BSS 111

General Sociology: Key Concept

Semester – 1

Q1. Who is the author of the book “Sociology: Themes & Perspective”?

L Haralambos & R.M Heald

Q2. Who gave the concept of Institution?

Institution is a basic concept of sociology. It consists of various aspects of

society which do not change immediately. The change is there, but it is very
slow. Family, marriage, divorce, kin, religion and economy are some of the
major domains of society. J.H. Fitcher has defined an institution as “a relatively
permanent structure of social patterns of roles and relations that people enact in
certain sanctioned and unified ways for the purpose of satisfying basic social
needs.” Actually, social structure of a society has certain roles which regularise
interactions among the members of the society.

These roles and relations continue for longer span of life. These are called
institutions. Men have come and gone but the family continuous. And,
therefore, family is an institution. There is need of procreation for the society
and, therefore, the institution of marriage keeps itself continuous.

Whatever may be the type of society, it has the institutions of family and
marriage. The basic aspect of institution is the system of social relationships.
P.B. Horton defines an institution as given below: An institution is an organised
system of social relationships which embodies certain common values and
procedures and meets certain basic needs of society.

Horton quite like Fitcher makes it clear that the society has certain patterns of
relationships which stem from status and role. These patterns of relationships
fulfill the needs of the society. The needs of the society, on the other hand, vary
from the nature and type of a society. The needs of rural society are different in
nature than that of the urban society. And, therefore, the rural social institutions
are different from the institutions of the urban society.

There is a controversy on this account. Long back in the irregular journal,

Contributions to Indian Sociology, Pocock observed that rural and urban
communities cannot be differentiated because they belong to the same
civilisation, i.e., Indian civilisation.

Following Pocock the institutions of marriage and family in rural life are in no
way different from the urban community. Such an argument has been contested
by anthropologists. It is said that the nature of needs of the rural community are
different from the urban community. And, therefore, the rural institutions like
family, marriage, kin and religion have to be studied from the perspectives of
rural life.

Q3. Who said “Role is the Dynamic aspect of Status?

Drawing the relationship between status and role, Linton writes: “a role
represents the dynamic aspect of status… when he (an individual) puts the
rights and duties which constitute a status into effect, he is performing a role.

Q4. Who has given the concept of ‘In Group’ and ‘out Group’?

The terminology was made popular by Henri Tajfel and colleagues beginning
in the 1970s during his work in formulating social identity theory. The
significance of in-group and out-group categorization was identified using a
method called the minimal group paradigm.

Q5. Who is the author of the book “Sociology A systematic Introduction”?

Harry M. Johnson

Q6. Who propounded the concept of ‘Sociological Imagination’?

The father of sociological imagination, C Wright Mills, founded this field of

thinking in the mid-20th century. At the time he wrote, “Neither the life of an
individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding
both.” Just the same, it’s also important to put Mills’ theories into context.

Q7. Who propounded the term ‘Reference group’?

The term ‘Reference group’ was first introduced by Hyman.

Q8. Who introduced the term ‘folkways’ in sociological literature?

American sociologist William Graham Sumner, who coined the term,

folkways are social conventions that are not considered to be of moral
significance by members of the group (e.g., customary behaviour for use of the
telephone).

Q9. Mention two differences between Rural and Urban Community.

Following discussion shows the difference between rural and urban

communities, which shows how rural and urban areas are not the same.

Density of Population: The population in rural areas is spares. The people live
in their own farms called “Farmstead Settlement. Even the villages and hamlets
(basti or chak) have small population. The urban areas are thickly populated. In
a city of few square miles millions of people live. The houses are joined
together.

Social mobility: Among the rural people, the social changes are seldom found.
Mostly the people are satisfied with their social conditions. Very rarely they
change their place of residence and profession. The change in their classes
occur infrequently due to little changes in income. It means the rate of social
mobility is insignificant among them. The urban life is ever changing due to
expansion of education, technology and industry. The people change their
professions; residences and classes for adjustment with the new social
conditions. This type of adjustment in society is called social mobility. The rate
of this mobility is higher in this area.

Environment: In rural areas, the environment is almost natural. The people live
in nature, work in nature and die in nature. The animals, trees, plants, crops,
water channels, sunrise, sunset, moonlit night, starry night, clouds and rain are
the companions of their life. In urban areas, the social life is based on industrial
relations. The needs are satisfied by the production of industrial goods. Even the
social relations have industrial means of communication.

Q10. Who is the author of the book ‘what is sociology’?

Norbert Elias

Q11. Mention types of status.

Status, implies the position or the rank one holds in a social group, and, Role
refers to the specific functions that one is expected to perform in that social
group. Every status holder is a role performer. Status and Role, is inter-
connected. In a social group, every member has a status role position.

All status roles do not command similar position authority; or the social
recognition authority. Status-role of a father, as the head of a family, in
patriarchal society, like that of ours differs, from his status-role in a matriarchal
society. Women are everywhere the same, but their status-role in our society, in
several ways differs from women in the Arab or in a western society in a similar
situation.

Status-Role Inter-Relation:

Status-role coordination is the woof and Warf arrangement of a social group.

The status-role of an individual depends on the position, he holds in the group
and in consequence of which he is expected to exercise his authority to fulfill
his obligations. The status role is the basis-of social order.

A social group cannot function if this arrangement is not in due and related
order. This coordination harmonises the social relations. It is an arrangement of
convenience, sanctified by tradition or underwritten by the law of the land. It is
historical in character as in all age’s men and women inherited or acquired
status-role position, it is universal as the system exists in all societies.

Status:

Meaning of Status:

Recognitions of the position of an individual in the social system and the

authority he holds in consequence is the basis of status system. Status is position
that one holds in a given system. It means the location of the individual within
the group – his place in the social network of reciprocal obligations and
privileges, duties and rights.

Thus, every position (father, mother, teacher, and employer) defines a different
status. It is by status differentiation that social positions are defined and
distinguished from one another by assigning to each a set of rights and
responsibilities.

According to Lundberg, it is the, “comparative amount of prestige, deference or

respect accorded to persons who has been assigned different roles in group or
community.” According to Davis, “status is a position in the general
institutional system, recognized and supported by the entire society
spontaneously evolved rather than deliberately created, rooted in the folkways
and mores.” According to H.T. Mazumdar, “status means the location of the
individual within the group — his place in the social network of reciprocal
obligation and privileges, rights and duties.”
It is position in a social group or grouping, in relation to other positions held by
other individuals in the same group or grouping. Status determines the extent of
authority which may be wielded by the holders of the status or the degree of
submission required on the part of those who are at a status lower than him. The
authority one wields is socially defined and limited, as is degree of submission
required.

The essence of status is defined: superior-inferior relationship; in other words

dominance and subordination – but always within the rule. Status involves sort
of special social privileges. An increase in the individual’s social status entitles
him to more respect than before word ‘status’. However, is to be used with care.
If one holds a family status, it does not mean, that he will be so recognized in
his profession. A doctor of status may be a bad husband and worse father.

Sometimes status is likely to be confused with the official position one may be
holding. Official designations carry ‘prestige’. This varies from position to
position, from office to office.

Essential Elements and Characteristics of Status:

As the definitions have pointed out the term status has physical as well as a
psychological situation. This situation forms certain element and characteristics.
These element and characteristics of status may be enumerated as below.

1. The status is determined by the cultural situation of the particular society,

2. The status is determined only in relevance of the other members of the

society,

3. Every individual has to play certain role in accordance with the status,

4. Status is only a part of the society as a whole,

5. As a result of status the society is divided into various groups,

6. Every status carries with it some prestige,

7. According to status people may be divided into various categories. These

categories or statuses are not imposed from above. Some of these statuses are
earned or achieved while others are ascribed.

Ascribed status and achieved status:

A status may be divided into two types: ascribed status and achieved or earned
status.

Ascribed Status:

The status which is given to an individual on the basis of the situation in the
society or by other members of the society is called ascribed status. Such a
status may be given by birth or by placement in a social group. For example, a
person may enjoy a particular status because of the sex or age of birth in a rich
family. An infant gets a family status which includes family name and prestige,
share in social standing and the right of heritage.

Basis of the ascribed status:

These two kinds of statuses are based on factors that are not common. For
example the ascribed status is based on age, sex, kinship race, family etc. In
almost every society particularly the patriarchal system of the society, it is the
elder men who are respected but in matriarchal system of society elder women
are respected. Since the ascribed status is determined by birth Brahmin are
given higher status as compared to Sudras and people said to be belonging to
honorable class are given better status than the people of the ordinary class.

Achieved Status:

The status or the position that a person has earned out of his own personal
efforts is called achieved status. This status is given by the ability, capacity and
the efforts of the individuals. Some persons achieve a particular status because
if the facilities available to them but some have to achieve that status as against
the odds and difficulties.

Basis of Achieved status:

The achieved status is based on the personal ability, education, earned wealth
etc. A person who is able to display his ability in the field of social service,
sports, education etc. is given higher and better status.

Distinction between the Ascribed status and Achieved status:

The distinction and relationship between the two may be discussed as under.

Ascribed Status:

1. Ascribed status is the gift from the society of the individual members and to
make know the effort to get it.
2. For an achieved status certain conditions are namely ability, efficiency,
economic status etc. are necessary.

3. Generally ascribed status is based on age, race, caste, kinship, etc.

4. Ascribed status is more stable and more rigid. Its basis does not change
easily.

5. Ascribed status occupies a place of respect in a traditional society.

6. In regard to the ascribed status the role of the authority and actions that flow
from them are unpredictable.

7. In ascribed status there is a co-relationship between the status and role.

8. The ascribed status has a, vital relationship with the internal aspects of the
personality. It provides satisfaction to sentiments, emotions and feelings etc.

9. Ascribed status can be helpful to a person for achieving certain thing or

acquiring the achieved status.

10. Ascribed status has greater relationships with the customs, traditions and
other existing factors of the society. In other words ascribed status is more
traditional.

11. Ascribed status is helpful in removing the difficulties and disabilities of the
achieved status.

Achieved status:

1. There are no precondition for getting the ascribed status for example; the
elder in the family is bound to be respected. There are no qualification required.

2. The achieved status is based on characteristics like capacities and abilities

etc.

3. Achieved status has an unstable basis and so it is itself changeable.

4. In open and modern societies it is achieved status which is given importance

because in this respect, it is the personal qualities and achievements that matter.

5. In regard to achieved status the role or the action is more or less predictable
because it is based reason.
6. In relevance to the achieved status it cannot be said that there shall be co-
relationship between the achieved status and the role.

7. Achieved status is the gift of one’s personal accomplishments and personal

characteristics.

8. Achieved status is helpful in acquiring the ascribed status.

9. Achieved status is the result of the personal accomplishments and is acquired

as result of competition. It has no relationship with the customs and traditions.

Q12. Who said that, “Society is a web of social relationship”?

Society is a web of social relationship is said by Mac Iver.

Q13. Write two characteristics of Institution.

The concept of institution is one of the most important concepts in the entire
field of sociology. Unfortunately, it is a concept that has not been consistently
used by sociologists.

According the Maclver and Page, “Institution is the established forms or

conditions of procedure characteristics of group activity.”

Prof. Ginsberg defines, “Institutions may be described as recognised and

established usages governing the relations between individuals and groups.”

Characteristics of Institution

The following are some of the important characteristics of institution.

(1) Satisfaction of specific needs:

Each institution satisfies some specific needs. The family meets the need for
controlling the reproductive function, socialising children and providing
economic security to its members, while the government meets the need for
maintaining order within a society, defending the society against outside attacks
and establishing laws.

(2) Prescription of rules:

Institutions prescribe rules and regulations that are to be followed. Marriage as
an institution, for example, governs the relations between the husband and the
wife. Similarly, the school or college has its own rules and procedures.

(3) Abstractness:

Institutions are abstract in nature. They are neither visible nor tangible. For
example, marriage cannot be kept on museum, religion not be rated, nor war be
weighed.

(4) Cultural symbols:

Institutions have cultural symbols. The symbols may be either material or non-
material. A country has a flag, an emblem, a national anthem as its symbol. A
school may have its own flag, uniform dress etc.

(5) Universality:

Social institutions are universal. They exist in all the societies and have been
found at all the stages of social development.

(6) Social in nature:

Institutions come into being due to the collective activities of the people. They
are essentially social in nature. After all, institutions are the products of the
secular and repetitive forms of social relationships of individuals.

(7) Institutions are the controlling mechanisms:

Institutions like religion, morality, state, government law, legislation etc. control
the behaviour of men. These mechanisms preserve the social order and give
stability to it. Institutions are like wheels on which human society marches on
towards the desired destination.

(8) Relatively permanent:

Institutions normally do not undergo sudden or rapid changes. Changes take

place slowly and gradually in them. Many institutions are rigid and enduring.
They, in course of time, become the conservative elements in society. Example
– caste, religion etc. But under the pressure or circumstances they also undergo
changes.

(9) Oral and written:

Institutions may persist in the form of oral or written traditions. For primitive
societies they may be largely oral. But in modern complex societies they may be
observed in written as well as unwritten forms.

(10) Institutions are interrelated:

Institutions, though diverse, are interrelated. Understanding of one institution

requires the understanding of the other related institutions. The religious, moral,
educational, political, economic and other types of institutions are essentially
interlinked.

Q14. Who is the author of the book ‘social stratification’?

Dipankar Gupta

Q15. Who is the author of the book ‘human society’?

Kingsley Davis

Q16. Define Sociology. Discuss the nature of Sociology.

The term ‘Sociology’ was coined by Auguste Comte, a French philosopher, in

1839. Therefore, he is regarded as the father of Sociology. Sociology is the
combination of the Latin word ‘Societus’ meaning ‘society’ and the Greek word
‘logos’ meaning ‘study or science’. Thus, the etymological meaning of
Sociology is the science of society.

Ogburn and Nimkoff define Sociology as “the scientific study of social life”
Famous sociologist Emile Durkheim defines Sociology as “the science of social
institution.” In the view of Alex Inkles “Sociology is the study of systems of
social actions and of their interrelations”

Nature of Sociology

Before discussing the nature of Sociology, it is better to know about the nature
of a subject. The nature of a subject refers to its internal characteristics which
help one to understand what kind of science it is.

Every branch of knowledge has its own nature. Thus, Sociology as a branch of
knowledge had its own nature or characteristic which distinguishes it from other
social sciences and helps to understand what kind of science it is.

The nature of Sociology is as follows:

(1) Sociology is an independent science:

Sociology is not treated and studied as a branch of any other science like
philosophy, history. Now it has emerged into an independent science. As an
independent science it has its own field of study.

(2) Sociology is a social science and not a physical science:

All the sciences are divided into two categories: natural sciences and social
sciences. Natural sciences study physical phenomena where as social sciences
study social phenomena. Social sciences include Economics, Political Science,
and Anthropology etc. Sociology belongs to the family of social sciences. As a
social science it concentrates its attention on man, his social behaviour,
activities and social life. In other words, it studies man as a social being.

(3) Sociology is a pure science and not an applied science:

The aim of applied science is to apply the acquired knowledge into life and to
put it to use. But the aim of pure sciences is the acquisition of knowledge and it
is not bothered whether the acquired knowledge is useful or can be put to use.
Sociology is a pure science, because it aims at the acquisition of knowledge
about human society, hot the utilisation of the knowledge.

(4) Sociology is an abstract science and not a concrete science:

This doesn’t mean that Sociology, is an art and not a science. It only refers that
Sociology is not interested in concrete manifestations of human events. It is
more concerned with the form of human events and their patterns. Similarly,
Sociology does not confine itself to the study of this society or that particular
society. It simply means that Sociology is an abstract science, not a concrete
science.

(5) Sociology is a categorical and not a normative discipline:

Sociology “confines itself about what is, not what should be or ought to be.” As
a science it is silent about questions of value. It does not make any kind of value
judgment. It only means Sociology as a discipline cannot deal with problems of
good and evil, right and wrong.

(6) Sociology is a generalising and not a particularising science:

Sociology does not study each and every event that takes place in society. It
makes generalization on the basis of some selected events. For example, not by
studying or examining all the secondary groups but by observing a few
secondary groups, a sociologist makes generalization of secondary groups.

(7) Sociology is a general science and not a special social science:

The area of inquiry of Sociology is general and not specialised. Social sciences
like Political Science, History, Economics, etc. study human interaction but not
all about human interactions. But Sociology does not investigate special kind of
phenomena in relation to human life, and activities but it only studies human
activities in a general way.

(8) Sociology is both a rational and empirical science:

Empiricism is the approach that emphasizes experiences and the facts that result
from observation and experimentation. On the other hand, rationalism stresses
reason and theories that result from logical inference. The empiricist collects
facts, the rationalist co-ordinates and arranges them. In sociological theory both
are significant. Thus, Sociology is both a rational and empirical science.

Conclusion:

Thus, from the above discussion we come to know that the nature of Sociology
is independent, social, a categorical, pure, abstract, and generalizing; both are a
rational and an empirical social science.

Q17. Discuss the scope and subject matter of Sociology.

Subject Matter of Sociology:

Sociology is a distinct science with its own subject matter. It has by now been
able to establish itself as a distinct science concerned with the scientific study of
society. It has accumulated a body of knowledge about society. It has been said
surprisingly enough by some critics that sociology does not have a subject
matter of its own.

There is no special field of sociology since its subject matter has been parceled
out to a number of social sciences like political science, economics, psychology,
anthropology, and history etc. Another criticism against sociology is that it
borrows from other social sciences. It is argued that sociology is a hotch-potch
of different social sciences.

It may be stated here that these arguments are totally incorrect and need no
consideration. Today sociology is not only a distinct science with subject matter
of its won but it has also acquired that high status which entitles it to be called
the “mother of all social sciences”. Sociology has a distinct position among
other social sciences.

Sociology is a special kind of abstraction, lit has its own perspective and its own
system of explanation of human behaviour. While discussing the position of
sociology among other social sciences, Maclver has rightly remarked that the
social sciences have the spheres within sociology just as associations have the
spheres within community.

Sociology has produced a great deal of valuable information’s about social

institutions such as family, property, church and State; about social traditions,
about social processes, about social classes, about changes in social habits,
customs and fashions; about social control, about crime and suicide. None of
these topics is adequately treated elsewhere.

Sociology, no doubt, borrows” its subject matter from other social sciences, but
it gives this subject matter completely a new form. Sociology adopts completely
different system of explanation of subject matter. Sociology borrows raw
materials, applies a technique and creates what is called society and a distinct
discipline to study its structure and processes. In the words of Motwani,
“Sociology like an edifice is both the principle of coordination of facts of social
life into an organic whole and also an independent science, the end result of
such integration”.

Sociology is a science with its own subject matter, ‘social life as a whole’ and
deals with more general principles underlying all social phenomena. Social
phenomena is the subject matter of sociology. The basic social phenomena, the
unit for sociological analysis is commonly identified as interaction between two
or more human beings. Where there is interaction, the participants are said to be
in social relationship. Human interaction and interrelation become the subject
matter of sociology.

When relationships endure, they form social groups. The social group is
commonly recognized to be one of the major; subjects of sociological study.
The social group is a system, that is a structure consisting of parts which,
without losing their identity and individuality, constitute a whole transcending
the parts.

The individuals who form the social group stand in patterned relationship, so
that to each person is ascribed a definite social position called ‘ status’. Social
groups often from hierarchies within society. This phenomena is called
stratification. Today social stratification is a field of intensive research in
sociology.
Another basic area of study in sociology consists of the social ‘Processes’.
Among the social processes, cooperation is basic in social life. Other social
processes in sociological study are conflict, competition, assimilation,
accommodation, communication, socialization etc.

Sociology also gives emphasis on study of culture, which is usually taken to be

the sum total of relatively stable and standardized ways of thinking and acting
operative in a given society.

Change in culture and in social structure constitutes major area of study

developed in sociology. The principal mechanism of social and cultural change
have been well known since long back. A number of detailed propositions
concerning the conditions of invention and of the acceptance and diffusion of
inventions belong to the domain of contemporary sociology.

Sociology has been concerned with the development and functions of basic
social institutions such as family and kinship, religion, property, political,
educational and economic institutions.

Sociology has its own methodology for research. Contemporary sociology is

more rational and empirical. Very few sociologists today deny that enumeration,
measurement and refined statistical procedures are desirable techniques to be
used in any investigation. Sociology has welt developed theories. Theoretical
sociology emerged historically as illustrated in the broad theoretical schemes of
August Comte, Herbert Spencer, Lester F. Ward and other pioneers.

Theoretical sociology has also been developed by Peter Blaui, George Homans,
Charles Loomis, P. Sorokin, R.K. Merton, Talcott Parsons and others. Over the
years sociologists have developed and refined several Inroad theories to account
for the nature of society.

Some sociologists take a ‘Macroscopic’ (broad view) and large scale

phenomena such as the working of entire societies or worldwide trends
(modernization), historical phenomena etc. Other Sociologists study small-scale
social phenomena such as the behaviour of the individuals and small groups, for
example family relationships. Such studies are called ‘micro-sociology’.

The application of sociological perspective to different fields of human

relationships has given birth to many branches of sociology Of these the most
important branches are rural sociology, urban sociology, sociology of crime,
sociology of education, political sociology, sociology of religion, industrial
sociology, historical sociology, sociology of art etc. From time to time new
fields of enquiry in sociology is emerging out and there is no doubt that this
trend in sociology will continue.

Scope of Sociology:

Scope refers to the field of sociology or area of sociological investigation.

Unfortunately, there is no consensus among sociologists about the scope of
sociology. Since the days of Comte, Spencers, Durkheim and Giddings,
sociologists have attempted to define and limit the field of sociological
investigation.

Even so there is still no agreement among sociologists regarding the proper field
of sociology. V.F. Calberton writes, “Since sociology is so elastic a science, it is
difficult to determine just where its boundaries begin and end, where sociology
becomes social psychology and where social psychology becomes sociology, or
where economic theory becomes sociological doctrine or biological theory
becomes sociological theory, something which is impossible to decide.

In sociological literature we find, as Ginsberg say, “Two somewhat different

conceptions of the scope of sociology”. There are two main schools of thought
among the sociologists about the scope of sociology – Specialistic or
Formalistic school and Synthetic school.

Specialistic or/Formalistic School:

One group of sociologists headed by German sociologists, George Simmel

regard sociology as a specific and independent science. These sociologists want
to keep the scope of sociology distinct from other social sciences. According to
formalistic school sociology should deal with ‘forms of social relationships’.

According to George Simmel, sociology in order to develop as a ‘special

science’ of society should deal with ‘forms’ of human relationship and not with
their content. He says, sociology should confine its study to forms of behaviour
instead of studying actual behavior. As an independent and specific science it
should aim at description, classification, analysis and explanation of the forms
of human relationships.

It should not study their contents because they are studied by other social
sciences. Simmel has mentioned some forms of relationships, e.g. competition,
domination, imitation, division of labour, subordination etc. Hence, the scope of
sociology includes forms of relationships and it should not study their contents.
The relation of sociology with other sciences is analogous to the relation
between geometry and physical sciences. Geometry studies the special forms
and relations of objects, not their content.

As small says, sociology does not undertake to study all the activities of society.
Even science has a delimited scope. The scope of sociology is the study of the
genetic forms of social relationships, behaviours and activities.

More or less in the same vein Vierkandt says that sociology as a specialism is
concerned with the ultimate forms of social relationship such as love and hate,
attitude of respect, shame, submission – the bond of that ties individuals as a
group. He says that sociology should not make any historical or inductive study
of concrete societies. And it can be a definite science only when it abstains from
a historical study of concrete societies.

Max Weber also specifies the particular range of phenomena with which
sociology should deal. According to his views, sociology is a science which
attempts to interpret or understand social action. Social action does not cover
the whole field of human relations. Indeed, not a: human interactions are social.

Weber defines social action or behaviour as an activity which is the intention of

the actor, has reference to and is determined by the behaviour of others. For
example, a collision between two cyclists is itself merely a natural phenomenon,
but their effort to avoid each other or the language they use after the event
constitute social behaviour. Sociology is essentially concerned with the
probability or chance of the occurrence of the types of social behaviour.

There are certain types of social actions which are likely to occur under certain
conditions. Sociological laws are empirically established probabilities of
statistical generalizations of the course of such social behaviour which can be
understood. Sociology deals with such laws.

According to Von Wiese, the scope of sociology is the study of forms of social
relationships. He has divided these social relationships into many kinds.

Ferdinand Tonnies is also another supporter of formalistic school. He has

differentiated between community and society on the basis of forms of social
relationships. The concept of ‘Gemeinschaft’ refers to community or communal
group, while ‘Gesellschaft refers to association or associational society.
According to him family, neighborhood are the instances of Gemeinschaft and
city and State are the instances of Gesellschaft.

Criticism:
The following arguments have been developed against the opinion of-
formalistic school.

First, the formalistic school has narrowed the scope of sociology. It has
delimited the field of sociology.

Second, the contention of sociologists belonging to formalistic school that

sociology alone studies the forms of social relationship is not correct. The study
of international law includes the study of such relationships as conflict, war,
opposition, agreement, contract etc. Similarly, other social sciences like
political science, economics and psychology etc. also study social relationships.

Third, the formalistic school of thought has limited the study of sociology to
merely abstract forms of relationships. But in fact, the abstract forms cannot be
studied in complete isolation from concrete contents. No social ‘form’ does
exist independent of ‘content’. It is impossible as says Sorokin, to think of
social institution whose form would not change when its content has changed.

Actually social forms cannot be abstracted from the contents, since forms keep
on changing as contents change and these contents are continuously changing.
Sorokin says, “We may fill a glass with wine, water or sugar without changing
its form, but I cannot conceive of social institution whose form would not
change when its members change”.

Forth, the contention of sociologists of formalistic school that the relationship of

sociology with other science is analogous to the relationship between geometry
and physical science is misconceived. Because whereas in Geometry the forms
of physical things are definite, in sociology the forms of social relationships are
not definite.

Fifth, the conception of pure sociology is not practical. Actually, no science can
be studied in complete isolation from the other sciences. There are no hard-and-
fast boundary lines between the social sciences since each of these perspectives
has implications for each others. Hence, it is impractical to make sociology a
pure and independent science.

Synthetic School:

According to synthetic school, sociology is a synthesis of social sciences or a

general science. This conception of sociology is held by the second group of
sociologists, best exemplified by Durkheim, Hobbes and Sorokin.
Sociology is a science of sciences and all the social sciences are included in its
scope. The contention of this school is that all aspects of social life are
interrelated; hence the study of one aspect of social life is not sufficient to
understand the entire fact. For this reason sociology should systematically study
social life as a whole.

The subject mater of sociology and other social sciences is the same. But there
is difference in their viewpoint. Society is the subject matter of all social
sciences but they study it in their own perspectives. Sociology has its own
perspective and different system of explanation of facts. In political science, for
example, authority, Government etc. are studied from the political view point.
But sociology explains authority and Government in terms of sociological
perspectives.

The scope of sociology differs from each of the social sciences because it
studies social relationships, but the study in this sphere necessitates a study of
all the social sciences. In studying any social phenomenon, it is necessary to
contemplate upon all its aspects.

Suppose we want to analyses and study the causes of family disorganisation,

then we will have to seek the help of economics, psychology and other sciences.
In this way the scope of sociology includes the subject matter of all other social
sciences. Hence, on the one hand sociology is distinct from the other social
sciences; on the other hand it synthesizes them.

According to Durkheim, Sociology should study social facts, that is activities

related to social groups and sustained by them. It should aim at discovering
more general laws based upon the laws established in the particular fields of the
special sciences. He says that sociology has three principal parts of fields of
enquiry – social morphology, social physiology and general sociology.

Social Morphology:

This includes all those subjects which are fundamentally geographic, such as
population, its size, density, distribution etc. This also comprehends the study of
social structure or a description of the main forms of social groups or
institutions as well as their classification.

Social Physiology:

I it includes all those subjects which are studied by particular social sciences
such as economy, language, morals, law etc. Religion, economy, morals and
language are studied by sociology of religion, sociology of economic life,
sociology of morals and sociology of language respectively. All of them are
special sociology or branches of sociology.

General sociology:

This can be regarded as the philosophical part of sociology. Its function is the
formulation of general social laws.

Karl Mannheim divides sociology into two main sections – (i) Systematic and
General Sociology and (ii) Historical Sociology. Systematic and General
Sociology describes one by one the main factors of living together as far as they
may be found in every kind of society.

The Historical sociology deals with the historical variety and actually of the
general forms of society. Historical sociology falls into two main sections:
Firstly Comparative Sociology and secondly, Social Dynamics. Comparative
sociology deals mainly with the historical variations of the same phenomenon
and tries to find by comparison of general features as separated from industrial
features. Social dynamics deals with the interrelations between various social
factors and institutions in a certain given society, for instance, in a primitive
society.

Sociology, as says Ginsberg, should be concerned with the study of social

relationships in general, it should study societies as a whole. According to him,
sociology can be categorized into four branches – social morphology, social
control, social process and social pathology.

Social Morphology:

It deals with the quantity and quality of population. It also includes social
structure, social groups and institutions.

Social Control:

This consists of the study of factors such as law, religion, fashion and modes
etc. which exercise some kind of control over the individuals in society.

Social Processes:

Interactions like cooperation, assimilation, conflict etc. are studied in this

branch.

Social Pathology:
This includes the study of various social problems like poverty, unemployment,
crime, prostitution, social disorganisation etc.

Sorokin has defined sociology in a way that seems acceptable to sociologists of

various trends and in a way that describes accurately the scope of theoretical
sociology. Sociology, as declares Sorokin,” is the study of the general
characteristics common to all classes of social phenomena, of the relationship
between these classes and the relationship between social and nonsocial
phenomena.

In society, culture and personality Sorokin provides another delineation of the

field pointing more precisely to the appropriate areas of sociological
investigation. “Sociology is the generalizing theory of the structure and
dynamics: (a) social’ system and congeries (functionally inconsistent elements)
(b) cultural system and congeries (c) personalities in their structural aspects,
main types, interrelationships and personality processes”.

The primary aim of sociology is to study social structure, the systematic

interrelation of forms of behaviour or section in particular societies. Sociology
is the scientific study of social life and the fundamental condition of social
stability and social change.

From the above discussion it is evident that the scope of sociology is very wide.
The opposed views of sociology in fact not contradictory to each other. Just as
specialised studies of particular parts of social life are necessary, so there is also
need to study the general conditions of social life. It is sociology whose function
would be to study particular parts and the general conditions of social life.

The truth is that any subject which is studied by the sociological method is
included within the scope of sociology. It is neither possible nor essential to
delimit the scope of sociology because, this would be, as Sprott says,” A brave
attempt to confine an enormous mass of slippery material into a relatively
simple system of pigeon holes”.

Q18. Define role and explain it’s different types.

Meaning of Role:

The position or the situation that a person occupies in society is called status. As
a result of that status and position he is expected to discharge certain functions.
These functions are known as roles. In life, we have a great variety of roles –
father, mother, businessman, shop assistant, consumer, bus-driver, teacher,
voter, and politician and so on. These roles are an integral part of group
behaviour.

“According to Linton. The term role is used to designate the sum total of the
cultural pattern associated with a particular status. It thus includes attitude,
values and behaviour ascribed by the society to any and all person occupying
this status…. In so far as it represents overt behaviour and a role has the
dynamic aspect of the status: what is the individual has to do in order to validate
the occupation of the status.”

A role is, as Ogburn and Nimkoff say, “a set of socially expected and approved
behavior patterns, consisting of both duties and privileges associated with a
particular position in a group.” Role is “the behavioural enacting of the
patterned expectations attributed to that position,” In role performance, the
emphasis is on quality. One’s role as a father implies a more specific and
particular manner of performance.

Roles are allocated according to the positions (called status) people occupy in
the social system. Each status has its own set of role requirements. Social
groups operates harmoniously and effectively to the extent that performance
conform to the role requirements. Role is sociologically important because it
demonstrates how individual activity is socially determined and thus follows a
regular patterns.

A role exists in a particular setting in relation to other roles. Thus, the role bf
father implies the role of child, the role of worker implies the role of employer,
and the role of doctor implies the role of patient.

A person will play many such roles. Everyone has multiple roles in life.
‘Multiple’ roles refer to cluster of roles which an individual is expected to play
in variety of situations (i.e. in the multiplicity of groups to which he belongs).
Thus, a person will be a husband, a teacher, a father and a cousin. His roles
continue to change as he grows up.

Characteristics of the Role:

Characteristics of the role may be studied in the following heads:

1. Action Aspect of Status:

The role is in fact the action aspect of status. In involves various types of
actions that a person has to perform in accordance with the expectations of the
society. These actions are dependent not on the individual’s will but on the
social sanction. That is why it is said that every social role has a cultural basis.

2. Changing Concept of Role:

Social roles as already stated, are in accordance with the social values, ideals,
patterns etc. These ideals, values and objects change and so the concept of the
role also changes. The role which is justified at a particular time may not be
justified at some other time.

3. Limited Field of Operation:

Every role has a limited area of operation and the role has to be confined within
that. For example an officer has a role to play in the office but when he reaches
his family, that role ceases.

4. Roles are not Performed 100% for the Fulfillment of the Expectations:

It is not possible for anyone to perform his role fully in accordance with the
expectations of the society. There is bound to be some distinctions. For example
one may not be able to perform his role to the full satisfaction of the children.

5. Difference in the Importance of Role:

From the socio-cultural point of view all the roles are not equally important.
Some of the roles are more important while the others are less. The, roles that
are most important are called key roles while the roles that are of general
importance, are called general roles.

Role Conflict:

Role conflict is the psychological stress created when persons do not filter roles
(personal role-conflict), when relevant others disagree with the individual about
his or her role (intra role-conflict), or when several different roles make
mutually exclusive demands on an individual (intra role conflict).

Role Conflict is a social-psychological concept used to investigate and explain

individual’s experiences of competing or conflicting demands.

A social group, as already observed, carries on its life smoothly and

harmoniously to the extent that roles are clearly assigned and each member
accepts and fulfills the assigned role according to expectations.
In actual practice, however, we find that there is doubt or disagreement as to
what behaviour is expected in a given role and sometimes an individual resents
the role assigned to him and fails to live up-to the expectations. Consequently,
there is much of group tension and conflict.

In a simple culturally homogeneous and relatively stationary society, there may

be comparatively less role conflicts. But in a complex and heterogeneous social
system as ours the role conflicts have increased leading to more and more group
tensions.

In the family, in the industry, in the Government, in the politics, everywhere

tension is on the increase. An individual has to play different roles in different
groups. His role as the head of the family may come into conflict with his role
as a doctor. He may at times be asked to sacrifice his obligations.

Conflict of roles arises when one has to perform number of roles or the roles of
several actors are ill-defined, or when one feels that the role assigned to one is
not in agreement with his status. It is inevitable in complex and heterogeneous
society. The possibility of conflict of role, in a simple society, is less but it
exists, all the same. A woman as a wife as a mother of the married son and
mother-in-law, as mother of her married daughter and of unmarried (laughter
performs a complex role).

It has often given rise to conflict of roles causing mental turmoil and social
maladjustment. Of course, the growing social complexities have intensified the
conflict of roles. A busy lawyer may fail in his ascribed roles. A conscientious
Minister for industries, when called upon to decide the claims of applicant such
as one supported by the capitalist, who partly financed his elections, and another
who comes through common channel for issuing’ an industrial license may face
such a situation.

The first systematic treatise of role conflict was presented by Robert Kahn and
his associates in their book Organization Stress: Studies in Role conflict and
Ambiguity (1964). According to Kahn et. al. in individuals have jobs or
functions, (i.e. roles) that typically depend on a steady exchange of role-relevant
information with others.

For example secretaries and supervisors depend on each other, through

exchange of facts, feedback, and directive, to work effectively. Communication
are laden with expectations that constitutes role-pressure. For a particular
individual (a focal person), these role pressures are communicated by one or
more role senders, who along with individual, constitutes the member of a role
set.
According to Kahn, role conflict (specially sent role conflict) occurs in three
forms: (1) inter sender conflict occurs when incompatible expectations or
demands are communicated by two or more members of a role set; (2) inter
sender conflict occur when; incompatible expectations or demands are
communicated by a single member of a role set; (3) inter role conflict occurs
when incompatible expectations or demands are communicated by J members
of different role set.

Whereas each of these three forms involves conflict between multiple

expectations or demands, it is possible for a single demand to conflict with the
focal individuals personal beliefs or preferences. In other words, person-role
conflict occurs when an expectation or demand by a member of a role set is
incompatible with the focal person’s won beliefs.

Mechanisms for Dealing with Role Conflict:

Individuals confronted with unwelcome or incompatible expectations with role

conflict find themselves in stressful circumstances. They are pulled in differing
directions by opposing forces. How do people deal with such circumstances?

One approach for dealing with conflicting expectations is compartmentalization.

Individuals subdivide their lives so to speak, and within a given context act in
accordance with the dictates of one role while ignoring the other. In a word,
individuals temporarily abdicate one of the conflicting roles; they wall
themselves off from it.

Role conflict may be handled through a hierarchy of obligations. Individuals

interacting with one another usually recognize that certain obligations take
precedence over others.

Individuals can also handle their role conflict through banding together for
mutual support and concerted action.

Still another mode of individual resolution takes the form of reducing

dependence on the group or role partner supporting one of the expectations.
Individuals achieve this by leaving the group by redefining its value to them or
by making it irrelevant to the conflict situation.

Role conflict need not be handled in a rational manner. For example, Elton F.
Jackson (1962) found that many people respond to the stresses posed by role
conflict with psychophysiological symptoms. Those with role inconsistencies
were more likely than others to be troubled with spells of dizziness, upset
stomachs, nervousness, insomnia, nightmares and similar symptoms.
It does not imply that the role conflict is common and that the multiplicity of
roles cannot be performed. If it were so the social system will break down.
There are obviously the ways to eliminate the conflict of roles. A simple device
is to relinquish one of two conflicting roles. A judge who finds that he has been
assigned a case in which he has some stake is expected to withdraw himself
from it.

A Minister who finds that the Government policy is’ not in agreement with the
declared policy, of the party, has always the option to resign. Another option is
to rationalise and compartmentalize the roles. This may be done in terms of
value and time. One may fix priority and time for the performance of the task.
One has to seek equilibrium in the conflict of roles.

Q19. What is Class? Discuss its major determinants.

A social class is made up of people of similar social status who regard one
another as social equals. Each class has a set of values, attitudes, beliefs and
behaviour norms which differ from those of the other classes. According to
Giddens (2000), “a class is a large-scale grouping of people who share common
economic resources, which strongly influence the type of lifestyle they are able
to lead”. Horton and Hunt (1968) writes: “A social class is defined as a stratum
of people of similar position in the social status continuum.” A stratum is a
collectivity of people occupying similar positions in the hierarchical order.

Max Weber has defined class in terms of life chances and said, “a class is a
number of people sharing one or more causes of life chances”. By life chances
he meant “the typical chances for a supply of goods, external living conditions,
and personal life experience”. Karl Marx, an another main theorist of class, has
written much about social class but nowhere he has defined it in certain exact
terms.

From his writings, it appears that for Marx, “a class is a group of people who
stand in a common relationship to the means of production”, to the political-
power structure, and to the ideas of the time, a relationship which necessarily
brings it into conflict with some other group having divergent ideas and
different interests with respect to the economic and political structures”
(Lopreato and Lawrence, 1972). This statement presents the Marx’s basic
notion of class. Thus, he defined class in economic terms.

Thus, a social class is an aggregate of people who have same status, rank or
common characteristics (lifestyle). This aggregate of people is identified on the
basis of their relationship to the economic market who have differential access
to wealth, power and certain styles of life. Ownership of wealth together with
occupation are the chief criteria of class differences but education, hereditary
prestige, group participation, self-identification and recognition by others also
play an important part in class distinction.

Characteristics of Class System:

The following are the principal characteristics of class system:

1. A system of hierarchy of status.

2. A system of social ranking based primarily on economic position.

3. A system marked by unequal distribution of wealth and power.

4. A system more mobile than caste system.

5. A system in which status is achieved by one’s own efforts rather than

ascribed, assigned or inherited.

6. A system having some degree of permanency of the class structure.

7. A system based on stratum (class) consciousness and solidarity.

8. A system having distinctive mode of life (lifestyle) and cultural expressions

of each class.

9. A system based on the recognition of superiority and inferiority in relation to

those who stand or below in the social hierarchy.

10. A system in which boundaries between classes are fluid and are less
precisely defined.

11. A system in which social classes act as sub-cultures—each social class is a

system of behaviour, a set of values and a way of life.

Divisions of social classes:

How many classes are there? Classes are not sharply defined status groups like
castes. Social status varies along a continuum. The several social classes may be
viewed as points on this continuum. Consequently, the number of social classes
is not fixed, nor do any definite boundaries separate them.

Earlier scholars of social class broke up the status continuum into three main
classes—upper, middle, and lower. Later scholars found this division
unsatisfactory and often used a six-fold classification by breaking each of these
three classes into an upper and lower section.

Warner and associates (1941, 1942) used this classification in their study of a
New England town. The most commonly used classification is of J.H.
Goldthrope who developed it in his study Social Mobility and Class Structure in
Britain (1980). Goldthrope identifies eleven social class categories, which may
be compressed into three major social classes—service, intermediate and
working.

This classification was later on severely criticised by feminist writers. They

contend that the Goldthrope’s class scheme inadequately represents the class
position of women. Recently, Giddens (2000) developed a four-fold
classification that exists in western societies.

These are an upper class (the wealthy, employers, and industrialists, plus top
executives); a middle class (which includes most white-collar workers and
professionals); and a working class (those in blue-collar or manual jobs). In
some of the industrialised countries, such as France or Japan, a fourth class—
peasants (people engaged in traditional types or agricultural production)—has
also until recently been important.

In addition to these four classes, there is one more class known as underclass,
which is composed of ethnic majority and underprivileged minorities. Members
of the underclass have worse working conditions and living standards than the
majority of the population. In Indian context, we can keep ‘dalits’ in this
category.

Main Criteria used in the Determination of Social Class

(1) Wealth and Income:

Possession of substantial amounts of wealth is the main characteristic

distinguishing the upper class from other class groups in society. Persons having
more wealth and income generally have higher social position and respect in
society. Wealth and income (money), though necessary for upper-class position,
yet one’s class position is not directly proportional to his income.

A prostitute has less social status than a professor though her income is far
greater than the professor. In spite of all its weaknesses, wealth and income are
an important determinant of social class, partly because of the way of life it
permits or enforces (a social class is basically a way of life), and partly because
it suggests about one’s family life and way of life.
Upper-class children have a better chance, and for their grandchildren, a secure
upper-class status is practically assured. Wealth and income, over a period of
time, usually gains upper-class status. In his analysis of class divisions, Karl
Marx argued that social class is based entirely on wealth.

(2) Occupation:

Occupation is an exceedingly important aspect of social class and as such it is

another determinant of class status. It is a well-known fact that some kinds of
work are more honourable than others, e.g., doctors, engineers, administrators,
professors and lawyers hold a higher position than a car mechanic or manual
worker.

The high-prestige occupations generally receive the higher incomes, yet there
are many exceptions. Occupation is also one of the best clues to one’s way of
life, and therefore to one’s social class membership. It affects many other facets
of life (values, beliefs, marital relations) other than determining the social class.

(3) Education:

There is a close reciprocal relationship between social class and education. To

get a higher education one needs money plus motivation. Upper-class children
already have money for the finest schools and colleges. They also have family
tradition and social encouragement. One’s amount and kind of education affects
the class rank he will secure. Thus, education is one of the main levers of a
man’s social class.

(4) Prestige:

It refers to the respect and admiration with which an occupation is regarded by

society. Prestige is independent of the particular person who occupies a job.
Sociologists have tried to assign prestige rankings to various occupations.
Besides wealth, occupation and education, there are certain other criteria which
help a person to attain higher social status in the society.

These are family background, kinship relations, location of residence etc., but
education, occupation and expanded income are the most fairly visible clues of
social class. With these are associated most of the other behaviour
characteristics which make one ‘belong’. Most of the social scientists have used
these three criteria in dividing people into social classes for research purposes.

Q20. Define Institution. Discuss the process of the development of

Institution.
Man is a social animal. Being social creature, he has some wants and assigned
aims to comply them.

Institution is a way of thought or action of some prevalence and permanence,

which is embedded in the habits of a group or the customs of the people.

Hence, it can be claimed that institution is that which people adopt to means for
fulfillment of needs and objectives with procedures and behaviour.

In simple words, institution is another word for procedure, convention and

arrangements.

To put in the words of E.S. Bogardus, “A social institution is a structure of

society that is organised to meet the needs of people mainly, through well
established procedures”.

According to C.H. Cooley, “An institution is a complex integrated

organisation of collective behaviour established in the social heritage and
meeting some persistent need or want.”

Similarly, Fichter describes an institution, “As a relatively permanent structure

of social patterns, role and relations that people enact in certain sanctioned and
unified ways for the purpose of satisfying basic social needs”. In the words of
Prof. Elwood, “An institution means the way of rituals of living mutually
which are established, accepted and arranged by the force of community.”

Things to Know # 2. Characteristics of Institution:

On the basis of above definitions, main characteristics are as under:

(а) Institutions are purposive in the sense that each has its objectives or goals to
satisfy social needs.

(b) They are relatively permanent in their structure.

(c) They tend to become traditional and enduring.

(d) Each institution is a unified structure and functions as a unit.

(e) The institution is necessarily value laden and tends to become a code of
conduct.

(f) Each institution is affiliated and derive rights from some or other society.
Things to Know # 3. Role of Institutions in Economic Development:

A country’s social and economic institution dominate the process of economic

development. They determine attitudes, motivations and conditions for
development. If institutions are elastic and encourage people to avail economic
opportunities and further to lead higher standard of living and inspire them to
work hard, then economic development will occur.

On the other hand, if they discourage all this, the economic development will be
hampered and adversely affected. This has been rightly observed by UNO that
economic development is impossible in the absence of appropriate atmosphere.
So economic progress will not take place unless atmosphere is favourable to it.

The people of the country must desire progress and their social, economic, legal
and political institutions must be favourable to it.

Emphasizing the significance of these institutions in economic development,

Prof. A.K. Cairn-cross says, “Development is not governed in any country by
economic forces alone and the more backward the country, the more this is
true. The key to development lies in men’s mind, in the institutions in
which their thinking finds expression and the play of opportunity on ideas
and institutions.”

Therefore, right king of institutions or growth promoting institutions are a pre-

requisite for the rapid economic development of a country. These institutions
may be called growth promoting which permit or stimulate, rather than impede,
the adoption of new techniques and the formation of productive capital.

In a broad sense, institutions promote economic growth to the level that they
associate efforts with regard to permit increased division of labour, expansion of
trade and freedom to seize economic opportunities.

In this regard, Prof. W.A. Lewis observed, “Institutions promote or restrict

growth according to the protection, they accord to effort, according to the
opportunities they provide for specialization and according to the freedom
of action they permit.”

If institutions are favourable, will to attempt economic development is

intensified and it increases.

If this willingness is strong, institutions will be re-modeled to accommodate it.

Growth promoting institutions may so structure the environment in which
factors of production meet that the rate at which combinations occur, is
accelerated. This acceleration might involve the discovery of new types of
factor combinations or an increase in those already known.

According to Prof. W.W. Rostow, “For economic progress, a country must

have timely changes in people’s tendencies and needful improvement in
social institutions and appropriate changes in political and social
conditions.” Thus, it becomes important to recognise that the socio-political
environment may or may not be conducive to economic progress.

Certain religious and social attitudes are more favourable to development than
are others.

For instance, an individualistic pattern of family; freedom of action for the

individuals; high social values for business; flexible social structure are
definitely much more conducive to development as they all create conditions for
accelerated growth in the economy while, joint family system, low social value
of business and rigid caste structure are common elements of backwardness and
retard economic development of a country.

Thus, institutions greatly influence economic growth through the influence on

the rate of capital formation, growth of entrepreneurship, technological change
and the desire of the people to work.

Sometime, the pattern of investment is a function of political, cultural and

religious motivations but institution and the value system also determine the
supply of entrepreneurs which are the captains of the economic and social
change. In this way, institution exercises a decisive influence on the rate of
growth of an economy.

Things to Know # 4. Impact of Institutions on the Growth of Economic

Development:

1. General Attitude to Economic Effort:

Institutions have greatly influenced people’s attitude towards work, will and
efficiency for economic development. They will be growth oriented if they
inspire people to work hard to undertake risks. If they do not do so, they will be
growth retarding. This mean that institutions promote or restrict growth to the
extent, they accord protection to effort.

In this connection, Prof. W.A. Lewis writes, “Men will not make effort unless
the fruit of that effort is assured to themselves or to those whose claims
they recognised.” Therefore, the institutions must establish some sort of
relationship between effort and reward in order to get economic growth.

For this, nobody should be allowed to share the earnings of others and suitable
differentiation in remuneration must be maintained according to effort. The
institution of private property, economic freedom and laws of inheritance boost
economic development as they ensure reward for effort and provide freedom of
action.

While, on the other hand, exploitation of labour, defective land tenures,

absentee landlordism, feudal system, slavery, joint family system and casteism
all subdue the incentive to make economic development.

2. Technological Knowledge:

As there is lack of technical knowledge in under-developed countries, resources

are lying unutilized and strict institutional structure is not in a position to accept
technological change.

Scientific attitude of the society can go a long way in bringing at such a change.
If there is favourable change in the institutional structure, there can be an
atmosphere for progress all round and with the development of technical
knowledge favourable changes occur themselves.

In this way, there is ample chance to utilize abundant capital and special
emphasis on research are other requisite conditions for development and use of
new techniques. In fact, institutional structure must be favourable to the
commercialization of high entrepreneurial class. Hence, it is clear evidence that
social institutions have been much influenced by technological changes for
economic progress.

3. Entrepreneurship:

The growth of entrepreneurship of a country depends on its institutional

structure and value system. They are necessary for the automatic increase in
supply of entrepreneurs. Therefore, high suitable prestige and suitable reward is
the foremost condition for the success of entrepreneurship. Less restriction be
imposed and excessive taxation may be avoided.

An effective supply of entrepreneurship will only occur in a society if

accumulation of material wealth well up in its hierarchy of social values and
confers sufficient monetary rewards to the successful entrepreneurs. It is called
‘pecuniary culture’ which helps to smooth the path of the entrepreneur,
channelizing his energy and motivation in commercial, financial and industrial
directions.

To put in the words of Prof. D. Bright Singh, “For self development in

enterprise and risk, social and institutional terms must be fulfilled.”

4. Labour Productivity:

The social set up of a country affects the productivity of labour to a

considerable extent. Meritorious development of labourers is not possible due to
unfavourable change in social institutions. This means that the size and quality
of labour force are greatly influenced by social institutions and value system in
a society.

Therefore, to raise the productivity of labourers, it is desirable traditional

customs and social institutions. They not only determine the size of the
labourers but also influences its productivity. Mostly in under-developed
countries, many institutions are prevalent which are harmful for labour
productivity.

Some of such institutions are joint family system, family attachment, traditional
values, contentment, minimum wants, caste system, religious feelings and
principle of equality in the distribution of property etc.

5. Saving and Capital:

The institutional structure of a country exercises a great influence on the will

and power to save and capital formation. To promote capital formation, proper
legislation protecting the right to property should be made. In other words,
suitable institutions must provide legal security to protect private property
against misuse by the government and of government property by individual.

If institutions pay due honour to material capital, then investors are encouraged
to invest their money.

Consequently, society will also save and rate of capital formation will be
stimulated accordingly. Hence, people’s sense of conducts, behaviour, customs
gets appropriate changes in accordance with institutional structure of the
society, thereby social institutions have imperative influence on saving and
capital formation.

A study of UNO reveals that for attaining economic development, social value
and institutional structure need timely change.
However, its report conveys, “Rapid economic development is impossible
without painful changes, traditional philosophical thoughts should be discarded,
old institutions need to be disorganised, caste and class bondages should be
abolished and large number of people, who are not up keeping with progress
will have to abandon hopes of own luxurious life”.

In the same manner, Prof. Rostow favoured changing attitude of the society in
order to promote investment. Emphasizing this aspect, he stated, “The rise in
the rate of investment requires a radical shift in society’s effective attitude
towards fundamental and applied science; towards the initiation of change
in productive techniques; towards the taking of risks and towards the
conditions and methods of work.”

Things to Know # 5. Some Institutions and Economic Growth:

1. Private Property:

The institution of private property possesses a significant influence on people’s

desire to work hard, to save and invest. It is a legal right to have private
property by which people have full independence to use and acquire the
property and are restricted to use of other’s property. The right of property may
rest in a private person or in a group or in a public authority.

According to Prof. Lewis, property is a recognised institution in the world;

without it the human race would have made no progress whatsoever, since there
would have been no incentive to improve the environment in which one lived.
Institution of private property initiates people to work hard, to accumulate
wealth and invest their savings.

Further, it also facilitates the growth of entrepreneurship. But on the other side,
the right of private property is not found in socialist countries. These socialist
thinkers feel that the institution of private property hinders the economic
development and sense of private profit leads to improper competition and
centralization of property increases the tendencies of inequalities in society.

This does not mean that the institution of private property is not useful. In fact,
it influences the human attempts very much.

2. Caste System:

The caste system which prevails most of the under-developed countries, also
creates hindrance in the path of their economic growth. Caste system is a strict
social classification that limits the person’s senses and brings obstacles in the
right atmosphere for development.

In a society with a rigid class structure, where social status is determined at

birth, it is difficult to raise one’s income as it checks occupational mobility of
labour.

This further diminishes efficiency and productivity of labour. It has resulted in

creating prejudices against doing various kinds of work.

Besides, due to social classification, a scheduled caste comes up which has low
social status and causes much abuse to human resources. If, by chance, people
of higher status are seen doing manual work, are supposed to lose respect.

It is because of this, white collar jobs are more popular with the educated
persons of middle and upper middle classes. Prof. Lewis quoted the example of
engineers in less developed countries, who will not do any work which will
spoil their hands. In this way, caste systems has weakened people’s incentive to
work hard, which, in turn, is an obstacle in the growth of entrepreneurship.

Therefore, common masses remain tied to occupation for which they have no
talent or which they perform as a family or caste occupation. As a result, such
occupational rigidities dampen the spirit of enterprise and do not create an
atmosphere of change in the economy.

3. Joint Family System:

Another major institution which has the capability to affect economic

development is joint family system. In a society, it is very much effective that
influences the incentive for labour mobility, people’s attitude towards work,
development of diligence, rate of saving and investment.

The experience in different countries shows that the individualistic system of

family is growth promoting, while joint family system is growth retarding.

Individual is more responsive and the other is lazy and there prevails neutrality
towards decisions and all decisions are done by the head of the family. In a joint
family system, more persons are dependent on fixed income and whereby scope
of saving and investment is limited which leads to lower rate of capital
formation and dependents become inactive.

In short, it is said that it neutralises the market incentives to labour mobility.

Prof. Meier and Baldwin have rightly observed, “The cultural and psychological
factors operating in poor countries may be more influential than wage rates in
determining the supply of labour. The presence of institutions and attitudes
associated with the family system, caste system or village system may account
for occupational immobilities.”

In this way, we can safely conclude that the institution of joint family system is
a hindrance in the smooth functioning of growth while individualistic system of
society is conducive as it promotes entrepreneurship.

4. Law of Inheritance:

The law of inheritance is capable to influence the economic development of a

country because people have full faith in the principle of inheritance. According
to this law, after the death of the present property owner, it will be distributed
among different inheritors including sons and daughters.

This division of property especially agricultural land, there is acute problem of

sub-division and fragmentation which results in lower productivity and further
in the diminution of value of the property and decline of income that influences
the quantity of capital and saving in society. But on the contrary proper laws of
inheritance initiate people to work hard and acquire, wealth and property.

In some countries, there is law of primogeniture which confers the right of

inheritance only on the eldest son, is said to be more conducive to economic
growth as it results in large to work hard and take interest because all members
in the family are not assured a share in family property.

At the same time, it is argued that this law is not based on social justice and
creates more problems rather than being helpful to promote economic
development.

5. Religion:

In the opinion of Prof. K. William Kepp, “In under-developed countries

religious institutes are responsible for slow speed of economic
progress.” Therefore, religion in a society affects the tendencies and the views
of the people which influence more the atmosphere of economic development
and extension of economic activities. It can be indirectly a hindrance to promote
economic development.

Economic growth requires that people should be willing to give their mind to
ways of increasing productivity. It must motivate people to assume new tasks
and undertake risks. It is only possible by the spirit of religion which can infuse
the feeling which can be considered helpful to economic advancement. In brief,
religion is helpful to create inspiration for economic development among
people.

This idea has been expressed by Prof. Lewis who says, “If a religion lays
stress upon material values, upon work, upon profit and productive
investment, upon honesty in commercial relations, upon experimentation
and risk bearing and upon equality of opportunity, it will be helpful to
growth whereas in so far as it is hostile to these things, it tends to inhibit
growth.”

The experience of various countries shows that some religions are growth
promoting and others have hindered economic development. According to Max
and Weber, Protestant ethic played a significant role in the development of
western countries.

This new religion created a spirit of questioning traditional values among

common people and promoted development of rationalistic and individualistic
approach to various problems.

The religion in Japan, was also helpful in economic development as it also

created similar attitudes among the people as were created by Protestantism in
western countries. As opposed to this, Confucianism in China has hindered the
economic growth by stressing over contentment and simplicity in life.

In India, religion has been the great hindrance in the path of development as it
favoured asceticism and other worldliness and discounted economic pursuit.
The doctrine of Karma made people defeatists and they have developed
negative attitude towards life.

6. Attitude towards Work:

The attitude towards work and aspiration of the people are other crucial factors
which determine economic development in a society. In a sense, people’s
attitude and motivation to work are determined by material gains that are likely
to get for their hard labour. In this regard, Prof. Lewis has pointed out that men
will not do their best work, unless the fruits of their labour are assured to them
or to their heirs.

Therefore, material rewards provide the strongest motivation to work hard and
take initiative. But, it must be remembered that the strength of this motive will
largely depend on the religions attitudes and cultural pattern of society. In many
underdeveloped countries, ascetic attitude is the common feature which
weakens the motivation for material efforts as it involves the subordination of
material wants.

Things to Know # 6. Need for Change in Institutional Structure:

On the basis of above cited discussion, it can be said that social institutions play
a vital role in the economic development of a country. At the same time, in
under-developed countries, there are certain social institutions which create
obstacle in the path of economic growth. Thus, question cannot be ruled out that
these institutions need radical change to promote economic growth.

Prof. Meier and Baldwin also stressed the need of change in the institutional
structure. They opined that, “Economic development of sufficient rapidity
has not taken place within the present cultural framework. New wants, new
motivations, new ways of production, new institutions need to be created if
national income is to raise more rapidly.”

The transition from a traditional agricultural sector to a modern industrial

economy must necessarily involve tremendous radical changes in the existing
set up of the society, social attitudes and motivations of the common masses.

In a study, United National has correctly pointed out, “There is a sense in which
rapid economic progress is impossible without painful adjustments. Ancient
philosophies have to be scrapped; old social institutions have to disintegrate;
bounds of caste, creed and race have to be burst; and a large number of persons
who cannot keep up with progress have to have their expectations of
comfortable life frustrated.”

To bring change in social structure is an extremely difficult and long term

process as any such effort is bound to be resisted by some reaction in the
society. Any abrupt change in the socio-economic structure is fraught with
dangerous consequences. It is always resisted by those whose social status is
adversely affected by it.

Regarding this, Prof. Gunner Myrdal has aptly remarked, “Economic policies
are undoubtedly easier to carry out than are social policies that challenge
vested interests, violate deep seated inhibitions, offend cherished traditions
and beliefs and work against the heavy weight of social inertia.” Therefore,
any change in socio-economic structure needs a slow pace of process.

It does not imply a rapid overthrow of the existing pattern but the process must
be evolutionary otherwise it will result either in apathy or revolt.
Francis Hsu has pointed out, “It took Europe ten centuries or more to produce
an individualistic orientation of life which bore fruit two hundred years ago and
there does not seem to be any way in which a similarly orientation could be
generated in a matter of years or even decades.”

This does not mean that there should be no social change in a society. In fact,
institutional change is a pre-requisite for rapid economic growth. In a sense, all
resistance and sacrifices involved should be considered as a cost of the
development process.

Prof. Okum and Richardson have studied that there are values and institutions,
many of which prevail in less developed countries, that offer resistance to
economic growth; their alternation or elimination, after a painful process,
constitutes a ‘social cost’ which a country must bear as part of the price for
development.

In the same fashion, Second Five Year Plan of India was convinced of this fact
and made it clear that the task before an under-developed country is not merely
to get better results within the existing framework of economic and social
institutions but to mould and refashion, so that they may contribute effectively
to the realization of wider and deeper social values.

In India, various social institutions such as joint family system, caste system,
law of inheritance, religious tendencies, child marriage and veil system had
influenced country’s economic development considerably. This has obstructed
the rapid speed of development of modern technical knowledge.

As a matter of fact, modern technology, developed agricultural machines,

qualitative seeds and chemical manures are used still in a limited quantity. Caste
system and joint family system have restricted the movement and efficiency of
labourers. The law of inheritance has misappropriated the property and land
productivity is influenced by fragmentation and sub-division.

Joint family system, child marriage and compulsory issue system has led to
rapid growth of population which has, in turn, given birth to other countless
problems of housing, food crisis and unemployment etc. Therefore, we can say
that Indian economy has been ill affected only due to old and rigid institutional
structure.

Thus, need for social change cannot be denied. But at the same time, it is the
need of the hour that human discontentment should be avoided at all costs and
these changes should be introduced in such a manner that may disrupt the
existing culture as little as possible.
So cultural change must be selective and rapid progress will occur by making
the maximum utilization of existing system rather than by attempting a frontal
breakdown of the culture and institutional set up.

Q21. Define Community.

Community: Definitions, Bases and Changing Concept of Community!

Like the concept of society, the concept of community is ill-defined and loosely
used in social sciences. It is a term having numerous meanings both sociological
and non-sociological. It is used in an omnibus way to refer to a wide variety of
specific social units.

In common parlance, the word ‘community’ is used for a collection of people

who do related kinds of work, such as the “teachers community” or the “doctors
community”. It is also used to denote a collection of people who share
something in common as the “Hindu community”, the “Parsi community”, or
the “Christian community” without necessarily living in a particular area.
Sometimes, it is used to describe a supposedly coherent group, such as
‘international community. Such loose use of the word ‘community is always
misleading and indicate just to amorphous mass.

The term has been used in the sociological literature to refer directly to types of
population settlements, such as rural community or urban community, to
supposedly ideal-typical ways of life in such places; and to social networks
whose members share common characteristics apart from or in addition to
common location.

It has also been used to focus primarily cultural differences as traditional

communities and modem communities. A nineteenth century sociologist, F.
Tonnies, who has been described as the founder of the theory of community,
defined ‘community in his book Geminschaft and Gesalbchaft (Community and
Society) “as an organic, ‘natural’ kind of social collectivity whose members are
bound together by a sense of belonging, created out of everyday contacts
covering the whole range of human activities”. Tonnies contrasted this type of
collectivity with another, called an association, which is consciously organised
for specific purposes and whose members are bound together by common
regulations or interests.

In nineteenth century thought this form of social association was characterised

by a high degree of personal intimacy, emotional depth, moral commitment,
social cohesion, and continuity in time. It was feared that these were precisely
the features which were disappearing in the transition from a rural-based to
urban industrial society.

Definitions:

There have been many attempts to define the concept community. These have
taken two distinct directions—the ‘organic’ conception and the ‘ecological’
conception of community. Scholars (such as F. Tonnies and Max Weber), who
have perused the organic conception, placed emphasis primarily on
belongingness, close personal contacts and identity of interests as the chief
character sties of community, while the followers of second conception, i.e.,
ecological, have highlighted its geographical or territorial character. For them, it
is a collectivity the members of which share a common territorial base of
operations for daily activities.

As R.E. Park (1921) writes:

“Community, in the broadest sense of the term, has a spatial and a geographical
connotation.” This geographical conception of community involves the idea of a
definite and permanent occupation of a given territory. But community is not a
mere geographical expression.

The relations among the people resident within an area must be such as to
constitute those people a community. There must be some degree of mutuality,
organisation and consensus, some interaction and communication. By
‘community’, Weber meant that members “known each other” and have a
degree of common consciousness and identity and exclude those unlike
themselves.

MacIver and Page write (1949):

“Wherever the members of any group—small or large—live together in such a

way that they share, not this or that particular interest, but the basic conditions
of life, we call that group a community.” At other place, they have defined it as
“a strongly knit group occupying a single geographical area and living a
common life”.

Sociologically, the idea of community often includes some commitment,

identity and a feeling of common living and shared fate. Thus, close-knit
neighbourhood or religious groups are communities. In this sense, Weber
regarded status groups, like Indian castes, as communities. But MacIver and
Page here differed with Weber who has not regarded castes as communities.
They have stated, “a social caste has social coherence but it lacks the
community’s territorial basis”. Many sociologists (past and present) have
attached much importance to the territorial character of the community as we
see in the following definitions.

According to Bogardus (Sociology, 1952), “a community is a social group with

some degree of we feeling and living in a given area”. Similarly, Eshleman and
Cashion (Sociology, 1983) defined it as “a collection of people within a
geographic area among whom there is some degree of mutual identification,
interdependence or organisation of activities”. For Dotson (1991), “a
community is a spatial or territorial unit of social organisation in which people
have a sense of identity and a feeling of belonging”.

A recent textbook of sociology (Mike O’Donnel, 1997) has analysed the

various definitions of community and grouped them in three main
categories:

1. The term ‘community’ is employed to describe a fixed locality (a given

geographic area) as a basis of social organisation. Thus, from this point of view,
a traditional rural village is a community where people are born, live and die.

2. Community is used to refer to a local social system or set of relationships that

centre upon a given locality. From sociological point of view, it is the
concentration of relationships, rather than the geographical factor that matters.

3. The term ‘community’ is also used to describe a quality of relationship which

produces a strong sense of shared identity. This usage does not give any
importance to the spatial or geographical aspect of the community. It does not
depend on physical whereabouts or even on people having met each other.

For the last few years, this third sense of community is gaining ground and has
been widely used. The old territorial character of the community (closed
boundary) has relatively little to do and more or less given up in favour of
quality of relationships (a sense of belonging and shared identity).

As such, hamlets, towns, cities and under modem conditions, the whole world
with all its differences of race, of culture, and of interests are communities. Not
only this, youth sub-cultures, especially the hippies, or adherents of Osho’s
thought are thought of as lifestyle communities. The commune movement
(Kibbutzim) attempted to give territorial reality to ‘search for community’.

Summarising the ideas of different writers, the characteristics of

community may be stated as under:
(1) A grouping of people.

(2) A delimited geographical area or locality (not much applicable to modem

communities).

(3) A common culture and a social system which organises their activities.

(4) Consciousness among the members about their unity and a sense of
belongingness (we-feeling).

(5) Act collectively in an organised manner.

(6) A division of labour into specialised and interdependent functions.

Bases:

MacIver and Page (1949) have listed two important bases of community:

(1) Locality:

A community always occupies a territorial area. Almost all sociologists (e.g., A.

Green, K. Davis, Lundberg, Bogardus etc.) have mentioned it as a basic
condition in their definitions of community. The strong bond of solidarity that
we find in the members of a community is derived from the conditions of
locality—living in a definite geographical area. This bond is weakening today
due to the development of modem means of communications. But, the extension
of communication has in some other way helped in territorial bond.

Now, the territorial area of the modern communities is expanding far and wide.
Common place of residence does not automatically yield a community. “A
community of like-minded men” and “the world-wide community of scholars”
are such expressions which deny sharing a specific and delimited area of
residence.

(2) Community sentiment:

Locality, though a necessary condition, is not enough to create a community.

There must be the common living with its awareness of sharing a common way
of life. Local areas, which lack the social coherence, cannot be termed as
community.

Such areas lack ‘community sentiment’, an utmost necessary condition for the
existence of a community. Community sentiment involves sufficient contacts
and common interests to instill conscious identification with the area along with
‘we-feeling’, i.e., a feeling of belonging together. It is a sense of what they have
in common—memories, traditions, customs and institutions.

According to Alex Inkeles (What is Sociology, 1965), the following three

elements are relevant as a basis of a community.

A community exists:

(1) When a set of households is relatively concentrated in delimited

geographical area;

(2) Their residents exhibit a substantial degree of integrated social interaction;

and

(3) They have a sense of common membership, of belonging together, which is

not based exclusively on ties of consanguinity.

Thus, the essence of community is a sense of common bond, the sharing of an

identity, membership in a group, holding some things physical or spiritual, in
common esteem, coupled with the acknowledgement of rights and obligations
with reference to all others so identified (Alex Inkeles).

The natural small community of permanent residents such as a village, a town,

or a neighbourhood combines all these elements. F. Tonnies (1887), L. Wirth
(1938) and many other sociologists contend that as community grows in size,
the nature of relationships between its member’s changes accordingly.

Wirth noted that the size of the community prevents residents from getting to
know most of the people in the community. It also facilitates spatial (or
physical) separation, based on race, ethnicity, social class and lifestyles.
Physical proximity, though an important element of community, does not itself
make a community. Direct face-to-face interaction can be replaced to some
degree by symbolic interaction fostered by the media of communication.

Communities may be large as much as a vast nation or they may be very small
like a primitive tribe, a horde, a nomadic group, or neighbourhood. A village, a
town or a metropolis are other examples of a community. Community exists
within greater communities—the town within a state, the state within a nation
and the nation within the world community.

There are certain human groupings for which there is no clear-cut answer about
their community character. Such groups may be termed as borderline cases such
as a monastery, a convent, an immigrant group or a prison. MacIver and Page
have accepted these groups as a community.
Changing concept of community:

The stable, solidary and intimate primary group type of ‘perfect community’ is
fast disappearing as a result of industrialisation, urbanisation, modern means of
communication and information technology. The local unit is increasingly
absorbed into the larger economic and political society. Individuals no longer
live wholly or even largely within the primary group but are oriented with
reference to the larger social world outside.

Individual interests, transcending the locality, are integrated on a national or

international level. As contacts have become more varied and extensive, they
have also become more formal and external. The person is fractionalised,
participating in each of his several or many groupings with only a limited aspect
of his total self As a concrete, total personality, he is commanded by no one
group, not even by his family. Intimacy has given way to acquaintanceship or to
anonymity on the basis of above ideas some sociologists have put forth a thesis
known as “loss of community”.

Old characteristics of community, i.e., locality and community sentiment or

‘we-feeling’ are being eroded by the forces of modernity. These forces have
fractured the myth of ‘homogeneous community’. The ‘Muslim community”,
the ‘Hindu community’, the ‘Black community’ or the ‘women’s community’
are now fractured into feminists versus conservatives or liberals versus
conservatives or various other strands (leftist versus tightest) of opinions.

At many times, it is seen that women do not necessarily side with women just
because they are women or belong to women community. In the end, we may
conclude that the concept of community has become uncommonly elastic when
we hear about the newly developed concepts like ‘global village’ or ‘global
community. Thus, this concept is now no more limited to a single or limited
geographical area.

Q22. Define Community, Association and Institutions of Sociology.

Community:

Man cannot live in isolation. He cannot live alone. He keeps contact with his
fellow beings for his survival. It is not possible for him to keep contact with all
the people or to belong as a member of all the groups existing in the world.

He establishes contact with a few people who live in close proximity or

presence to him in a particular area or locality. It is quite natural for people
living in a particular locality for a longer period of time to develop a sort of
likeness or similarity among themselves. They develop common ideas, common
customs, common feelings, common traditions etc.

They also develop a sense of belonging together or a sense of we-feeling. This

kind of common social living in a specific locality gives rise to the community.
The examples of community include a village, a tribe, a city or town. For
example in a village community, all the villagers lend each other hand in the
event of need in agriculture and in other occupations.

They take part in all important occasions which occur in a neighbour’s home.
They are present when marriages, deaths, births take place in any family. They
celebrate the festivals together, worship common deities and jointly face all
calamities. In this way the sense of belongingness in generated among the
villagers which creates village community.

Meaning of Community:

The word community has been derived from two words of Latin namely ‘com’
and munis. In English ‘com’ means together and ‘munis’ means to serve. Thus,
community means to serve together. It means, the community is an organisation
of human beings framed for the purpose of serving together. Community is a
people living within a geographical area in common inter-dependence. It exists
within the society. It is bound by the territorial units. It is a specific group while
society is abstract. “Community living is natural to man.

He is born in it and grows in the community ways. It is his small world. Men,
we have seen began with group life. Over the time, they occupied a habitat and
while in permanent occupation of it; they developed likeness, common habits,
folkways and mores, interdependence and acquired a name.

They developed amongst themselves a sense of togetherness and an attachment

to their habitat. A community thus has a habitat, strong community sense, and a
manner of acting in an agreed and organized manner. There are various
definitions of community.

Osborne and Neumeyer write, “Community is a group of people living in a

contiguous geographic area, having common centres of interests and activities,
and functioning together in the chief concerns of life.”

According to Kingsley Davis, “Community is the smallest territorial group that

can embrace all aspects of social life.”
As Sutherland points out, “It is a local area over which people are using the
same language, conforming to same mores, feeling more or less the same
sentiments and acting upon the same attitudes.”

Maclver defines community as “an area of social living, marked by some degree
of social coherence.

For Bogardus it is a social groups with some degree of “we feeling” and “living
in a given area.

Mannheim describes community as “any circle of people who live together and
belong together in such a way that they do not share this or that particular
interest only but a whole set of interest.

Basic Elements of Community:

According to Maclver and Page, there are two main bases or essential elements
on the basis of which community is formed.

(i) Locality:

Locality implies a particular or territorial area unless a group of people live in a

particular locality; they cannot establish relations and generate the we-feeling
among themselves. Living together facilities people to develop social contacts,
give protection, safety and security. Locality continues to be a basic factor of
community life. Maclver says, though due to the extending facilities of
communication in the modern world the territorial bond has been broken, yet
“the basic character of locality as a social classifier has never been transcended.

(ii) Community Sentiment:

Community can be formed on the basis of community sentiment. It is extremely

essential. It implies ‘a feeling of belonging together.” It is a ‘we-feeling’ among
the members of a community. People living in a community lead a common
life, speak the same language, conform to the same mores, feel almost the same
sentiment and therefore, they develop a feeling of unity among themselves.

In other words, it can be said that community feeling has the four important
aspects such as we-feeling, interdependence, participation and community
control. The community sentiments are developed by we-feeling. The members
of community develop we-feeling by their mutual interdependence. They
contribute to the progress of the community by participating in its activities.
Community controls the behaviour of its members. The obedience to
community rules brings uniformity among the members.
Other Elements of Community:

Some other elements of community are as follows:

(i) Group of people:

Fundamentally, a community consists of a group of people. A solitary

individual cannot form a community when a group of people share the basic
conditions a common life, they form community.

(ii) Naturality:

A community is not deliberately or purposively created. It is a spontaneous or

natural growth. An individual is born in a community. It is my virtue of
community that he develops.

(iii) Permanence:

A community is generally not temporary or short-lived like a crowd or a

revolutionary mob. It is a permanent organisation or durable social group. This
durability is evident from the age-old communities existing in modern times. A
community continues as long as members are there.

(iv) Likeness:

In a community there is a likeness or similarity in language, custom, mores,

traditions etc. among the members. So A. W. Green has rightly said, “A
community is a cluster of people living within narrow territorial radius who
share a common way of life.”

(v) A Particular Name:

Every community is always known with a particular name, their immediate

bases of origin give such community a particular name. For example based on
the linguistic condition people living in Orissa are called Oriyas; living in
Kashmiri culture are called Kashmiris.

(vi) Spontaneity:

Every community grows itself spontaneously. A community is not deliberately

or purposively created. A kind of natural force acts behind the origin and
development of communities. Various factors like customs, conventions, and
religious beliefs bind the individuals together.
(vii) Common Life:

Some sociologists like Elwood says that the life of the people in a community is
near about the same. There is no epochal difference between the way of life of
the individuals. Their eating pattern, dressing style, language etc. are found to
be similar. Due to their inhabitation on a particular geographical area, they
develop a kind of emotional and cultural uniformity. Community is never
formed with a particular aim. But they are the outcome of social uniformity
among the individuals.

(viii) Common Interests:

In community, all the members have common and collective interests. People
live in community and work together to fulfill these interests. Thus, Newmeyer
says, community is a group of people living in a delimited geographic area,
having common interests and activities and functioning together in their concern
of life.

Distinction between Community and Society:

The constituent elements and behaviour patterns of both community and

society are distinctive. We may describe the distinction between community
and society as follows:

1. Society is a web social relationships. But community consists of a group of

individuals. It is a specific group.

2. Society is abstract. Community is concrete.

3. A definite geographical area is not necessary for society. But a definite

geographical area is essential for a community. It is bound by the territorial
units.

4. There can be more than one community in a society. Most societies consist of
more than one community, varying in size, physical appearance, organization
and specialized functions.

But there cannot be more than one society in a community.

5. Society is an intangible artifact. But community is a natural entity.

6. In the society, the group is merely means to an end.

But in the community, the group has a life of its own, superior to that of its
temporary members. The group is an end in itself.

7. Community sentiment or a sense of unity is not essential in a society.

But community sentiment is indispensable for a community.

8. In a society the common objectives are extensive and coordinated.

But in a community, the common objectives are comparatively less extensive

and coordinated.

9. In a society, the common interests and common objectives are not necessary.

But in a community, a common agreement of interests and objectives

necessary.

10. In the society, members have doctrine, public opinion, contractual solidarity
and individual will.

But in the community, members have faith, customs, natural solidarity and a
common will.

A community may be big or small. A big community, such as a nation, contains

within it a number of small communities and groups with more close, numerous
common qualities. Small communities like village or neighborhood are the
examples of the primitive world. Both the types of communities, big or small,
are essential to the full development of life.

Association:

Meaning of Association:

An association is a group of people organized for a particular purpose or a

limited number of purposes. To constitute an association there must be, firstly, a
group of people; secondly, these people must be organized one, i.e., there must
be certain rules for their conduct in the groups, and thirdly, they must have a
common purpose of a specific nature to pursue. Thus, family, church, trade
union, music club all are the instances of association.

Associations may be formed on several bases, for example, on the basis of

duration, i.e. temporary or permanent like Flood Relief Association which is
temporary and State which is permanent; or on the basis of power, i.e. sovereign
like state, semi-sovereign like university and non-sovereign like club, or on the
basis of function, i.e. biological like family, vocational like Trade Union or
Teachers’ Association, recreational like Tennis Club or Music Club,
Philanthropic like charitable societies.

Some of the definitions of association are mentioned below:

According to Maclver, “An organization deliberately formed for the collective

pursuit of some interest or set of interest, which the members of it share, is
termed as association.

Ginsberg writes, “An association is a group of social beings related to one

another by the fact that they posses or have instituted in common an
organization with a view to securing specific end or specific ends:”

G. D. H. Cole says, “By an association I mean any group of persons pursuing a

common purpose by a course of corporative action extending beyond a single
act and for this purpose agreeing together upon certain methods of procedure,
and laying down, in however, rudimentary a form, rule for common action.”

Essential Elements of Association:

Essential elements of an association are as follows:

(1) It is a concrete form of Organization:

Association is a group of persons collected together with some particular aim. It

is, thus, a concrete group which can be seen; while at work. Thus, in contrary to
society’ Association is a concrete form of organization of human beings.

(2) It is established:

Like community, association does not grow spontaneously. It has no natural

growth and it does not grow itself. They are created by men to satisfy some
motive or cause Rules and regulations are formed to run a particular kind of
association and the member of the association run it on the basis of these rules
and regulations.

There, we find a ‘code of conduct’ to be followed by the office-bearers and

other members of the association. Moreover, their rules and regulations are
subjected to drastic changes if the creator of association desire so.

(3) Its aim is determined:

No association is formed without any aim. First, there is the problem and the
solution of which, becomes the aim of the association formed to solve such
problems. For example, if it is a dramatic association, then its aim will naturally
be to stage dramas and plays. No association can maintain its identity without
any distinct aim and object.

(4) Followers of rules and regulations are the only members:

Every association floats on the ground of certain rules and regulations. It also
contains code of conduct for the members. Those who follow the rules^ and
regulations provided for and participate in the pursuit of the aim of the
association are only called as the members of it.

Anyone acting contrary or disowning the obligations as members may be

expelled from the membership; as per procedure framed for the purpose. For
example, if the member of “political association” stops believing or start
criticizing the policies of the association of which he has been, hitherto the
supporter, shall cease to be the member.

It also becomes obligatory for every member to co-operate with other in the
achievement of the goals of the association. Otherwise, what for else is he the
member? What is his aim of joining such an association? The answer is; it is
useless for him to be the member of such an association, and it is equally
useless for an association to keep such an individual on the membership list.

(5) Its membership is voluntary:

An association is not an essential organization like State or society. Neither it is

a natural organization in which every one’s contribution can be asked for on
natural grounds. Neither there is any common instinct among the persons based
on common and unified ideology to become the member of a particular
association. And, also there is no ‘whips’ from the heaven or State to every
citizen to form a association and to become its member.

But the membership of an association is voluntary. A person becomes the

members because he wants it and only because he likes it and if he grows a
feeling of dislike he is absolutely free to disown any such association. “Mr. A is
free to become the member of Arya Samaj and shift its memberships from Arya
Samaj to Sanatan Dharam Samaj.” There are no restrictions, no law and no
suppression of Mr. A for his changes.

(6) An association exists for its aims and objects:

The life of an association is upto the achievement of the aim for which it has
been created. The existence of association after his achievement of the aim
becomes, immaterial and irrelevant. It becomes nominal and lifeless body of
formalities only. “The aim is the soul of the association.

Differences between Association and Community:

An association is not a community but a group within a community. The

differences between them are as follows:

Firstly, F. Tonnies remarks that community is a form of grouping which arise

spontaneously or naturally and on a type of will which is deeply rooted in the
entire personality. Association, on the other hand, is artificially formed,
reflective or deliberate, resting on a type of will which consciously means to
attain given ends. Community is organic, spontaneous, and creative but
association is mechanical, artificial and held together by ties which belong to
the world of rivalries, bargaining, and compromises.

Secondly, as used by Maclver, the community is “a focus of social life”. It is

regarded as integral or whole because it fulfills all the needs of its members.
One’s life may be lived wholly within it. An association, on the other hand, is
“an organization of social life”. It is regarded as partial because it is formed for
the pursuit of specific interests or aims.

Thirdly, associations exist within community. An association is formed by the

individuals for their own interests. There are a number of associations within a
community. According to Maclver, association is not a community but an
organisation within a community.

Fourthly, the membership of an association has a limited significance.

Membership is voluntary. They withdraw their membership when they lose
interest in it. But the community membership has a wider significance and
compulsory. People are born into community but they choose their
associations.

Lastly, community sentiment is necessary to constitute community without

which the existence of community cannot be imagined. There can be no
community without the sense of “we-feeling”. But sentiment is not at all a basic
factor to form an association.

The distinctions between community and association were very much clear in
primitive societies. But due to the rapid of urbanization, development of
transportation and communication, it becomes very difficult to distinguish
between them.

Differences between Association and Society:

The following are the points of differences between association and society:

Firstly, society is a system of social relationships which are invisible and

intangible. It is the result of natural evolution. Whereas association is a group of
people. It is deliberately created or is artificial.

Secondly, society is older than association, it is in existence since man appeared

on the earth while association arose at a later stage when man learn to organise
himself for the pursuit of some particular purpose.

Thirdly, man cannot live without society. Society will exist as long as man
exists. The membership of society is compulsory. On the other hand, man may
live without being a member of any association at all. Association may be only
transitory. The membership of association is voluntary.

Lastly, society comes into existence for the general well being of the
individuals. Hence, the aim of society is general. It is marked by both co-
operation and conflict. It may be organised or unorganised. But association, on
the other hand, is formed for the pursuit of some particular interest or interests.
Hence, the aim of association is particular. It is based on co-operation. It must
be organised.

Institutions:

Certain human functions are essential to the survival of the individual and the
group. One essential function is control of the process of reproduction. A
society must ensure a continuous supply of societal members and must provide
these new members with a nurturing environment.

Other essential functions include maintenance of law and order in society. All
human societies have had to perform these functions. To make sure that
reproduction proceeds in an orderly fashion and that infants are well taken care
of until they are able to be independent, every society has some kind of family
institution.

To make sure that every member can support himself, every society has some
kind of economic institution. To make sure that the young of each generation
are taught, what is important in their society, every society makes provision for
supplying an education through the educational institution. Similarly, every
society provides for some kind of religious experience through its religious
institution.

Meaning of Institutions:

In Sociology, recognized usage and procedures are known as institutions. These

come up as social expedients in the interest of harmony. They operate as the
springs and shock absorbers in the social mechanism. It is the recognized and
established rules, usage and traditions. There exist to discipline and control
individual behaviour.

Institutions are the established ways of doing things. Institution is an abstract

thing which refers to those rules and regulations, norms and values which come
into being through social interaction and subsequently regulate the behaviour
pattern of the members of the society. The established ways of doing things not
only bring unity among the members of the society but also help the members to
predict the behaviour of others.

Each institution has a member of folkways, mores and laws which all members
of society are expected to follow to make their life in society easier. These
folkways, mores and laws, vary from society to society because institutional
forms themselves are different. All individuals follow these norms to some
extent.

If each individual lives in his own way and did only his “own thing,” we would
soon face utter chaos. Without some means of steady support, parents might
abandon their infants or let them die, for we cannot be sure that parental love is
an instinct and is not rather a responsibility taught by the family institution.

If there were no organized ways of obtaining a livelihood, competition and

conflicts would be so fierce that many people would not survive. The law of the
jungle would prevail if there were no institutions that maintained order. In other
words, institutions enable societies to keep functioning. Institutions are the
foundations or pillars of society.

Institutions are also interdependent. The family institution supports the other
institutions and is in turn supported by them. The condition of the economy in
our society determines whether we can obtain a good job and establish our
family. The Government may decide whether we finish college or go into the
armed services instead.

It is important to remember that institutions are simply, abstract concepts of

organized habits and standardized ways of doing things. We cannot see
institutions. What we can see are families, schools, banks, temples, hospitals
etc. But these would be nothing but empty symbols without one vital ingredient:
individual. The behaviour of individuals gives institutions their form and
institutions give form to individual behaviour.

The concept of institution is an important one in the social sciences.

Unfortunately, however, it has been used in different ways, and its meaning has
become ambiguous.

Some writers use the term “institutions” when referring to large social groups,
reserving the term “associations” for small groups. The distinction is then only
one of size. But no one knows how large a group must be to become an
institution; furthermore, used in this way, the term adds little to our
understanding of social structure.

Some writers use “institution” for any constellation of cultural traits, collected
around some functions or set of functions. Thus, for example, we might refer to
all customs associated with teaching the young as the institution of education, to
those related to worship as the institution of religion, and to those related to
ruling in all of its forms as Government.

According to Maclver, “an institution is a set of formal, regular and established

procedures, characteristic of a group or number of groups that perform a similar
function within a society. In short, an institution is an organized way of doing
something”.

Barnes defines social institution as “the social structure and machinery through
which human society organizes, directs and executes the multifarious activities
required to satisfy human needs”. The simple language social institutions are the
established ways through which the social interaction among the individuals are
structured, regulated and controlled for the purpose of satisfying human needs.

Sumner said, “An institution consists of a concept (idea, notion, doctrine,

interest) and a structure.” He added, “the structure is a framework or apparatus
or perhaps only a number of functionaries set to cooperate in prescribed ways at
a certain conjuncture. The structure holds the concept and furnishes
instrumentalities for bringing it into the words of facts and action in a way to
serve the interests of men in society.” Then he points out that “institutions begin
in folkways, become customs and develop into mores by having attached to
them a philosophy of welfare.

They are then made more definite and specific with respect to the rules,
prescribed acts and the apparatus to be used.” In his discussion Sumner implies
that an institution has a degree of permanence. It should be added that it also in
integrated with the other institutions of the society.

Chapin has given a definition of an institution in terms of the cultural concept.

“A social institution is a functional configuration of culture patterns (including
actions, ideas, attitudes and cultural equipment) which possesses a certain
permanence and which is intended to satisfy felt social needs.”

Characteristics of Institutions:

We can understand the concept of social institution more precisely through its
characteristics which are discussed as under.

1. Cluster of Social Usage:

Institutions are composed of customs, mores, rules organized into a functioning

unit. An institution is an organization of rules, and behaviour and is manifested
through social activity and its material products. In short, the institution
functions as a unit in the cultural system viewed as a whole.

2. Relative degree of Permanence:

Our beliefs and actions are not institutionalized until they are accepted by others
over a period of time. Once these beliefs and behaviour get recognition they
become the yardstick for evaluation of the beliefs and actions of others. In short,
institutions have a degree of permanence.

It doesn’t, however, mean that they don’t change. As new ways of doing things
appear and are found workable, they challenge stability and impel institutions
towards change. Thus institutions function in accordance with cultural norms;
however, in comparison with associations they have the greater degree of
permanence.

3. Well-defined Objectives:

Institutions have fairly well defined objectives which are in conformity with the
cultural norms. The institution of marriage has the objective of regulating the
network of social relationships and the members of the society would
consciously work for the attainment of the disobjective. For example, marriage
in the same caste or class. Objective has to be differentiated from different
functions to which the members may be unaware of e.g. the function of
marriage or gratification of sex urge and to have children.

4. Cultural Objects of Utilitarian Value:

Cultural objects help in the attainment of institutional objectives. The cultural
artifacts, beliefs and values system must help the institutions to attain their
objectives. Cultural objects of utilitarian value which are used to accomplish the
purposes of the institution are usually involved – buildings, tools, machinery,
furniture and the like.

Their forms and uses become institutionalized. For example, a weapon in our
culture is shaped strictly in accordance with our ideas of efficiency, with few
decorations, and those are dictated by aesthetic considerations. But the weapons
of the primitive are decorated with symbols which are supposed to ensure the
help of powers in the effective use of the weapon.

5. Symbols are a Characteristic Feature of Institution:

A symbol may be defined as anything which depicts something else. Symbols

may be either material or non-material in form. The institutions can have
permanency, identity and solidarity if they have some symbols. The members of
that institution feels quite closer to each other by sharing the common symbols.

6. Institution has Definite Traditions: Each institution has a fairly definite

tradition, oral or written. Such tradition refers to the purpose, attitude and the
behaviour of the members. The tradition attempts to bring together individuals
into functioning whole through established behaviour, common symbols and
objectives. The traditions when become rigid, take the shape of the ritual.

7. Institutions are Transmitters of the Social Heritage:

Social institutions are the great conservers and transmitters of the social
heritage. It is in the institutions that individual learns basic values of the life.
The child initially plays a role of general receptivity in the basic and multi-
functional institution of the family and in this way receives the largest share of
the social heritage. In his initial helpless state, culture is passed onto him by his
family.

As he learns to adapt himself to the expectations of his parents and siblings, he

acquires many of the important elements of culture, which his elders have
learned the same way in their time. He learns what is expected of him during the
different stages of his life in the family. In this way, he is the personal
conservator of an important part of the social heritage.

Other institutions play a more specialized role in the preservation of the social
heritage. Next to the family, the school is the most important institutional
mechanism engaged in preserving and handing on the knowledge, skills and
techniques of the culture. In the field of sacred learning, the educational and
transmissive function is performed by religious institution. The very life of the
institution depends upon the continuity of the generations, with each slowly
taking its responsible part and gradually handing its accumulated knowledge on
the next.

8. Institutions are Resistant to Social Change:

As patterned forms of behaviour, social institutions are more resistant to social

change than behaviour where such uniformity and regularity do not apply.
Institutional behaviour is by definition behaviour invested with social sanctions
and structures to carry out these sanctions.

It is natural that behaviour of this kind would be more resistant to social change
than behaviour that has neither sanctions nor structures. Social institutions are
thus, by their very nature, conservative elements in the social structure. They
tend to hold firmly to the patterned behaviour of the past and to resist basic
modifications therein.

With the help of above description of the features of institutions we come to the
conclusion that institutions are vary essential for the purpose of having an
established way of living and unity among the constituent members. Social
institutions are thus social patterns that establish the organized behaviour of
human beings in the performance of basic social functions.

Types of Institutions:

Institutions may be classified in several ways. Sumner has classified institutions

into two main types.

1. Crescive Institutions such as property, marriage and religion which originate

from mores. These are unconscious in origin.

2. Enacted institutions such as credit institutions, business institutions which are

consciously organized for definite purposes.

Ballard has distinguished basic institutions from subsidiary institutions.

The Basic institutions are those which are regarded as being necessary for the
maintenance of social order in a given society i.e. the Family, the Economic
institutions, the Religious Institutions, the Educational and the Political
Institutions are regarded as basic institutions.
The Subsidiary Institutions are complexes of the type which are not regarded as
quite so necessary for the maintenance of social order. For example,
recreational ideals and activities belong to this class.

Chapin has classified institutions with respect to their generality or restrictions

in the society in which they are found. The cultural elements involved in general
institutions are usually “universals” while those involved in restricted
institutions are usually “specialties.” Religion as such is a general institution,
Hinduism is a restricted institution.

Ross mention two types of institutions. (1) Operative Institutions (2) Regulative
Institutions.

1. Operative Institutions are those of which the main function is the

organization of patterns whose practice is actively necessary for the attainment
of the objective e.g. the Institution of Industrialism.

2. Relative Institutions are organized for the control of customs and other types
of behaviour which are not themselves parts of the regulative institution itself;
the Legal Institution is an example.

Functions of Institutions:

There are various important functions of the institutions. Institutions have

manifest functions which are easy to recognize as part of the professed
objectives of the institution, and latent functions which are unintended and may
be unrecognized or if recognized, regarded as byproducts, says Merton. The
primary institutions function in manifest manner. The working is direct and
clear. These, however, give rise to the secondary institutions. They function in
latent manner.

1. Institutions Simplify Action for the Individual:

An institution organizes many aspects of behaviour into a unified pattern, thus

making more or less automatic very complex and sometimes long-continued
segments of social behaviour. The participant in an institution is accustomed to
pass from one complicated set of behaviour traits to another towards a
recognized goal.

One of the most highly integrated institutions in modern society is Military

establishment. The soldiers learn to pass in orderly fashion from one type of
behaviour to another without hesitation towards the objective of eliminating
enemy.
2. Institutions Provide a Means of Social Control:

The institutions are the most important agencies through which the sanctions of
the society are brought to bear on the individual. In other words, institutions
play a central part in the process of social control. All major institutions, the
family, the school, the religious institution, the State inculcate basic values and
definitions to the young one. Thus most of the controls that deal with the basic
concerns of life are transmitted through the social institutions.

3. Institutions Provide a Role and Status for Individuals:

Some people serve in groups devoted to public welfare. Others find a place in
business, in the professions, in public service or in the home. Some shine in
sports, others in literature or art. The institutions to a degree provide for the
individual the opportunity for the development of his peculiar characteristics
and determine his role and status.

4. Institutions Provide Order to the Society:

Besides helping individuals to satisfy their basic needs, institutions provide

unity to the society. The law of the jungle would prevail if there were no
institutions that maintained order. In other words, institutions enable societies to
keep functioning.

5. Institutions act as Stimulant:

The institutions may stimulate certain individuals to react against it and

formulate new patterns of behaviour. Sometimes individual feels the
disharmony between the various institutions. He seeks some way out of the
impasse. He must devise some way whereby his urges may be more fully
satisfied. Hence, the institution functions in such cases to stimulate the
individual to “break new roads to freedom.” Thus, institution provides the
stimulus which starts a revolt against the established order.

6. Institutions act as Harmonizing Agencies in the Total Cultural

Configuration:

The institutions are not independent, but are related to each other in a cultural
system or configuration. Most of the institutions in the system tend to support
one another and the configuration as a whole. Thus, courtship supports marriage
which in turn supports the family, all three institutions being mutually
interdependent.

7. Institutions Display Tension between Stability and Change:

Workable ways of doing things, repeated over and over, tend to become rigid
forms. This is why mere habits become institutions. Looked at from this point
of view, institutions tend to maintain stability and the status quo. But as new
ways of doing things appear and are found workable, they challenge stability
and impel institutions towards change.

Function of the institutions also changes, since they are not static. Like any
other part of culture, they change through time, Alteration in one institution
invariably reverbate throughout the institutional structure of society. With
changes is one set of norms bringing in them, make changes in others.

The expanding area of State activity, Industrialization and the urbanization has
squeezed the function of the primary institutions in certain respects, while the
Secondary institutions are on the expansion.

Differences between Institution and Association:

Sometimes confusion arises between institutions and associations because the

same term, in a different context, may mean either one of the other. But there is
a much more important distinction to be made between institutions and
associations. The differences between institution and association are as follows:

1. Association represents human aspect. An association is a group of people

organised for the pursuit of a specific purpose. Institutions, on the other hand,
are the rules of procedure. Family is an association organised for the preparation
of children, while marriage is its main institution.

Political party is an institution, State is an association. Thus, association

represents human aspect, while an institution is a social condition of conduct
and behaviour.

2. An institution is considered as a ‘form of procedure’. It has no form and is

abstract. On the other hand, association is considered as “an organised group”.
It is a group of people organised for the purpose of fulfilling a need or needs. It
has form and it is concrete.

3. Institutions grow, while associations are formed deliberately.

4. Association indicates membership, while institution indicates procedure of

work.

5. Every association bears a particular name, while every institution is based on

cultural symbol.
6. An institution is an organised procedure, an association is organised group.

7. Institutions fulfil all the primary and basic need of people. But association is
a group of people organised for the pursuit of some specific purposes.

8. The rules of an institution are based on informal mean of social control such
as customs, traditions etc., while the laws of association are formed on the basis
of formal means of social control.

Inspite of the differences between the two, it may be noted that no institution
can function without an association. Institutions are impossible without
associations One simple test can help us to understand the difference between
institutions and associations. As association has a location. On the other hand an
institution does not have a location. For example, an university can be located
(in space); education cannot.

The distinction between institution and association can best be illustrated by

studying the following list:

Associations:

A College

A Church

A Family

A Night Club

Institutions

Education

Religion

The Family

Entertainment

Q23. What is Society? Discuss the different types of Societies and their
characteristics.

Society: Sociologist Views, Characteristics and Definitions!

Wallerstein, in his World Systems Analysis (1974) writes: “No concept is more
pervasive in modem social science than society, and no concept is used more
automatically and unreflectively than society, despite the countless pages
devoted to its definition.”

In popular speech the word ‘society’ has several meanings. Scores of definitions
of the word ‘society’ exist and the word has a range of meanings extending far
beyond sociology, including history, economics and political science.

In everyday life this term is used for various kinds of social units or social
aggregates as if it exists ‘out there’ and beyond the individual subject such as
Indian Society, French Society, American Society, Capitalist Society, etc. At
many times, we associate this term for secondary associations—Indian
Sociological Society, The Theosophical Society, Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals or to Children.

Likewise, in everyday speech, there is probably little distinction being made

between society and nation, whereas in sociology such distinction would be
significant. Not only this, the word ‘society” is interchangeably used for the
community also.

Such a usage has its problems. Because of these problems Wallerstein argued
that the concept of ‘society’ should be dropped from social analysis. Some
symbolic interactionist says that there is no such thing as society. It is a useful
covering term for things we do not know about or understand properly. Others,
such as Emile Durkheim, treat society as a reality in its own right.

How sociologists view society?

As against its commonsense usage, sociologists use this term in a specific sense
and in a precise way. In social sciences since nineteenth century there is a long
debate about the use of the concept ‘society’. It was taken to mean as tissues of
manners and customs that hold a group of people together. In some sense,
‘society represented something more enduring and deeper than the ‘state’, less
manipulative and certainly more elusive.

Sociologists have defined society with two angles:

1. In abstract terms, as a network of relationships between people or between

groups.

2. In concrete terms, as a collection of people or an organisation of persons.

An earlier social scientist, L.T. Hobhouse (1908) defined society as “tissues of
relationships”. R.M. Maclver (1937) also defined it in more or less the same
terms as “web of social relations which is always changing”. Refining this
definition, MacIver, along with his co-writer Charles Page, later on defined it in
his new book Society: An Introductory Analysis (1949) thus: “It (society) is a
system of usages and procedures, of authority and mutual aid, of many
groupings and divisions, of controls of human behaviour and of liberties. This
ever changing, complex system we call society.” For Maclver and Page, society
is an abstract entity as they write, “We may see the people but cannot see
society or social structure but only its external aspects … society is distinct
from physical reality”.

Talcott Parsons (Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1934) wrote: “Society—

may be regarded as the most general term referring to the whole complex of
relations of man to his fellows.”

Characteristics:

1. Society is abstract:

If society is viewed as web of social relationships, it is distinct from physical

entity which we can see and perceive through senses. As written earlier,
Maclver argued, “we may see the people but cannot see society or social
structure, but only its only external aspects”. Social relationships are invisible
and abstract. We can just realize them but cannot see or touch them. Therefore,
society is abstract. Reuter wrote: “Just as life is not a thing but a process of
living, so society is not a thing but a process of associating”.

2. Likeness and difference in society:

Society involves both likeness and difference. If people are all exactly alike,
merely alike, their relationships would be limited. There would be little give-
and- take and little reciprocity. If all men thought alike, felt alike, and acted
alike, if they had the same standards and same interests, if they all accepted the
same customs and echoed the same opinions without questioning and without
variation, civilisation could never have advanced and culture would have
remained rudimentary. Thus, society needs difference also for its existence and
continuance.

We can illustrate this point through the most familiar example of family. The
family rests upon the biological differences between the sexes. There are natural
differences of aptitude, of capacity, of interest. For they all involve relationships
in which differences complement one another, in which exchange take place.
Likeness and difference are logical opposites but for understanding likeness,
comprehension of its relation to the other is necessary. Society exists among
those who have some degree of likeness in mind and in body. F.H. Giddings
called this quality of society as “consciousness of kind” (a sense of likeness).
Though likeness and difference both are necessary for the society to exist, but
difference is always subordinated to likeness in society. Likeness has a
predominant share in the constitution of society.

3. Cooperation and conflict in society:

Cooperation and conflict are universal elements in human life. Society is based
on cooperation but because of internal differences, there is conflict also among
its members. This is why, Maclver and Page observed that “society is
cooperation crossed by conflict”. We know from our own experience that a
person would be handicapped, showed down, and feels frustrated if he is
expected to do everything alone, without the aid of others. “Cooperation is most
elementary process of social life without which society is impossible” (Gisbert,
1957).

Though cooperation is essential for the constitution of society but modem

conflict theorists (such as Marx) have highlighted the role of conflict in society.
If there is no conflict, even in small measure, society may become stagnant and
people may become inert and inactive. However, the expression of
disagreement in the form of conflict must always be held within tolerable
bounds.

4. Society is a process and not a product:

“Society exists only as a time sequence. It is becoming, not a being; a process

and not a product” (Maclver and Page, 1956). In other words, as soon as the
process ceases, the product disappears. The product of a machine endures after
the machine has been scrapped. To some extent the same is true not only of
material relics of man’s past culture but even of his immaterial cultural
achievements.

5. Society as a system of stratification:

Society provides a system of stratification of statuses and classes that each

individual has a relatively stable and recognisable position in the social
structure.

Society in concrete terms: “a society”:

When society is viewed from the point of view of persons who constitute it, it
takes the shape of ‘a society’ instead of ‘society” in general terms. A society is
the largest number of human beings who interact to satisfy their social needs
and who share a common culture. “A society may be defined as a network of
interconnected major groups viewed as a unit and sharing a common culture”
(J.H. Ficther, Sociology, 1957).

A similar definition of society is offered by Ian Robertson (Sociology,

1977):

“A society is a group of interacting individuals sharing the same territory and

participating in a culture.” This definition of ‘a society is quite rearer to the
definition of ‘community explained in the following pages. Thus, a society is
different from society in general; ‘a society is any organisation that enables
people to carry on a common life.

It is concrete, having physical reality and is an aggregate of persons while

society is abstract and is something more than an aggregate of individuals and
the sum of individuals. It refers to the whole constellation of associations that
characterise a people. When we talk about Indian society, French society, or
American society, we generally have the idea of ‘a society’ in our mind.

Defining society Mike O’Donnell (1997) writes:

“A society consists of individuals belonging to groups which may vary in size.”

Anthony Giddens (2000) states; “A society is a group of people who live in a
particular territory, are subject to a common system of political authority, and
are aware of having a distinct identity from other groups around them.”

This definition is a mixture of characteristics of a community and a nation-state.

From this view, some societies, like those of hunters and gatherers are very
small; others are very Iarge involving millions of people such as modern Indian
society.

Important Types of Societies

The following points highlight the three important types of societies. The
types are: 1. Tribal Society 2. Agrarian Society 3. Industrial Society 4. Post-
Industrial Society.

Type # 1. Tribal Society:

The leaders of Indian tribes met at a conference in Shillong in 1962 and defined
a tribe as “an indigenous homogeneous unit speaking a common language,
claiming a common descent, living in a particular geographical area,
backward in technology, pre-literate, loyally observing social and political
customs based on kinship”. This definition brings out broadly the features of a
tribe.

The economic and social structure of a tribal society may be briefly

described thus:

Hunting and food-gathering constitute the main occupation of a typical tribal

community. There exists a simple division of labour based on age and sex.
Private ownership of property is virtually non-existent, so also is exchange and
credit. The patterns of economic activity are, thus, simple and undifferentiated
which bear no comparison to the complex economic structure of the present-day
industrial society.

The social structure is highly integrated and unified; class division of an

industrial society is practically unknown. The interaction among the members
of a tribal society follows the pattern of interaction among the members of a
primary group.

Secondary ties are non-existent. As such social control is exercised through

folkways and similar other informal ways. Religion of the tribal people is
expressed in terms of totemism, magic and fetishism.

Type # 2. Agrarian Society:

As the name suggests, the dominant occupation of the people in such a society
is agriculture. Naturally, the domestication of plants and animals constitutes an
important economic activity. There also exists, alongside agriculture, varied
economic occupations, such as those of artisans, weavers, potters, blacksmiths,
etc.

A simple division of labour characterizes such a society. There is practically no

scope for complex division of labour which we find in an industrial society.

There are varying patterns of land ownership. There are, in the first place,
absentee landowners. They do not cultivate the land in their possession and let it
out for sharecropping. These share-croppers cultivate the land on a crop-sharing
basis.

There are, secondly, supervisory farmers who own land but get their land
cultivated by hired labourers who do not generally own any land themselves.
Thirdly, there are small cultivator-owners who own and cultivate their small
holdings.

The domestication of animals and the discovery of agriculture brought about a

revolutionary change in the patterns of living in man’s distant past. His food
supply became more abundant, more predictable. Men no longer had to live in
small and wandering groups, hunting, fishing, and gathering wild fruit in order
to survive. Agriculture enabled them to settle in larger and more stable
communities.

There emerged, as a result, what is called village community. The social life of
an agrarian society is, therefore, village-oriented. Physical mobility being
virtually non-existent because of inadequate development of the means of
transportation, primary group relationships prevail in an agrarian society.

Social control is naturally exercised through informal means, such as folkways

and mores. Family is a very important institution in an agrarian society, catering
to the myriad needs of its members. The family serves practically as a miniature
community.

The patterns of living being, more or less, unchanging and the production-
relations also being virtually stabilized, the social divisions into classes in such
a society exhibit the features of a closed social structure.

Agriculture is, to a large extent, affected by the elements of nature—flood and

drought, for instance— which are beyond the control of farmers. The people,
therefore, become fatalistic and superstitious and observe rituals and practices
designed to influence the elements of nature.

They turn to God either to persuade Him with their prayers or to compel Him to
listen. These two elements are inextricably mixed in religions of agrarian
society.

Type # 3. Industrial Society:

Pre-industrial society is dependent on raw labour power and the extraction of

primary resources from nature.

Industrial society, on the other hand, “is organised around the axis of
production and machinery for the fabrication of goods. In its rhythm of life
and organisation of work, industrial society is the defining feature of the
social structure—i.e. the economy, the occupational system, and the
stratification system—of modern Western society”.
The industrial society, which emerged in the wake of industrial revolution, is
distinguished by a new economic order. The entire production is shifted away
from the family and the household to the factory. Family is no longer a
production unit, as in an agrarian setting. Moreover, machine technology, which
is the basis of the new economic order, is the cause as well as the effect of a
complex division of labour.

Another significant change in the economic field is the separation of ownership

and control in industrial enterprises. At present, the large companies which
dominate the major branches of industry are managed and directed by
individuals who do not own them.

The owners (i.e., those who purchased the equity shares are the thousands of
small and medium share-holders who are primarily concerned with the
profitability of the enterprise. An industrial society is marked by disappearance
of the neighborhood and predominance of secondary relationships.

Both in size and spatial distribution, population records an increase. Social

mobility becomes easier and possible because of improved means of
transportation. Social control is possible only through formal means, such as
law and order machinery of the political authority.

Numerous associations grow in order to take care of varied needs of the

people—health care, education, recreation, etc. As a result, the family is
divested of many of its functions and is no longer a miniature community
catering to the myriad needs of its, members.

Moreover, physical mobility facilitates social mobility. No one seems destined

as in an agrarian society, to be tied down to the class to which one is born. Merit
norm, rather than ascription, becomes the dominant value.

One can, therefore, improve one’s social status by fulfilling the merit norms
prescribed by society. In other words, open class structure replaces the closed
class structure of an agrarian society. In addition, women are no longer tied
down to their domestic chores from sunrise till sunset.

Mechanical devices of various kinds free them from domestic drudgery and
they can afford enough time to qualify and compete for jobs which were
previously considered to be the exclusive domain of men.

In an industrial society men and women compete on an equal footing in all

spheres of life. Further, a far- reaching change in outlook is discernible.
Fatalism and superstition of old days are replaced by a pragmatic and rational
outlook. Attitude towards religion also undergoes a radical change.

People are increasingly becoming aware of the fact that science may be able to
explain eventually most human behaviour but can never tell them how they
should behave. Science also does not tell them what goals they should try to
achieve. Science is concerned with facts, not with the meaning of life.

People in an industrial society are, however, deeply concerned with the meaning
of life. Industrial society disturbs people economically, socially and even
emotionally.

Like the primitive people, they also need, in no small measure, a re-assurance in
a world of neck to-neck competition and the co-existence of success and failure,
of frustration and fulfillment. They, therefore, turn to religion as an emotional
support in a disturbing environment, as an end in itself.

Type # 4. Post-Industrial society:

Daniel Bell coined the phrase post-industrial society some years ago to describe
the new social structures evolving in modern industrially advanced societies,
particularly in the U.S.A. since the second half of the twentieth century.

The singular feature of the post- industrial society, according to Professor Bell,
is an important new principle, the codification of theoretical knowledge, which
now shapes innovation in science, technology and social policy.

Post-industrial society is actually a “new knowledge society which is

emerging out of the older corporate capitalism”. Professor Bell says that the
concept of the post-industrial society is a large generalization.