1. Need for Socialization
2.3.2. Process and Stages of Socialization
2.3.3. Agents of Socialization
2.3.4. Adult Socialization
2.3.1. Need for Socialisation
The need for socialisation is imperative. Generally, the starting point in
socialisation is from the preliminary condition of infancy. Some thinkers are of the
12
opinion that socialisation starts even before the child is born. At the human level,
there are many social processes as a sequal to the child’s birth and they are
supposed to indirectly influence the social growth of the child to be born. After
birth, the human infants are biologically pro-set to the social. Biological factors
shape to some extent the mental and emotional stability for personality formation
by social training and experience.
The child soon after it is born appears unique in terms of flesh and blood,-the
organic contents. There is no other person exactly alike. The child is valued not for
what it is organically, but for what it would be by social training and experience.
The way in which it comes into contact with other persons,- a process of social
interaction enables the child to develop a “self of its own. The formation and
development of “self is the heart of socialisation. There is an absolute need of the
social environment for the child to get socialised. Every person is born in social
environment, but he is not born social. Sociability is a becoming but not a being. In
this sense, an individual gets socialised only in the context of social environment.
Social isolation of the child distorts not only social growth but also normal
biological traits. Speech, stature, organic movements are affected without social
training. Many case studies of children isolated from social environment have
revealed that both organic and social abilities get atrophied and such children are
sub-human or cease to be human.
Socialisation is based on two significant modes of transmission, namely,
heredity and environment. Heredity refers to biological inheritance and
environment refers to social conditions in which the person is born and trained into
social experience. The relative roles of heredity and environment is a controversial
problem. But, it is an accepted truth, that both factors are necessary in the
formation of personality. It is not the denial of either heredity or environment that
is argued, but the proportionate importance of either factor. The entire process of
socialisation depends on the inter-play of both heredity and environment, the
distinct factors in the transmutation of an organic human being to a social human
being. Heredity is potentiality made actual in the environment. Environment is an
essential condition for training the individual for social life. Personality, a product
of socialisation is intrinsically based on the interplay of both factors of heredity and
environment. The need for socialisation depends on the presence of these two
factors in human existence. An individual is no longer regarded as human unless
he is socialised. He becomes human by training and social experience.
2.3.2. Process and Stages of Socialisation
Socialisation is over-all process. There are different stages in the life history of
the individual and the process of socialisation is a link in the growth of human
personality. Sociologists and Psychologists have propounded some developmental
theories of Socialisation. Most important thinkers are George Herbert Mead, C.H.
Cooley, Sigmund Freud and Jean Piaget.
John Herbert Mead has presented a social Psychological theory of relations
among the mind, the self and the society in his hypothesis of socialisation.
13
According to him, mental activity is fundamentally a social process based on speech

and language from early childhood. The first stage, he calls as “the conversation of
guestures” between the infant and other members in family or social group. The
child may not be conscious of what it does But it internalizes the guestures of its
own and those of others. The second stage is that of Play in which the child’s role in
social interaction becomes visible. Guestures of like, dislike, appreciation or
reflection may combine in the child’s role of Play. In later stages of the game,
children get acquainted with the rules of play. The sense of self is acquired through
social interaction. There is stimulus-response by observing others and initating
roles and making its own activity distinct as “Self” Later on, as the child grows
becomes distinct. J.H. Mead analyses the nature of self into two categories,- “Me”
and “I.” He calls the self which is in conformity with the rules and customs of the
group as “Me.” That part of the self which he calls a “I” is unique and creative.
Charles Horton Cooley describes the theory of socialisation in terms of “the
looking glass self.” It is a process of discovering one’s own self from the reactions of
others. The sense of self-hood develops from social interaction. It is a social
product. The individual considers his habits, thoughts and feelings as reflections of
a self produced from the reactions of others. He is chiefly interested in knowing
himself from other’s reactions. According to him, there are three elements in self-
image.
1. Imagination of how one appears to others.
2. Imagination of other’s judgement of his appearance.
3. One’s feelings of Pride or Prestige from these judgments. C.H. Cooley
finally concludes that society and self are not separate phenomena but
collective and distributive aspects of the same phenomenon.
Sigmond Freud has analysed four important stages in the social development
of the instinct-driven infant to a conscious adult. These stages are,- Oral, Anal,
Phallic and Latency. The development of the person is primarily determined by the
relation to sexual phases. The sexuality of the infant in the Oral stage is the main
attachment to the mother by suckling and physical contact. This makes the first
distinction between child and the mother. In the second phase, ‘Anal’, the child’s
sexuality is expressed in excretory tendencies of toilet. The third stage, called
Phallic is described as the “Oedipus complex.” Freud’s analysis of this stage is
concerned more with the boy than with the girl. According to him, the boy develops
sexual attachment with the mother to the extent of marrying his mother and in an
extreme case to hate and kill his father. But, this reaction is combined with fear
and love. The dislike against father is repressed with the intention of growing like
him. The last stage known as Latency, begins from the age of six, during , which
time little interest in sexuality is shown. The child identifies with the parent of the
same sex and children of different avoid each other. With an appropriate sex-
parent, the child acquires a “Super-ego” and recognizes and adopts the moral
attitudes of parents. During puberty, the sexual impulses awaken and create
14
emotional stress associated with adolescence. Freud’s theory presupposes that the
growth of the person upto six years, will have important effects an adult
personality. Freud views human beings as basically animals with sex impulses,
ignoring the impact of social regulations. The period after six years is a turning
point in child’s development. The behaviour of children after that age changes by
the development of mind leading to adult social behaviour.
Jean Piaget, a Swiss child psychologist, recognises the period of child’s growth
from five to seven years as an important stage of development. He observes, that
children acquire moral rules of play as a part of mental development, much more
than what they can learn from their interaction with parents. By grasp of moral
rules, there is qualitative change in the mental behaviour of the child. He analyses
the early stage of two years into sub-stages in which infants learn about space,
time and their relationship to objects. He calls this as sensori-motor phase. The
second stage is from two to five years, during which period language becomes
important and children became ego-centric. They observe the games and imitate
adults. The next stage is upto eight years in which children understand the rules
and co-operate with others to win. But they differ m their grasp of rules. At the age
of ten and onwards, they view the rules with great concern of the group. Piaget’s
theory of moral development is derived from his observation of children between
two and fourteen from poor families, playing marbles. He contends that the mental
development of the child is the main source of moral and social development.
The development theories of socialisation describing different stages of child’s
growth are subjected to lot of criticism. There is a presupposition of child’s
reactions during different age periods. The criterion employed in the study of
children in different ages is not universal so as to be applied to children of different
social groups. The phases of development cannot be clear-cut in terms of specific
ages. However, there are two important contributions from these theories. Firstly,
every individual accepts the values and customs of the society by thinking.
Secondly, the process of socialisation is shaped as the infant moves from early
childhood to adolescence, through internalisation of various rules and social
patterns.
The process of socialisation is spread over the different periods of human
growth, from infancy to old age. Infancy is the initial stage indicating the roots of
socialisation. Socialisation during infancy and childhood exercise a formative
influence on the future social development of human personality. During the period
of adolescence, the individual develops certain attitudes, compares himself with
others in different social roles. Socialisation in adulthood reaches the stage of
maturity with motivations and judgements on social behaviour. Maturity is ripe in
old age with the reminiscence of past experience and impositions on younger
generation. The range of socialisation depends on the participation of the individual
in the different areas of social life. There are however marked differences in the
different stages of socialisation from infancy to old age.
15
2.3.3. Agents of Socialisation

The infant at birth is helpless. It depends on adults for training and survival.
The method of training children is a part of human culture. This tasks
accomplished by different roles in social organisations. There are several patterns
or agencies of socialisation in organised form. Family in particular is organized in
such a way to make socialisation possible, right from the stage of infancy. “Home is
the first school and mother is the first teacher” is an old advantage that
substantiates the possible method of socialisation within the family. The child is
surrounded by the nearest and dearest relatives from whom it acquires gradually
the aptitudes and modes of response. The immediate and nearest attachment of the
child is with the mother. The organic needs of the child are fulfilled by suckling and
many guestures of cry., laughter are bodily movements. Family is the first and
foremost agency of socialisation. It is within the family, the basic cultural elements
are transmitted to the child. Such transmission serves as a background for the
formation and influence on the life and growth of the individual. The relationship
between parents and children is indicated in terms of nurture, affection, reward
and punishments. Warm and affectionate relationship is reverberated to the extent
that the child is motivated to identify with the parent. Authority of parents, and
obedience of children are based on the larger interests of the moral community.
Giving freedom to the child increases its inner commitment. Conformity by
persuation is a common childhood experience. Reward and punishment are also
effective forces in the process of socialisation within the family.
Apart from the family, there are many agencies of socialisation like play-
groups, education, religion and mass communication. Play-groups are primary
cultural centres to train youngsters for social life. They are institutionalised with
appropriate regulations and standards. Children and youngsters in similar age
groups (Peer-groups) get socialized by direct and inter-personal contacts and
develop a form behaviour in conformity with social norms. Play groups are primary
agencies life family, in the process of socialisation.
The next important agency of socialisation is the school and other educational
institutions. Family cannot fulfil all the needs of children and youngsters. Starting
from the kinder-garden to the university, there are various educational institutions
to mobilise the abilities of children and youngesters for a successful adult life-
Socialisation of the individual by education depends on the relationship between
teachers and students and also the way in which educational institutions are
organised. Education is an important agency to transmit cultural values to children
and youngesters. The kindergarten, nurseries and schools train children, boys and
girls upto certain age periods whereas colleges and university provide higher
education the adolescents. Training for social life depends on the organisation of
these institutions and the cultural elements of each group. Education provides a
cultural back-ground for the formation of attitudes among individuals towards the
values and norms of the community.
16
Religious institutions play a prominent role in the socialisation of the

individual and groups. Religion is an important element of culture and persists
through the ages as a support and consolation for the success and failures in social
life. Every person as he is born generally inherits the status of caste of religion and
is trained for social life by religious sanctions- Majority of the population from the
primitive to the modern times have faith in religion denoted by a super-natural
power beyond human comprehension. Religion as a socialising agency facilitates
the adaptation of the individual to the circumstances of life. It is a great moral
force, whatever be the nature of dogmatic assertions. It binds individuals to social
unity.
Apart from these traditional agencies of socialisation, there are modem devices
of mass-communication which socialise the individual at the levels from childhood
to old age. Mass-communication consists of diverse forms in the nature of
advertisements, propaganda, newspapers, Radio, Television and the like. These
agencies draw the attention of persons in different areas of social life and exercise
influence on their social behaviour and nature of living. In modern society, these
agencies are more potential than family, play-groups, educational, and religious
institutions.
Whatever be the role of various agencies, socialization is not beneficient at all
levels. There are many chances of misdirection in the process of socialisation.
Naughty and mischievous children, disobedient and deviant youngsters, carefree
adolescents are found in every society. This divergence from the main stream of
socialisation in its different levels by the operation of agencies, creates deviance and
many social problems. By demoralising influences during early periods, adults and
old persons loose social stability and contribute to the menace of social problems.
Moreover, socialisation is not universal, since it varies from culture to culture
according to norms and values.
2.3.4. Adult Socialisation
Socialisation is a continuous process and the individual is not completed in
socialization until death. Children, inspite of resistance are more easily moulded
than adults. It is said that a great part of socialisation in human career is done
before one reaches adulthood. Socialisation starts from birth and ends in death of
every person. Much has not been studied or discussed about adult-socialisation,
since the process is very much operative before the individual reaches adulthood.
But there is greater cognitive influence by which the adult becomes creative by self-
thinking. There are many opportunities for the display of his abilities and every new
role is a new setting for his socialisation. The general process of socialisation has
been defined by many sociologists as an adaptation to the old as well as new roles.
Norms and values are not fixed. Normative changes and new value-systems
demand a change of roles especially among adults.
Several situations that develop in adulthood create “anticipatory socialisation.”
Because, an adult has to function with new roles. Inspite of traditional adaptation,
children imitate the roles of elders and this process also is the dim consciousness
17
of anticipatory socialisation. But in the case of adult who is socialised at different

levels of growth, the anticipation in socialisation is imagined as a social role even
before the opportunity is utilised. Socialisation of the adult is much easier than
that of a child for three reasons. Firstly, the adult is motivated to work by
envisaging the goal. Secondly, the new role which he has to internalise has certain
similarities to the earlier roles of his personality. Adaptation to new role is not a
difficult task. Thirdly, there is proper communication between him and the
socialising agent, and thereby his task is easy.
Socialisation of the adult is evidenced from the training of persons in army
camps and cadet academy in which discipline is the main force. It involves
automatic obedience to superior’s orders and there is very little scope for self-
thinking. There are also broader categories in which the adult gets socialised by
seeking an explanation for new roles. His cognitive level is mature enough to adopt
with reason by internalising the new roles. The broad principles of learning are the
same for both children and adults. Adults are less easily shaped than children
because of highly cognitive level by which they reason and seek explanation. They
do not accept norms as easily as children can be persuaded. All the same, the
processes social learning are not basically different.
1. Socialisation is the leaving that enables the individual to perform roles in his
culture.
2. Socialisation is based on two significant modes of transmission, namely
heredity and environment.
3. Socialisation is a continuous process and the individual is not completed in
socialization until death.
1. Define Socialization and explain the need for socialization.
2. Discuss the different stages of socialization.
3. What are the agencies of socialization? Discuss.
2.6. SUMMARY
Socialization is the process of acquiring the beliefs, norms, and values that are
socially expected of us as members of a particular society. It is one of the basic
forces that shapes human social behaviour. Another is a person’s inherited
biological potential. This potential establishes a range of behavioural possibilities
on which environmental influences work. A third force shaping social behaviour is a
person’s own freedom to make choices about who he or she will become.
1. Socialization is based on two significant modes of transmission. – Discuss.
2. Process and stages of Socialization – Explain
18

2. Related Journals.
2.9. ASSIGNMENTS
1. Explain the need for Socialization.
2. Discuss adult Socialization
1. Sociology primary principles – C. N. Sankar Rao S. Chand & Company Ltd.
7361 Ram Nagar, New Delhi. 110055
2. The Sociology of Science – Theoretical and Empirical investigations. Robert
K. Merton, The university of Chicaco press Chicago & London.
Group discussions, Seminars on the related topic of Socializations.
2.12. KEY WORDS
Socialization, Individual, Agency, Process
❑
19
LESSONS – 3
CULTURE
3.1. INTRODUCTION
Human society is distinguished from animal social groups in terms of culture.
Of all the animals, human being is cultural and his social interaction is basically
cultural. Culture and human society are two inseparable aspects of the same
phenomenon. They are inter-related and inter-dependent. Culture is a product of
society. It does not exist without a social group. Similarly it is impossible to
understand society without culture. There are animal and sub-human groups
without culture. At the human level, culture is an essential ingredient of human
society. Social interaction is not haphazard. It is guided by a pattern of behaviour
which is known as culture. The continued interaction of members create culture
which is the counter-part of human society. Society and culture are inter- woven in
such a way that a cultureless society is unthinkable and non-existent.
3.2. OBJECTIVES
After studying this unit, you should be able to
 understand the elements of culture.
 know the main functions of culture.
 understand cultural variability.
 know cultural lag.
 understand – Ethnocentrism
3.3. CONTENTS
3.3.1. Culture – Definition
3.3.2. Elements of Culture
3.3.3. Functions of Culture
3.3.4. Cultural Variability
3.3.5. Cultural Lag
3.3.6. Ethnocentrism
3.3.1 Culture – Definition
There are several definitions of culture. Sociologists and social Anthropologists
have coined innumerable definitions of culture to signify its social implications. E.
B. Tylor, an eminent English Anthropologist of 19th Century has presented a
popular definition of culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge,
belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by
man as a member of society.” Robert Bierstedt defines culture as “the complex
whole that consists of all the ways we think and do and everything we have as
members of society.” According to Graham Wallas, an educationist, “culture is an
accumulation of thoughts, values and objects; it is the social heritage acquired by
us from preceding generations through learning as distinguished from the biological
heritage which is passed on to us automatically through genes.” Radcliffe “Brown
20
defines culture as “an organised body of conventional understandings manifest in

art and artifact, which, persisting through tradition characterizes a human group.”
Linton calls culture as “social heredity.” Lowie defines culture as “social tradition.”
All these definitions indicate that culture is closely related to society and it is the
manifestation of human achievements which constitute social heritage. Culture is
human accomplishment that passes on from generation to generation in the form of
social inheritance. Culture is manifested in human behaviour through learning.
But, not human behaviour is cultural. Human behaviour consists of biological and
psychological traits which are independent of culture. The genetic traits of stature,
skincolour, hair texture and bodily system are not products of culture.
Psychological traits of reflexes, and instincts are not cultural. Culture is a form of
behaviour acquired by man through learning as a member of society. It is not latent
like physical traits. It is manifested in social interaction. Culture cannot be equated
or identical with the entire process of human behaviour. It is that part of human
behaviour acquired by learning through social inheritance. In a nutshell, it is
defined as a way of life of the people.
3.3.2. Elements of Culture
Though culture and society are inter-related they are not one and the same.
Culture is often confused with society; but culture and society are different
concepts. Culture is a system of norms and values, whereas society is a group
occupying a territory with many associations and having culture as a part of the
system. Society is an organisation, and culture is an organised system of norms
and values which people hold.
The elements of culture refer to a pattern of behaviour governed by norms and
values. Culture is not visible or tangible by itself. It is a matter of experience. Some
thinkers classify elements of culture into material and non-material culture.
Material culture consists of various tangible products starting from the stone age of
the primitive man to the modern aero plane. Non-material culture refers to rules of
behaviour- pattern, based on norms and values. Material and non-material forms of
culture are not separate and independent. Materials are after all products of
cultural experience and serve as part of the value system. Non-material culture
cannot be abstracted from material products since the norms and values determine
the need and importance of material goods.
The elements of culture are of various types. Culture is not a product of a
single generation. It is the experience of generations of people who lived in the past.
The cultural base is the social inheritance of various beliefs, customs, folkways and
mores of each community. There are different cultural groups in relation to
differences in social heritage and experience. The general content of culture is
revealed in norms and values.
The norms and values which are the essential elements of culture include
beliefs, folkways, mores and Laws. Beliefs are the faiths of people derived from the
social experiences of previous generations. There is a continuity in empirical
practice, and they develop into customs and traditions. Beliefs may be true or false
21
and it is difficult to undermine their origin and nature. It is a non-rational element

of culture. Beliefs are of various forms. Especially in religion, beliefs are obscure.
Most people do not really know the meaning of what they do. Some beliefs are
tested experiences and, we find in society both tested and untested empirical
knowledge. A disease may be cured by magic and prayer or by medicine. The former
is abstract and the latter is concrete experience. Cultural system includes both
tested and untested empirical knowledge. Majority of the population including the
so called intellectuals are guided in their behaviour by common faith of cultural
heritage. Beliefs as cultural norms are a major portion of the elements of culture
and serve as agencies of social control.
FOLK-WAYS are norms that specify expected behaviour in everyday situations.
They are the accepted and recognized ways of behaving in society. Literally,
folkways imply “folk” and “ways” which respectively mean the group and method. It
is a method of behaviour in social group. Folkways include conventions, etiqurette
and a large variety of modes of living evolved in social life. The originators of
folkways are anonymous. The folkways have no moral significance. Still they are
the practices in routine life. Every culture develops a number of folkways in
habitual ways of eating, greeting, conversing, wearing clothes and many other
modes of living. Folkways are simply the customary, normal habitual ways of a
group. Folkways are the guidelines of cultural behaviour.
Folkways differ from group to group on the basis of their cultural experiences.
They are not uniformal even though the implications of general social behaviour are
recognisable. There are many forms of eating, speaking, and greeting. Norms
through folkways differ from group to group. Eating may be with hands or use of
instruments. Greeting may take place by shaking hands, salute, prostrating,
kissing or rubbing noses. Habits of food may vary from group to group. Some
groups may eat several animals which is not liked by other groups. Folkways may
differ from culture to culture; but they indicate standardised behaviour. Folk ways
are not strict regulations. Violation of folkways does not entail severe punishment.
They are not dictates of behaviour. Normally, people adhere to folkways to be in
tune with social standards of the community. Many folkways are based on the faith
of the people in terms of reward and punishment. In modern society cultural
diffusion has affected the observance of folkways in social living. Habitual ways
have altered with new meaning to social behaviour and many conventional
practices are abandoned. Still, they survive in social areas of marriage, family and
religion. There is no end of folkways, since they are the ways of the folk or
community. They reappear in new forms an indices of behaviour pattern.
More are social norms prescribing form of behaviour by the distinction of right
and wrong. They are derived from morality. Mores are more compulsive than
folkways. In the words of Gillin and Gillin “Mores are those customs and group
routines which are thought by the members of the society to be necessary to the
groups’ continued existence.” Mores represent the living character of a group. As
norms, they are the chief regulators of human behaviour. They appear in
22
institutional behaviour like religious rituals, marital sanctions, sex-taboos,

ceremonies and a host of cultural patterns ordained for normative life. Mores are
strong ideas of right and wrong. According to mores, certain acts are performed and
certain others are forbidden. It is both positive and negative in respect of human
actions. Members of society have firm faith that violation of mores bring disaster on
them. Mores are beliefs in the lightness or wrongness of things. Speaking the truth
is admired and telling a lie is admonished. They are the positive and negative
aspects of mores. Belief in the approval of certain acts and forbiding certain acts is
meant for the welfare of the group. Mores may be rational or irrational depending
on causal-relations or customary practices. They are deliberately thought or worked
out. They emerge from customary practices without conscious choice or intention.
Mores are taught to the young as sacred absolutes. Since they are group opinions,
they are not static. They are subject to change according to new experiences. Child
labour, slavery, woman suffrage, which were mores of medieval past have changed
in modern society by their avoidance. Mores in general are regarded as the
guardians of society.
Laws are the important elements of modern culture. When mores get organised
into formal institutions, they become laws. Law serves to reinforce the mores.
Generally some persons are tempted to violate the mores. In modern society,
custom is not enough to regulate the conduct of life. Laws are framed mostly from
the mores in the interest of social welfare. There is authority behind laws which are
enforced for obedience. Otherwise there is threat of punishment. However Laws do
not supercede mores. No man is made moral by an act of parliament. Laws are
therefore modified to suit the moral habituations of the people from time to time.
However, laws are the most effective formal agencies of social control.
Communication: Communication is an important element of culture. The
crucial factor in culture is the process of communication. What makes man unique
as distinguished from other animals is that human beings acquire knowledge by
inter-communication. Communication is basic to the system of culture since it is
the only way of transmitting human experience from generation to generation.
Communication consists of signs, signals, and language which are the symobolic
forms of culture. The meanings of culture are shared by symbols. There are many
guestures and articulates of speech which constitute cultural symbolism. The
significance of symbols in cultural system is found not only in spread of knowledge
but also in the maintenance of social order. Symbols are normative devices to direct
and guide people for particular forms of behaviour.
Signs and signals are important symbolic elements of culture. The ‘Hand post’,
“No parking’, ‘No entry’ “Visiting Hours” and many other sign boards are indicative
of particular cultural patterns in behaviour. Figures, pictures, paintings indicate
certain conceptions in cultural process. Flags in different colours denote
nationalities. The symbolic representation through certain animal figures is cultural
insignia. Before the advent of language, guestures by physical signs and utilisation
of material objects served as the means of inter-communication. Mere use of
23
symbols and signals would have limited the range and spread of human culture.
Language, oral and written is the most significant cultural invention. In the
obsence of language, people behaved on the memories of the past available in
symbolic expression. Speech and written language are the vehicle of thought. There
are many guestures and actions by speech. Shaking hands, saluting, smile, are
guestures which are neither speech nor written language, but clear cultural
expressions which are conventional. They connote the feelings and sentiments. A
large part of cultural system is found in social interaction through language.
Culture is cumulative through language. The use of language has transformed
the quality of social life in several ways. It is an important social tool of inter-
communication. It enables the accumulation of knowledge from past and present
experiences and on that basis a fore-thought of the future. Human history is more
intelligible through written records than by memories. Knowledge is a co-operative
movement of human thoughts expressed in language.
3.3.3. Functions of Culture
Culture and society are inseparable parts of reality. The concept of culture is
as abstract as the concept of society. It is only in the manifestation of culture in
human social life, the meaning of culture is intelligible. There is nothing like
cultureless society. Human society is the embodiment of culture. As such, culture
includes the entire mechanism of social life. It is the main spring of society to direct
human activities in social interaction. It is often said that culture creates people by
providing a design for living. It is not easy to specify the functions of culture since it
is embedded in all aspects of human social life. The birth and upkeep of human
society is based on culture. Culture is as old as human society since it co-exists
and pervades social life.
Sociologists have attempted to analyse the functions of culture in two respects.
Firstly as it is related to the individual; seccondly as it is concerned with the group.
Culture is an essential element in individual’s social life. It is present throughout
the life span of the individual from birth to death. Human being is transmitted from
organic to social being through culture. Culture is super-organic force. It is culture
that provides a formative influence on human personality. Culture is primarily
regarded as the basic requisite for the socialisation of the individual. The individual
as he is born, is directed to conform to cultural norms for purposes of social
survival. The formation and development of human personality is a cultural
process. Culture provides for the individual a frame work of social adjustment in
respect of a series of habits and customs. Culture creates a familiar pattern of
behaviour for the individual by adoptation to habits and customs. It makes the
individual identify with the group. Common conformity to cultural norms creates in
every individual a sense of belonging to the group. Individual behaviour is moulded
and conditioned by culture. To sum up, human personality is a product of culture.
At the social group level, culture provides several patterns of fulfilling human
need in the context of environment. There are different cultures in different social
groups. There is no common cultural pattern to the entire society. Whatever be the
pattern, culture provides a set of rules (norms) to ensure co-operation and
24
adjustment with environment. It is through culture, social interaction takes place

to preserve some unity in the group. Culture by its norms is regarded as the
guardian of social solidarity. Culture creates personalities as well as groups. It
maintains social order and makes society stable. Culture is a revolution in the
continued existence of human society.
3.3.4. Cultural Variability
Culture is not a single uniformal entity. There are hundreds of cultures in the
world and many patterns in each culture. Cultural differentiation is found in
innumerable variations in language, religion, norms and values among different
social groups. Varieties of culture are endless. Variability in culture is found in
institutional behaviour. There are also many sub-cultures and counter cultures
which exhibit cultural variations. There are many smaller groups whose culture
varies from that of a larger society or dominant group. Religious sects, rural and
mountainous folk are sub-cultures varying from larger societal groups. There are
social groups of criminals who constitute contra-cultural groups. They reject the
principles of larger society and live by their own norms. There cannot be common
set of principles for all cultural groups. Social groups differ from one another in
terms of culture.
Cultural variability appears not only within a single culture but also among
different cultural groups. There are various sectors of social life indicating different
patterns of behaviour even though they are with-in a particular cultural forum. In
terms of age and sex, people differ in cultural set up. The genetic or biological
differences in terms of age demand different cultural norms for control and
function. Sex differences between man and woman are manifested in different
habits of dress, occupation and social disposition. There are variations in the choice
and selection of mates for marriage. Marital practices vary as Monogamy, Polygamy,
Polyandry and group marriages. The family system varies in terms of descent,
inheritance of property, residence and authority as patriarchal and matriarchal
forms. There are also joint and nuclear families. Cultural variations in terms of sex,
marriage and family are endless both in form and range of functions. Modern
inventions have provided new styles of living indicating a change in attitude to
marriage and family patterns.
In the other spheres of social life like religion, political administration,
economic pursuits, educational systems, recreational devices, there are a large
variety of cultural differences denoting different patterns of behaviour. Religion is
an important cultural pursuit in all social groups from primitive of modern society.
In all stages of human history, religious faiths and practices are of various forms,
even to the extent of creating cultural contradictions within a social group and
between several social groups. Meditation, fasting sex abstinence, sacred
prostitution. Kindness, tolerance, infanticide, hospitality, fanaticism are of endless
cultural variations in religious pursuits. Likewise, cultural variations exist in
methods of public administration. The forms of Government vary in terms of
different political ideologies. Democracy, dictatorship, socialism though they are the
main forms have different methods, and the political devices of control and
administration vary from country to country. Economic patterns are based on
25
cultural differences, inspite of common modem technology. Values of wealth,

distribution and possession of property vary from group to group. There are
educational systems and recreational forms which vary from culture to culture.
Education and recreation though universal requirements are subjected to cultural
indices and vary from group to group. Variations in culture denote different designs
of living in a system of values. Every cultural practice is intelligible to the person
who adopts it by rational approach or blind faith. Its relevance is a matter of
habituation. Dress or greeting what-ever be its forms is a cultural need. It my vary
but remains as a cultural index in human behaviour.
Some thinkers have tried to reason out cultural variability in terms of race,
geographical environment and human achievement in social environment. Race as
an explanation of cultural variability denotes ethno-centric rigidities. Racial traits
are organically fixed and unchanging. There are wide differences among people in
terms of biological inheritance even within a race apart from wider differences
between racial groups. Culture is super-organic. It is not inherited like organic
traits, but a matter of historic experience. Cultural inheritance is not fixed and
uniformal. It varies during different periods of time according to human experience
and adjustment. Culture would have been static and fixed in different racial
groups, if it were organic. Culture is variable and undergoes changes from time to
time. It is not the exclusive ownership of any race but depends on social interaction
even between several races. On the other hand, instead of variability, it creates
concordance and uniform pattern among people of different races.
Geographical environment is wrongly supposed to be a determinant of cultural
variability. Physical environment may induce certain forms of human habituation
in dress occupation and food. But, these habits are not uniformal and conditioned
by natural environment. Man can circumvent geographical conditions for a better
social life. As such, there are limits to natural order in human social existence.
There are similar cultures in different geographical environment, and also variable
cultures in similar geographical environments. Therefore, geographical environment
is not a rational explanation of cultural variability.
The content of culture and making of culture is a matter of historic experience.
It is a choice in practice which is of numerous forms. Variety of human experience
causes cultural variability. Culture is not absolutely variable. There are certain
uniformities in all cultures of the world. Marriage and family may be of different
cultural forms in terms of practice; but conceptually, all cultures recognise both
marriage and family as institutions required for a way of life. They may culturally
vary in modes and content but remain as universal patterns with common
objectives.
3.3.5. Cultural Lag
Cultural Lag and ideologies which are interdependent.
3.3.6. Ethnocentrism
Cultural lag is a modern concept which refers to the rate of cultural change.
Culture is not static. It changes in the light of new human needs and experiences
from time to time. It is difficult to analyse clearly the rate and direction of cultural
26
change in human history. However, early sociologists like Summer and Herbert
Spencer have described the process of social change in terms of evolution in the
structure and functions of society. But the rate of change is specifically viewed by
William Ogburn who has formulated the concept of cultural lag. First of all, the rate
of cultural change has two major implications. Change may refer to the contents or
parts of a particular culture or to the entire culture. It is a matter of dispute
whether change in particular institutions are at the same level as changes in other
institutions within a culture. Changes in economic and political institutions may
not be at the same level as changes in family and religion. Economic changes may
be more rapid and less conservative. Like-wise, changes in total culture may be
variable from one cultural group to another Some countries may be technologically
progressive and some others may be culturally rigid and conservative. Historically,
changes in culture are viewed in different directions in different societies. But there
is no total change of culture in any society. Culture is a social base and the
changes in culture are modifications of experience on that base. That is now
culture is cumulative and inherited. What is discussed is the rate of change in the
different components of culture. This leads to a study of cultural lag.
The notion of cultural lag was first expounded by William Ogburn an American
Sociologist. He analysed culture into two major aspects, material and non-material.
Material culture composes various tools, techniques and a variety of goods in
human civilisation in the form of discovery. It is basically a technological
equipment. Non-material culture refers to institutional arrangements in family,
religion, morality, art and literature which are directed towards intrinsic values.
Material culture is instrumental and utilitarian whereas non-material culture is
intrinsic and an end in itself. According to W.F.Ogburn, these two cultures are not
isolated entities. They are just distinguishable aspects of cultural reality. Changes
in material and non-material cultures may be inter-stimulated. He calls this
process as “adoptive culture”. Adoptive culture is a product of the disproportionate
changes in material and non-material aspects of culture. Adoption of material with
non-material aspect creates a gap which he recognised as “cultural lag”. What he
emphasises is the rate of change in material and non-material aspects and their
disproportion creates the gap in adoptive culture. Changes in material culture
constitute technological developments. Which are faster than changes in family,
religion and education. In a well-adjusted society, all parts of culture catch up with
the changing process. But there is a difference in change in material and non-
material aspects. This situation is described as cultural lag. In the words of W.F.
Ogburn, “The strain that exists between two correlated parts of culture that change
at unequal rates of speed may be interpreted as a ‘lag’ in the part that is changing
at the slowest rate for the one that lags behind the other.” What is noticed is not
the static nature of non-material culture or rapidity of change in material culture. It
is just disproportionate rate of change between material and non-material aspects
of culture.
W. F. Ogburn emphasised discrepancies in the rate of change in the different
sectors of social life. He focussed his attention on the rapid growth of technology as
contrasted from the rigid slow rate of change in family, education and other
27
institutions. The hypothesis of cultural lag is with reference to differential rates of

change between material and nonmaterial culture. Ogburn cites instances of
cultural lag in the different institutions which have not kept pace with advance in
technology. In modern civilisation, industrialisation and urbanisation have brought
enormous changes in production and material comforts. Rapid changes in factory
have not proportionately altered the modes of living in family, education, religion
and Government. There is vast difference between material advancement and
nonmaterial ideology. The material inventions like automobile, radio, printing,
aeroplane have tremendous impact on the nature of civilised life. But customs and
beliefs remain rigid without adjustable change. It is lack of adjustment between
advanced material conditions and rigid non-material ideologies that creates cultural
lag. Ogburn observes that there is vast cultural lag especially in modem society
which is equipped with tremendous advance in technology but retains cultural
rigidities in many institutions. The modes of living, marital practices, family
systems, religious faiths, educational formula remain traditional and less altered
even in the face of technological advance. Cultural lag causes disharmony and even
dislocates the social equalibrium by creating problems of adjustment. There are
however possibilities of the co-existence of old techniques with modern inventions.
Due to cultural resistance, lag becomes inevitable. Cultural lag is therefore an
irredeemable consequence of disproportionate social change between material and
nonmaterial aspects of culture.
The theory of cultural lag is subjected to lot of criticism by many sociologists.
T.B. Bottomore remarks that industrial societies have stimulated considerable
change in family, marriage, religion and education and the lag is not discernable.
Kingsley Davis holds that any comparison between the different parts of society is
baseless and untenable. The distinction between material and non-material is
artificial and superfluous. The material goods are the products of human desires
and thoughts. They are utilitarian and a means but not cultural in themselves. It is
their meaning and rather than the products that provides cultural character.
Cultural reality does not consist in the quantam of material goods but in their
relevance to cultural values. Material and nonmaterial division of culture is an
erroneous assumption that has prompted the hypothesis of cultural lag. Culture is
a socio-psychic reality comprising all social interactions and human achievements
historically inter-linked and inherited. James W. Woodward has criticised the
distinction between material and nonmaterial culture as an impracticable theory.
Clinging to old fashioned ways under new conditions indicates better social
adoptation than absolute acceptance of inventions. The rapid changes may create
imbalance. There is no question of lag between the old and new cultural conditions
in their process of co-existance.
R. M. MacIver questions the basic concept of lag by the remark what lags
behind what? Lag is a dubious concept in human culture. If we are convinced of a
cultural lag resulting from the slow rate of change in nonmaterial culture, it can be
equally argued against slow rate of change in technology. There are many social
groups in which the old techniques are very rigid and conservative due to cultural
preservation. Their culture is richer by steadfast adoptation. The bow and arrow
28
technology in some primitive groups remains unchanged since hundreds of years.

What can be made out from this technological stagnation is technological lag
instead of cultural lag. MacIver is inclined to displace the concept of cultural lag by
technological lag. Modern society is highly complicated. It is difficult to find
appropriate relations in technological order. Maladjustment is more tenable in
technological set up than in cultural pattern of family or religion. However the
distinction between material and nonmaterial culture is misleading. It is supposed
that cultural lag leads to all kinds of disequalibrium in social change. There is no
standard to measure the pace-maker and the laggard. In the analysis of social
change, comparison between different institutions in terms of lag is irrelevant
Cultural values impose restraints on technological developments. In modern society
technology has to face a bottleneck by cultural impositions. Too much of
technological advance without cultural restraints creates maladjustments and
culture comes to its rescue. Theory of cultural lag is erroneous. Human culture is a
totality of human achievements
Ethnocentrism is a social phenomenon based on the likes and dislikes of
people belonging to different social groups. There are several definitions of
ethnocentrism. The concept of ethnocentrism is a direct reference to racial affinities
and extended to cultural confines of each group. It denotes cultural relativity.
According to Kingsley Davis, “ethnocentrism is the first great basis of conflict, the
dislike of people with different culture and different ultimate ends from one’s own”.
John Cuber has defined ethnocentrism as a tendency of persons to judge other
cultures by the standards of judgment prevailing in their own”. Sumner formally
defined ethnocentrism as “that view of things in which one’s own group is the
centre of everything and all others are sealed and rated with reference to it”. Harry
Johnson points out, “ethnocentrism is the partly conscious but largely unconscious
tendency, when one comes in contact with foreigners to take the culture of one’s
own group as the basis of one’s emotional reactions, cognitive assessments and
aesthetic and moral judgments”. William Goode has defined ethnocentrism as “the
belief that one’s own community, group, tribe or nation is most worthy and
excellent, and that others should be viewed with some disapproval greater their
differences from us, greater the appropriate disapproval”. All these definitions
indicate that every individual as a member of his group has a tendency to believe
that people in other groups are different without the standards found in his own
group. It denotes preference for his own group with a pre-occupied prejudice
against other groups.
Ethnocentrism is a universal human reaction found in all social groups and
practically in all individuals. Cultural variability is found in different sets of norms
formulated and practiced in different groups. There are certain habits of wide
variance in cultural practices of different groups. Food habits, conventions, toilet
habits, sexual regulations, religious faiths, forms of family, art, dance, music and
the like indicate cultural differences which amount to ethnocentrism.
Ethnocentrism is based on conformity to the norms of each group. In addition,
there is loyalty to the group by which the individual identifies with his own group,
with a feeling that other groups and their culture are inferior. Conformity to norms
29
and loyalty to the group are the basic elements of ethnocentrism. These factors
need not be rational. But they are adoptive responses to one’s own culture. What is
significant, in ethnocentrism is the dislike of other groups much more than
preference to one’s own group. The negative aspect is more determinant than
positive aspect. It reaffirms the individual’s sense of belonging to his own group,
through his preference and predetermined dislike for other groups. Ethnocentrism
is an inevitable cultural trait of every individual. Even the most dispassionate open-
minded sociologist is not free from it. It is subjective. John Cuber remarks, “The
point is not so much that a person is unwilling to think in terms of another cultural
context, but that he is unable to do so”. Even in social research, the researcher
cannot really participate in other’s culture, since the assumptions and judgements
of his own culture bind him to create prejudices against external cultures.
Enthnocentricism is inescapable.
Ethnocentrism is not a hereditary inborn characteristic of the individual.
It develops through training and experience. It is learnt behaviour. The group in
which an individual is born and lives is the social background to cultivate
ethnocentrism. There are many groups like family, school, playground, religious
centres which teach ethnocentric ideas. By conformity and loyalty, the individual
becomes conventional in adopting and adoring his cultural values at the neglect
and discord of other cultures. In relation to cultural varieties there are varieties of
ethnocentric traits. By experience, groups are characterised by their peculiar
behaviour patterns. Groups are labelled good or bad. Statements like Jews are
misers, Britishers are conservative, Hindus are orthodoxical, Germans are
industrious are made out of unlearned unconscious ethnocentric experiences.
Ethnocentrism may be reinforced by movies, radio, t.v. and theatres.
Ethnocentrism may be taught deliberately by certain institutions to emphasise
strict adherence to cultural values and norms. This is known as indoctrination. In
every social group the individual is indoctrinated by several institutions, the
cultural values as sacred and indespensible. Nobody can escape from
indoctrination since he lives in his cultural context accepting those values. In all
stages of life, from boyhood to old age, ethnocentric teaching and learning becomes
a necessity for social survival.
Ethnocentrism has many favourable effects on society. It primarily prompotes
cultural preservation. The sense of belonging of the members contributes to unity
and cultural continuity. The status of the cultural group as a whole is maintained.
People forgo and forget class differences for preservation of their culture.
Ethnocentrism resists changes from external cultures. It reduces conflicts within
the group and maintains uniformity and unity. Indoctrination makes the cultural
system strong and rigid. Loyalty and conformity to cultural norms and values
assures protection to the individuals. Ethnocentrism reinforces nationalism and
patriotism. Nationalism is group loyality and emerges from ethnocentric ideas.
When culture is superior, it resists changes from lower cultures. However, a
comparative study of cultures is analamolous. Every culture poses to be superior to
other cultures. The very concept of ethnocentrism is based on indoctrinated
30
preference of one’s own culture with intolerance and prejudice against other
cultures.
Ethnocentrism has certain harmful effects. Apart from cultural preservation,
its dissociation from other cultures makes it isolated. Blind loyalty and conformity
to cultural norms creates at times conflict in the evaluation of its own contents
when compared with other cultures. It obstructs inter-cultural relations and leads
to national prejudice. It is the main cause of wars at international level. It destroys,
international peace and order. It hampers assimilation of other cultures and
functions in figurative self-contained unit. Immigration often creates conflict of
cultures and people suffer from prejudice and maladjustment. Deviation from
cultural norms and tolerance of other cultures are antithetical to ethnocentrism.
Disloyality and nonconformity create cultural vacuum and ethnocentric unity gets
destroyed.
Ethnocentrism is centred round the feeling that others are foreigners inferior
to their own culture. It is an assumption of purity of one’s culture and disapproval
of other cultures. Even the primitives think that they have a superior culture to
that of civilised people. It is like the conception of racial purity in biological sense.
Each cultural group assumes that its culture is its own creation without being
related to other cultures. Historically, no group is isolated to construct its own
culture. People have lived in groups and also come into contact with each other in
social movements, trade and communication. Inter-group relations have caused
cultural diffusion, consciously or unconsciously, Historically, no culture is unique
without being diffused. Ethnocentric people forget the debt to other cultures by
ruling out what is initated or borrowed. Every culture is modified by forces of
diffusion which are historically inevitable. Ethnocentrism in terms of pure culture
and the comparative analysis of superiority or inferiority is dubious.
What-ever be the tangibility of diffusion, ethnocentrism stays as an essential
trait of individual’s social existence. Indoctrination functions like a missionary
movement. Ethnocentrism is universal. The evil effects of ethnocentrism can be
remedied with proper human under-standing of the basic features of cultures.
Firstly, every individual should accept that culture of his own group is not
sacrosanct. Secondly, he should be aware that his knowledge of other cultures is
limited. Thirdly, he should appreciate the values of other cultures without being
fanatic and dogmatic to his own culture. A comparative analysis of cultures is
basically erroneous. Every culture contains superior and inferior traits which are
beyond the scope of assessment. Ethnocentrism is a false assumption of cultural
valuation. Its evils can be reduced by proper understanding of different cultures
and their correlation.
1. Culture and human society are two inseparable aspects of the same
phenomenon.
2. Communication is an important element of culture. Communications
consists of signs, signals and language which are the symbolic forms of
culture.
31
3. Culture is not static. It changes in the light of new human needs and
experiences from time to time.
4. Ethnocentrism is a social phenomenon based on the likes and dislikes of
people belonging to different social groups.
1. Define culture. What are the major components of culture?
2. Discuss the chief functions of culture in society
3.6. SUMMARY
Culture refels to a people’s shared ways of thinking, understanding, evaluating
and communicating that make social life possible. We draw on culture to make
sense out of our experiences and to coordinate our activities, and in the process we
reshape culture to meet new demands and situations.
1. Laws are the important element of modern culture – Explain.
2. Culture and society are in inseparable parts of reality – Discuss.
3. Define Ethnocentrism.
3.9. ASSIGNMENTS
1. What are the elements of culture?
2. Describe cultural variability.
3. Discuss cultural lag.
1. Sociology primary principles CN. Shankar Rao. S. Chand & Company
New Delhi 110055.
2. Culture change In India identity & Globalization Yogendra Sigh, Rawat
publications, New Delhi.
Group discussions, Seminar on the related topic of culture.
3.12. KEY WORDS
Culture, Ideology, Material culture, Non material culture, Technology
❑
32
LESSON – 4
ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS, EDUCATION, RELIGION, GOVERNMENT

4.1. INTRODUCTION
The system of norms regarding an activity is called an institution. Horton and
Hunt define institution as “a system of norms to achieve some goal or activity that
people feel is important.” Thus when there is a set of norms centered around the
pursuit of an important goal or a major activity, it is known as an institution.
There are five basic social institutions present in all societies. They are
1) Family 2) Education 3) Religion 4) Economic and 5) Government
institutions.
4.2. OBJECTIVES
After studying this unit you should be able to
 understand Economics is an important social institution for human survival.
 understand Education as an institution of great social significance.
 understand Religion as a social institution
 understand Government as the chief agency of social control.
4.3. CONTENTS
4.3.1. Economic Institutions
4.3.2. Education – Definitions
4.3.2.1. Objectives and Importance of Education
4.3.2.2. Methods and Forms of Education
4.3.2.3. Problems of Modern Education
4.3.3. Religion, Nature, Types and Function
4.3.4. Government
4.3.4.1. Origin of Government
4.3.4.2. Types of Government
4.3.1. Economic Institution
The most fundamental human activities are centred round economic pursuits
which are related to both organic and social survival of mankind. Economics is the
science of wealth in terms of production, distribution, and consumption of goods
and services. Economic organisation is a specific social structure with certain
arrangements for the satisfaction of basic human needs. Human needs are
multifarious and the economic structure is a complicated mechanism involving
various devices in the satisfaction of human wants. It is basically utilitarian.
MacIver has defined economic association as “an organisation of persons engaged
mainly in economic procedures of competing and bargaining in the production,
distribution and exchange of goods and services.”
33
Historically, economic activities have a series of trends from the primitive food-
gathering economy to the market-mechanism, of modern society. In preliterate
society, economic functions were undifferentiated by being infused with the major
social group like family or kinship group. It was more or less a self-sufficient
economy based on cultural norms of the family. There has been a gradual process
of development from the primitive self-sufficient economy to the industrial society
in which there are distinct elaborate economic organisations to cover a wide range
of human wants. They are specific associations with a variety of functions, even
though they are related to other social organisations. There are different stages of
economy, viz., Nomadic, food-gathering horticultural, agricultural and industrial.
The nomadic stage was the food-hunting by wanderlers from place to place. The
second stage of food-gathering was found among cave-dwelers. The horticultural
and agricultural stages marked definite settlements by food-producing and
domestication of animals. The industrial stage is the modern condition emerging
from industrial revolution of 18th Century. As a corollary to the different stages,
there are different forms of economy denoting the exchange of goods and services.
Barter economy is a vivid form of exchange of goods and services during the
horticultural and agricultural stages. During the food-hunting and food-gathering
stages, there was no need of economic exchange since the pursuits were temporal
confined to circumstances. Barter-economy later developed into currency - money
economy for a clear determination of values of goods and services. There are
modern forms of economy popularly described as price-economy, capitalistic-
economy and mixed-economy. These forms are based on the methods of public
administration in the production and sale of goods. Modern economy has developed
into a market-mechanism as constrated from the simple self-sufficing unit in
preliterate society.
The major elements of economic system are division of labour, specialisation of
tasks, property, types of economy, industrial enterprises and industrial relations.
In mordern society, there are elaborate economic units which are seemingly
detached by other organisations in terms of division of labour and specialisation of
tasks. It is often said that in pre-literate societies, economic functions were
undifferentiated from the other social pursuits. But people are differentiated in
their skills; Co-ordination by division of labour and specialisation of tasks is a time-
old experience in all economic systems. The needs of subsistence are socially
recognised, and shared by people with a division of labour. Not all can perform the
same tasks. Consequently, division of labour is a concomittant of specialisation.
These elements were not however regid and specific in primitive society. In modern
society, there are many devices of production through science and technology,
which demand specific division of labour and specialised skills. Many sociological
theorists have presented explanations on the division of labour. According to Emile
Durkheim, in an industrial society, there are two abnormal forms of labour known
as “anomie” and “forced” division of labour. Anomie is normlessness in labour.
Forced labour leads to social repression. Both forms create social conflict and
34
diminish social unity. He suggested that class-conflict emerging from capital and
labour antagonism may be reduced by negotiation and occupational choice. Karl
Marx discussed the concept of division of labour in terms of social stratification
between manual and intellectual labour. He propounded the theory of class
struggle based on division of labour. G. Schmoller observed that division of labour
creates occupational groups in terms of heredity. In India, caste system has created
occupational groups to indicate the division of labour. Friedman presents a
psychological interpretation of division of” labour with reference to the effects of
work and Leisure. In modern society, division of labour and specialisation of tasks
creates gap in the statuses of individuals. The economic system depends on inter-
dependence. Extreme specialisation isolates the individual who is alienated and
functions mechanically. But specialisation is the most important criterion of
progress in modern technology. Modern economic system stumbles if there is no
co-ordination and inter-dependence among the different areas of specialisation and
division of labour.
Property is an important institution in economic organization. Hobhouse
points out that property is the control of man over things and operates by social
recognition. It may be private or collective. Acquisitive instinct in man is
uppermost. He produces and owns not only what he wants, but also for future
security for himself and his progeny. The notions of property vary from group to
group. Property may be material like articles and cultural like art, songs, dance and
myths. There are no particular modes to indicate the evolution of property with
rights of ownership, since it is a variable phenomenon in different cultural groups.
In industrial society, mere ownership does not imply property- It is viewed in two
aspects, 1) distribution of property and its social effects, 2) separation between
ownership and industrial relations.
Sociologists have tried to classify societies according to different types of
economic systems from the primitive to modern times. The study of material culture
of simpler societies made by Hobhouse, Wheeler and Ginsberg reveals the
prevalence of more than four hundred economic sub-types among the primitives.
Karl Marx mentioned five distinct economic types. Primitive, ancient, asiatic, feudal
and capitalistic, in terms of level of technology, mode of production, property
ownership and class relations. H. Pierenne has traced the social history of
capitalism in different stages of economic activity in social groups. Karl Marx and
Max Weber have devoted their attention to the analysis of capitalism as an
economic social system. Study of economic types is a valuable sociological
approach for a synoptic explanation of property, industrial organisation, social
stratification and political organisation. It also reveals a change from one type of
economy to another.
Modern industrial enterprises and industrial relations are the subject-matter
of industrial Sociology, a new branch of sociological knowledge. There are two
aspects of industrial life, the internal organisation of industrial enterprise owners,
managers, supervisors and labourers. Industrial enterprise may be public or private
35
by way of nationalisation or individual ownership. Industrial enterprise is the

touch-stone of capitalistic and communistic countries, There is a tendency towards
industrial democracy to resolve the problems of industrial enterprise. The problem
of industrial relations is another aspect of industrial sociology. Industrial
relationships are widened beyond the factory concerns by broader frame-work of
property, class-system. Political institutions and individual personality. Trade
unions are formed to agitate” for more wages and participation in industrial
management. There are industries managed by a team of workers in a joint
enterprise. India trial conflicts are resolved by reconciliation and negotiation. Trade
unions have created many problems in the management of nationalised and private
industries. The study of industrial enterprises and industrial relations is the mail
consideration of modern economic system.
Economic association plays a dominant role in human society. It has
considerable impact on all other social organisations, since it is the bio-social basis
of human struggle and survival. It has enormously affected the family system
through industrialisation and urbanisation. The new economic values through job
opportunities for women in industry have altered the attitudes of people toward
marriage and family. The functions of the state are extends to control economic
practices of monopoly and exploitation. The notion of welfare State has developed to
regulate economic relations by controlling malpractices in trade Material
advancement through modern technology has projected secural ideas and
consequently reduced the importance of traditional religion. Modern education has
developed in relation to new economic systems, and there is a change in the roles
and statuses of individuals in modern society. Economic pursuit is recognised as
the touch-stone of all social activities. Karl Marx has formulated the theory of
“economic determinism” to indicate that economic factors are the be-all and end- all
of human social existence. He contends that economic institutions are basic and all
other organisations are just a super-structure of the base relations of the economic
system. Max Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy is a parallel between economic
productive powers and administrative powers. Economic needs are of course basic
and essential for human survival. But they are not the sole factors in human
relations and activities. Man is governed by cultural norms, which are the basis of
social existence. Economic interests though fundamental are not all-inclusive. Man
does not live by bread alone. There are many cultural pursuits in art, music,
literature and religion which are not basically economic but generated from the
mental and aesthetic inducements. Economic interests are not predeterminants of
human culture. A great part of economic activity is directed and controlled by
cultural norms and values. Economic activities are a part of total human culture. It
is fallacious to presuppose the economic determinism in total human social
existence. Economic aspect is an important area of social life, which has potentially
affected other organisations in modern context. But its effect is not decisive and
applicable to all groups univerally. There are many groups culturally integrated by
36
the subordination of economic interests in the pursuit of art. literature religion and
philosophy.
4.3.2. Education – Definition
Education is the main process of acquiring knowledge and is recognised as a
fundamental requirement of human culture. The term education is derived from a
latin word “educare” which means “to bring up” or “bring forth.” Education involves
both learning and teaching which are essentail for the continued existence and
function of human society. There are many definitions of education Aristotle, the
great Greek Philosoper defined education as “a process to develop man’s faculties,
especially his mind, so that he may be able to enjoy the contemplation of supreme
truth, beauty and goodness.” Sumner defined education as “an attempt to transmit
to the child the mores of the group, so that he can team what conduct is approved
and what is disapproved.” In the words of Emile Durkheim, education is “a
continuous effort to impose on the child ways of thinking, feeling and acting which
he could not have arrived at spontaneously.” In a broad sense, education is a
process of transmitting knowledge of social behaviour from generation to
generation. It is intrinsically a cultural process of learning.
4.3.2.1. Objectives and Importance of Education
Education is of great social significance. Many thinkers have emphasised the
necessity of education in human culture. Aristotle, Comte, Radhakrishnan,
Education Commission of UNESCO, have stressed the importance of education for
the development of human personality and integration of society. There are many
objectives and functions of education.
The first and foremost purpose of education is to complete the process of
socialisation. Family in modern society fails to perform all aspects of socialisation
and there is much to be done by other social agencies.
Secondly, education is intended for the transmission of cultural heritage.
Education is intrinsically cultural learning. Knowledge of the past is imparted to
younger generation to make them fit for social life in conformity with social norms.
It provides an understanding of complex culture for proper adjustment of the
individual with society as a whole. Thirdly, education is necessary for social
adjustment with different patterns of society. It helps for social contacts through
proper communication among different social sectors and cultural groups. It serves
as a medium of cultural diffusion, as well as of cultural preservation.
Fourthly, modern education has exercised considerable influence on other
social organisations like family, economic, political and religious institutions. It has
altered the attitudes towards sex and marriage and accounted for change in the
structure and functions of family. The inter-personal relationships with in the
family, between husband, wife and children have new roles and statuses due to
modern education. On the economic side, education has developed into specialised
systems to foster the needs and activities of different classes. Politically, modern
education is democratic. Education has prompted the spirit of nationalism. In
37
respect of religion, education has outmoded traditional beliefs, through secular

attitudes. Modern education is both democratic and secular. It is liberal as well as
specialized. Education is an essential base for all activities in a developed society.
Fifthly, education is a great disciplinary force and an agency of social control
both for the individual and society. The complexities of modern society demand
proper education for social adjustments and human understanding. At the
individual level, education disciplines the person by training and social adoption. At
the social level, it is an inter-disciplinary force, to control and regulate the different
segments for the purpose of cultural integration.
Education is a continuous process from childhood to old age. There are
different levels from the kindergarten to the University. There are many ancillary
forms of education through press, newspapers, radio, television apart from formal
organisations. Education is socially all-inclusive. It touches every aspect of social
life. As an agency of acquiring knowledge, it has no limits of age, time and space. It
is as perenial as knowledge and serves multiple purposes in society. It is not easy
to summarise the objectives and importance of education in human society.
Modern education is known as progressive education. Many researches in science
and technology have marked the growth of human civilisation. Education is the
criterion of determining the social levels of different groups. In all developed
countries, the level of education is high to indicate their social progress. Education
is essential for the transmutation of an individual to a cultured being. It is a matter
of human experience, that an educated man is an asset and an educated
community is socially progressive. Education serves society in the best possible
manner when it caters to the larger interests of the community. At selfish levels of
individuals and social sections, education defeats it purpose by creating social
cleavages and dissatisfaction. It reduces to be sectarian and leads to stratified
groups in society. Education, therefore, must be devised to cover the interests of all
members in a democratic way for general welfare.
4.3.2.2. Methods and Forms of Education
In simple and preliterate societies, education was not formal and specific. The
family and the community trained children and youngsters according to cultural
norms. As such, education was indentical with socialisation. There are several
methods and forms of education. In ancient India, education was a rigourous
training of the pupil in different stages of growth through Gurukula system. It was
based on constant personal contact between teacher and student, by a spiritual
bondage. The pupil underwent the ordeals of service to the teacher to develop
physical and spiritual discipline. British administration replaced the gurukula
system by formal methods of instruction in schools and colleges. In modern society,
educational institutions are specialised for cultural configuration. It is of two broad
types, vocational and liberal. Vocational education is specialised training in fields
like engineering, medicine and several scientific studies. Liberal education is
common knowledge transmitted to the younger generation for general development
of abilities in cultural interests. Vocational education has become a pattern of
38
progressive education due to developments in science and technology. Liberal has

tended to be mass-education in terms of general knowledge. Modern education is
secular and democratic. It is distinguished from the religious oriented education of
the past.
4.3.2.3. Problems of Modern Education
In a dynamic modern society, the objectives of education are in a state of flux.
Many problems are created in the methods and ideaology of education. There are
many discussions raged as to what education is for and also how it can be
managed. Like-wise, the problem is what should be transmitted and to whom it
should be transmitted? Modern education having upset the traditional system has
caused social imbalance between the young and the old. There are different
educational systems in different cultural groups. Variance in educational methods
and standards causes problems of adjustments between two or more cultures.
Education in specialised form is the privilege of certain sections in all
communities. The system is consequently lop-sided to the privilege of a few; and
this creates classes and clash of interests. All persons are not competent and at the
same time, opportunities are not equal. Education at a higher level becomes
sectarian.
In most of the societies, education is not in relation to aptitudes of individuals.
General education has developed into mass-education without distinctive roles and
statuses for individuals. Modern education is stereo-typed with too much of
formalities in academic procedures. More-over, a large number of educated persons
fail to make use of education in their general living conditions. Mass education is
not job oriented. Thereby, there are problems of student unrest and unemployment.
Many educational institutions in modern society are commercialised for economic
gains at the cost of imparting real knowledge. Academic autonomy has caused
problems of mismanagement and strikes. Education is not keeping pace with social
changes, of population growth and economic requirements. The problems of
unemployment and maladjustments due to frustration among the educated are
greater than those of uneducated persons.
4.3.3. Religion, Nature, Types and Functions
Religion is an important cultural phenomenon universally present in all
human societies. There are many definitions of religion. Frazer, an eminent
anthropologist defined religion as “a belief in powers superior to man, which are
believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life.” Dawson
observed, “When-ever and where-over roan has a sense of dependence on external
powers which are conceived as mysterious and higher than man’s own, there is
religion.” Emile Durkheim defined religion as “a unified system of beliefs and
practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden.”
Lowie regarded religion as “a spontaneous response to the aweinspiring
manifestations of reality.” Arnold Green defined religion as “a system of beliefs and
symbolic practices and objects governed by faith rather than by knowledge, which
relates man to an unseen supernatural realm, beyond the known and beyond the
39
controllable.” According to William Ogburn religion is “a system of beliefs, emotional

attitudes and practices by means of which, a group of people attempt to cope with
the ultimate problems of human life.” Karl Marx declared that “religion is an opiate
to the people.” It is like a tranquiliser that dulls people’s mind and induces people
to accept things passively in capitalist, society.”
In most of these definitions, there is a common element of super-natural power
which controls nature as well as human beings. Religion is primarily a faith in
super-natural and human dependence on that power to solve the problems of life. It
is only among human beings, religion appears as a super-organic force. It is very
closely associated with human culture. Religion is ultimately concerned with the
determination of the sacred. Religion is institutioned by various procedures like
rites, ceremonies emerging from myths, legends and dogmas. It is organised to
accomplish the cultural interests of mankind relating to super-human power,
the divine force.
Religious life is of various forms from the primitive to modern times. In
primitive society, religion was the nucleus of social activities, with extraordinary
importance to the concept of the super-natural. The most important religious form
of the primitives is called animism. According to animism, all things in the universe
are alive and animated. The supernatural inheres in all objects of nature and this
belief led to the worship of natural objects like trees, animals, mountains and
rivers. The other forms of animism are totemism and Bongaism in which the spirit
of body and mind are supposed to reside. The religious beliefs of the primitives are
evidenced in magic. There are also religious forms of monotheism and polytheism
depending on faith in one or two or more supernatural powers. Religion was the
central force exercising influence on all aspects of social life in primitive society.
The growth of religion from the nomadic to agricultural and industrial societies is
witnessed by the creation of specific institutions in the form of temples, churches
and mosquess as centres of religious activity. All the same, the recognition of the
super-natural as a devine force is the universal feature of religion. In modern
society the religious institutions are created from many philosophical ideologies of
several religious sages and thinkers.
Many new religions have developed in the name of devine thinkers in different
institutional forms. Apart from established religions of Hinduism, Christianity and
Islam, there are other religions like Buddhism, Jainsim. Many religious thinkers
have established specific institutions in the form of ashrmas and philosophical
societies and consequently many new religious faiths have developed. The theme of
religion depends on people’s interest and the period in which they live. The social
functions of religion are various and very complex. In a broad sense, religion had
aided people for social survival and cultural stability. Firstly, unlike the political
and economic institutions which are utiliatrian, religion is intrinsically cultural,
depending on the spontaneous expression of individuals. The freedom of religion
from the control of economic and political organisations is a significant mark of
40
social evolution. Religion serves cultural ends as distinct from the utilitarian
purposes of other organisations.
The second function of religion is the maintenance of social order by cultural
norms. Religious beliefs through rituals prayers and worship reinforce norms in
society. Religious norms are not merely social standards but also devices of social
control. Religious norms are seldom violated since they are ordained by Gods.
Thirdly, religion is a great moral force since it is rooted in philosophical values.
In primitive society, religion was meant to serve human desires by oppeasing
formidable powers. Religion is based on the mores of the group and it is difficult to
distinguish religion from morality.
Fourthly, religion has exerised considerable influence on other social
organisations. It has played an important part in controling and regulating family,
tribes, nations, economic organisations and educational systems. From the
primitive to the modern society, the impact of religion on the different sectors of
social life is cognisant. It has sent a powerful sanction to virtue and morality for
guiding human actions. It is a matter of historic stupidity to control religious
freedom of individuals through legal regulations. No man is made moral or religious
by an act of parliament. Max Weber has analysed the importance of religion, viz
Protestantism in the rise of capitalism in Europe. Religion is said to be a great
promoter of new economic ideas in capitalism. Education is religious-oriented in
ancient times. Education as a process of transmitting culture includes religious
ideas.
Fifthly, religion tends to validate the traditional way of life. It is conservative by
expressing itself in customary ways of living and thinking. It is a traditional pattern
of behaviour which demands other institutions to adjust with tradition.
Sixthly, religion contributes to social unity and individual personality. Emile
Durkheim observed that traditional religion has buttressed communal unity and
social order. Human personality is a product of socialisation. Religion by its
cultural values makes the individual organise his living process. It relieves the
individual from fear and sorrow due to faith and expectation of rewards for good
deeds. It also provides an idea of the past as well as of the future. It is an effective
process of socialisation for individual personality and social integration.
Apart from the cultural values and contribution of religion to social integration
and moral personality, there are many anti-social derivations hindering social
development. Traditional religion being highly conservative has in historic times
obstructed the growth of science and technology. It has created many superstitious
beliefs without rational analysis of social realities. Moreover it is based on a
hierarchial order of religious statuses which account for stratified groups. Wars are
fought in the name of religion. Religious conflicts due to differences in ideology
create conflict and disunity.
In modern society, there are many changes in the functions of religion.
Religion has lost a good deal of traditional functions. As society became more and
41
more complicated, the authority and prestige of religion has gradually declined.
Heterogeneous composition of population has created many patterns of religious
behaviour. Substitutes for religious patterns are found in political, Economic and
scientific organisations, which provide a new meaning to culture. State has gained
control over religious behaviour for the avoidance of conflicts between religions. The
materialistic attitude developed from advance in technology has reduced the
importance of spiritual values. Secularism has taken different forms to banish
many customary observances of traditional religion. Secularism, humanism,
nationalism has become substitutes to religion.
None is so resistant to science as religion. There has always been a conflict
between religion and science. Science is opposed to religious faiths in so far as it
determines reality by cause and effect relationship. Scientist is interested in
empirical truth whereas religion is based on faith in super-natural and super-
empirical. Religion does not provide proper explanation for many events in life. But,
even science has its own limitations. Nature is mysterious. All natural occurrences
are not subject to scientific explanation. Science is still a method of discovery—to
unravel the mysterious forces in nature. Faith in the super-natural extends beyond
science and remains as a control over human mind and activities. Many scientists
are religious because of the faith that controls in many undiscovered areas.
Developments in science and technology have to a great extent reduced the
importance of religion. The rationalistic approach to discount and condemn
religious beliefs is incomplete; religion still remains as a stronghold of human mind.
Science is not a substitute to religion in the explanation of human behaviour.
Neither science nor religion can provide a complete explanation of the universe.
What has changed is not the negation of religion but modern attitude to religion.
Firstly, faith in the existence of God in different forms is gradually declining.
Secondly, the existence of spirits and the supernatural are replaced by scientific
generalisations. Thirdly, religion is separated from other institutions. Fourthly,
diverse aspects of civilised life have reduced the importance and necessity of
religious dogma. All these changes account for secularisation as a substitute to
religion.
Most thinkers remark that science has superceded religion. Sociologically,
religion has survived as a part of institutional complex. It survives because of its
pragmatic, psychic and social functions in assisting the individual to meet the
needs of life. The chief function of religion is to inculcate faith in its believers rather
than providing an explanation for such faiths. Religion as a faith in super-natural
exists in some form or the other, since mankind has not been able to explain all
human events and natural occurrences through science and rationality. Human
weakness seeks support from a power, higher and superior to mankind. Religion
has stimulated the human will to overcome difficulties and aided in his survival.
Even in highly advanced countries many people resort to religion to overcome the
stress and strain of civilised life. Religion has survived not because of the weight of
tradition or ignorance and fear, but because it has contributed to the cultural
42
needs of the individual who is conscious of his failure to meet the needs of life. A
scientific attitude to religion is not the complete negation of religion, but a change
in the traditional forms of religion. Religion as a cultural force is pervasive and the
search for the super-natural power is never-ending process.
4.3.4. Government
Government is the chief agency of the state. In the study of social
organisations, state is regarded as an association, the Government is an institution
to carry out the functions of the state. Government is a major social institution
which comprises several subsidiary institutions in the nature of law, justice,
committees and corporations. The concept of Government generally refers to
administration with authority. State alone when compared with all other
organisations possesses co-receive poor, an ultimate authority to control and
perform various functions relating to human requirements. The main instrument of
the state is Government which exercises imperative control within a territory by the
monopoly of force. State is politically organised society, whereas Government is the
instrumentality of the State, an agency to carry out its activities at a given time.
4.3.4.1. Origin of Government
The problem of Government has attracted the attention of many thinkers in all
ages, and there is no universally accepted theory regarding the origin of
Government. There are however a few theories to explain the origin of Government.
In ancient society, the origin of Government is attributed to devine plan. The kings
and Chieftains were the earthly representatives with divine attributes. The
Government run by such authority reflected the Government of heaven.
The second theory regarding the origin of Government is to be found in force,
by which the strong had mastery over the weak, dispensing justice to suit their
convenience. The effective exercise of force depends on the form of Government
structured by strong persons.
The third theory formulated by Thomas Hobbes and William Rousseau points
out that men lived in a original state of nature and formed a contract to resolve
their conflicting tendencies. The social contract theory implies the origin of
Government in the deliberate rational act of men.
R. M. MacIver discovers the origin of Government in the family. The first form
of social order by regulation of sex and kinship relationships are found in family.
Without order, family would not have existed and maintained. The family order is
the initial stage for the formation of Government in a wider scale.
These theories are however speculative. In primitive society, social life was
undifferentiated without specific organisational set up. State was not distinct to be
recognized as a separate organisation. All social activities were combined in the
general social set-up. The concepts of force and authority were however present to
regulate human behaviour. It is wrong to suppose that the exercise of force and
authority constituted the Government. There were various norms in the form of
customs, usages, folkways and mores to regulate behaviour and maintain social
43
order. In modern society, the formulation of legal sanctions provided a distinct

meaning to the concept of Government. In general terms. Government as an
institutionalised process in terms of authority is as old as human history. Wherever
there is society, there is order. Order proceeds the institution of Government.
Similarly, norms are the preliminary conditions in the formation of Government.
By the insitutionalisation of several norms an orderly form of laws,
Government is recognised as a specific instrumentality of the state.
4.3.4.2. Types of Government
There are different types of Government based the methods of
administration—power of the state and rights of individuals. Aristotle classified the
Governments into three types—Monarchy, Aristocracy and Polity. Monarchy is a
form of Government administered by an individual called a king or ruler. King is
the supreme authority and source of law. It may develop into tyranny by the misuse
of power. Aristocracy is a form of Government managed by the higher sections of
the community who are considered as intellectuals. If the higher sections are of
economic ranking, aristocracy reduces to oligarchy. Polity refers to a Government
run by the consent of a large number of people and its real form is democracy, even
though Aristotle did not mention democracy as an ideal type. In modern context,
the forms of Government arc classified into democracy, communism and socialism.
There are again many subsidiary forms of these types. Democracy is said to be the
best form of Government since it is based on public consent through the
representatives elected by the masses. It is ordained by the principle of equality and
exercise of power in the interest of public good. Communism is the Government
with legitimate force to threaten and command obedience, but because they expect
to fulfil their needs by harmony through social regulations. Law is the most
effective agency of social control. But it is not absolute. The power of the
Government through laws is also limited to the extent that it cannot override the
moral intentions of the people. Government may enforce the laws for public order
and maintenance of peace. No man is made moral by laws. Laws are rooted in
social norms, a wider category of social regulations. Government may control
family, trade union, educational system, religion and other organisations by certain
regulations; but it cannot interfere with the private lives, forms of worship and
cultural endeavours unless those pursuits hinder peace and affect public relations.
1. Economic association plays a dominant role in human society.
2. Education is the main process of acquiring knowledge and is recognized as
a fundamental requirement of human culture.
3. Religion is an important cultural phenomenon university present in all
human societies.
4. Government is the chief agency of the state.
44

1. What do you mean by Economic institutions? Discuss the fundamental
functions of Economic institutions.
2. Define education. Discuss the important functions of education.
3. Discuss the role of religious institution in social integration.
4. Explain the salient features of government institution with examples.
4.6. SUMMARY
Economic systems play a dominant role in human society. Modern education
has developed in relation to new economic systems, and there is a change in the
roles and statuses of individuals in modern society. Education plays an active role
in the socialization process and contributes to the development of human
personality. It also contributes to the integration of the society. Religion is primarily
a faith in super natural and human dependence on that power to solve the
problems of life. Government is a major social institution which comprises several
subsidiary institutions in the like law and jurisprudence.
1. Define Economic institution.
2. Explain Education.
3. Discuss Religion.
4.9. ASSIGNMENTS
1. Property is an important economic institution. – Explain.
2. Education is a process of transmitting knowledge of social behavior. Define.
1. Sociology – Primary principles - C.N.Shankar Rao, S. Chand & Company.
Ltd. New Delhi – 110055.
2. Indian Social System – Ram Ahiya Rawat publications, Jaipur and
New Delhi.
Group discussions, Seminars on the related topic of Economic Institutions,
Education, Religion, Government.
4.12. KEY WORDS
Production, Distribution, consumption, Socialization, Religion, magic power,
Profane Authority, Social Control.
❑
45
LESSON – 5
SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS
5.1. INTRODUCTION
Human society is a group of self-conscious individuals united for the
realization of common interests. This definition is too general and abstract. The
concrete expression of society is in the nature of institution and associations.
Society has both structure and functions. Social structure is an organisation where
as function is role-participation of individuals in the satisfaction of common needs.
Structure and function are inter-related. Many sociologists use the word
organization to explain the structure of society. Organisation is in other words
known as association. There are certain organized procedures for the formation and
function of associations. Such procedures are called institutions.
In the study of Sociology, the concepts of institution and association are most
important. Some sociologists use the word institution to larger organisation and the
word association to smaller groups- In sociological literature, there is a clear
distinction between association and institution. An association is an organised
group; whether small or big. It refers to social structure. An institution is not a
group but an organised procedure: It is a formal, recognised method of pursuing
activity in society. A clear example of this distinction is, family is an association,
and marriage is an institution. It is however difficult to demarcate the line between
institution and association. A well organised procedure like Government assumes
an organised form of association comprising of officials and governing bodies.
Institution is a system of behaviour which is applicable to association. As such,
there may be several associations in each social institution which sets up common
established forms of behaviour. On that account, institution of wider than
association. However, institution denotes a mode of behaviour and functions as an
agent or instrument of association. Association denotes membership whereas
institution denotes a form of behaviour. We belong to associations and adopt
procedures through institution.
5.2. OBJECTIVES
After going through this unit you should be able to
 understand the need for social Institutions and Associations.
 know about Marriage and Family in terms of forms and functions.
 understand the modern trends of family institution.
5.3. CONTENTS
5.3.1. Institution – Definition
5.3.2. Ways of Studying Institutions
5.3.3. Functions of Institutions
5.3.4. Association – Definition
5.3.5. Criteria of Associations
46
5.3.6. Marriage and Family

5.3.7. Objectives of the Family
5.3.8. Mate Choice
5.3.9. Forms
5.3.10. Functions of Marriage
5.3.11. Origin of Family
5.3.12. Characteristics of Family
5.3.13. Forms
5.3.14. Functions of Family
5.3.15. Modern Trends of Family
5.3.1. Institution – Definition
There are several definitions of institution MacIver defines institutions as “the
established forms or conditions of procedure characteristic of group activity.”
According to Kingsley Davis, “an institution is a set of inter-woven folkways, mores
and law built round one or more functions.” H.E. Barnes describes social
institutions as “the social structure and machinery through which human society
organises, directs and executes the multifarious activities required to satisfy human
needs.” Robert Bierstedt defines institution as “an organised procedure”, a formal,
recognised, established and stabilised way of pursuing some activity in society.” In
the words of Harry Johnson, “A social institution is a recognised normative
pattern.” All these definitions indicate that a social institution is an organised
procedure based on norms and values of each group.
5.3.2. Ways of Studying Institutions
There are three recognised ways of studying institutions. Firstly, an historical
analysis to trace the source and development of an institution. Secondly, a
comparative study of an institution prevailing in different societies. Thirdly, the
functional inter-relationships between the institutions of different social groups.
Historically, anthropological and sociological investigations reveal that there are lot
of variations in the institutions of different social group. In pre-literate society,
institutions were unplanned ways of social life. It is only by folk-ways, mores and
other norms, unorganised behaviour was replaced by common procedures. Later
on, laws were enacted to formulate the behaviour pattern. Sociologists differ in their
views regarding the origin of institutions. Lewis H. Morgan held that “perpetual
want” is the basis for the growth of institution. Ward remarked that “Social demand
or necessity” is the root cause of institution. Sumner and Keller deserved that
institutions arose to satisfy human interests. Whatever be the causes for creation of
institutions, human behaviour is institutionalised by the formation of established
procedures through human experience. There is considerable comparison among
institutions in different social strata. Marriage, kinship, property procedures have
many similarities in the behaviour pattern of different groups. Comparative analysis
provides a knowledge of common procedures to indicate to some extent universality
47
in institution. Historical and comparative studies provide clues to understand

functional-relations among institutions of different cultures. No institution is a
closed system. There are inter-relations with the different aspects of social life and
as such institutions of different social areas are interlinked. Marriage is inter-linked
with property, caste and religion.
Different societies institutionalise different activities. In simple societies,
institutions are relatively undifferentiated, since social activities were combined into
a single pattern. Folk-ways and mores are social sanctions of unorganised
behaviour and as such in unorganised communities they remain as
uninstitutionalised norms. In modern society, institutions are recognised
procedures in specific associations. In a more established form, they have legal
support. Laws are institutionalised norms. It is impossible to have institutions
without associations. As such, in organised groups, viz associations institutions are
recognised as organised procedures. Salute and shaking hand are unorganised
modes arising from folk-ways. But they get established by associations in army and
navy as disciplinary or organised procedures. An institution must be distinguished
from custom. A custom is a social usage based on the settled habits. Difference
between institution and custom is one of degree. Both refer to accepted ways of
doing things. Custom refers to social action by personal contacts, whereas
institution is of public recognition. Marriage is an institution but court-ship
practices and ritual antecedents are customary.
5.3.3. Function of Institutions
Social institutions have certain specific functions. Firstly, it gives continuity to
tradition, law, art and science. It provides stability to social order and culture. It is
a great conservator of social heritage.
Secondly, it is a disciplinary process. The individual is held in cultural
complex by institutional behaviour. It standardises individual and collective
behaviour.
Thirdly, it creates adequate social harmony for the performance of social
activities. It is a positive and powerful agency to regulate human conduct for social
unity. It is a significant device of social control.
Social institution is not a fixed procedure. It charges in relation to new human
needs and social environment. In general, it is a bi-product of human will and
experience. It results out of necessity to adopt with social environment. Changes in
family, caste-system, economic techniques, political ideologies demand new
institutional forms for purposes of social adjustments.
5.3.4. Associations – Definition
The structure of human society is generally explained by sociologists in terms
of social organisation. There are many social groups, organised and disorganised,
like family which is organised and crowd which is disorganised. An organised social
group is an association. Association and social organisation are synonymous. The
concept of association has been defined in several ways by different thinkers.
48
MacIver defines association as “a group organized for the pursuit of an interest or

group of interests in common.” According to william G. Goode, “an association is
the structure of society, large or small that direct human skills and aspirations
towards various goals.” In the words of John Cuber, “an association lies in the
habit systems of persons of society quite as much as in the formal laws, rules and
customs of the group through which the organisation is implemented.” All social
groups are not associations. There are crowds and temporary social groups
surrounding an accident which do not possess the character of an association, An
association is an organised group with the definite purpose of pursuing human
ends. An unorganised social group has no structure. But an organised group has
social structure maintained by definite personel.
5.3.5. Criteria of Associations
There are specific factors to distinguish an association from unorganised social
groups. The criteria of an association is based on the following factors, 1) Specific
function or purpose. 2) Norms, 3) Status, 4) Authority, 5) Membership, 6) Property,
7) Nomenclature.
An association is formed with a specific purpose in the pursuit of particular
interest or activity. There are however no limits to the activities of an association.
But every association is specifically designed to serve particular purposes. The
specific purpose distinguishes one association from another. An association may
embrace a number of functions, major and subsidiary. A state not only regulates
civic behaviour through laws, but also provides public amenities in various forms. A
temple may be religious and also educational, charitable and recreational. There
may be a variety of functions for any one association. But it is recognised by the
specific purposes for which it is formed. The functions of state and a club vary in
terms of specific purposes.
The second criterion of an association is the norms to specify the conduct of
its members. Norms are not universal and uniformal to all associations. They vary
in relation to the nature of functions. University has certain norms of curriculam
teaching, examination and standards. State has certain norms in service,
regulations and maintenance of public order. There are different norms in economic
and religious pursuits. Norms are the regulations of behaviour among members in
an association.
The third requisite of an association is status- Norms are generally attached to
status. Status in an association is not like that of a husband or father. It is
determined by the the particular positions in social ranking. The President, Vice-
President and other members have recognizable statuses. Division of labour in
modern society indicates different levels of status. Statuses in the organised group
fit together and complement each other. Persons in different professions have
different statuses. But they unite and co-ordinate as members of a common
association. Status also implies hierarchy of positions in an association.
49
Fourthly, an association is vested with authority. Organisation creates

authority. Every association has its own structure of authority. Authority is an
important criteria of organised groups. It varies depending on the nature of control
and performance of functions- State has Coercive power to command obedience to
laws. Its authority is most powerful and effective. Voluntary associations have less
authority but exercise control through norms and statuses.
Fifthly, test of membership is one of the chief characteristics of an association.
Membership in an association depends on certain qualification. Even to be a citizen
of state, minimal qualification of birth or residence is essential. Membership in an
association is an achieved status. Not all can become the members of an army or
students of a university. Membership is initiated in some high-ranking associations
like Rotary club, Lions club and Sports club. It is a privileged status. All
associations have tests of membership, Every member should conform to norms of
the association. Otherwise there will be penalty or loss of membership.
Sixthly, an association normally has some property, an economic provision to
maintain itself- Membership fee is collected in some associations. Taxes are
collected by the state from the citizens. Property is a social phenomena and not
merely an economic provision. Property implies norms of ownership and utilisation
of funds for services. Lastly, every association has certain nomenclature, a name by
which it is designated. There are also symbols in certain associations to signify
their distinct status or position. Colours, seals, slogans, and songs are used as
trademarks. They are called symbolic cultural traits Commercial concerns have
distinctive symbols and letter-heads. Universities have distinct insignia.
Associations are distinguished by names and symbols, which provide a distinct
character for each.
In addition to these factors, an association depends for its stability on
cooperation, inter-dependence and unity of its members.
Depending on the habit systems in group behaviour, associations are broadly
classified into formal and informal oganisations. Society itself exhibits these two
forms of organisation. A formal organisation is based on a set of rules in structure,
ownership, location and management with an independent existence. Authority is
found in formal organisation. In an informal organisation, the roles and esteem of
individuals is recognised: Leadership appears as a prominent feature. A Policeman
represents authority but not leadership. A social reformer may be a leader without
authority. State, University, Church, Bank are formal organisations with definite
rules. Family, neighbourhood, friendship, peer groups, clubs are informal
organisations indicating voluntary participation of individuals. All these
organisations have structure and norms. The distinction between formal and
informal associations is simple but superficial. Because, every member enters an
association with the specific purpose of fulfilling certain needs. An association is
based on inter-dependence found in both formal and informal organisations.
Formal organizations like state may create many informal organisations like sports,
50
youth organisations, art and culture committees. Informal organisations like family
have certain rigid regulations of sex, marriage and kinship relations. The
relationship between formal and informal associations is subtle and complicated. In
both categories, members are sustained by social norms.
5.3.6. Marriage and Family
In the study of sociology, marriage and family are closely associated concepts.
The formation of family depends on the incidence of marriage in human society.
Family life is not the exclusive privilege of human beings. Even animals have
families in their bio-social set-up. What distinguishes human family from animal
family is the social sanction of marriage. Marriage augers family life in human
society. Sociologically, family is regarded as an association, an organized social
group with structure and functions. Marriage is an institution, a procedure, mode
or agency for the formation of family. In human society, marriage and family are
inter-related concepts, mutually implicative.
Marriage is a socially approved way of sex relationship between a male and a
female intended for the formation of family by procreation. It is an institution
concerned with social relations and cultural behaviour of a man and woman for
sexual union with the purpose of founding a family of procreation. It is intimately
connected with family as one of the primary institutions but is not synonymous
with family. Mere sex gratification is not the principle of marriage. Even without
marriage, people gratify sex desires with concubines, prostitutes and by non
sanctioned illegitimate devices. What is significant in marriage is regulation and
endurance of sex relationship by socially approved ways. There are certain common
objectives of marriage.
5.3.7. Objectives of the Family
The first purpose of marriage is channelisation of sex activity between
husband and wife. But sex activity is not rigidly universalised since in many tribal
communities there is laxity of sex behaviour in terms of wife-lending, exchange of
wives as mark of hospitality. In majority of the social groups, marriage provides for
the regulated sex activity between husband and wife. Founding a family of
procreation is the second universal objective of marriage. Sociologically, marriage is
not complete until a child as born. In childless families, adoption is
institutionalised.
Thirdly, marriage has a common objective of economic co-operation. The
provision of home and property considerations are important for the up-keep of the
family formed by marriage. Division of labour between husband and wife varies in
innumerable ways in different social groups, even though it is proverbially said,
“Woman for the hearth and man for the field.”
Fourthly, marriage is not simply a biologically process of sex-gratification and
regulation. It is a psycho-physical phenomenon providing for the response of
emotional and intellectual inter-stimulations of the partners involved.
51
Lastly, a prominent objective of marriage in many social groups is the

maintenance of kinship. Social relations between kinship groups are strengthened
by marriage, and continuity in blood relationship is established; caste groups and
racial groups advocate kinship prominence in marriage.
There are other considerations of age positive and negative aspects of social
sanction and performance of rites. In every society the age at which individuals are
allowed to enter the state of marriage is recognised. But pre-puberty marriages are
found in some traditional groups. In modern society, the age at marriage is
legalised. Persons of immediate blood relation are forbidden to marry. Marital
relation between parents and children are prohibited universally. Marriage between
brothers and sisters is also forbidden. The positive aspects of marriage are found in
the performance of rites which vary in different cultural groups. Rites vary from the
sacred rituals of Hindus to ring-exchange among chrisitions. The rites are
protective symbols for the welfare of the couple. The negative aspects are found in
the avoidance of bad omen and evil spirits. against which the couple are protected.
5.3.8. Mate Choice
Preliminary step in marriage is the choice of mate. There are three general
types of mate-choice systems. Firstly, the parental system is a method of control by
the authoritative member of the family or kinship group in the choice of marital
partners. The parental system is a common practice in traditional societies.
Secondly, the restricted system binds the individual to choose the partner
according the established rules of kinship. There are two devices of restricted
system, viz endogamy and exogamy. In endogamy the individual is restricted to
avoid marriage within his kinship group, classified into gotra. In exogamy, marital
bond is allowed outside the gotra or totemic group. Restricted system also refers to
the age of marriage legally permitted and the prohibition of marriages between
castes, religious groups and races. Thirdly, spontaneous system of mate-choice is a
matter of individual inclination. In families in which relations between parents and
children are less formalised, the choice of mate is left to the individual without
societal or parental control. Many love marriages take place by spontaneous
system. However in all these cases, marriage is based on the recognition of cultural
values.
5.3.9. Forms
There are different forms of marriage based on the number of mates chosen.
The two major forms are Mono- gamy and Polygamy. Monogamy is a marital
practice in which an individual is institutionally permitted to have only one spouse
at a time. It is a popular practice adopted in almost all advanced social groups. It
provides for durable love and affection between partners and the obligations to
bring up children with proper attention. Polygamy is the marital practice of a
person having two or more life-partners by institutional sanctions. There are two
types of polygamy referring to both sexes. They are polygyny and polyandry.
Polygyny is the practice of a man having two or more wives at a time. This practice
is found among Muslims by religious sanctions. Even in tribal societies and among
52
chieftains. Kings and emperors, polygyny is practiced in terms of prestige- It also

depends on scarcity of men (due at war) in certain communities. This practice in
some tribal societies is called sororal polygyny a practice of marrying all the sisters
of a family. Polyandry is the practice of one woman having a several husbands. This
is a primitive practice. In some tribal communities, it is known as fraternal
polyandry in which-all the brothers become the mating partners of a single woman.
This seems to have come into practice due to the avoidance of bride-price, prevalent
particularly in primitive society. It is also due to poor economic conditions, that
lower strata practice polyandry.
5.3.10. Functions of Marriage
There are certain important functions of marriage. Firstly, it regulates sex
behaviour by proper channelisation of sex impulses between man and woman. Sex-
drive in a human being, is shaped, channeled and restricted in all societies, It has a
social meaning depending on culture. Marriage facilitates durable sex-regulation
between husband and wife.
Secondly, restrictions on mate-choice and taboos on relationships account for
the bio-social regulation of sex behaviour. Sex behaviour becomes a discipline in
society.
Thirdly, prepetuation or reproduction is an important function of marriage. It
enables the social and biological continuity of the family. Marriage inaugurates the
formation of family.
Fourthly, marriage creates a division of labour between husband and wife.
Household work and public duties are shared by the partners involved in marriage.
Fifthly, marriage is the main source of love and affection between parents and
children. The emotional and intellectual inter-stimulations in the satisfaction of sex
through marriage results in procreation, on which the pride and prestige of
husband and wife depend.
Lastly, marriage does not end in the relation of husband and wife only. It
binds families and kinship groups. It promotes social solidarity.
Family: Definition: Family is not the exclusive privilege of human society. It is
found even among animals in terms of procreation and rearing. What distinguishes
human family from animal family is the incidence of marriage. Marriage is a social
sanction which augers family life in human society. Family is the most important
primary group in human society. MacIver has defined family as “a group based on
sex relationship sufficiently precise and enduring to provide for the procreation and
upbringing of children.” Family may be of different forms according to cultural
varieties. But, it is recognised by certain common characteristics, viz, mating
relationship between male and female known as husband and wife, social sanction
of marriage which is an institutional arrangement, nomenclature indicating the
mode of decent, economic provision of household and property, a common
habitation and the obligation of rearing and up-bringing children.
53
5.3.11. Origin of Family

There has been lot of speculation by social Anthropologists and Sociologists
regarding the origin of family. They have tried to trace the evolution of family life
from the essential characteristics rooted in human nature. Wester-mark and
Charles Darwin have remarked that family obtained a form of social life by the
operation of the possessive and jealous tendencies of the male who claimed
monopolistic rights by customs. This accounts for the partriarchal pre-eminance in
the origin of family. Briffault in his book on “Mother” has illustrated that mothers
are founders of family. He argued that is priliterate society, woman had a superior
status to man and the matrilocal feature accounts for its origin as a matriarchal
system. Some thinkers have theorised that the original state of mankind was of
sexual promiscuity; and only at a later stage, through customs, sex was regulated
and family obtained a form. These explanations are however baseless, since the
formation of family is found among primates, the subhuman species. This indicates
an early existence of family, even without male or female being responsible for the
early family. It is futile to argue about the origin of human family. It is as old as
human existence. There are no evolutionary stages in the formation of family.
Family living has not emerged from any single trait of males’s dominance or
female’s privilege. There are of course varieties of family based on cultural
differences. But they do not substantiate the origin of family as such.
Family is distinguished from other organised social groups by its specific
characteristics.
5.3.12. Characteristics of Family
Firstly, it is the most universal social organisation. Membership in a family is
recognised in two ways-parental family and marital family. Sociologically, all
persons are members of parental family since they are born of parents in biological
sequence. After marriage and birth of a child, the individual becomes a member of
marital family. Family membership is compulsory and universally present in all
societies and at all stages of social development.
Secondly, it is based on emotional stimulations of organic nature in terms of
mating, procreation, parental care and affection.
Thirdly, it exercises a profound formative influence on the life of an individual
from the initial stages of birth. It is the first fundamental agency of socialisation to
transmate organic habits and mental traits to human personality.
Fourthly, it is the simplest social unit, limited in a size. It is enough if there
are only three members—husband, wife and a child to form the organised group in
a family. It’s social structure is the smallest when compared with other
organisations.
Fifthly, it is the nucleus of all other social organisations. Especially in simple
preliterate societies, family comprised all social activities of the kinship group.
54
Sixthly, it imposes responsibilities through obligations and duties among

parents and children. The members of family have respective social roles in their
inter-personal relationships.
Seventhly, family is governed by social norms of sex-regulation through social
sanctions of marriage. As a cultural unit, there are certain taboos forbidding sex-
relations between parents and children, brothers and sisters. There are also
negative norms of avoidance in speech and familiar contacts, and positive norms of
obedience and reverence.
Lastly, family is the most permanent institution as well as an association. As
an institution, it has certain procedures or modes to channalise sex and socialise
the individual. As an association, it has a permanent social structure in terms of
relation between husband, wife and children.
5.3.13. Forms
Oridinarily, we use the terms family to refer to a group of husband, wife and
children. Since it is based on marital or conjugal relationship, it is also known as
conjugal family- In American phraseology, it is called nuclear family. If another
relative lives within nuclear family, it is called extended family. Family consisting of
many blood relatives like graund parents, brothers and sisters and other kinship
relatives along with parents and their children is called consanguinous family,
based on blood relations. It is called joint family, the most popular form in Hindu
society. This division or nuclear and joint family is determined by the composition
of members in the group.
The early types of family found in primitive society and tribal communities are
the maternal and paternal forms generally known as matriarchal and patriarchal
families. Maternal family is a social unit in which the female or the mother is the
head of the family, the decent or lineage is traced through the female, the residence
is in mother’s abode and the property is inherited through female progeny. These
features are characterised in terms of maternal authority matrilineal, matrilocal
and matriarchal. Mother has absolute control over all the other members, including
her husband, who lives in her residence. Husband has a secondary position in
maternal family. Women are the privileged persons.
Paternal family is characterised by the authority vested in father, decent
through the male progeny, residence in father’s abode and inheritance of property
in male lineage. It characterised in terms of paternal dominance, patrilineal,
patrilocal and patriarchal. In this type of family, father is a dominant member and
wife is a subordinate. There is more privilege for male members.
These two types of family are traditional. The most prevalent system in
majority of social groups is paternal family. Hindu joint family is basically paternal.
Modern nuclear family differs from both paternal and maternal forms, in the light of
various changes that have taken place the functions of family, especially in terms of
rights and duties of family members.
55
5.3.14. Functions of Family

The traditional functions of family are care and nurture of children through
training, education and other forms of socialisation. Family in simple societies
served as an all-inclusive, self-sufficient unit. The various social interests were
undifferentiated so as to be fulfilled by family. the social nucleus. The main
functions of family are sexual regulation through sanction of marriage,
reproduction, care and nature of children, socialisation by dining and guidance,
love and affection among members, determination of status of positions in terms of
age, sex, protection of members, economic provision and above all the sentiments
by which the members are attached to one another. Family is thus considered as a
primary social unit.
5.3.15. Modern Trends of Family
In modern times, many changes have taken place in both structure and
functions of family. There is a change over, form maternal, paternal and joint family
systems to a nuclear family consisting of husband, wife and their children. Modern
civilisation has affected the traditional family by the forces of industrialisation,
urbanization and education. Many major social organisations have taken over the
primary functions of family in terms of food, training, education, recreation,
protection, worship, economic activities and many other functions by which the
traditional family was a self-sufficing unit. Nurseries and schools, restaurants,
cenemas. Government, religious institutions, and industries have replaced a large
variety of functions of traditional family. Major changes have occurred by the
impact of modern education, industrialisation and urbanisation. There is a change
in the roles and status of members of the family due to education, opportunity of
jobs for women, social legislations for equal opportunities, rights and protection of
women, external facilities of education for children and youngsters, protective
devices for the aged persons and many other schemes by which social security is
assured outside the family. What is left over to the family are reproduction,
sentimental blood-relationships and elementary socialisation of the child.
Changes in the functions of the family have induced many thinkers to remark
that modern family has become unstable and likely to loose its existence as a social
group. There is considerable change in the attitudes to sex and marriage, which is
also responsible for the instability of family. The voluntary choice of youngsters in
terms of romantic love, has weakened the control of elders to maintain the bio-
social tradition. Many such marriages may end in divorce, and family reunion does
not generally take place- It is true that reduction in family functions, new attitudes
to sex and marriage, the life-styles of persons in modern civilisation in terms of
individualism have accounted for a secondary consideration of family in the general
scheme of social life- Instability does not mean disappearance. What is noticed is a
change in the traditional structure and functions of family. The main functions of
family in terms of reproduction, rearing of children and affection endure for the
continuity of generation. Change in functions does not mean its disappearance.
There is a new outlook in modern society for marriage and family. Marriage by
56
voluntary choice becomes more stable by mutual understanding of partners.

Nuclear family ensures more satisfaction and security with limited responsibilities.
Limited size of the family by family planning devices helps for greater economic
facilities to comfortable living. Affection among members in nuclear families is
unbounded to make it more stable. Family can never cease to exist According to
MacIver. “Family is one of the conditions for social solidarity and strength.”
1. The concepts of institution and association are most important.
2. The Criteria of an association is based on 1. Specific function or purpose 2.
Norms 3. Status 4. Authority 5. Membership 6. Property 7. Nomenclature
1. Discuss the difference between Institutions and Associations.
2. Explain Family and discuss its characteristics
3. Give a brief account of modern trends in marriage
5.6. SUMMARY
Institution denotes a mode of behaviour and functions as an agent or
instrument of association.
The Family is a key element of social organisation. Charged with providing love
and emotional security and regulating sexual behaviour, reproduction,
socialization, protection and social placement.
1. Institutions – Define
2. What are the criteria of Associations
3. What are the functions of marriage
1. Sociological Bulletin
2. Related Journals
5.9. ASSIGNMENTS
1. There are three general types of mate-choice systems – Explain
2. Bring out the features of the family
1. Sociology - Principles of sociology with an introduction to social thought –
CN Sankar Rao
2. Maclver and page society introduction Analysis
Group discussions, Seminar on the related topic of social institutions
5.12. KEY WORDS
Family, Marriage, Endogamy, Exogamy, Polygamy, Polyandry, Joint Family
❑
57
LESSONS – 6
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
6.1. INTRODUCTION
Social stratification is a phenomenon common to all societies – whether
ancient or modern, simple or complex. Social differentiation on the basis of high
and low has always existed in all societies. Over the time, such divisions and social
strata have been accepted on varied bases such as sex and age, status and role,
qualification and efficiency, ascription and monopolization, ritual and ceremony
and soon. Social differentiation is based on considerations of superiority and
inferiority, authority and subordination and profession and vocation. The origin
social stratification cannot be explained in terms of history. However, differentiation
in the form of priestly and other classes was known to exist among the Indus valley
people. The varnashram dharma appears to have been the first conscious effort in
this direction. The western countries were marked by a division into the Freemen,
Slaves and Serfs. The new stratification comprises numerous classes as the
capitalists, the bourgeois, the upper class, the middle class, the lower class, the
working class and others. Stratification in some form seems to be inevitable in
every society.
Every social system, primitive or modern is based on rewards and resources
which determine the hierarchical status of individuals. These rewards and
resources are passed on from parents to children or from previous generations to
succeeding generations: but their distribution is unquesl and disproportionate.
Individuals occupy different positions in the social order and enjoy different forms
of prestige. It is often said that all human beings are equal as sons of God or
products of nature. But differences exist among individuals and groups both
biologically and culturally in terms of inheritance. Inequalities are manifested in
terms of status create social stratification. The concept of social stratification has
been defined social stratification. The concept of social stratification has been
defined in several ways by Sociologists. William Ogburn has defined social
stratification as “a process by which individuals and groups are ranked in a more
or less enduring hierachy of status”. Sorokin remarked that “unstratified society
does not exist and real equality among its members is a myth, and never realised in
the history of mankind. Stratification implies unequal distribution of rights and
privileges among the members of society”. According to John Cuber, “Stratification
is a pattern of super-imposed categories of differential privilege”. Mayor observes,
“Social stratification is a system of differentiation which includes a hierachy of
social positions whose occupants are treated as superior, equal or inferior relative
to one another in socially important respects”. According to Kingsley Davis,
“stratification is institutionalised inequality. It implies unequal rights and
perquisites of different positions in a society”. Inequality of status is a
distinguishing feature of stratification. Indications of social stratification are found
in the formation of classes in terms of status.
58
Individuals are differentiated both in terms of birth and social training. Many
thinkers hold that stratification is not innate or biologically inherited. If all persons
were born with equal capabilities there would not have been differences in status or
ranking of individuals. Biological differences account for social stratification in
terms of race. Differences in status in terms of birth are recognised as children
acquire parent’s status in terms of family, caste, nation or race. All human
differences do not account for stratification. Differences or inequalities in sex are
nonstratified. Husband and wife though sexually differentiated do not form
separate social classes like a group of husbands or wives. There are no stratified
groups in terms of age. Children, youngsters, old men are not stratified classes.
Stratification implies the formation of classes in terms of differential status. All
stratified groups are social groups; but all social groups are not stratified.
Unorganised social groups like crowds and mobs are not stratified. Stratified
groups are organised with structure and functions based on the status and role of
members.
6.2. OBJECTIVES
 understand status and role.
 Know about stratification and discuss its characteristics.
 understand the functionalist view of stratification.
 identify the forms of social stratification caste and class.
6.3. CONTENTS
6.3.1. Status and Role
6.3.2. Stratification
6.3.3. Functionalist View of Stratification
6.3.4. Forms of Social Stratification
6.3.5. Social Mobility
6.3.1. Status and Role
Status and role are significant aspects of human personality. Every individual
occupies certain position which is regarded as his social stratum or standing.
Status is simply a position of the individual or group in society. There are several
positions in relation to which there are several statuses to every individual and
groups. Individual’s status differs with the type of group. The status in family,
politics, economic life, education religion etc, are multiple forms of individual’s
institutionalised behaviour. Generally, a distinction is drawn between status and
role in terms of sociological and social psychological conceptions. Status is carded
as sociological phenomenon whereas role is considered social-psychological. Role in
a wide sense implies the participation of the individual in society.
Status is a position of the individual obtained by group affiliation and group
membership. It is set in social structure before the individual occupies that
position. It is an item of culture. Role is the participation of the individual in
59
society. It is functional and refers to behavioural aspect. Individuals occupy

statuses and play their roles as members of society. A role is the manner in which
the individual fulfils his status by privileges. A role is what the individual does in
his status. Both status and role are said to be complementary processes in
individual personality and group life. Many writers have asserted that there can be
no status without a role, nor a role without status. A status without role is an
unfilled position in society. When a person in some hierarchical position dies,
status which he occupied might remain unfilled and disfunctional. Social system
may function without cogni sance of that status. Similarly, certain functions may
not be related to status. Women instructing her children at home, does not have
the status of a teacher, but plays the role without that status. In sociological
language, as Robert Bierstedt observes, “a status is an institutionalised role”.
Historically, role appears first and gets regularised and formalised. But in complex
modern society, status may precede the role. Although it is generally said that
status and role are complementary, status and role may exist without each other.
Structure of society consists of statuses but no roles. Status is intimately related to
norms which maintain social order.
Status Types: There are two kinds of status by which the individuals and
groups are recognised. They are ascribed status and achieved status. Ascribed
status is the position afforded by inheritance—biological or cultural. Achieved
status is what the individual accomplishes in environment. Ascribed status being
innate is not subjected to alterations. Ascribed status is alterable and depends on
choice and competence of individuals. Place of birth, age, sex and cultural context
are ascribed. Status by marriage, education, political and economic pursuits are
ascribed. Status in terms of inheritance and acquisition are not always fixed
categories. In some social groups, statuses which are achieved become ascribed.
Religious status, class status and occupational status may become ascribed in
certain social sections even though they are achieved statuses. In modem complex
society, achieved status is at a maximum due to innumerable associations in which
the individual participates to attain statuses.
Ascribed Status is the position of the individual by inheritance. An infant or
child is not a simple biological creature. It is not culturally vacant. For every
person, there is the inheritance of biological traits and cultural conditions in terms
of birth and environment. Socialisation is a long and tedious process. The paradox
of socialisation is that it cannot begin unless the child has some status and
proceeds as a transformative process. Every person has certain status in terms of
birth and this status is definite. There are certain uniformal statuses for all
members in terms of sex, age and kinship.
The status of an individual is fixed and unalterable in terms of biological
inheritance of sex. Persons are universally distinguished into male and female by
way of reproduction. The biological difference between man and woman do not
necessarily account for their social capacities to achieve status. But there is no
total equality between male and female even in cultural status. Biological
60
differences of sexual heredity however indicate different cultural status positions in

respect of traditions culturally inherited. Biological inheritance is aligned with some
aspects of cultural inheritance. Sex is an ascribed status.
The second factor of ascribed is age. From infancy to old age there are age
differences among individuals and these differences determine different forms of
status. In the process of growth, individual manifesto different forms of behaviour.
Age is not fixed like sex. It indicates different stages in human biological growth
and varies with social events and experiences. Culture is not fixed with age in all its
forms. But, human behaviour is roughly correlated with age norms, which are
recognised as status forms. Status in terms of age is limited by sex status; men and
women of the same age have social differentiation. Age and sex are combined traits
of ascribed status. Age though a biological limit, need not hamper the social growth
of individuals. Irrespective of age differences, social personality may be manifested
in different forms. However, in almost all social groups, age difference creates social
distance.
The third factor of ascribed status is kinship which is equally unalterable.
Kinship is definite and permanent status of the individual. The relationship
between parents, children and other relatives are biologically marked. Status in
kinships is ascribed to the individual in terms of birth in the family fold. Children
after inherit the status of parents even in cultural aspects as members of family,
caste, religion and race. Birth is a sequel to cultural status. In terms of lineage,
kinship is a prominent determinant of ascribed status.
Sex, age and kinship statuses are obviously ascribed. No one can choose his
status in these differential forms of status. There are also other forms of status
which are ascribed to the individual. Place of birth and nationality become the
ascribed status. One cannot choose his place of birth. Obviously he gets the
regional status. As a citizen born in a state, he gets national status. In terms of
birth, the individual gets the status of caste, religion and race which become
permanent in the social life history of the individual. Tradition makes certain
statuses ascribed. In medieval period, occupational status and rigid class structure
of high and low were ascribed without chances of social mobility.
Achieved Status is the position of the individual derived from his membership
in voluntary organisations. It refers to the achievements of the individual by social
capacities. Success and failure in social life depend upon differentiated capacities of
individuals. Individuals are not totally branded by ascribed status. They have
capacities to be manifested in social environment and by such capacities they
acquire social status. It is an acquisition, not an ascription. Marital status,
educational status, professional status and many social ranks are achieved status.
No one can become a graduate, a parent, a scientist, a politician, a merchant, a
professor, a contractor, a lawyer and the like by birth or ascribed status. They are
achieved statuses in society. Achieved status is individualistic by institutional
recognition. It is basically cultural. In terms of accomplishments, there are different
61
social ranks. In primitive society, achieved status was ranked in warface, hunting,
fishing and cultural pursuits. In modern society, there are various tasks
specialised, to indicate variable capacities in which persons and groups are socially
ranked. There is social mobility by which class status is achieved. Achieved status
is at a maximum in a free and open society. It is multi-linear and it becomes
difficult to evaluate personalities in their social ranking.
In the general process of socialisation, like heredity and environment, both
ascribed and achieved statuses are composite components of human personality.
Ascribed status provides a frame work of biological and cultural heritage. Achieved
status is a super-structure of human personality. It is true that son of a scientist or
scholar would not be a similar scientist or scholar. The accomplishment depends
on the social capacity of persons, rather than inheritance. The manifestation and
recognition of capacity largely depend on cultural norms and inheritance. Achieved
status is not isolated from cultural base. Social capacities may excel ascribed
status. Achieved status may be over and above ascribed status of sex, age, kinship,
caste and race. Achieved status is indeterminate and variable. Ascribed status is
meaningless without achievement in social environment. Both ascribed and
achieved statuses are inter-linked in the composition of human personality.
Role: Role is the participation of the individual in society in terms of his
status. It is often regarded as the behaviour pattern of the individual. Michel
Banton defines role as “a set of rights and obligations to which the behaviour of the
people conforms”. Stansfield Sargant observes, “a person’s role is a pattern or type
of social behaviour which seems situationally appropriate to him in terms of the
demands and expectations of those in his group”. Role is an action in relation to
status which may be ascribed or achieved. Individuals play their respective roles in
terms, of sex, age and kinship. They participate with variable roles in different
aspects of social life. Some thinkers hold that role is prior to status; every person
gets or achieves status by his role. On the contrary, individuals play their role on
the basis of status they possess. In both cases, status and role are inter-mingled.
Status is however the starting point and becomes the goal. No individual is without
status. It is the desire for status that prompts the individual for action which
means his role.
Status is the prestige pattern and role is its tool. It is role that affords prestige
to individuals. There are different roles ranked in terms of prestige within a social
category or different social aspects. In family, religion, politics and economic set up,
there are different hierarchical statuses of persons for which role is proportionately
ranked. Role creates social distance. Roles of persons in different aspects of social
life are variable and develop into distinct categories of status Scholars, lawyers,
merchants, scientists, priests, doctors, engineers and the like have different roles in
terms of their statuses. It is difficult to make any comparative evaluation of their
roles.
62
Roles are distributed as well as combined. Every individual as a member of

several social groups has different roles and develops a variety of statuses. Each
role is compatible with the particular status. The prestige pattern of personality is a
composite form of different roles. Roles are not equally shared. They are based on
variable interests. The prominence in personality may be based on the dominant
role of the individual, which affords him recognisable status. That is how
personalities are distinguished in terms of professional achievements and ascribed
statuses.
Role is not static. It changes in relation to social norms and values which
prescribe status. Change in roles indicate change in status. Individual after
marriage gets the status of husband or wife. Even though roles are not common,
there has always been a conflict of roles between persons desiring to attain
common status. The pursuit of status involves competition or struggle between
persons and groups. Role conflict is a common phase of social struggle to achieve
common status. It is difficult to summarise the roles and statuses of any individual.
6.3.2. Stratification
Status is an important element of social stratification. From birth to burial,
every individual has a status afforded by social affiliations. The final status is
death. The death ceremony with funeral or burial rites show the important of the
deceased. Funeral rites are religious-oriented with the feeling that life goes on, and
the grave is a new beginning rather than an end. Dying is the final role and death is
the status.
Social stratification refers to the strata of individuals or groups in different
status positions. Social strata is indicated by individual differences in group
affiliation in terms of higher and lower status. It assumes the distinct form of social
classes in which inequalities are perceived and the behaviour-patterns are
distinguished. Social strata is not inert. It gives rise to groups and changes from
time to time. Social stratification is in brief a grouping of individuals in terms of
similar status. Status is a significant dimension of stratification.
Individual differences are marked by social strata in terms of status afforded to
them by biological and cultural inheritance. Status of an individual is not self-
contained and does not function in a vacuum. It is expressive only in social context
and gets formulated in group life. Status and stratification are inter-related
concepts. Status differences are indicated in different stratified groups. Social
stratification appears in both forms of ascribed and achieved status Mostly in
achieved status, it is maximally expressed in various group affiliations. The forms of
social stratification are found in slavery, estate, caste, class, race, nationality,
property, power and prestige. Strata distributed to individuals at birth are fixed and
unalterable. There are age-set societies among primitives, feudal estate societies
and caste societies which are accorded by status of birth and descent There is no
possibility of movement from the stratum. Class differences develop from social
achievements and there are possibilities of social mobility in class strata.
63
Status is ranked by hierarchical positions in social system. It is unequally

distributed. In terms of class, it is designated as higher and lower, superior and
inferior. In terms of prestige, it refers to the style of life. The prestige of the
individual is subjective with ideas and feelings of the social actor when he interacts
with others. It is a self-image. Class is one form of status but not the whole of it.
The hierarchical order is buttressed by various aspirations and expectations of
individuals in different social pursuits of education, religion, politics, economic life
and cultural activities. Status gets stratified respectively in different sectors and the
individual has not one status, but a totality of status from different stratified
systems. Change of status may lead to new stratification. Stratification is
intrinsically status-based. Status is symbolic of certain costumes, badges, lables,
colour, flags, which are the outward insignia of stratification.
Stratification is not an all-inclusive phenomenon of human society. Not all
differences of position come under stratification. Status differences in terms of age
and even marriage do not account for stratification. Husbands, wives and parents
do not form into stratified groups. Children, adolescents and old persons are not
stratified in terms of class. Stratification is not found in all forms of status.
Ascribed status in terms of age, sex and kinship does not lead to stratification.
Nonstratified statuses are of course socially evaluated in terms of differential
functions. But they are not stratified like class and caste.
Stratification implies definite categories of social groups with distinct status
and role. The chief characteristic of stratification is that it is status-oriented
whether by inheritance or acquisition. It is based on strata which invariably refers
to class. In almost all human cultures, no society is class-less. In primitive
communism, class strata was not present because of preference to age, sex and
kinship. In larger social groups, complexity in social relationships created
stratification of classes.
Stratification is variable in relation to cultures, social norms and values. It is
not fixed as a permanent possession of any one culture. In the different sectors of
social life, Stratification has different forms of hierarchical order.
Stratification is subject to change, social mobility in class is a possible change
of status and role. Inter-caste marriage may create a new social strata against
traditional caste stratification. Historically, changes have taken place in stratified
forms of property, estate, slavery, class and caste.
Stratification is based on unequal rights and rewards distributed among the
individuals and groups. Rewards build into position or status. They confer rights
associated with position. Social inequality is an unconsciously evolved device
creating different positions in social order. It develops into institutionalised
inequality by stratified groups. This is the universal feature of stratification, what-
ever be its form.
Stratification is characterised by two major factors of inheritance and training.
Persons get stratified into groups by inherited status of their parents in family,
64
caste and religion. They have also certain talents to be manifested by training and
social experience. Thereby, they achieve certain social status and become members
of stratified groups. Stratification is thus a two-fold process of inheritance and
training of persons for status.
Stratification is characterised by differential prestige-patterns of individuals in
group affiliation. It is a reflection of not only individual’s status but also an
objective unity of the group distinctly recognised.
6.3.3. Functionalist View of Stratification
Stratification is status-based and functions in terms of prestige. The status of
no individual is a self contained entity. Social recognition is an important pre-
requisite of status. As such, stratification is social rather than individualistic. It
refers to systems of positions, but not the individuals occupying positions. Different
positions carry different degrees of prestige, and individuals get these positions in
order to be classed under certain categories of prestige. What is most significant is
the social valuation of status in group rather than particular individual. It is only in
group affiliation, the status and role of an individual is operative. Stratification as it
refers to groups of persons in different statuses, has a structure and functions.
Accordingly, social structure of class, caste, religion, nationality indicate
stratification in which the individuals share their interest in the common status of
the group. Structurally, stratification is a social system of status in group
behaviour. It has functions in terms of roles of individuals as members of the
group. The roles of individuals even in common status-group like class or caste are
based on differential rewards and rights indicative of prestige-patterns.
Stratification functions in relation to the statuses held by individuals in group
behaviour. It is related to the structural analysis of group formation.
The functionalist view of stratification is vividly presented by Emile Durkheim,
a French Sociologist in his analysis of division of labour. Stratification of the group
in terms of social solidarity is a unity of differentiated functions Radcliff Brown and
Malinowski expanded the theory of structural functionalism in stratification.
Herbert Spencer, Merton and Talcott Parsons have also analysed the functional
aspect of stratification by comparative studies of different cultural groups. The
functionalistic approach provides the clue to an understanding of the behaviour-
pattern of individuals in group life.
One of the important functions of social stratification is to induce people to
work hard to maintain status and realize the values of the group. It involves
obligations and responsibilities. Since stratification is a hierarchical system of
prestige, individuals compete with one another to attain higher ranks. Stratification
maintains its pattern in terms of prestige. The members strive to get the possible
benefits rewards and rights by competitive struggle. In respect of groups also,
stratification poses a comparative valuation of higher and lower ranks. Every
individual as a member of the group functions to maintain the status - pattern of
the group. Functions of different groups are variable; but all groups tend to
maintain unity.
65
6.3.4. Forms of Social Stratification

There are several forms of social stratification based on a variety of statuses
afforded to individuals and their roles in different aspects of social life. Caste and
class are two major forms of stratification.
Caste is an Indian social institution based on deep-seated traditions. The word
caste is derived from the Portugese term “Casta” which means purity of breed.
In Sanskrit, caste is equivalent to “Varna” or colour on the basis of which different
groups are originally distinguished. Caste is predetermined by birth, which provides
specific ascribed status. It is based on genetic factors of blood purity, and cultural
factors of religion, occupation, marital norms, food restrictions and social contacts.
Sociologically, caste is a specific stratified group, absolute and permanent in terms
of birth.
It is difficult to trace the origin of caste. The concept of caste is most
controversial and engrossing to the human mind. There is no mention of caste
system in vedas, which are the repository of Hindu culture. Manu Smrithi provides
a mythological conception of caste origin. Historically, the appearance of caste is
attributed to racial distinctions between Aryans and Dravidians. There are three
speculative theories to explain the origin of caste. They are 1) Traditional Theory,
2) Occupational Theory and 3) Racial Theory. The traditional theory is Varnashrma
Dharma explanation of the creation of four principal castes, the Brahmin, the
Kshatriya, the Vysya and the Sudra. Brahmins sprang from the mouth of Brahmin,
Khsatriyas created by his arms, Vysyas from his thighs and Sudras from his feet.
The hierarchial status of these castes is signified by the parts of the body.
Brahmins are the divine group with duties of studies, teaching, sacrifice,
performing rituals, receiving gifts and safe-guarding vedas. Kshatriyas are a second
group designated by strength to protect life and property. Vysyas are entrusted with
trade commerce, and agriculture. Sudras are the last category meant to serve the
other three higher groups. Division of Hindu society into four castes was originally
flexible with reference to functions. In course of time, it became rigid and distinct
being based on birth only. Inter-breeding by hypergamy, marriages between higher
and lower caste groups led to the creation of several
sub-castes and sects. It is said there are more than three thousand castes with
their own legendry for origin. Seduction of the higher caste females by lower caste
males gave rise to a fifth category known as Panchamas or Harijans. The traditional
theory is mythological without any rational basis.
Occupational theory of caste-origin is propounded by Nesfield. According to
him, different occupations of people enabled the formation of castes. It is based on
division of labour which existed earlier than Varma system. It is said to be the
natural product of society. People performing different jobs stratified into particular
occupational groups and formed caste categories. Social impositions of food,
marriage are products of occupational pursuits. This theory presupposes
occupational habituation, which is after all related to environment rather than
birth. It is unscientific and speculative.
66
Racial theory of caste origin is advanced by Herbert Risley. According to him,

caste is demarcated by ethnic characteristics of physical differences in terms of
blood, stature, colour etc. This theory also is detective, since race differences in
Indian population are anamalous. Caste though attributed from birth in a socio-
cultural phenomenon.
The theories of the origin of caste are speculative and fantastic. There is no
rational explanation. It is rooted in tradition which is inexplorable. What-ever be it
origin, it has come to stay in Indian society as an absolute and permanent stratified
group.
The characteristics of caste as a stratified group are analysed into certain
distinct features. Firstly, it is a closed social system, based on birth. It is a flat bio-
social inheritance, ascribed to the individual. A person born in a particular caste is
destined to remain in his caste-fold till his death. It is religious oriented. Secondly,
caste is endogamous. There are restrictions of marriage within and outside caste
groups in terms of tradition. Thirdly, there are restrictions of food and inter-dining
among caste groups. The classification of food into Pakka and Kachha makes the
distinction of purity and pollution. Fourthly, there are restrictions of social contact
in terms of touch, sight and speech especially between the highest and the lowest
caste groups. This indicates social distance. Lastly, caste is denoted by division of
labour in the pursuit of specific occupations among different caste groups.
Caste as a stratified group fulfilled the requirements of an archaic age. In
modern society, many change have taken place to eliminate caste rigidities for
common life. Technological developments, industrialisation, urbanization, modern
education have altered the attitudes of people to caste system. Caste has yielded to
cosmopolitan behaviour in the external aspects of social life. Social distance is
reduced by equal opportunities, sharing of similar jobs by persons of different
castes. Social legislation has reduced caste barriers. Changes in caste system have
not however destroyed the feelings of caste, and the sense of belonging to the caste
group in many aspects of social life. In modern context, there are many communal
organizations hankering for political and economic privileges. This has created a
greater rift in caste group than what was in its traditional set up. Even though
caste is converted into classes on the economic side, it has become more rigid by
being transformed into casteism.
Structurally, caste continues to be a stratified group. Functionally, it has
developed into casteism. Casteism has created greater stratification by way of
demand for rewards and rights in the name of caste. There is greater caste
consciousness for privilege in economic and political opportunities. Instead of being
a religious-oriented system, communal organisations have caused greater
stratification in caste groups. Even the traditional practices of marriage continue to
exist in caste categories. Caste is a horizontal and imponderable phenomenon in
the form of casteism. Some social thinkers remark that traditional castes are
transformed into social classes in modern influx of political and economic
67
conditions. But class-consciousness prevails in terms of caste in elections, selection

of candidates, privileges and deprivation of opportunities, representation. It is
difficult to find social segments without caste affinities. The constitutional ideology
of casteless society is theoretical. In practical polities caste is still predominant in
selection and representation; communal associations are formed to fight for
privileges. Caste remains as a social enigma inspite of enormous changes in its
traditional functions. It appears to be more stratified in political life though not in
religious orientations.
Class: A class is a stratified social group possessing common traits in the
different aspects of social life. Literally, it refers to any portion of the community
marked by similar status. Class as a social arrangement, involves three
considerations: firstly a hierarchy of status groups, secondly the recognition of
superior and inferior, and thirdly the degree of permananence in structure. It is
often misunderstood that class stratification is based on differences in economic
status. Sociologically, it is a wider concept applicable to status differences in
different social groups. There is no particular criterion by which class is determind.
There are several indicators of class system in terms of different statuses
individuals have in class formation. There is not a single class but several classes
to which every individual belongs since he has different statuses.
Class consciousness is both subjective and objective. By virtue of his status,
the individual has subjective membership and participation. Class consciousness is
objectively the sense of belonging of the individual to the group. He treats others in
the group objectively with common rights and privileges. Common patterns of
behaviour emerge from common life situations which account for class formation.
In modern society, social class is indicated by different levels of income in
different occupations. But there are other indicators of class with reference to
different social statuses. The common classification in all communities is into two
broad groups the rich and the poor, the free and the servile, the elite and the mass,
the rules and the ruled, the educated and the illiterate, the capitalists and the
labourers. The basis of classification varies from community to community. No
single criterion taken by itself embraces the entire phenomenon of class.
Class is a universal phenomenon in human society. In small preliterate
societies, there was no class-structure and people lived as kinship groups
undifferentiated in group status without division of labour. In modern society, large
populations with division of labour have created status groups in the form of
classes. Mere stratification of status at the individual level does not create class
structure. Class is a group phenomenon in some order of rank. Class is
distinguished into open and closed social systems. Class structures vary in rigidity
from one society to another and at different of time. An open class system is an
open strata for individual to move from one order of rank to another by merit and
capacity. It is known as vertical, mobility. It underlies the democratic principle of
equal opportunities. It is an upward and downward movement of individuals in
68
respect of several social strata. A closed class system is horizontal with restrictions
on vertical mobility which is even prohibited. Class system in family is closed
because of restrictions in marriage; class in terms of income and occupation is an
open system. But caste by its restrictions is a closed system.
In modern complex society, the criteria of class status is many sided. The
important factors are wealth, family, location, occupation, religion, political system
and education. Financial resources like property and income provide status for
individuals who are classed as rich. Distinction between the rich and poor is a
general classification of class. On this basis, there are economic groups like the
upper and the lower classes. There is also the recognition of an intermediary group
known as middle class. It is true that property carries prestige. But wealth by itself
is not a general principle of importance.
Statuses are evaluated in terms of family and kinship. Individual inherits the
status of family which endures for generations. Family or kinship pedigree varies in
different societies and the individual is credited as a member of the class of family.
Family position carries prestige and provides the group consciousness. Family
system are ranked in social prestige of nobility and titles. In terms of reproduction
and purity of blood, the family geneology is recognised for class formation.
Location or residence is an ecological correlate of class status. Residents in
different localities are recognised in terms of social class. Certain areas are
described as aristocratic localities as contrasted from middle class, labour and
slum dwellers. Location of residence serves as an index of class position.
Occupation is an important demarcater of class status. There are different
occupations by which people make a living. They are considered superior or inferior
by levels of income and nature of jobs. Occupation provides a social standing not
only for the individuals but also classifies people with similar occupations.
Occupational categories are of various types like merchants, officials, labourers,
doctors, industrialists, contractors and they are all ranked differently in society.
Prestige patterns are demarcated by occupations which are class connotations.
Occupational groups from their own classes or associations to strengthen their
status. Trade unions are also formed.
Class criterion is emphasised in terms of religious status. People belonging to
different sects possess differential status. Even within each religion, there are
hierarchical ranks to classify people into groups are marked by class differences in
terms of faith, theology and spiritual ideas.
Political system in modern society is a recognisable base for class formation.
There are various political parties which profess their motto. They are more or less
distinct classes. Power and authority exercised by the ruling party make it
dominant in a prestigeous position. Parties in politics provide class consciousness
for the members.
Education provides a status and the community recognises the cultural levels
by the promotion of education. As against proliferate society, education is a great
69
denominator of status in modem society. There are different stages in education

which provide differential status to the educated. Education is a class-induced
phenomenon. An earlier classification of the community into the educated and the
uneducated is extended to the levels and variety of educated persons. Persons in
terms of their education form specific groups. Education in general is an important
criterion of class.
Factors in the determination of class are multifarious and it is difficult to
summarise the criteria of class. The complexity of conception of class is not merely
in different positions of people but also in constant changes in society. Social
clusters are variable. Changes in class structure are inevitable and there is a good
deal of mobility from one class strata to another. Individual mobility may account
for change of his class. But there is also collective mobility of groups to promote
and strengthen their class.
Class is an important concept in Karl Marx’s theory. Karl Marx stressed the
importance of economic system in the productive process which creates a division
of capitalists and labourers. According to him, both groups form classes. But
labourers as a majority develop into a formidable class to fight their deprivation
from the capitalist regime. Class-consciousness leads to class-struggle which ends
in a Class-less society. Marx’s theory is not just an economic determinism. It is an
objective theory of class. But it is confined to economic factors which are supposed
to supersede and combine all other social factors. Social-class consciousness is
much wider than Marx’s theory of class-consciousness. There are many socio-
cultural areas in which economic interests are absent or partial. Consciousness of
people in caste, religion, art, music, dance, literature may far excel and are least
dominated by economic interests. There are innumerable classes representing a
variety of status positions as members in society. Social class is a general concept
applicable to all forms of social groups based on ascribed and achieved statuses of
individuals.
6.3.5. Social Mobility
Social mobility is an act of moving from one social status to another. It may be
high in an open class society and little in a closed social system. These two forms
are usually designated as vertical social mobility and horizontal social mobility.
Vertical social mobility is an expression of upward or downward trends of social
status. Mobility may be for groups as well as individuals. In an open class, every
individual struggles to get into higher ranks. But it depends on the back-ground of
his ascribed status and the available opportunities in the social set up. Individuals
are inherently unequal and inequalities in social life create social divisions. In a
democratic country, equal opportunities are provided to reduce the gap between
higher and lower status of individuals; but equality of status remains an ideal by
the persistance of several established factors of inequality.
There are several dimensions of social mobility. Occupation, property,
education, are indicated by different levels of status both for individuals and
groups. In modern economic and technological context, occupation is an important
70
indicator of class levels. In terms of income and prestige, different occupations

demarcate social levels. Persons have chances of both upward and downward
movement with reference to occupational income. It is however the desire of
everybody to attain higher levels of income. Social opportunities and exigencies
promote as well as discourage people in the social movement of upward and
downward status. Vertical mobility is a common phenomenon of open-class system.
Economically, people are classified into upper, middle and lower levels of income.
Income levels may vary from property inheritance, quality of jobs and personal
rewards and commitments, (boom in a lottery or loss in business). The most
variable status is in the income levels of different occupational groups.
Property is an important concept to indicate the social levels of individuals
and groups. In some families, property is inherited and in some others it is
acquired. Status of wealth is desired by almost all persons. There are both
directions of upward and inward mobility in terms of property. Those who make
fortunes may attain higher status; persons by misfortune or loss of wealth descend
to lower social mobility. Wealth as an important criterion of status indicates the
levels of social mobility.
Education is often considered to be a potential means of social mobility.
Education does not directly lead to upward trend in mobility. It provides advantages
by increasing the individual’s ability. The “Know how” is most valuable in business
and other professions. Education is the gate-way to professions. It aids social
mobility from labour to management. It is an access to higher paying positions.
Education is necessary for occupational mobility. But it depends on opportunities
for utilisation. By itself, education has no economic value. An unemployed Ph.D is
as poor as unemployed illiterate. The value of education consists in what society
needs and demands for its development. Developing countries value education and
its application for social progress. The levels of education indicate differences in
status. Social mobility depends on the nature and contents of education.
Ideally, social mobility is of two types, negative and positive, in other words
known as vertical mobility of downward and upward status in class structure. It
concerns both the individual and the society. Ideal types of society in extreme form
are caste and open class. Caste is a rigid stratified group with predetermined status
of birth and does not permit mobility in ranks. It is considered horizontal and
immobile in its divisions. But hypergamy and inter-caste marriages have criss-
crossed the horizontal nature of caste system by producing new categories in
mobile forms. In open-class system, mobility is vertical showing both upward and
downward trends. In some cases it is rapid, and in some others slow. Mobility is a
common phenomenon of class system, indicating differential status forms of
Individuals and groups. In a general sense, it applies to the entire structure of
society in the process of change. Social order is determined by the forces of
mobility. Society is never static. The factors of mobility indicate the changing
pattern society. The general distinction between caste and class charactised by
horizontal and vertical mobility of the two groups.
71
Caste and Class Distinguished: Both caste and class are stratified groups with
certain distinct features in both structure and functions. Caste is fundamentally an
as status which is considered as a closed social system. It is afforded to the
individual in terms of birth and remains absolute and permanent throughout the
span of life. It if biological inheritance supported by social and cultural practices. It
emerges from family and kinship lineage with mythological explanation. It is
religious-oriented with certain social restrictions in terms of endogamous marriage,
food, touch and sight. Every caste is designated by name on the basis of legendry.
Occupation and location are also determinants of caste system. It is immobile since
the status is fixed by birth. As the strata is fixed and absolute, the divisions are
horizontal. It is hierarchical in terms of superior and inferior by birth-status.
Class on the other hand is an open social system. It is generally denoted by
achieved status. There are some considerations of class in terms of property
inheritance, but such status may or may not be permanent in the changing social
order. Class system assumes status inequalities inspite of equal opportunities
provided to all members. Differentiation in skills and their application account for
class differences. People are classed into different categories in hierarchical order of
rank and prestige. Class has direct reference to status ranks in different social
sectors like the economic political, and educational. The classification is in different
degrees of status possession which is mostly achieved. It is a matter of individual
worth rather than birth. Since people have opportunities for advancement, there
are possibilities of upward movement from one strata to another. There are also
chances of downward movement by loss of higher status in relation to
circumstances of individual’s inability and misfortunes. Success and failure in
social life denote the higher and lower social mobility. This process is called vertical
mobility, the main feature of class system.
Caste and class are not rigidly antagonistic forms of stratfication. Modern
trends in civilisation have reduced caste rigidities and many social thinkers remark
that caste has become class. Caste has developed into casteism with reference to
birth right, but functionally it correlates in many respects with open-class system.
Class in modern society is not as flexible as it is supposed to be. In some classes,
stratification is so rigid that mobility is scarcely found. The economic status and
political power become the possession of certain individuals and groups and appear
to be the permanent status by being hereditary. But, it is not as stratified as caste,
class is social whereas caste is biological emergence.
1. Social stratification is a system of differentiation which includes a hierarchy
of social positions.
2. There are two kinds of status, they are
a. Ascribed – afforded by inheritance
b. Ascribed status is alterable and depends on choice and competence of
individuals.
c. Caste and class are two major forms of stratification
72

1. Explain the meaning of social stratification and discuss its characteristics.
2. Define caste and class. Write the major differences of these two forms of
social stratification.
6.6. SUMMARY
In the modern society, stratification indicated by different levels of income in
occupations. In future the common classification in all communities is into two
broad groups i.e. the rich and the poor.
1. States and role are significant aspects of human personality – Explain.
2. Status is an important element of social stratification – Define.
3. Social mobility – Discuss.
6.8 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
6.9. ASSIGNMENTS
1. Define stratification and discuss its characteristics.
2. Describe functionalist view of stratification.
3. Explain the forms of social stratification caste and class.
1. Social stratification – Dispankar Gupta – Delhi Oxford University Pvt Madras
– 1992
2. Caste, caste conflict and reservation – IP Desai, SP Puralekar – Centre for
Social studies Surat.
Group discussions, Seminars on the related topic of social stratification
6.12. KEY WORDS
Caste, Class, Differentiation, Segregation, Gender, Varna, Social mobility
❑
73
LESSONS – 7
SOCIAL INTERACTION
7.1. INTRODUCTION
Social interaction is a social process in which the individuals meet and
establish social relationships into a system known as a pattern of behaviour. Many
thinkers have identified social process with the concept of social change. Social
change is of course a process which mainly refers to social transformation. Social
process in terms of human interaction implies a pattern of behaviour in terms of
structure and functions of society. Human society is a system of interactions and
inter-relations, their conditions and consequences. All forms of human interaction
are not social. Interaction with natural conditions like climate, sunrise, rainfall may
stimulate our feelings but they are not social. Accidents may be human interactions
but not social. Social interaction emerges from social relationship. It is a general
social process found in all kinds of social relationships between individuals as well
as groups. It is the prerequisite or basis of human social existence. When persons
meet each other, they act and react with feelings and thoughts in accordance with
certain accepted social norms or even by deviations. Such reactions amount to the
social process known as social interaction. It is in short, a pattern of behaviour. It
is based on mutual stimulation and response of individuals in social life. In the
words of John Cuber, “Interaction is a process of reciprocal stimulation and
response between two or more persons or groups”. Social interaction is directly
related to social activities.
Social interaction depends on two fundamental factors-Social contact and
Communication. In the process of human interaction, the first phase is social
contact. Contact literally means touch. Even physical contact like shaking hands,
greeting, embracing are social stimulations formed into social convertions. There
are social responses in finger point, laughter, cry, sympathy. Social contact may be
physically a stimulus response mechanism of feelings and thoughts. Sociologically,
the relationships create ideas and norms ensuing in a pattern of behaviour. Social
contact develops through communication — a sensory medium of guestures, signs
symbols, speech and language. Communication is a potential medium of social
interaction. Social contact without communication is meaningless. Both social
contact and communication are essential elements of social interaction. No man
lives in an isolated island. Isolation may occur from sensory loss, deprivation of
human contact and segregation. It is negation of human traits and an unthinkable
condition. Human personality is a product of social interaction. Social interaction is
a significant basis of human social life.
Social interaction is broadly classified into two major forms: Associative and
Dissociative. The main associative processes are co-operation, accommodation and
assimilation. The dissociative processes are competition and conflict. These two
forms at the outset indicate the positive and negative aspects of social life. An
associative process is based on the harmonious relations between individuals and
74
groups with common feelings and thoughts for social unity. It denotes social
equalibrium. A dissociative process is generally regarded as a negative aspect of
social interaction disrupting social equalibrium by disharmonious relations. The
competitive and conflicting tendencies create social disequalibrium and lead to
changes in society. In the general net-work of social life, both associative and
dissociative processes operate constantly due to common as well differentiated
interests of individuals with variable-desires and capacities. No social system is
totally cooperative or conflicting society is never absolutely stable. It is a moving
equalibrium with sequences of cooperation and conflict prompting social change. In
the analysis of social change, both associative and dissociative processes are
symbols of social behaviour. Even though they represent opposite directions by
positive and negative attitudes, they are alligned in general social life. They can be
distinguished by their characteristic features in the structural and functional
aspects of social system.
7.2. OBJECTIVES
After going through this unit you should be able to understand
 the major forms of social interaction.
 the Associative process of co-operation.
 the Concept of Accommodation
 the social process of assimilation
 the significance of the dissociative process of competition
 the nature and influence of the process of conflict.
7.3 CONTENTS
7.3.1 Associative Process Cooperation
7.3.2 Accommodation
7.3.2.1 Methods of Accommodation
7.3.2.2 Significance of Accommodation
7.3.3 Assimilation
7.3.4 Dissociative Process Competition
7.3.5 Conflict
7.3.5.1 Sources of Conflict
7.3.5.2 Types of Conflict
7.3.5.3 Consequences of Conflict
7.3.1. Associative Process Cooperation
Cooperation is the most fundamental social process in interaction. It is an
indispensable requisite of human social life. John Cuber has defined cooperation as
“the interaction oriented towards the achievement of a goal”. When men recognise a
common interest or goal, they tend to cooperate towards its achievement. Social
impulses are rooted in common interests. Cooperation is based on the like interests
of individuals, and these interests create common attitudes by which social
75
harmony is established. A cooperative group is the one that works together to,
accomplish a goal (interest) that all desire. Cooperation is basic necessity in human
life. Even in the most competitive society, cooperation is a prominent aspect of
practical life. Some thinkers remark that individuals are basically selfish and it is
difficult to achieve cooperation in the wake of selfishness. But, selfishness and
cooperation are not flatly opposed to each other. Self-interests are often furthered
by cooperative activity.’ Selfishness is not absolute and self-contained. Individuals
have to subordinate selfish interests for cooperative activity to achieve common
interests. Interests are not self-made. They are socially derived. They cannot be
individually fulfilled without cooperative inter-action with fellow beings. Cooperative
attitude is a reconciliation of individual’s self-interest in the achievement of
common goal. No individual by himself can achieve, his like interest without the
recognition of the common interest in the group. This process demands and
depends on attachment to the social group. Cooperation becomes a necessity.
Cooperation is not a single unitary process. There are many forms of
cooperation. According to MacIver and page, cooperation is of two major types:
Direct cooperation and indirect cooperation. Direct cooperation is a close inter-
action in which people work together in activities like play, worship, field-work or
cultural pursuits in team work. The main feature of direct cooperation is the
company of persons in doing certain things. Some goals could be achieved by
individual effort: but common sharing is the essential characteristic of direct and
personal cooperation. Indirect cooperation envisages a common goal achieved by
division of labour particularly in modern society. It is more obvious in urban life
than in rural life. Specialists detach from intimate community life even though
interests are common. In many cases, most people give consent to dictates of
administration without participation. What is significant in both direct and indirect
cooperation is common social interest.
John Cuber Analyses five Forms of Cooperation: Firstly, cooperation is a
behaviour based on loyalty and adherence to the objective. The citizens cooperate
with the regulations of the state for maintenance of peace and order. In
administration, war, and national festivities, people cooperate with a sense of
loyalty and obligation.
Secondly, cooperation may be a contradiction in the phrase “antagonistic
cooperation”. Between two opposing groups, cooperation sets in by agreement or
reconciliation. In industrial disputes, the opposing interests between employer and
labourers are reconciled by institutional arrangement of cooperation for productive
activity. When the opposing parties feel that each side is vitally dependent on the
other, the only alternative is cooperation.
Thirdly, cooperation has the form of unavoidable mutual interdependence
between two or more persons and groups. This is denoted by division of labour. The
interests among workers may not be the same. But economic interdependence
76
demands cooperation for the common goal of production. It is an unconscious form

of cooperation.
Fourthly, cooperation is corollary of competition. Though competition is a
negative reaction between individuals and groups, it survives only through
cooperation. Competition is not naked without response. At the individual level, it
succeeds by personal efforts and social approval. At the group level, the team
functions with cooperation for success. In business, sports and many academic and
scientific achievements, competitive interests demand cooperation.
Finally, cooperation is a subjective subordination of the individual to a
superior power in authority. Obedience of children to parents, of citizens to civic
regulations, of party members to high command, are instances of cooperation based
on subjection to superior power of a group. In every social group, individuals can
hardly escape domination. Cooperation with superior power becomes a necessity for
social survival. There is no real alternative apart from cooperation to the
dominating situation or of dominant group till change takes place. The new set up
may also create the same conditions. It is a conscious adaptation to social
situation.
Cooperation is based on culture which defines the goals for attainment.
Culture is the determining factor of co-operation to attain goals by joint effort.
Individuals are indoctrinated by cultural norms and values and their behaviour
pattern reflects cooperation. There is no objective basis for evaluating cooperation
in terms of social approval or disapproval. Evaluation of cooperation depends on
how the individual is patterned by his culture. There is a close relationship between
culture and individual behaviour. As such, the value of cooperation consists in
cultural perceptions. Cooperation is not an overall interaction. It is associated with
competition and conflict which are antithetical. Competitive society is as much
justified as co-operative society in the general social pattern. Cooperation and
conflict are two major elements of human interaction. They are ever-present in all
forms of social life. Mere cooperation is passive. Conflict and cooperation are
combined processes in social interaction. C. H. Cooley remarks that “Conflict and
cooperation are not separable things, but phases of one process which always
involves something of both”. He further observes, “there must always be an element
of conflict in our relations with others as well as one of mutual aid: the whole plan
of life calls for it; our very physiognamy reflects it; and love and strife set side by
side upon the brow of man”. Cooperation depends on like mindedness and common
interest. Social harmony is the necessary consequence of cooperation.
7.3.2. Accommodation
Accommodation is closely associated with cooperation. It is a positive social
process in human interaction. Many sociologists have equated the concept of
accommodation with the process of adoptation. Adoptation is a term generally used
by Biologists to denote adjustment with the environment. It applies to organic
changes by biological inheritance and the capacity of the living organisms to adjust
with environment for survival. Adoptation is of three forms. Physical, biological and
77
social. Physical adoptation is adjustment with nature. Biological adoptation

operates on the principle of natural selection, - the capacity of the organism to
adjust with natural environment. Social adoptation is selective with cultural
standards and value. There is neither merit nor virtue in physical and biological
adoptation. Social adoptation implies valuation. It is social adoptation that
accounts for accommodation in human social existence. Park and Burgess observe
that “accommodation is the adoptation of the conditions to the social being”. Man
has learnt to adopt with physical environment to his needs, and modified the rigid
operation of natural selection and lives by the process of social selection.
Accommodation is a process of social interaction found in habits, attitudes,
techniques, institutions and patterns of behaviour which are culturally inherited.
Accommodation implies the presence of rivalry which has to be resolved for
purposes of social adjustment. According to John Cuber, “accommodation is a
permanent or temporary termination of revalrous interaction which, while not
necessarily settling the issue involved in the rivalry, permits the rivalrous parties to
function together without open hostility at least in some respects”. In a broad
sense, accommodation is a social device, to resolve conflicting issues in a given
situation. Gillin and Gillin define accommodation as “a process by which the
individual and the group adjust their antagonistic activities in the interest of
associated unity”. Accommodation is a positive force to resolve the reactions of
conflict, contravention and competition. It depends on co-operation and restraint.
Accommodation grows out of conflict, contravention and competition. As such, its
source or origin is in the negative forms of interaction, which have to be resolved by
cooperation and adjustment.
7.3.2.1. Methods of Accommodation
Accommodation is a social device to reduce or resolve rivalries. There are
various methods of accommodation depending on types of social relationships.
John Cuber analyses five major types of accommodation: Truce, compromise,
subordination-super-ordination arrangements, arbitration and toleration. Truce is
an agreement between two rival parties to suspend hostility. It is found in almost
all social groups to end quarrels in religion, policis and even national wars.
Compromise is an old and well-established practice by which each party reconciles
with certain concessions. But both parties retain the rights and power for rivalry.
Subordination and super ordination arrangements arc temporary devices of
accommodation. It is the partial advantage of the individual or group to dominate
the weeker section who accept subordination. This arrangement may change when
the subordinates gain strength to resist and over-ride the super-ordinate group.
Arbitration is the termination of rivalry through a decision by a third party. Courts
and competent legal organisations settle disputes by arbitration which may be
enforced on rival parties. Toleration is a moral and philosophical virtue that
provides for accommodation by restraint and broad outlook. It is a democratic ideal
with the principles of moral right and freedom.
78
Gillin and Gillin have analysed seven chief methods of accommodation, viz.
1) Yielding to coercion, 2) Compromise, 3) Arbitration and Conciliation,
4) Toleration, 5) Conversion, 6) Sublimation and 7) Rationalisation. There are some
similar methods of accommodation presented by John Cuber. Yielding to coercion
denotes subordinate-super ordinate type of accommodation. Coercion or authority
may be physical or mental. Yielding to the demand of the superior force resolves the
rivalry. Compromise, arbitration and toleration are the general types analysed by
almost all sociologists. Conversion is a mode of accommodation by which the
individual accepts another cultural pattern giving up his traditional culture. This
generally happens in the change of caste or religion. Even in politics and economic
life, conversion of individuals into different political parties, and economic
organisations (Trade unions) takes place with new modes of accommodation.
Sublimation is a philosophical approach to accommodate the hateful enemies by
humanitarian outlook. It is a substitute to conflict and competition. Rationalisation
is a process by which a person or a group justifies an attitude to behaviour. It is a
matter of self-esteem and merit which is rationally acceptable without grievance.
People accommodate with competitive deserving persons, and national sentiments
by rational justification.
7.3.2.2. Significance of Accommodation
Cultural standards play a significant role in working out the patterns of
accommodation. Forms of accommodation are basically cultural. Accommodation
resolves the disruptive processes of conflict and competition in the interest of social
unity. At the individual level, hostility comes to an end by rationalisation of “Live
and let live” and it is better to be a gentleman than to win the issue. Groups
accommodate in several ways by putting an end to the conflict. Wars terminate by
truce, industrial disputes are settled by arbitration, religious conflicts are resolved
by toleration, caste and family differences are overcome by compromise.
Accommodation coordinates the different personalities by resolving their conflicting
interests in the pursuit of certain desires. Competition ceases to be cut-throat by
proper understanding to accommodate with certain principles. Political parties
inspite of ideological differences accommodate with common national interest.
Variations among individuals and groups are coordinated by common issues in the
process of accommodation. Accommodation modifies institutions to fit into new
situations of social change. Industrialisation has created many new institutional
arrangements with which people have to accommodate with new ideas and
attitudes. Family system, concept of property, labour, public administration,
educational system, recreational forms, religious attitudes are innovated and
demand proper adjustments from time to time. Accommodation provides new
status and a change in the roles of individuals and groups. The established status
is altered by social change and the individuals have to accommodate with changed
conditions. Maladjustment or failure to accommodate creates social problems and
social disorganisation. By way of accommodation, there are new classifications of
status among individuals and groups in the order of social change. As individuals
79
and groups come to know each other, they are tolerant to absorb the ideas of new
situations. Clash between cultures when terminated leads to diffusion, by closer
contacts and understanding. Acculturation is a fruitful consequence of
accommodation. Accommodation prepares the way for assimilation, a process of
being absorbed into common goals and interests. Accommodation is the gateway
between rivalry and assimilation. It is the Kernel of adjustment between individuals
and groups by resolving their conflicting differences in order to establish social
unity.
Accommodation is not however absolute. Society is always in a state of flux
with differentiated individuals and groups. Conflicts are resolved wherever
necessary in certain situations. Conflict is an ever present process like co-
operation. Social order and disorder resulting from cooperation and conflict denote
the moving equalibrium of society. Accommodation accomplishes social order by
putting an end to rivalries in certain situations. There has always been adjustment
and readjustment of individuals and groups in the changing social order:
Accommodation is inevitably a changing process in social dynamics.
7.3.3. Assimilation
Assimilation is an extended form of accommodation. The eventual
disappearance of conflict between individuals and groups create the venue for
assimilation. People of different groups tend to identify themselves with common
interests and goals. Assimilation according to John Cuber is “a gradual process
whereby cultural differences and rivalries tend to disappear”. Gillin and Gillin
observe that “assimilation is characterised by the development of common
attitudes, often emotionally toned, making for unity, or at least for integrated
organisation of thought and action”. When the individual enters a new culture, and
gets absorbed by the norms and values of that culture, he is said to be assimilated
by a sense of belonging to that culture. At the group level, assimilation denotes
cultural diffusion a process of acculturation.
Assimilation is characterised by common attitudes and ideas. Firstly social
interaction leading to assimilation is anticipatory of rewards and benefits. Hostility
negates assimilation. What is required for assimilation is the end of hostility by
mutual benefits on both parties. Secondly, assimilation is an unrestricted social
process. It requires free interaction, to bring the parties to “Closer together”.
Thirdly, assimilation is direct and primary. Direct and primary contacts promote
assimilation by which a common organisation or forum is set up to fulfil the
assimilated interests. Fourthly, the degree of assimilation depends on the rate of
interaction. The process of assimilation is proportionately related to the degree of
social contact and communication. A well-balanced pattern of assimilation is based
on mutual stimulus-response of parties concerned. Both stimulus and response
proportionately initiate assimilation. Mere stimulus or response by itself may create
“passive assimilation” which is a contradiction in terms. Assimilation cannot be
enforced. Mutual consent and understanding are potential factors of assimilation.
80
Gillin and Gillin analyse six important conditions favourable to assimilation.

They are 1) Toleration, 2) Equal Opportunity, 3) Recognition of External Culture,
4) Decrease in Dominence, 5) Similarity of Cultures and
6) Amalgamation.
Toleration is a general trait of accommodation and assimilation. It speeds up
communication and inter mingling. Even racial groups forget differences to get
assimilated into a common culture. Tolerance is a virtue that creates broad outlook
by reducing differences and facilitating assimilation.
Equal opportunity strengthens the process of assimilation. Occupational class
differences, political domination, religious prerogatives come to an end by equal
opportunity irrespective of their personal and group differences.
Recognition of the merits of external cultures makes way for assimilation. The
admiration of cultural elements enables to break down the barriers of prejudice and
the merits are absorbed.
Decrease in dominance of one culture over the other reduces the hostility.
Privileges are extended to people of lower cultures and differences are reduced.
A broad outlook by sympathetic response promotes cultural assimilation.
Cultural similarities hasten assimilation. Two groups having like cultures
readily render for mutual recognition of similar values. Resemblances provide a
bond between two groups and the consciousness of kind develops easily.
Assimilation is without restraint or constraint due to similarities between two
cultural groups.
Amalgamation is a favourable condition of assimilation. When two different
groups come into contact by migration or conquest, their behaviour patterns are
amalgamated. When individuals are involved in inter-marriage, the partners and
kinship group belonging to different cultures get amalgamated with common
interest. Assimilation creates a new culture by the fusion of different elements
found in variable cultural groups.
Assimilation with all these characteristics is not a complete process. A person
or group socialised in a particular culture, by way of interaction may imbibe the
elements of other culture. But he is not wholly transformed by giving up his original
culture. A third culture combining the elements of old and new is created and the
behaviour pattern is that of a “marginal man”. Assimilation takes place in various
forms. In marriage, individuals of two different cultures unite and the cross-
cultural tendencies account for a new behaviour pattern. Cultural diffusion takes
place between rural and urban people by migration. In the process of assimilation
no individual or group retains all that is original nor does he develop everything
new. The process creates a marginal personality in between old and new. The
marginal man experiences two difficulties: one is subjective; he finds it difficult to
reconcile with the contradictory ideas of two cultures. It is remarked that he is
“Poised in psychological uncertainty”. Secondly, he is fixed in the objective
problems or rejection. He belongs to neither group and loses security within his
81
own group; and even in the new group he is not accepted. A third culture that is
created becomes an anamology.
No culture is isolated and pure in its contents. There have been in human
history interaction between different peoples by social contact and communication.
Assimilation is an inevitable process. Cultural purity is a myth. There are historical
evidences of cross-cultural elements in every social group. In modern society,
cultural diffusion indicates a higher degree of assimilation. No culture is an entity
by itself. Culture changes not only within itself but also by forces of diffusion. But,
no culture is completely transformative without retaining certain traditional
elements. Assimilation is a process of absorption of the new with the old elements.
It indicates a new phase in behaviour pattern. In the changing order of society,
assimilation has significant role in creating new behaviour patterns.
Assimilation is not an easy process. It demands certain restraints and
constraints on the part of individuals and groups to accept and adopt with new
ideas and goals. There are many obstacles to assimilation. The factors which hinder
assimilation are described by Gillin and Gillin in four aspects: 1) Isolation,
2) Superiority Complex, 3) Divergence of Culture and 4) Persecution. Even though
no culture is absolutely isolated, some people live in separate calonies with their
own ways of living without resorting to alien methods. They neither borrow nor
exchange their cultural traits. They feel secure with their own cultural norms and
values and dislike to be infected by external cultures. Such forms of isolation is not
however constant particularly in the context of modem civilisation. So long as
people are culturally isolated, assimilation is a difficult task. Secondly, every
culture has a sense of superiority that it is pure and more valuable. This creates
distance between cultures. There are also dominant cultures which treat other
cultures as subordinates. Such attitude limits communication. Economic groups
are classified into superior and inferior in class structure and the cleavage does not
permit assimilation. Thirdly, racial differences create cultural divergences which
become hard and fast distinctions between ehnic groups. Cultural divergence
among the whites and the Negroes hinder the process of assimilation. Fourthly,
persecution of the inferior by the dominant superior keeps cultural groups
divergent without possibilities of cultural contact or inter-mingling. It is a setback
to both the groups. The persecution of the down-trodden lower castes by upper
castes hinders the process of assimilation,
7.3.4. Dissociative Process Competition
Competition is a form of dissociative interaction. It is generally associated with
conflict. But conflict and competition are distinguished in terms of differences in
struggle against rivalry. Literally, competition means, “to seek together” where as
conflict are negative processes indicating struggle against rivalry. In competition,
individuals and groups struggle to achieve the same goal and it is therefore a
process of seeking together. In conflict there is the consciousness of rivalry leading
to strike the opponent. Both are dissociative forms of struggle to achieve the same
thing. Competition is modified struggle since it is based on certain rules. Conflict
82
has no rules. It aims to destroy the opponent. Competition aims to out-do the
competitor in achieving the mutually desired goal. According to Gillin and Gillin
“Competition is a social process in which rival individuals or groups seek
advantages through favour and preference and use an appeal to the interests or
prejudices of that individual or group, rather than violence or the fear of it to secure
their ends”.
Competition is a cultural necessity based on certain conditions. Firstly,
cultural values of each group determine the basic items which are desirable.
Wealth, education, religion, political prominence, sports are some status forms in
variable forms desired by competitive effort. Secondly, culture defines the propriety
or impropriety of attempting to attain certain goals. The religious and ethical
systems may forbid rival groups from competition. Thirdly, culture defines who may
and who may not compete for a given item of value. The differences between Whites
and Negroes, and between caste groups indicate the particular items for which the
individuals are favoured or forbidden to compete. Competition is not an open
system. It is culturally restricted. Fourthly, culture formulates and enforces certain
rules for competitive effort. Rules in sports, standards in education, regulations in
business are certain restraints against competition. Fifthly, competition is a part of
the social system and it is not institutional. It is based on the particular cultural
goals of various groups and therefore culturally variable.
Economic and political systems may vary from state to state. Competition is
like-wise culturally variable. Finally, competition is extremely dynamic. It
stimulates aspirations to achieve the goals by a struggle against rivalry. In modern
complex society, competition is very strong. Some thinkers regard competition as
automatic and self regulatory for the maintenance of social order.
Competition is of various forms. The types of competition may be analysed
broadly into absolute, relative, personal and impersonal forms. Absolute
competition refers to a particular person or group claiming success against the rival
group. In sports, competition becomes absolute. Relative competition referes to the
particulars degrees, of attainment in terms of wealth, prestige or status. In
educational standards, relative competition is marked by grades. The levels of
achievement indicate the relative forms of competition. Personal competition is a
direct struggle of the person to achieve the goal against the rival. Impersonal
competition is found in organisations like industry, national parties and religious
groups. Competition in production and trade is impersonalised. Impersonal
competition is found in group behaviour.
According to Gillin and Gillin, there are four major forms of competition:
1) Economic Competition, 2) Cultural Competition, 3) Status Competition and
4) Religious Competition.
Competition is regarded as a real and ideal pattern of economic life. Economic
competition emerges from the production of goods relative to the number of people
who desire them. Some classical economists argue that competition regulates
83
production and distribution of goods. Absence of competition creates monopoly

which is more dangerous than rival competition. In free enterprise, competition
becomes a major force and leads to cut-throat tensions. Very often it is wasteful to
the competition. Competition in production and sale of goods is generally regulated
by cooperative efforts of competitors in price fixation and market mechanism of
supply and demand. Competitors come under “gentlemen agreements” to end their
rivalry for cooperative business.
Cultural competition occurs due to rivalry between two or more cultures.
Religious movements compete with one another for the spread of their culture
professing superiority The missionary zeal among Christians is a competitive
process. Religious competition is not entirely religious. It contains economic and
social appeals. It is also politically devised. Conflict between religions develop due
to dogmatic indoctrination of religious ideas.
Competition in terms of status is found both among individuals and groups.
The desire for equality or higher status is designated as self-esteem. No individual
likes to suffer from inferior position. He has a desire to improve and compete for a
higher status. He struggles for higher status for the satisfaction of the ego. There
are different aspects of social life in which the status of individuals and groups are
determined. Pride of family, of religion, of education, of race, of wealth, of political
prestige are all signs of competition among individuals and groups for recognised
status and role in society.
Racial competition is indicated by ethnic superiority of each race. Race,
though a biological phenomenon has intruded the social and cultural life of
different racial groups. The competition between the Whites and the Negroes, the
Jews and the gentile is a never-ending process. The oppressed races with all
grievances have capacities to compete with privileged races. However, cultural
heterogeneity recognizes competence irrespective of racial differences.
Competition is a social device to satisfy some desires of the competing group.
The value of the things in pursuit increases by competition. Many inventions,
innovations of behaviour and institutional changes result from competition. Various
desires interests and values are best served by competition. Competition is the
mechanism whereby social selection operates effectively. In the formation of groups,
competition assigns cultural elements to persons. While selecting members from
different functional groups, competition provides for division of labour.
The results of competition are not fully dissociative even though it is termed as
a struggle in the negative social process. Classical economists have upheld
competition as the life of trade. It provides goods and services at least possible cost.
Many sociologists apprise competition as an associative process. In highly advanced
economic systems, competition enables the formation of associations. In America,
competitive societies are formed and function in a more organised manner with
their own norms than co-operative societies. Competition to be an effective trade-
technique creates cooperation not only between producers but also among
84
consumers. C.H. Cooley points out that at the personality level competition
promotes a broader social feeling. It involves contact and mutual understanding.
The struggle or rivalry involved in competition does not weaken the social system
through the sense of values. When competition is fair and appropriate, proper
social adjustments among individuals and groups are ensured. Competition by way
of readjustments in social changes, accounts for social progress. Advance in
technology is mostly due to competitive skills within and between groups.
Competition becomes a dissociative process when it creates conflicts which are
not reconciled. When competition is an unfair practice based on mere profit motive,
public discontentment develops. Unfair competition may also be cut-throat when
rivalrous groups trade with prejudice and monopoly It destroys industrial
organisations. Cut-throat competition is devoid of norms and makes society
disorganised with many problems. Instead of progress and social solidarity, it
causes demoralisation and affects various institutions. Commercialised recreation
by way of competition has affected family, and other institutions.
Competition is an activity alternative to conflict since it is an appeal to the
public for favour and patronage. It is different from conflict by absence of violence.
It is seldom pure. It is always accompained by joint effort or cooperation. It
increases the level of cooperation by stimulation of competition and makes the
organisation more effective. In modern society, competition is a real and ideal
pattern of economic life. Competition is a folk-lore to the extent that the individual
and group by way of interaction achieve more in the situation than they could do in
the absence of competition. Each person tries to outdo the other by way of
competition. It is not rivalry but cooperation. It works out on the basis of skills and
talents. Competition and cooperation appear to be alternatives in social ordering of
economic life. But, neither can function independently. They are associated
interactions. Both are the necessary and inherent parts of human nature.
7.3.5. Conflict
Conflict is a dissociative social process generally regarded as the antithesis of
cooperation. In every social system, cooperation and conflict are continuously
present to indicate the moving equilibrium of society. Cooperation however
beneficial it may be for social harmony is not a constant feature of human society.
Mere cooperation makes society static. Human society is dynamic subjected to both
processes of cooperation and conflict. It consists of individuals who have
differentiated capacities and desires along with common goals. It is not completely
integrated system of cooperation. Individuals differ in their biological impulses with
personal ends which create the forms of struggle among the members of society.
Both cooperation and conflict are ever-present social processes in social life.
Neither is absolute. Gillin and Gilin bring out the distinction between cooperation
and conflict by two words, “seek” and “strike”. People seek common interests by
cooperation and strike in terms of differences for personal ends.
There are several definitions of conflict. According to MacIver, “Conflict is an
activity in which men contend against one another for any objective”. Gillin and
85
Gillin define conflict as “the social process in which individuals or groups seek their
ends by directly challenging the antagonist by violence or the threat of violence”.
In the words of Karl Marx, “Conflict is a process of economic development, a
revolutionary change by class-struggle between labourers and capitalists”. In the
Dictionary of Sociology, conflict has been defined as “a process situation in which
two or more human beings or groups seek actively to thwart each other’s purposes,
to prevent each other’s interests, even to the extent of injuring or destroying the
other”. Lewis Coser defines conflict as “a struggle over values and claims to status,
power and resources in which the aims of the opponent are to neutralise, injure or
eliminate their rivals”. All these definitions reveal that conflict is a form of struggle,
antagonistic between two or more individuals in the pursuit of certain desires and
fulfilment of certain objectives.
7.3.5.1. Sources of Conflict
Conflict does not originate from individual’s innate or biological impulses. It
emerges from social contact and communication. The individual develops personal
motivation in social participation and by way of differentiated capacities makes
certain ends personal. However, conflict is a part of human society, because it is
the very nature of human society to consist of psychic processes of indoctrination,
and levels of status and value. Consequently, the roots of conflict are ingrained in
the basic nature of society. Conflict is thus an ever-present social process.
The causes of conflict may be sociologically classified into, 1) Individual
Differences, 2) Cultural Differences, 3) Clash of Interests, and 4) Social Change.
Individuals are differentiated in their capacities for social life, eventhough they
unite for common ends. They are not of course isolated entities, but inter-related
parts of the social system. It is true that there is no social mind, but the minds of
individuals, no social end but only the ends of concrete persons. Harmony is
achieved by the concurrence of individual minds in contact and communication.
Individual differences create different view-points by which emotional disparties
lead to conflict. Differences in status and role are mostly due to individual
differences. People differ in their approach to ideologies and values and these
differences lead to various forms of conflict.
At the group level, cultural differences are the main cause of conflict. Even
with in the same group, cultural patterns are variable. Every person is set in his
own cultural pattern and by his familiarity develops values to the extent that he
dislikes and hates other cultural patterns. Between groups, cultural variations are
very wide and create gaps of rivalry. The biological factors of inheritance also
contribute to cultural differences. Racial differences and caste regidities are the
causes of conflict. Ethnocentrism is the first basis of conflict in human population.
People dislike each other in terms of races and nationalities and group conflict
develops to the wider range of war. When individuals identify with race, religion,
tribe, sect and nation, they are not only loyal to their group but also develop
prejudices which cause conflict between groups.
86
Clash of interests between individuals and groups, and also between groups is
a general cause of conflict. There are a variety of social interests by which
individuals as well as groups attain social status. Differences in individual
personalities and culture create emotional disturbances leading to conflict. There
are areas of social life in which conflict becomes imminent. In industries disputes
between employers and employees lead to strikes, lockouts and other disturbances.
Clashes between politicians and political parties disturb national harmony.
Differences in ideologies create tensions to the extent of war at international levels.
In all social systems starting from family to international organisation, there are
virtual differences creating tensions among members and groups.
Conflict particularly in modern society is the result of social change.
Enormous developments through science and technology have created imbalance
between the traditional and new social order. The problems of adjustment create
conflicting situations between tradition and change. The old relationships and
values when replaced by new ideas, create a gap and the process of change involves
tensions and maladjustments. Social change has an impact on various institutions
creating instability by conflicting situations. Social order is disrupted and change in
the status and roles of individuals create strife and struggle for new modes of
adjustment. Social change is said to be the cause as well as outcome of social
conflict.
7.3.5.2. Types of Conflict
The nature of conflict may range from simple quarrel to the major incidence of
war. Conflict may be direct or indirect. Direct conflict occurs when the individuals
or group injure or destroy one another in order to attain some goal. Duels, quarrels,
revolution and war are direct conflicts. Indirect conflict is a process of creating
obstacles or impediments against the rival parties in the attainment of certain
goals. It is impersonal. Competition is a form of indirect conflict. Conflict whether
direct or indirect is essentially social.
There are four major forms of social conflict: 1) Personal, 2) Racial, 3) Class-
wise (Economic) and 4) Political.
There are many forms of personal conflict. People dislike each other in their
personal attitudes in the different areas of social life. There may be ideological and
value differences among personalities. Hatred is concentrated when there is no
possibility of two persons being associated together. Personal rivalry generally leads
to physical combat by obuse and beating each other. It is also a device of creating
obstruction against the achievement of goals. Personal conflict is centred round
hatred and prejudice Personalities involved may become symbols of value.
Racial conflict is the result of ethnocentric ideas. Ethnocentrism is a status-
based ideology in terms of biological and cultural complex of superior and inferior
sentiments. The biological origin of race is associated with cultural elements learnt
in behaviour of each racial group, which develops centrifugal ideas of purity.
By racial prejudices, the dominant group exploits and enslaves the inferior group.
87
Ideas of racial purity though unfounded create loyalty to each racial group with
prejudice against other groups. The Whites hating the Black and depriving them of
social previlege is an example of race conflict. In India, tensions and prejudices
between higher and lower castes indicate caste conflict.
Class conflict is particularly a modern phenomenon arising from the status
conditions of individuals in different groups. Class consciousness results from the
desire for prestige, power, advantage and superiority of groups in the different areas
of social life. In politics, religion and economic life, the social distance is created in
terms of higher and lower status of individuals in groups. In economic field, class-
consciousness leads to class-struggle between labourers and capitalists. The desire
for power among political parties creates rift and prejudices leading to abuse and
quarrels. Intolerance towards other religions creates prejudice extending even
to war.
Political conflict may be within a nation or international. The political parties
have seculded interests with a desire for power. Elections are fought with prejudice
and abuse and sometimes leading to violent attacks. At the national level, party
politics is based more on personal and group hatred than on the spirit of
nationalism. Conflict may be international with reference to political ideologies
which differ from country to country. Competition in scientific advance creates
political issues of security and defence. The psychological rift of dominance and
political superiority creates national prejudice causing international tensions.
7.3.5.3. Consequences of Conflict
Most thinkers remark that conflict is a negative process causing social
disharmony and social dis-equilibrium. It is a part of human life and its
consequences are not fully destructive as supposed by some thinkers. There are
several beneficial consequences of conflict for the individual as well as the group.
Conflict enables the formation of personality by competitive struggle to
achieve certain goals. The individual by passive cooperation is at the mercy of the
group. Without conflict or struggle, the individual cannot manifest his talents in the
social world. Conflict may be partial or complete. Complete conflict may disorganise
existing society to create a new social order. Partial conflict renews the energies of
persons by solving the rift through some agreement by rival parties. Quarrels
between individuals are settled by compromise or advice from interested persons.
Conflict provides for social solidarity with in the group. Members of one
sub-group with a common ideal unite to combat the differing sub-group.
Individuals in each group forget their differences and unite for a common struggle.
Caste-groups, political parties, economic classes, religious sects unite for common
objective. Their inner individual differences are resolved by concentration of
purpose. Conflict strengthens the in-group and functions as a positive force of
social solidarity.
On the contrary, conflict badly damages the general social organisation.
The various sub-groups which function almost as self contained cells with
88
prejudices against other in-groups affects the general unity of the social group. At
the national level, the social group is weakened by internal rifts in different sub-
groups. People do not so much submerge their differences at national level as they
do within their sub-groups. Internal prejudices among in-groups lesson group
solidarity.
Conflict causes alteration of personalities. Individuals within each group are
not constantly fascinated by certain ideologies. Change in attitude may develop out
of new situations and personality alters from the earlier status. Usually, the
individual suffers from conflicting situations. The loyalty changes and the
personality alters. In certain in-groups, there are very little chances for alteration.
Personality gets more integrated in army camps, in which loyalty and devotion are
upper most Personal integrity is fused with social integrity.
Conflict is regarded as an accelerator of social change. John Dewey in his
theory of consciousness and thought observes, “conflict is the gadfly of thought. It
stirs us to imagination and memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of
sheep-like passivity and sets us at noting and contriving. Conflict is a sine qua non
of reflection and ingenuity”. Conflict generates new norms and institutions by
stimulating economic and technological change. In industry, human relations
develop into a collective purpose, and without conflict technological innovations
would be disfunctional. Habitual social arrangements make people unfit and
reduces capacity to adjust with new conditions. According to John Dewey, “A group
or a system which is no longer challenged is no longer capable of a creative
response. It may subsist, wedded to the eternal yesterday of precedent and
tradition, but it is no longer capable or renewal”. Karl Marx contended that “conflict
leads not only to ever-changing relations within the existing social structure, but
the total social system undergoes transformation through conflict”. Every social
system contains elements of strain and potential conflict. His theory of class
consciousness is a prelude to class-struggle for the social transformation of class-
less regime. Conflict while disturbing traditional equilibrium re-establishes
equilibrium in a new system. Conflict is both the source and the result of change. It
is a challenge for new conditions by transvaluation of habitual systems. Instead of
being negative, it renews and revitalises human energy for creation of new social
order. Society is a changing process by alternate elements of conflict and
cooperation. Neither conflict nor cooperation is absolute and constant. Both
processes in here as potential factors of social system. Mere coopertion is passive
and restive. But society is not static by cooperation. Change is initiated by conflict
which makes society dynamic. Conflict and conflict alone makes society chaotic. It
is ultimately resolved by cooperation for social stability. Like two sides of the same
coin, conflict and cooperation are ever-present and omnipresent processes of social
life.
There are certain social mechanisms to tide over conflicting situations. They
are humour, avoidance, sentiment, tolerance and organised rivalry. Humour
removes tensions that might lead to physical violence. Avoidance may result from
89
accommodation by acceptance of domination. Sentiments enforce harmonious

interests by recognition of certain desirable ideals. Tolerance to variety and change
helps for proper adjustment without hitch. Organised rivalry is less harmful than
rash conflicting tensions and allows for intended changes. These factors are not
however universally successful devices. Sometimes, they provoke rather than
prevent conflict. Conflict is an inevitable part of social system and it is the very
nature of society to contain the elements of conflict since individuals and groups
are differentiated with exclusive ends, in relation to their capacities.
1. Social interaction means persons meet each other, they act and react with
feelings and thoughts.
2. Co-operation is based on the like interacts of individuals.
3. Accommodation is closely associated with co-operation, it is a positive social
process in human interaction.
4. Assimilation is an extended form of accommodation.
5. Conflict is a form of struggle antagonistic between two or more individual in
the pursuit of certain destres and fulfillment of certain objectives.
1. Define Cooperation. Explain its types.
2. Examine the importance of Accommodation and Assimilation.
3. Describe the Dissociative processes with examples.
4. Bring out the types of competition.
7.6. SUMMARY
Cooperation, Competition, Conflict, Accommodation, and Assimilation
Interaction usually occurs in the form of above mentioned social processes. It may,
however be understood that interaction is a subtle, complex and dynamic thing. It
can never be totally identified with one social process to the exclusion of all others.
Any concrete situation always contains more than one process. There is no
cooperation group which will not contain conflict. There is no conflict which will not
have some hidden basis of compromise. There is no competition which cannot
claim some contribution to a large cooperative cause.
1. Social interaction – Explain.
2. Associate process – Define.
3. Discuss – Accommodation.
4. Write a note on Assimilation.
1. Sociological bulletin.
90
7.9. ASSIGNMENTS
1. Completion is a form of dissociative interaction – Explain.
2. What are the types and causes of conflict?
3. Assimilation is an extended form of accommodation – Define.
1. Sociology a systematic introduction – Hary M. Johnson. Allied publishers
private ltd., Chennai.
2. A Hand book of Sociology. William F. Ogburn, Meyer F. Nimkoff Eurasia
publishing house Pvt Ltd, Ram Nagar, New Delhi.
Group discussions, Seminars on the related topic of social interaction.
7.12. KEY WORDS
Cooperation, Conflict, Accommodation, Subordination, Super ordination,
Assimilation, Toleration, Competition.
❑
91
LESSONS – 8
SOCIAL CONTROL
8.1. INTRODUCTION
Our behaviour in the day-to-day life is quite orderly and discipline. The
regulation of behaviour, thus, in a society, whether of individuals or groups, is
undertaken in two ways. It happens either by the use of force or by institutions
through norms, values and inherent in various social institutions which gradually
acceptable to the people. There are several agencies of social control. Society
exercises its control through Folkways, Mores, Laws, Religion, and Education. It is
our belief that society cannot function properly without appropriate exercise of
social control.
8.2. OBJECTIVES
 understand the purpose of social control.
 identify the kinds of social control.
 understand Folkways, Mores, Laws. Religion and education is agencies of
social control.
8.3. CONTENTS
8.3.1. Purpose of Social Control
8.3.2. Kinds of Social Control
8.3.3. Folkways
8.3.4. Mores
8.3.5. Laws
8.3.6. Religion
8.3.7. Education
8.3.1. Purpose of Social Control
Human society is a system of relationships based on norms and values. Unlike
physical and biological environment, social regulations are normative. Social
regulation is a necessity to control the behaviour of individuals who would have
otherwise reacted by their whims and fancies. From birth to burial, in the process
of socialisation, human beings are constrained to social regulations. Absence of
social regulation creates social disorder, conflict and confusion. People conform to
social regulations because they are habituated and think it right to do so to realise
their social interests. The method of social regulation is known as social control.
Sociologists have defined social control in several ways. Gillin and Gillin have
defined social control as “a system of measures—suggestion, persuation, restraint
and coercion by whatever means including physical force by which a society brings
into conformity to the approved pattern of behaviour, a sub-group or by which a
group molds into conformity its members”. Peter Worsley defines social control as
“a process within social groups which operates to prevent the violation of social
92
rules”. According to R. M. MacIver, social control is “the way in which the entire
social order coheres and maintains itself to operate in the changing equalibrium”.
Ross defines social control as “a system of devices whereby society brings its
members into conformity with accepted standards of behaviour”. In the most
general sense, social control is a device to achieve social order by prohibiting
deviations from established rules. The concept of social control is misapplied to the
process of socialisation. Social control and socialisation are two different modes.
Socialisation is transmutation of the organic human being to a social being by
training and experience according to accepted norms. Social control is a general
method of regulating behaviour through social norms. Both processes refer to
conformity of social norms but differ in their purposes.
The need and importance of social control has been recognised by all social
thinkers. The very fact that every individual is pre-set social for life even at the time
of birth indicates the presence of social control from the commencement of human
life. The child being valued not for what it is organically, but for it would be socially
demands a process of training by conformity to social norms. Individuals and
groups vary by differentiated interests and capacities. They are not entities, self-
contained to live apart from relation with fellow-beings. It is the relationship and
interaction that demands the need of social control. Variant individuals and groups
have to be regulated in their behaviour for the sake of general welfare. As such,
social control becomes a necessity.
The functions and purpose of social control is of various forms. Individual left
to himself remains unregulated and cannot develop his personality. Human
interactions have to be regulated by social norms for the purpose of achieving social
interests. Individuals have endless motives which should be controlled by social
sanctions. Otherwise, there would be no order in society. By dint of necessity,
individuals conform to social regulations. At the individual level, the purpose of
social regulation consists in training the individual for social life. Society is a
regulated system of norms and values. It has never existed in natural order. Social
regulations are the basis of society both in formation and functions. Society would
not have existed in the absence of norms. The purpose of social control through
norms is to maintain social order. Social control imposes a sense of obligation by
which the thoughts and feelings of individuals are governed. The ultimate purpose
of social control is social solidarity. It brings into conformity the variant actions of
individuals and groups in the form of “collective conscience” as stated by Emile
Durkheim. It has the purpose of making individuals know each other and enjoy
their likenesses.
Like-interest and social solidarity are never complete. The self-centred
interests of individuals are contrary to social norms and affect common interests.
Like-wise, social norms are too restrictive to self-seekers and to certain social
groups. Because, norms are framed by dominant groups and generally resisted by
other classes. Consequently, social solidarity is never complete. It is relative and
partial to the situation or circumstances. Like-interest is never all alike. Individuals
93
vary endlessly in their motives. What brings them together is a process of

habituation and the general feeling that interests have to be achieved in group life
by conformity to norms. Conformity to norms is most often compulsive but not
voluntary. Therefore, the purpose of social control in bringing about self-regulation
and social solidarity is not fully realised. Social control inhibits violation of social
norms. But deviations at both individual and social levels occur by violation of
norms. Social order, the main purpose of social control is not a complete process. It
is partial and relative. Both order and disorder, organisation and disorganisation
prevail in the moving equilibrium of society. Social control is necessary for social
solidarity and social continuity. It is not fixed and unchanging in its content of
norms or codes. Norms are related to social changes and get altered in the context
of situations and time
8.3.2. Kinds of Social Control
The methods of social control vary from the preliterate to civilised society.
Preliterate people depended on the super-natural and a variety of customs and
traditions. Success and failure in life depended on the powers of the supernatural
appeased by magical practices. These practices developed into customs and
traditions. In civilised society, social control is exercised through social pressures of
suggestion, secular forms of praise, ridicule, reward etc., in addition to respect for
tradition. Social control has a long history of development from the proliferate to
modern society. It differs from group to group and also from time to time as devised
by cultural norms of each society. The general classification of the means of social
control is into two broad categories, namely, informal and formal. Informal methods
of social control are found in primary social groups in which relationships are close,
direct and intimate. In simple homogeneous primitive communities, informal social
control was an effective device in the nature of customs, folkways and mores.
Formal social control in the nature of laws and other secular forms of suggestion,
public opinion, modern education, scientific procedures is found in complicated
modem society. They are concreate forms of regulating the behaviour of individuals
and groups. These two forms of informal and formal social control are not absolute
and the distinction is only artificial to indicate the historic process of the methods
of social control. The vestiges of customs and traditions prevail in modern society
without being altogether replaced by laws. Many legal enactments in each social
group are framed with due regarded to customary practices. The agencies of social
control are distinguished in terms of the different modes of regulation of social
behaviour. In a nut-shell, social control is the embodiment of social norms and
values.
8.3.3. Folkways
Folkways are the most informal general ways of routine behaviour. The
concept of folkways is introduced by William Graham Sumner, an American
Sociologist. Literally, Folkways mean the ways of the folk or community. According
to W.G. Sumner, “Folkways are the products of natural forces which men
unconsciously set in operation” MacIver observes that folkways are the recognised
94
or accepted ways of behaving in society. Lundberg defines folkways as “uniformities

in the behaviour of a group which develop relatively spontaneously and even
unconsciously in adopting to common life conditions and which become established
through repetition and general occurrence”. In pre-literate society the terms custom
and folkway are used synonymously. Folkways are norms to which people in every
society, primitive or modern conform, since it is customary to do so. Conformity to
Folkways is not enforced by law or any agency of society. But it is informal
acceptance of established practices in each society.
Folkways include conventions, etiguette, and many modes of behaviour which
men have evolved and continue to evolve in the business of social living. It is
difficult to catalogue the various forms of folkways and trace their origin.
Convention is a matter of principle observed in the light of customary experiences
of people. It has a deeper meaning of traditionalism. Observing festivals, driving on
left side of the road, the family meal, use of utensils preparation of dishes,
scheduled hours of work and sleep are conventions based on habitual practices.
The essential feature of convention is not the particular rule but a standardised
procedure by which activities are regulated.
Etiquette are good manners which indicate the proper form of doing certain
things It implies courtesy and mutual awareness. Greeting friends, thanks giving,
offering seat, bidding good-eye, and many table manners, are examples of etiquette.
There are also class differences in terms of status by which etiquette becomes a
discriminating device. In general, etiquette is a manifestation of good intentions
towards demarcated by politeness.
Folkways are innumerable in habitual practices of individuals and groups.
They are derived from community life. In matters of dress, food, marriage, birth and
death rituals, forms of worship, methods of greeting, folkways are manifested.
Folkways are basically customary practices. They are not rationally devised. The
founders of folkways are anonymous. People follow folkways not because they know
what those folkways are, but because they have to follow the behaviour of others in
the community. There are negative forms of folkways like taboos, abuse by familiar
words, ostricism, ridicule. Folkways are not uniformal. They vary from community
to community depending on variable cultural norms. In some social groups,
folkways are relatively permanent to exhibit the cultural preservation. Folk-songs,
folk-dance, folk-art and folk-literature are generally the cultural tresure of every
group, folkways account for social solidarity.
Folkways are the habits of social action. Conformity to folkways is not however
compulsive. But, social adoptation demands conformity for the sake of social
survival. Violation of folkways is not a serious form of deviation. It is not
punishable. But a person who does not conform to folkways is considered
shameless and degenerate. He is rediculed, rebuked, chastised and even ex-
communicated. This may not happen in all cases of violation. For the purpose of
social security and survival, members live in accordance with social norms.
95
Folkways may vary from group to group. But they are standardised procedures to
maintain social order and stability. Every social group has folkways as patterns of
cultural behaviour. Folkways are indoctrinated to the members in the process of
socialisation and they serve as social safe-guards in communal living. Every
member begins his social life with folkways and lives with it. Folkways are the
general usages which are neither planned nor thought out but accepted as forms of
social regulation. Folkways may be socially harmful when they are pressed too far
for adherence. Since folkways are not rationally devised, they repress the dynamic
person, and group life becomes insipid with the cake of custom. The conservative
preservation of folkways obstructs diffusion and social progress. Conventions in the
observance of festivals, marriages, birth, rituals and death ceremonies being
expensive reduce persons to poverty and misery. Whatever be the consequences,
folkways render the continuity of society by cultural heritage.
8.3.4. Mores
Mores refer to moral conduct as distinguished from customary practices of
folkways. The word mores is derived from the latin term ‘mos’ which means morals.
W.G.Sumner makes the distinction between folkways and mores by the connotation
of welfare. Folkways are mere conventional practices, without definite standards of
right and wrong and have no conception of welfare. They are habitual customary
practices. Mores on the other hand are social regulators in terms of welfare through
morals. Mores exhibit the distinction between right and wrong and as such refer to
value systems of society. Wearing of clothes in different styles are the folkways, but
the wearing of clothes or dress as such is a form of more. Folkways are mere
habitual practices commonly found in communal life. But mores are prescriptive
standards with the distinction of right and wrong. Mores represent moral
behaviour, where as folkways include all forms of communal practices which are
customary. Folkways and mores are similar in being unplanned, obscure and
relatively unchanging patterns of control. Convention or etiquette is not simply
superficial. It has the relevance of right conduct in appropriate way. Hence folkways
are not different from mores. Both are informal sanctions and communal in nature.
Both are results of social experience and do not require any justification as they
exist of their own right. Kingsley Davis remarks, “The mores are the hardest core of
the normative system. The folkways are the proto-plasm of the cell, the bulky part,
while the mores are the nucleus, the essential part.”
Mores or morals are often mistaken for sexual morality. They are not limited to
morals in sex behaviour. There are innumerable forms of mores covering the
different aspects of social life. Mores may apply to the relationships between two
persons in certain situation as found between husband and wife, doctor and
patient, teacher and student, merchant and customer, priest and disciple. It may
refer to general social relationships in terms of honesty, truth, discipline,
industriousness, bravery, prudence in different situations. Mores are not uniformal
as the cultural groups are differentiated in their norms. Some social groups may
adopt widow-marriage whereas in some others it is condemned. Marital practices
96
and family systems may have differentiated mores. Whatever be the differences in
behaviour patterns, all social groups recognise the general importance of truth,
honesty, bravery, hard-work, discipline as fundamental more virtues. Mores are not
thought out and intellectually devised. There is no rational or scientific explanation
for mores. People who adopt mores consider them as right guide-lines for
behaviour. Mores are the results of vast experience of past generations and have a
strong hold on society. By nature, mores are conservative and develop into stereo-
typed traditions. They are the agents of conservatism. People resist a scientific or
rational explanation of mores. Certain mores are so steadfast, that legal efforts to
change them are futile. Forms of marriage, ritual practices, forms of worship, many
beliefs and usages of right and wrong cannot be legally transformed. It is a matter
of historical stupidity to enforce legal action against certain moral sanctions of
community life. Mores may be positive or negative. There are certain mores which
compel conformity, and certain mores prohibiting people to act in certain ways
Marital practices of endogamy and exogamy are positive and negative forms of
mores. The mores of each group are indoctrinated to individual, right from infancy
and get established in his career and social development. The members of society
develop sentiments through mores. There is resistance and antagonism against
persons of opposing mores. In their negative form, mores are taboos. Taboos are
moral restrictions imposed on members in certain forms of behaviour. Sex relation
between parents and children, restrictions on food, forms of marriage, social
contacts are forbidden. Taboos are as variable as positive mores in social groups.
Mores in each society are compulsive as well as prohibitive in human relationships
and practices.
R.M. MacIver analyses three major functions of mores in social life. Firstly,
mores are the chief apparatus of controlling individual as well as group behaviour.
By compulsion and prohibition, mores exert great pressure on individual to act in
accepted ways of society. By conformity to mores, the individual’s behaviour is
determined. He is moulded into social life by mores. Violation mores may not be
punishable as in legal action. But, individual when excommunicated by violation of
mores is more miserable. Punishment by law may be tolerated. But
excommunication is intolerable, socially represses the individual and reduces the
chances of social survival.
Secondly, the individual by conformity to mores identifies himself with the
group. He develops a sense of belonging by social bonds for satisfactory living. He
finds security with the group by sharing common mores.
Thirdly, mores are the guardians of social solidarity. They account for social
unity both in sectional and geneal groups. There are more in respect of age, sex,
class, family and nation, and in each sector, mores play a prominent part for social
solidarity.
Mores are neither planned for rational. They operate in the conscious or
unconscious control of members. Some mores are implicitly accepted as uncouth
97
practices and lead to social distress. They are also discriminating devices in class
structure. Blind adherence to mores cloud rational faculty and obstructs the
dynamic forces of human personality. Social progress is hampered by conservatism
of mores. Conflict of mores between two or more groups causes social unrest and
invites the interference of law. Both the individual and the group become tradition-
bound with mores, and consequently personality and social growth and restricted
and retarded.
8.3.5. Laws
Laws, Folkways and mores are the informal methods of social control devised
in all social groups from the primitive to modern society. In primitive society, social
regulation was achieved by customary practices and there were no enacted laws.
Modern society is a complicated pattern of human relationships with different
forms of behaviour. Mere folkways and mores cannot control and ensure social
order in modern society. State controls social behaviour by enactment and
enforcement of laws. Folkways and mores are customary regulations, which are not
written or enacted. Laws are formal enactments by legislature and possess
legitimate authority. In proliferate and peasant societies, customs regulated social
behaviour and there were no written records in the form of laws. In modern society
laws are written and recorded. Many thinkers opine that law is arationalised
custom, in the process of historic transition. But, law differs from custom by being
enacted and bestowed with force and authority. It is a formally enacted and
recorded norm.
There are many definitions of law. Kant defined law as “a formula which
expresses the necessity of action.” According to Austin, “Law is a command given by
a superior to an inferior and laws are nothing but species of command.” Roscoe
Pound presents a widely accepted definition of law. According to him, “Law is social
control through systematic application of force of politically organised society.”
MacIver defined law as “a body of rules which is recognised, interpreted and applied
to particular situations by the courts of the state.”
Sociologically, law is a formal enactment and legally recorded norm.
The early writers identified law with legislation. The distinction between
custom and law is indicated by the absence of legislation in custom. Law is
distinguished from custom by being bestowed with authority to compel people for
obedience. Customery practice is voluntary where as law is binding and compulsive
to all members under the jurisdiction of the state. Violation of law entails
punishment. It is universally applicable to all citizens where as customs may vary.
In simple preliterate societies, human relationships were close, direct and intimate;
customs without enactments were sufficient to regulate the behaviour of the people.
The necessity of law by enactment and enforcement is felt in modern civilised
society to control a wide range of social relationships and forms of behaviour.
Customs are conservative but laws are subject to changes in expanding civilised
society. Both custom and law are forms of social regulation. But customs are
98
informal without force and authority, whereas law has the coercive power to control
the behaviour of the people.
Law as an agency of social control is not an exhaustive and all inclusive
phenomenon. It may be hard and fast to regulate social behaviour by force. It is
devoid of sentiments which are the most enduring traits of social life. Social
sanctions in conventions, etiquette, hospitality, marital practices, rituals and
ceremonies provide a sense of group identification. But law is impersonal and
functions as an external agency of social control. There are limits to what law by
itself can perform. Henry Maine remarks, “there is a necessity for law to adjust
itself to social necessities and social opinions.” Edmund Burke holds that “Manners
are of more important than laws; upon them in large measure, laws depend.” Laws
which are not supported by customs cannot be enforced. Laws are not inexorable to
be enforced against moral sanctions. Law cannot forbid people from religious
practices of worship, rituals and ceremonies. Men are not made moral by acts of
parliament. Morality preexists and law is its super-structure. The maintenance of
legal order depends on moral conditions of society. Legal regulation does not rest on
mere threat of force but depends on social order of moral approval of laws, in the
interest of social justice.
Moral sanctions do not outstrip legal regulations even though they are
essential ingrediants of social life. Legal rules are more precise and definite than
moral sanctions. They are frequently more effective than morality. Moral sanctions
by themselves cannot control social behaviour particularly in modern society.
Bertrand Russel has remarked, “The good behaviour of even the most exemplary
citizen owes much to the existence of a police force. It is hardly possible, and
certainly not useful to conceive a society of any degree of complexity in which social
behaviour would be regulated entirely by the moral sanctions of praise and blame”.
Importance of law in social control both at national and international levels cannot
be ignored and discounted. Moral sentiments are ineffective in regulating clashes of
interest and political doctrines. Legal order even though it rests on moral
sentiments is largely influenced by social arrangements of precise rules.
Law is the most effective agency of social control. It is a powerful instrument of
social order and maintenance of public peace and social justice. It has the negative
forms of punishment by fine, imprisonment, deportation and death sentence for
violators for different degrees of crime. As social sanctions, laws are not absolute
and all-inclusive. Violation of moral sanctions may entail social excommunication
which is more severe than legal punishment. Law is not the sole agency of social
control. It is complementary to folkways and mores.
8.3.6. Religion
Religion as a faith in super-natural exercises control not only between man
and man but also between man and a higher power. It is supra-social to control
human activities by super-natural prescriptions. It prescribes rules of conduct and
tends to identify with moral sanctions. Many philosophers have traced the roots of
morality in religion. Religion and morality are not equitable. Religious sanctions
99
extend beyond mundane human relationships and moral codes are distinct social
sanctions concretely operative in social environment. There are many moral
sanctions which do not contain religious ideas. There are contrasting opinions
regarding the relation of religion to morality. C.S. Lewis holds that “moral code
cannot endure without the support of religion”. Thomas Huxley as a naturalist
assumes that a moral code cannot be pure and responsive in a changing society
unless it is dissociated from sanctions of religion. However, religious and moral
codes prevail in the different modes of living, as powerful engines of social control.
Religion is based on a process of indoctrination of supra-social ideas
concerning divine powers higher than social activities. In almost all social groups,
the religious ideas are inculcated to the members from infancy and these ideas
exercise control over the behaviour of individuals in the process of social growth.
Religion serves as an agency of socialisation by controlling human behaviour in
thoughts and actions. Individual’s personality is often pre-set by religious ideas
which provide a status in terms of birth and training. But, changes have taken
place in religious approach from traditionalism to humanism. Modern conception of
religion has drifted from conservative precepts to humanism which rejects super-
natural and supra-social notions of creation, heaven or hell. Modern humanism is a
drift from super-naturalism to social morality. As Burtt observes, “Man’s major
religious ideas, humanists hold, are everywhere functions of the dominant needs
and values of the people holding them. God, far from being the creator of man, is
always himself created by man; he is the result of the play of man’s idealising
imagination over the quest for the appealing goods that life appears to render
possible”. This statement reveals that humanistic approach to religion is social
morality which springs from consciousness and experience of social good and evil.
The control of religion in modern society is not its traditional conservative hold, but
a moral code of social reality.
Religious control of human behaviour is universal. In preliterate societies,
religion was all pervasive to include and control every aspect of social life. Even
though science has supeceded religion in the explanation of the universe, religion
persists as a warp and woop of human culture in majority of human population.
Communism decries religion as the opium of the people. But people’s faith in the
power of nature is an out-moded form of religious belief. Sacrifices, prayer,
sacraments, communion, divine songs are religious techniques which control
human thought and action. Throughout historic times, religion has played a
significant role in the control of families, tribes and nations. It has lent powerful
sanction to virtue and morality. Long before political laws were framed, there were
sanctified customs to control the behaviour of people. Various taboos devised by
religious practices are potential factors of social control. In Indian context,
historically, there is close connection between law and religion. Henry Maine
remarked, “India has not passed beyond the stage at which a rule of law is not yet
discriminated from a rule of religion”. In Hindu theory, legal codes emerge from
100
Dharma-Sutras. Even in ancient Roman laws, religious sanctions are dominant and
there is lack of differentiation between legal and religious rules.
In modern society, there are various social agencies to control the behaviour of
people in different aspects of social life. Social codes differ in many respects from
religious norms. But they are not a total substitute to nor a negation of religious
rules. Religious faith is associated in many forms of social behaviour. Religion
inculcates faith by which man endeavours to accomplish his purposes. It is supra-
social and super-empirical. From the primitive to modern society, religion has been
an effective agency of social control, by human faith in a power, greater, wiser and
kindlier, than mankind.
8.3.7. Education
Human behaviour is learned behaviour. Man alone is capable of acquiring
knowledge and transmitting it to the succeeding generations in the form of cultural
heritage. Education is a process of acquiring and transmitting knowledge. From
birth to burial, man is involved in a process of social training and experience. In a
broad sense, education is training of the individual for social life, namely a process
of socialisation. Education is thus a controlled behaviour of instinctive reactions in
a system of cultural values. In proliferate and peasant societies, education was not
organised as a specific activity. It Was provided by family as a training for social
life. In modem society, education has developed into formal organization with
systematic instruction. Education in all social groups is a method of control
involved in the training of the individual for social life.
In ancient Indian society. Guru Kula system of education was a great
controlling force not only for acquisition of knowledge but also for the cultivation of
self-discipline. Traditionally, education meant the preparation of the individual for
membership in the group. There are varied forms of social control by education in
the different stages of social development. In primitive and ancient societies,
education was most sacred with due respect to teachers. Education became most
formal in industrial society and developed into a discriminatory process by status
in class structure. In the early stages of inudstrialisation, education was the
privilege of upper class. With reference to education in France during eighteenth
century, Helvetius remarked, “Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made
stupid by education”. In modern industrialised societies, mass literacy is
introduced. But educational distinctions between different social strata persist.
Inspite of general welfare policies, higher education remains the privilege of the
higher class in all civilised countries. The form of control through education is
status-bound.
Formal education in modern society has shifted from the religions-oriented
tradition to secularism and empirical knowledge. Education is not simply a training
for a way of life. It envisages a broad inclusion of empirical and scientific
knowledge. The content of modern education is less literacy and more scientific.
Traditional education was conservative and relatively, unchanging. But modem
education is a dynamic process of preparing individuals for the changing order of
101
society. The range of control in modern education is more extensive and wide-
spread. It regulates social behaviour not only in culture but also in various
economic, political, scientific and recreational aspects.
Education is recognised as potential device of social control both in promitive
and modern economic organisations. Malinowski mentions “rules of craftmanship”
in primitive society as an element of social control. Formal education in modern
society is a general rational approach to direct forces of production, division of
labour, scientific adventures, and control of economy. Political ideologies are based
on education. Modern democratic forms of Government are closely related to the
education of the masses. In sports, clubs, movies, T.V., Press, and many
recreational sectors, education is a type of social control.
Children’s education in modern society is devised by new methods of control in
a reflective and reformative way. Scientific studies have new forms of regulating
mental behaviour. Apart from a drift in tradition, scientific education differs from
formal education. Socialisation of the child is the great responsibility of the modern
educational system. At a higher level of colleges and university, modern education
is both formal and scientific. It provides the rules of conduct to all spheres of social
life from family to the state. There is a rapid expansion of education at all levels in
developing countries. There is no area of social life, which is not ordained by
education. It is through education, new generations learn and conform to social
norms. From infancy to old age, education is a vital force of social control.
Education is an agent of social development by controlling various forces for a
planned change. Educational reforms are often framed and promulgated in the
interest of social adjustment and progress. There are set-backs to changes in
education by conservative tendencies and political control of the educational
system. School boards buffer the educational system from direct public control.
University Grants Commission sets limits on educational system by academic
prescriptions and control of finance. The anatomy of education is thus restricted by
political control. Education thus comes into conflict with other types of control.
Competition, over-production, political clashes, religious conflicts, rival scientific
adventures endanger the normative order of society ensured by education.
Education is however a necessary condition of economic social change. It promotes
social solidarity by controlling conflict between groups and nations. Within the
group, political consciousness, cooperative organisations, adoption to new
technological devices are the benefits of literacy among the masses. At the
international level, education promotes world peace by controlling conflicts through
proper human understanding.
1. Social control is a general method of regulating behavior through social
norms.
2. Folkways are the habits of social action.
102
3. Mores refer to moral conduct as distinguished from customary practices of

followings.
4. Laws, folkways and mores are the informal methods of social control devised
in all social groups from the primitive to modern society.
5. Primitive to modern society religion has been an effective agency of social
control.
6. Education is an agent of social development by controlling various forces for
a planned change.
1. Explain the purpose and kinds of social control.
2. How does social control operate in society?
3. Discuss the institutions of social control. Explain any one institution in
detail
8.6. SUMMARY
In modern Times Man’s behaviour today is controlled by showing him through
Education and propaganda the consequences of his action. People do not believe
much in supernatural forces today social suggestion as to what people well say and
desize to win commendation exercise control over man’s behaviour in modern
society. Leadership has become a great controlling force of modern times.
8.7 TERMINAL EXERCISE
1. Social control is necessary for social solidarity and social continuity –
Explain.
2. Folkways are the habits of social control – Discuss.
3. R.M. Maclver alayses three major functions of mores in social life – Explain.
1. Sociological bulletin.
8.9 ASSIGNMENTS
1. Social control - Explain
2. Explain the kinds of social control.
3. Discuss folkways.
4. Education is agencies of control - Explain.
8.10 SUGGESTED READING/REFERENCE BOOKS/SET BOOKS
1. A Hand Book of Sociology – William F Ogburn, Meyer F. Nimkoff – Eurasia
publishing House (Pvts) Ramnagar, New Delhi.
2. Introduction to sociology – Elbert w. Stewasts James A Glynn – TATA
Mcgraw Hill publishing company Ltd, New Delhi.
8.11 LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Group discussions, Seminars on the related topic of Social control.
8.12. KEY WORDS
Social control, Norms, Values, Beliefs, Folkways, Laws, Mores
❑
103
LESSONS – 9
SOCIAL CHANGE
9.1 INTRODUCTION
The term social change usually refers to any change in the ideas, norms,
values, social roles and social habits of the people or in the composition or
organisation of their society. The precise definition depends on exactly how the
word “social” is defined: if “social” and “cultural” are identical, then social change
would be cultural change.
9.2 OBJECTIVES
 understand social evolution.
 know about social progress.
 understand the revolution and modernization.
 identify the patterns of social change.
 know the prominent factors of social change.
 understand linear and cyclical theories of social change.
9.3 CONTENTS
9.3.1 Social Evolution
9.3.2 Social Progress
9.3.3 Revolution
9.3.4 Modernization
9.3.5 Patterns of Social Change
9.3.6 Factors of Social Change
9.3.6.1 Physical Factors of Social Change
9.3.6.2 Biological Factors of Social Change
9.3.6.3 Technological Factors of Social Change
9.3.6.4 Cultural Factors of Social Change
9.3.7 Theories of Social Change
9.3.7.1 Linear Theory of Social Change
9.3.7.2 Cyclical Theory of Social Change
9.3.1. Social Evolution
The concept of social change is of major interest in the study of sociology.
Almost all social philosophers and scientists have contemplated the nature of
human society in the direction of change. Change is the law of nature. Nothing in
the universe is static or constant. Everything is subject to a process of change. The
concept of change may be viewed in three forms, natural, biological and social.
Change in nature is a slow process. The formation of the earth and the
accompanying changes in physical environment have taken place in a long duration
of millions of years. Biological change refers to organic evolution in the different
104
forms of life starting from protoplasm and amoeba to man. This process also is very
slow, but comparatively, more rapid than natural evolution. Social change is a
dynamic process resulting from human adjustment with the conditions of
environment. The concept of social change is more complicated in its implications
than natural and social change.
A clear and comprehensive definition of social change is a difficult task. In a
broad sense, social change refers to changes in the structure and functions of
society. But questions are raised as to the nature of change, form of change,
direction of change, rate of change, necessity of change, and the principal factors of
change. The study of social change has attracted the attention of many thinkers
and it has become an eternal subject of discourse leading to several theories and
beliefs.
A broad analysis of social change is found in its structure and functions.
Human society is broad-based with the predeterminants of culture. Culture
includes all human activities in a system of norms and values without which
human society does not exist. Culture is the basic factor of social change. Many
thinkers identify cultural change with social change. Cultural change is broader
than social change. Social change refers to changes in various institutions and
their functions. It is a part of cultural change which comprises all human
interactions, institutional and otherwise in manifold interests and aspirations.
Culture and society are inter-related and do not exist independent of each other.
Culture is meaningless without social interaction and there is no society which is
cultureless. Though all social changes are directed by culture, they do not comprise
the entire cultural system. Institutional changes are a part of the entire system of
culture. As such, social change is distinct from cultural change. Culture may
persist while institutions and their functions undergo changes. Social change is a
time process. Society undergoes changes in relation to change in the conditions of
social life. Social change is illustrated from changes in social institutions and their
functions. Culture includes all kinds of human relationships and activities and
cultural change is broader than institutional change. As such, social change is a
part of cultural change. Some thinkers argue that society is the super-structure of
culture and all changes emerge from social conditions which include cultural
elements. A custom is a value only in what is practiced or followed. If people no
longer observe it, it no longer exists. It is only a pattern of behaviour adopted by
people who follow it. Likewise, an institution cannot be placed in a museum to
endure without being lost by the ravages of time. According to Karl Marx, economic
institutions are the crux of social change and all cultural values are controlled by
and remain subserviant to economic conditions. Max Weber argues that culture is
the main spring of institutional change. It is protestant ethics that created the
institution of modern capitalism. Since human society is culturally pre-determined,
social change is said to be a part and parcel of cultural change.
The concept of social change is ordinarily confused with the concepts of social
evolution and social progress. From the middle of 19th century many thinkers have
105
emphasized the equation of social change with evolution and progress.

Sociologically evolution and progress, even though they involve change, are distinct
and distinguishable from the general concept of social change. During twentieth
century, there is new outlook to the study of social change, since social structures
and functional systems have become more and more unstable by forces of conflict
and dissension. There is renewed interest in the analysis of social change, by taking
into consideration various factors which affect a variety of institutions and their
functions. There is thus a drift from the concepts of evolution and progress in the
study of social change. Many theories are formulated to determine the nature and
direction of social change. The study of social change has thus become a major
problem of sociological research.
The concept of evolution was first mooted in biological sciences and
subsequently extended to all fields of knowledge. Evolution literally means a
gradual process of change from simple homogeneous forms to complex
heterogeneous forms. This specifically indicated in the process of change from
simple form of life starting from amoeba to the stage of human species, a
complicated organism. The idea of evolution, as it extended to the study of nature
and of human society has become more meaningful in the analysis of change.
During the middle of nineteenth century, Charles Darwin propounded the theory of
evolution to explain the process of development in the different forms of life and the
theory was constrained to organic evolution. The followers of Charles Darwin, the
most prominent among them, Herbert Spencer extended the theory of evolution to
the study of society in terms of social evolution. He presented a comparative
analysis of organism to society and indicated that human society has evolved on
similar lines of organic evolution. The biological terms of differentiation, integration
and development are analogically referred to division of labour, social solidarity and
social progress in the concept of social evolution. Various sociologists have stressed
one or other aspect of evolution in the study of social change. Evolution is literally
an unrolling process of what is latent in a thing or object. Nothing is independent of
the universe; as such, evolution implies the changing adoptation of the object to the
environment. The kernel of evolution is differentiation, based on time order of
successive growth and development. In social context, evolution implies the historic
process of social development from the primitive to the modern society. Social
evolution is a process of change from simple homogeneous structure of primitive
society, to complex heterogeneous forms of modern social institutions.
The concept of social evolution is a vague corollary of biological evolution. It is
true that society has a historical process. But the historical trends are in no way
similar to organic trends. Time sequence in social process is different from the time
sequence in the forms of life biologically integrated unite. Human society is of
course based on experiences inherited from time to time and as such it is a
historical process. But society has not evolved in the same form as organic forms
have evolved. Evolution implies change in growth or development. Social change is
witnessed by forces of development, retrogression and recurrence of social events
106
and social change in nature, rate and direction of change. In society, there are
numerous processes of change occuring simultaneously. Social change is
multilinear. Evolution has a steady and continuous line to development and the
process of change is unilinear. There is scarcely any uniformity in social change.
Social change is dynamic, and never continuous. It involves revolution, repetition,
conservatism and all kinds of social sequences which are not evolutionary.
Another important difference between evolution and social change is in respect
of origins. Evolution is basically a phenomenon of origins and the process of
growth. There are no clear indications of social origins. It is said that seeds of
society are rooted in the beginning of human life, but such origins are unfounded
and engrossed by mythological conceptions. In social phenomena, we can speak of
emergence of many social institutions instead of their origin. Family or state have
emerged rather than originated. Many sociologists have abandoned the concept of
social evolution since there are many antagonistic differences between evolution
and social change. However the concept of social evolution has contributed to an
understanding of human society in certain respects. Firstly, in an historical
process, there are evolutionary clues to understand the nature of social change.
From the evolutionary point of view, a clarification is obtained regarding the
distinction between custom and law, magic and religion, equity and justice,
economic and political power. Such clarification helps for understanding the nature
of change in human experience. Secondly, evolution has provided clues to the
ordering of social types. Diverse social systems are classified in respect of evolution.
Thirdly, the projection of evolutionary principle to the study of society has aided in
the search for causes of many social events. However, both evolution and social
change are forms of change but not one and the same. There are fundamental
differences between these two concepts and the concept of social evolution is in
many respects dissimilar to the general theory of evolution.
9.3.2 Social Progress
The concept of social change is erroneously equated with the idea of social
progress by some thinkers. Many changes that have taken place from primitive to
modern society are assessed in terms of social progress. Social progress is a
delusive concept since it refers to various forms of social development in different
directions. It is often associated with the idea of evolution which of course implies
development. It is not possible to provide a clear formal definition of social progress
since the development of society is irregular, variable, multiformal and subjected to
changing evolutions. The idea of progress cannot be assessed by any definite
criterion. During the different historical periods, social experience is assessed
differently. 19th century sociologists viewed progress in terms of evolutionary
development of human society. During 20th century, social thinkers have varied
opinions on the concept of progress. Some think that social progress is advance in
human civilisation by utilisation of natural resources. Some thinkers hold that
progress is increase of human population. Some others view progress in terms of
wealth and standard of living. There are also periodical assessments of social
107
conditions since human society is a differentiated system of values. The concept of

social is like a chameleon, which changes colours from time to time.
The general conception of progress is a change in upward direction with an
objective approach to attain some goal. It implies betterment, and subjected to
evaluation. Social change is a general process which has neither law, nor theory,
nor direction nor continuity. It is ethically neutral. It may be forward or backward,
depends on social conditions of human adjustment or maladjustment. There are
conflicts and dissensions which obstruct development. Many tests of progress
suggested by several thinkers are partial explanations of particular aspects of social
life without uniformal consideration of all social forces. It is not possible to present
an objective assessment of social progress. Some thinkers view that social progress
is based on social order resulting from the coordinated mechanism of social control.
According to Prof. Ellwood, “Social progress is increasing rational control over all
the conditions of social existence, whether these are internal or external, resulting
in greater capacity for survival on the part of individuals and groups, in greater
efficiency in performing the tasks of life, and in greater harmony among individuals
and groups in their relations with one another”. The conditions of social progress
are complicated. A scientific explanation of social progress includes the
maintenance of social order by control of physical, biological, technological and
intellectual and moral conditions. Prof. Todd points out, “The progress of society is
not merely moral progress or intellectual progress or material progress or
institutional progress. It is probable however that the natural order of these may be
through the material and intellectual to the moral; the material furnishing the
basis, the intellectual the means, working towards the moral, the result”. Social
progress is synthetic but not unilateral.
Most of the theories of social progress are one-sided. Comte, Spencer, Morgan,
Ward, Durkheim, Hobhouse, Toynbee, and many others have presented partial
explanations of social progress. Comte analyses the trends of progress from the
philosophical to the scientific stage of positivism. Spencer regarded evolution as
progress. Morgan pointed out the change from savagery to civilisation as progress.
Ward observed that purposive planning for happiness is progress. Hobhouse and
Durkheim held that social — solidarity and development from science and
technology are marks of progress. Toynbee emphasised the historical development
of society as social progress. Social economists view progress in terms of division of
labour and specialisation of tasks. All these views of social progress are lopsided
explanations. It is difficult to provide a clear and comprehensive meaning of social
progress. Social progress is not deterministic from any single factor or approach. It
has an inclusive character, even though it means different things to different
people.
Social progress is of course a form of social change but not identical with it.
Evolution is a form of social progress. Social progress is a wider concept as it
includes various factors in value system. But social change is a much wider
concept which includes both evolution and progress. Social change has a reference
108
to all conditions of human existence and forms of interaction, which may not be
evolutionary or progressive. It is a neutral concept without virtue or merit. It
includes recurrence, retrogression, retardation, upward and backward movements,
indicating the changing equilibrium of society. It is a biproduct of the human effort
to adjust with the conditions of life.
9.3.3. Revolution
The dynamic character of human society is reflected in enormous changes that
take place in the process of human adjustment with the conditions of environment.
Social change is not only multiformal but also varies in the rate and quality of
change. In terms of social evolution, change is gradual. There are certain radical
changes emerging from the new aspirations of the people for transformation of
society from traditional order. Such radical changes are termed as revolution. The
concept of revolution is often mistaken for political changes in election, social
reform movements and many changes in technology. Sociologically, revolution is a
transvaluation of attitudes and values from the prevalent social structure. In the
words of Frany Schurmam and Orville Schell, “Revolution is the sweeping away of
an old order—an ancient political system, a traditional culture, an uncreative
economy, a ruling class which only exploits, and a system of social organization
which no longer satisfies men”. Revolution results from the culmination of a long
series of social changes which affect the attitudes of the people. Without a change
in attitudes, revolution becomes a revolt or rebellion. The pro-requisite for
revolution is a demand for new values for the entire group. It is an attempt to break
down age-old connections with traditional social order. Revolution does not
necessarily involve the use of force or armed conflict. Major weapons of revolution
are not bombs and tanks but the ideas and values of the community.
Revolution implies a change in central values of society. There are five major
factors of revolution, 1. Wide-spread provocation resulting from discontent with
existing order, 2. Public opinion based on collective repression, 3. Programme of
reform to alleviate the troubles, 4. Trusted leadership to prompt the masses to
action, 5. Weakness of conservative practices.
There are several causes of revolution. Causes may be economic, political or
religious. Lower level of living by majority of the population in a country induces
revolutionary action. Economic distress is a potential cause of revolution. The
French revolution and the Russian revolution occured due to economic tensions of
hunger and low level of living. Economic grievances from low level workers are
unquestionable factors in the formulation of attitudes to revolution. Revolution may
also take place on political grounds. The concepts of liberty and equality inspired
people for revolution in America. Revolution may also occur when people are
threatened with loss of life and insecurity of property. Collective excitement
develops to overthrow the ruling force Rigid social stratification of caste and class
systems may create tensions in lower groups who revolt against social injustice in
traditional systems.
109
Revolution may be violent or peaceful. There are agrarian and industrial

revolutions which have peacefully adopted technological devices to indicate a drift
from traditional order. There are violent revolutions like that of Russian revolution
which caused a lot of blood-shed. Whatever be the cause and form of revolution,
there are drastic consequences of revolution. It breaks down traditional
relationships leading to social disorganisation till the new order is set up. It
disrupts almost all social organisations like family, state, economic and religious
organisations. It affects human values by introducing new morality through
rebellion. Revolution is a drastic radical change.
9.3.4. Modernisation
Modernisation is a process of social change distinguished from social
evolution, industrial revolution and westernisation. Historically it is a change in
social, economic and political systems spread in different countries as a
consequence of industrialisation. The word modern refers to contemporary
conditions characteristic of advanced social life. The basic elements of
modernization are found in industrialisation which has marked tremendous
advance in human civilisation. Industrialisation is a process of change in
techniques of production through scientific inventions. Modernisation is only the
beneficial aspect of industrialisation. It is not concerned with inventions and
modern technology. But, it is an adoptive culture by a series of changes in material
conditions and institutional arrangements resulting from industrialisation.
Industrialisation has provided various social amenities by a change over from
traditional technics to modern mechanisation. All habits of modern civilisation are
the outcome of industrialisation. A person or group is said to be modernised by
adopting the amenities of civilisation. Modernisation is not the source but outcome
of industrialisation.
Modernisation is distinguished from evolution in being rapid and multilinear.
There are several social directions in which society has changed from traditional to
modern habits. Modern civilisation is a stupendous complex phenomenon revealed
in new modes of thought, styles of living and social planning. It is not uniformal
and unilinear as social evolution. It contains many social forces of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction, pleasures and pains, success and failure, cooperation and
resistance and a host of human reactions in adoptive culture.
Modernisation is also distinguished from Westernisation. Westernisation is a
cultural diffusion of certain habits developed in the west by the impact of
industrialisation. It is an imitation or copying of habits which are not however
permanent devices. Imitation stands the test of time and Westernisation may or
may not endure. Modernisation on the other hand is not copying or borrowing but
an adoption of new devices, in terms of civilisation. Modernisation is thus a process
separated from inventions evolution and imitation.
The chief characteristics of modernisation are social mobilisation, social
differentiation, new status, urbanisation, social and political movements, modern
education, religious re-orientation, and international cooperation. Modernisation is
110
a transformation of social values in different-aspects of social life. It mobilises

different social forces into a common system of values with modern outlook. It also
indicates social differentiation in the variegated pursuits. By adoption to new
habits, the individuals and groups attain a new status apart from ascribed status.
There is organisational change with new system of values. The political, economic
and religious ideas are re-oriented by modern institutional arrangements. In
cultural pursuits, we speak of modern art, modern literature, modern music and
dance. Religious ideas alter by secural outlook. Modernisation though an off-shoot
of industrialisation directs in turn the process of industrialisation with planning, it
is also direction io democratisation. Urbanisation which is the direct consequence
of industrialisation is a initiating factor of modernisation. On the other hand,
modernisation has developed new values to direct the process of urbanisation.
Modern education is an important objective of modernisation. Education instead of
being formal is comprehensive by being extended to all areas of social life to meet a
variety of social demands. Modern outlook has initiated international cooperation
by curbing national prejudices. Modernisation, has thus developed into
international ethos, by the formation of United Nations Organisation.
9.3.5. Patterns of Social Change
Social change is impredictible, since there are multifarious ways in which
change takes place in human society. Still there is some kind of order in change
itself. There are particular ways or modes of change. These modes of change are
called patterns of social change. Maciver analyses three major patterns of change
viz. Technological change, economic change and cyclical change.
Technological change is based on invention and its adoptation. Man is a tool-
making animal. From the beginning he has devised certain technics for getting
food, defence and survial. These economic devices constitute technology. There has
been a continuous development from the crude techniques of primitive man to the
modern machine of modern man. The growth of civilisation indicates successive
links from primitive tools to modern aeroplane. Inventions are the major forces of
modern technology and the way in which technological order has developed is the
primary pattern or type of social change. Along with technology there are many
scientific theories like evolution which presented new ideas for understanding
human nature. Technological development is not however continuous since there
are many conservative forces in every social group. No society remains content with
its own techniques. There are forces of diffusion by which different technics
combine in technological development. However, change in technology is an
important pattern of social change.
The second mode or pattern of change is economic change. The economic
phenomenon is associated with changes in population, growth and fall of cities,
trade cycles and the process of industrialisation. Social change in economic aspect
is not uniformal since there are both downward and upward trends- Population
growth and movements create patterns of economic activity.
111
The third pattern of social change, MacIver calls as cyclical change. This mode
of change refers to variations in all human activities and adjustments from time to
time. It is like that of waves without definite order and direction. There are both
desirable and undesirable elements which account for social change. Repetition,
progress, retrogression, and a series of economic and political movements are
indications of cyclical changes in society.
These patterns of change are not governed by regulations. Social change as
such is neutral. It has neither law nor creed nor direction nor even continuity.
Society is a moving equilibrium. As such, there is no particular pattern by which
change can be assessed. There are various institutional arrangements to typify a
variety of social interests. Social change is inter-connected and cannot be
exclusively considered from technological and economic patterns. There are
patterns of behaviour culturally determined and they supercede the economic and
technological order. In a broad analysis, social change is a process taking place in
all aspects of human adjustment with environment. There is no particular pattern
to make it all-inclusive.
9.3.6. Factors of Social Change
Social change is a historical process based on various factors of environment
and human ingenuity to create conditions for better social survival There are four
major factors of social change. They are physical factors, biological factors,
technological factors cultural factors.
9.3.6.1. Physical Factors of Social Change
Physical factors also known as geographical factors include all conditions of
natural environment namely, climate, earth’s surface, water, seasons, storms,
earthquakes, which are permanent and independent of human existence. Many
changes take place in natural environment and they are regardless of human
activities. Many social geographers have analysed the impact of natural conditions
on social life. Buckle and Huntington emphasise that natural resources and climate
determine the character of social life. Habits of food and occupation are based on
geographical conditions and all social changes are induced by natural environment.
It is true that nature is a pervasive environment. There are many natural changes
which are not concerned with human activities. From the beginning, man has been
trying to control and harness natural conditions to his social survival. Civilisation
is a continuous process of exploiting natural resources to human advantage.
Changes in nature concerned with human adoptation demand new modes of
adjustment. It is true that man has gained control over natural conditions by
advance in science and technology. But these changes are the adoptational
responses to natural Conditions.
Nature is a broad environment which is not within complete control and
comprehension of human beings, what-ever be the tremendous changes in human
civilisation. Man’s mastery over nature is never complete. Nature sets limits on
human activites. Floods, earthquakes, droughts, famine and storms are still beyond
human control and affect society in innumerable ways of disaster. These changes
112
may alter the modes of living and adjustment but cannot be regarded as factors of
social change- Geography by itself cannot alter the norms and values of society.
Change by geographical environment may be explained by change in human habit
rather than his culture. Social change is basically historical related to human
culture. Physical, environment refers to certain permanent conditions of social life,
adoptation to which creates changes in society. Physical environment is therefore
an indirect determinant of the modes of living and it has no direct concern with the
changes in society. People living in different geographical environment may practice
similar cultural norms and values. Like-wise, people living in similar geographical
environment may have variable cultural norms and values. Man cannot live without
nature; but nature does not prescribe the quality of social life and the process of
social change. Physical factors, though they are not direct determinants of social
change, are the permanent conditions of social change.
9.3.6.2. Biological Factors of Social Change
Many thinkers have elevated the supreme importance of biological factors in
social change. Biological factors include heredity, natural selection and population.
In the course of human history, it is remarked that there are physical and mental
differences among populations distributed in the different countries of the world.
This amounts to hereditary differences in races leading to ethnocentrism- Racial
differences may be biological, but when we refer to social life, the attitudes and
ideas are considered for social change. However, heredity is supposed to be a
potential factor in the process of socialisation, which determines the character and
change in the social life of the individual. Heredity is not a complete transmission of
biological traits from the parents to the off spring. Every new life is a distribution of
traits and potentialities and it is highly variable in mankind. The inter-mingling and
crossing of hereditary factors is a guarantee of change. Each new generation is a
new beginning. No new generation can be an exact replica of the old generation.
Heredity is not simply biological. It develops into social heritage, when old
generations transmit their experiences to the younger generation, who add their
modifications. Social inheritance is thus cumulative, an outgrowth of biological
heredity.
Another important biological factor is the principle of natural selection.
According to this principle nature has its own process of selection to biological
adoptation for survival in relation to organic capacity. This principle has limited
application to human species. Man has different methods widely divergent from
animals for survival. The social heritage modifies the conditions of natural
selection. As Lloyd Morgan points out, “natural selection is a constantly
diminishing factor in the evolution of civilised man.” Natural selection is finally
substituted by social selection. Social selection is a process of controlling the forces
of natural selection, in terms of survival. Natural selection solely operates on the
process of death whereas social selection operates on both birth-rate and death-
rate by control of biological conditions. Even though death is not finally conquered,
113
social selection is not merely eliminative. It offers many alternatives of survival by

controlling death-rate by human devices.
The biological factors of social change relate to population in terms of birth-
rate and death-rate. In every social group, there is a changing balance of birth-rate
and death-rate- The growth or decline on opulation depends on these variations.
Population is supposed to be a biological factor of balance between birth-rate and
death-rate. Birth-rate and death-rate are not more biological sequences. There are
many forms of social control by which population change become, a variable
phenomenon in terms of birth-rate and death-rate. Changes in population are
however related to social changes. Increasing growth of population reduces the
standard of living and changes in birth-rate and death-rate are responsive to
altitudes and social values. Biological factors prepare the way for social change as
permanent conditions of organic structure, but do not by themselves operate in the
emergence of social change. At the human level, biological habitat is transformed
into social habitat.
9.3.6.3. Technological Factors of Social Change
As contrasted from physical and biological factors, many thinkers emphasise
the importance of technological factors as the most potential conditions of social
change. Man is a tool-making animal. He has devised various techniques for
procuring food, for art and for defence From the primitive to modern society, there
has been a successive development of technology from stone tools to modern
machine. There are different stages of technological development and in each stage,
social change appears in attitudes and values of the people in relation to the
changing techniques. Modern technology is not built in a single generation. It is the
result of technical experiences of generations of people who have lived in the past
and these experiences are cumulative forms of social heritage. Technology in
modern society is characterised by mechanisation. It is the application of science to
industry- According to L. Mumford, “The most noval and pervasive phenomenon of
modern age is mechanisation. “Mechanisation has to a great extent altered the
traditional attitudes, beliefs and values and created both direct and indirect
changes in social order. The industrial methods of production displaced traditional
techniques and consequently affected almost all social institutions to a new order.
Man is the master as well as a slave of the machine. Having created new
technology, he is enslaved by those techniques.
Technology has introduced changes in all fundamental relations of mankind.
The old traditional systems are replaced by industrial revolution. Technological
advance is so rapid that the cultural values set by men are often directed and
determined by technological devices. Unless culture directs technology to its own
ends, it gets subsumed by technology itself.
Technological advance initiates social change in many directions. It establishes
new conditions of life. In agriculture, there is tremendous technological advance,
from primitive to modern methods. Increase in quality and quantity of agricultural
production has created a new economic phase not only in production but also in
114
relation to industry, market, migration, and tariff. These changes have created
many new economic problems. Advance in transport and communication is a major
issue of social change. Many far-reaching changes in modern society is due to the
new forces of transport and communication. It has accelerated the process of
diffusion by social mobility. The press, radio, t.v. have to a great extent altered the
attitudes and values from the traditional to modern outlook. Every step of
technological advance inaugurates series of changes human interaction. Advance in
science and its application has created new modes of life. It has provided the
comforts of civilised life. Secular ideas have developed through science. The old
faiths are loosing importance by scientific ideas. Utilisation of atomic energy for
human gel-vice is an epoch-making discovery of modern science.
Technological advance has initiated changes which are both favourable and
unfavourable. Increase in comforts of life by technological advance is a general
phenomenon of social progress. But modern technology has created various social
problems leading to social disorganisation. Competition in technology has created
conflicting issues between different nations. Economic system gets unbalanced by
the problems of industry. Scientific adventures in discovery of atomic energy have
created tensions of fear against peace and security. It is remarked that
technological advance in modern society has outstripped mental comprehensions
and as such created problems of human adjustment.
Many institutional changes in family, state, education, religion, and economic
order have created problems of adjustment. Modern technology as the lever of
social change has developed into certain deterministic theories in the analysis of
social change. There are two major theories of technological determinism. They are
of Karl Marx and Thorstein Veblen.
Karl Marx presents a materialistic conception of historical change. He observes
that the stage of technological development determines the mode of production, and
the relationships and institutions that constitute the economic system.
Relationships of production are the real foundation on which all other social
relationships and institutions are merely super-structures. Accordingly, the real
content of social life is the material or economic order. He analyses four stages of
technology, viz., the nomadic, the agricultural, the feudal and the industrial stages.
In all these stages, he points out that the relations of production are most vital to
determine the character of social life. His theory is a materialistic interpretation of
historical change in technology. According to Marx, the material forces of
production are subject to change and involve economic relations between the
capital and labour. Social change is ultimately the result of a class-struggle
between the capitalists and labourers. Capitalists as a privileged group exploit
labourers for personal gains, and labourers in the strain of frustration by
exploitation combine in to an antagonistic group by class-consciousness. The
struggle ultimately ends in revolution for creation of a classless society.
115
Karl Marx’s theory of technological determinism is an oversimplication of

social evolution by emphasis on economic factors. The link between the economic
process and social change is less direct in Marxian psychology. Mere productive
system does not comprise the entire social phenomenon. Social causation depends
on various cultural factors apart from technological devices of production. Cultural
factors may direct the course of technology and supercede economic interests.
Culture is a broader base which includes a variety of social interests of which
economic interest is only a portion. The economic interests are not a total
substantiation of social change. Even capitalism is not a whole-some concept since
there are factors of mechanisation, urbanisation, transport and communication
which initiate changes without concerns of capitalism. In Marx’s theory, social
change is identified with economic change. It is a partial and one-sided explanation
of social change.
The technological explanation of social change is presented by Thorstein
Veblen who insisted the importance of habituation and mental discipline as sources
of social change in technological complex. Habituation is a great moulder of human
thoughts and actions. According to him, “the way of habit is the way of thought.” It
is habituation in relation to material environment that creates economic system.
But the economic system is not the sole process. It is based on and determined by
cultural conditions. The evolution of society is fundamentally a process of mental
adoptation to social circumstances. The peculiar habits of thought in each age are
imposed by techniques which undergo changes. These techniques are not
independent economic categories- They are linked with institutional procedures by
way of social necessity and habituation. According to him, “the growth of culture is
a cumulative sequence of habituation.” Veblen’s theory emphasises the importance
of habituation in relation to technology. But, there are variations in habituation in
terms of cultural differences inspite of similar material conditions of environment.
The level of technical advance is not the same in all cultures. More-over, there are
forces of diffusion to affect the existing technology by outmoding the process of
habituation. Social change does not consist in mere process of habituation with
technology. It is in response to total environment. Man is a critic as well as a
creature of habit. Change is not the expression of habituation. It involves on
environment consisting of material and social satisfactions and dissatisfactions,
pleasures and pains, and a variety of reactions in human interaction. Social change
is not restricted to technological devices, but a general outcome of human effort to
adjust with the conditions of environment.
9.3.6.4. Cultural Factors of Social Change
Culture is the essence of society and influences changes in structure and
functions. Human society is basically cultural and there is nothing like cultureless
society. Culture is defined by Tylor as a “a complex whole that includes knowledge,
belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capacities acquired by man as a
member of society.” It is thus the sum total of all human achievements. In the
words of Koenig, “culture is the sum total of man’s effort to adjust himself to his
116
environment and to improve the modes of living.” Many thinkers identify society
with culture and consider all changes in society as socio-cultural.
William Ogburn, an American Sociologist makes a distinction between material
and non-material culture. Material culture is refered to various products of
civilization like radio, press, t.v., typewriter, and other machinery which provide
comforts to external life. Non-material culture consists of beliefs, faiths, traditions
and value- systems in education and religion, art and literature. He remarks that
changes in material culture stimulate changes in non-material culture and
consequently adoptive culture appears. He argues that changes in material culture
are more rapid than changes in non-material culture and the adoptive culture is
indicated by “cultural lag.” The theory of cultural lag is illustrated from the
difference in the advance in civilisation and the traditional practices. There is no
proportionate change between industry and education, science and religion; culture
always lags behind technological change and W. Ogburn uses the expression
“cultural lag” to indicate the difference- The theory of cultural lag is not accepted by
many thinkers. In historical process, there has always been cultural restraint to
technological advances. Culture as a system of values directs technological change.
Deep-rooted traditions in certain cultural groups may create technological lag.
There may be cultural progress with new values without technological advance.
Primitive cultures are more refined without technological order. There are also
social and economic set-backs to technological advance. Bottleneck in industrial
production may create technological deterioration instead of advance. In such case,
technological lag becomes more prominent than cultural lag. The idea of division of
culture into material and non-material culture is basically erroneous. Things and
their ideas and values cannot be bifurcated. Social material is culture-oriented and
it is superfluous to distinguish between material and non-material aspects of
culture.
Culture is a wide realm of interests and values in technology, economic, and
political systems, religion, education and all other aspects of social life. Since it
directly applies to values, a general distinction is made between the external aspect
of civilisation, and the internal aspect of values in terms of morality and tradition.
Innovations are both material and institutional- Without cultural acceptance,
changes in society do not take place. When a new technology is introduced, it is not
accepted without cultural restraint and it gradually obtains cultural value. Clash of
cultures occurs when a particular external technology is imposed. But no culture
remains pure, absolute and isolated. There are many forces of social mobility by
migration, trade and communication which bring together people of different
cultures. Diffussion of two or more cultures, create social change. Diffusion is a
greater force of change than invention within a community. Without diffusion, there
would not have been progress in human civilisation. Cultural factors which account
for social change are diffusion, adjustment, assimilation, and adoptation.
The study of culture as a determinant of social change is illustrated in Max
Weber’s analysis of the rise of capitalism by protestant ethics. The reformatory
changes in religion by the emergence of protestantism gave rise to the appearance
of new economic system of capitalism. Culture is not merely ideational. It is
117
institutional. According to Hobhouse, “there is a broad correlation between the

system of institutions and the mentality behind them.” Culture refers to a diversity
of social interests and attitudes embodies in a variety of institutions. Cultural
change is inter-related and this is indicated by the hypothesis of cyclical theory of
social change.
9.3.7. Theories of Social Change
9.3.7.1. Linear Theory of Social Change
The term Linear implies the line or direction. Linear theory of social change is
the interpretation of social development in terms of evolution. From the ancient to
the modern thinkers, there are several explanations of social development. During
the 19th century, the evolutionary concept was applied in diverse ways for the
interpretation of social change. Herbert Spencer is the chief exponent of the theory
of social evolution. Evolution literally means “unrolling”, a process of revealing the
hidden characteristics of an object. It is a gradual process of transition from simple
to complex forms. The theory of social evolution is applied to indicate the linear
development of human society from simple homogeneous forms of primitive groups
to complex heterogeneous Social organisations of modern society. At the beginning,
the analogy of organism to society was illustrated by Herbert Spencer as a
justification to the theory of social evolution. He argued that human society passes
through similar stages of birth, growth, decay and death like an organism, and the
social system in structure and functions corresponds to the organism. The theory of
social evolution was further adopted by many thinkers during 19th century to
explain the linear development of society.
The idea of social evolution is connoted by the line of progress or development
from simple to complex forms of society. It is based on differentiation and
integration of society in its several forms and functions. Spencer illustrated the
transition of industrial society from military society. Auguste Comte traced the
growth of society in three stages of theological, meta-physical and positive stages.
Emile Durkheim analysed positive social change from mechanical solidarity to
social solidarity. Morgan observed that society has successively developed from
savagery to civilisation. Croce, Hegel, and Toennies trace the historical process of
social development. Karl Marx analysed social change in terms to nomadic,
agricultural, feudal and industrial stages.
From the stand-point of evolution, the history of human society is denoted by
successive stages of social development. Social evolution indicates a definite line of
progress and the direction of change is unilinear. Even historically the evolutionary
trend is a forward movement without any change of backward regression. When
once the change takes place in terms of evolution, the stage of development is
definite and stratified. But, human society has undergone changes in various
directions and social change is multilinear. Changes in society are of course,
historical, but the process is not always progressive. There are recurrences,
retrogression and many upheavals of forward and back-ward movements in social
change. Social change is not uniformal, and the directions of change are manifold.
Evolution implies progress. But in social evolution the concept of progress is
confusive and misleading. Society is a system of values which change in terms of
118
human needs and experience. Evolution is scientific whereas social progress is

ethical. Evolution does not involve virtue or merit; but social change is based on
evolutions and the directions of change are not discernable and predictible. The
linear theory of social change in terms of evolution is subjected to lot of criticism by
modern sociologists as an untenable explanation.
9.3.7.2. Cyclical Theory of Social Change
Cyclical theory of social change is in direct contradiction with the lineal theory
of social change. Cycle implies a movement of rise and fall. Life as such in terms of
birth and death exhibits rhythmic movements and this process is extended to on
explanation of social change. Society undergoes changes in both upward and
backward movements and there is no particular direction in which it changes. All
that is progressive must also regress is the central theme of cyclical theory. It is
commonly said, “Sceptre and crown must tumble down.” Height of power is bound
to be destroyed. Rise and fall of empires, civilisations, groups and organisations are
inevitable processes in social change. Oswald Spengler J. Toynbee, F.S. Chapin,
A.L. Kroebar Pitrim Sorokin, and many historians and economists have pointed out
that there is always a rise and fall in social movement and the direction of change
is indefinite. Society undergoes changes not only in terms of maturity and growth,
but also in terms of regress and decline.
Osward Spengler in his book on “The decline of the west” points out that all
cultures undergo regular successive stages of maturity growth and decline like
seasons of the year. There is no permanence to any culture. Arnold J. Toynbee
remarked that all civilisations undergo rise and fall by “response to challenge.”
During the time of troubles, there will be a downfall. F.S. Chapin presented a
synchronisation of the diverse aspects of social change in their cyclical movement of
rise and fall. A. L. Kroebar analyses the wave-like movement of social change in
human habits of dress, food and occupation. Pitrim Sorokin distinguished two
forms of culture, sensate and ideational and pointed out the imbalance of
movement from one to the other. He asserted that culture swings like a pendulam
indicating differential forms of sensation and ideation. Many historians have
observed cyclical changes by recurrence, regress, progress, unity, decline and
disorganisation. There is no particular movement by which social change can be
historically assessed. Economists speak of trade-cycles as rhythmic forces of social
change. Changes in political power cyclical. Religious authority undergoes changes
in terms of tradition and civilisation. In all aspects of social life, cyclical process of
change is historically illustrated.
Cyclical theories of social change provide a knowledge of imbalance of human
society manifested in stable and unstable conditions. Human society is not a
perfect mechanism of harmonious conditions to develop in any particular direction.
There are inherent instabilities in the very nature of society, due to differentiated
desires and skills of individuals. Stability develops from common consciousness to
realise certain common interests. But differences persist and create conflicting
situations which leads to instability and disorganisation. Conflict and cooperation
are ever-present and inevitable reactions in human interaction. Social change is
never in a state of rest. There is always ambivalence of cooperative and conflicting
119
interests which account for cyclical changes in society. Human society is a moving
equilibrium of variables without any deterministic theory of change.
9.4 REVISION POINTS
1. The term social change usually refers to any change in the ideas, norms,
values, social rules and social habits of the people.
2. Modernization is a process of social change distinguished from social
evolution, industrial revolution and westernization.
3. There are four major factors of social change .They are physical factors,
biological factors, technological factors, cultural factors.
9.5 INTEXT QUESTIONS
1. Describe the factors of social change.
2. Explain any one theory of social change with examples.
9.6 SUMMARY
We have seen earlier when every new invention disturbs the old adjustment.
The transformation of class structures, the breaking up of traditional family system
and the changes in technology.
9.7 TERMINAL EXERCISE
1. Understand social evolution.
2. Explain social progress.
3. Describe revolution and modernization.
4. Discuss the patterns of social change.
1. Sociological bulletin 2. Related Journals.
9.9 ASSIGNMENTS
1. Elaborate the prominent factors of social change.
2. Define linear and cyclical theories of social change.
9.10 SUGGESTED READING/REFERENCE BOOKS/SET BOOKS
1. Sociology C.N. Sankar Rao. S. Chand & Company Ltd 7361 Ram Nagar,
New Delhi – 110055
2. General Sociology. K.E. VERGHESE Macmillan India Ltd. Madras 600041.
9.11 LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Group discussions, seminars on the related topic of social change.
9.12 KEY WORDS
Social change, Social evolution, Progress, Revolution, Modernization

470E1140
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY PRESS : 2021 – 2022

Annamalai University: Master of Social Work (MSW)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annamalai University: Master of Social Work (MSW)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

470E1140

Master of Social Work (MSW)

MAN AND SOCIETY

Dr.K. Somasundaran Dr. R. Gurumoorthy

Master of Social Work (MSW)

Master of Social Work (MSW)

1 Individual and Society 1

4 Economic Institutions, Education, Religion, Government 32

9 Social Change 103

INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY

society. Social contract theory presupposes the existence of individuals in a state of

The significance of individuality to human beings rests on their social

has to be counted on combination of male and female characteristics, emerging

1.3.3. Respective Roles of Heredity and Environment

absence of social environment causes atrophy of physical traits. Heredity without

1.7. TERMINAL EXERCISE

According to him, mental activity is fundamentally a social process based on speech

2.3.3. Agents of Socialisation

Religious institutions play a prominent role in the socialisation of the

of anticipatory socialisation. But in the case of adult who is socialised at different

2.8. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

defines culture as “an organised body of conventional understandings manifest in

and it is difficult to undermine their origin and nature. It is a non-rational element

institutional behaviour like religious rituals, marital sanctions, sex-taboos,

adjustment with environment. It is through culture, social interaction takes place

cultural differences, inspite of common modem technology. Values of wealth,

institutions. The hypothesis of cultural lag is with reference to differential rates of

technology in some primitive groups remains unchanged since hundreds of years.

ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS, EDUCATION, RELIGION, GOVERNMENT

by way of nationalisation or individual ownership. Industrial enterprise is the

respect of religion, education has outmoded traditional beliefs, through secular

progressive education due to developments in science and technology. Liberal has

controllable.” According to William Ogburn religion is “a system of beliefs, emotional

order. In modern society, the formulation of legal sanctions provided a distinct

4.5. INTEXT QUESTIONS

5.3.6. Marriage and Family

in institution. Historical and comparative studies provide clues to understand

MacIver defines association as “a group organized for the pursuit of an interest or

Fourthly, an association is vested with authority. Organisation creates

Lastly, a prominent objective of marriage in many social groups is the

chieftains. Kings and emperors, polygyny is practiced in terms of prestige- It also

5.3.11. Origin of Family

Sixthly, it imposes responsibilities through obligations and duties among

5.3.14. Functions of Family

voluntary choice becomes more stable by mutual understanding of partners.

society. It is functional and refers to behavioural aspect. Individuals occupy

differences of sexual heredity however indicate different cultural status positions in

Roles are distributed as well as combined. Every individual as a member of

Status is ranked by hierarchical positions in social system. It is unequally

6.3.4. Forms of Social Stratification

Racial theory of caste origin is advanced by Herbert Risley. According to him,

conditions. But class-consciousness prevails in terms of caste in elections, selection

denominator of status in modem society. There are different stages in education

indicator of class levels. In terms of income and prestige, different occupations

6.5. INTEXT QUESTIONS

demands cooperation for the common goal of production. It is an unconscious form

social. Physical adoptation is adjustment with nature. Biological adoptation

Gillin and Gillin analyse six important conditions favourable to assimilation.

production and distribution of goods. Absence of competition creates monopoly

accommodation by acceptance of domination. Sentiments enforce harmonious

vary endlessly in their motives. What brings them together is a process of

or accepted ways of behaving in society. Lundberg defines folkways as “uniformities

3. Mores refer to moral conduct as distinguished from customary practices of