Social Structure
In the most general sense, Social Structure the notion of “structure” refers to a set of relations between elements that has some measure of coherence and stability.
Structure refers to the pattern within culture and organization through which social action takes place; arrangements of roles, organizations, institutions, and cultural symbols that are stable over time, often unnoticed, and changing almost invisibly. Structure both enables and constrains what is possible in social life. If a building is presumed to be a society, the foundation, supporting columns and beams would be the structure which both constrains and enables the various kinds and arrangements of spaces and rooms (roles, organizations, and institutions). Schemata and resources (material and human) through which social action takes place, becomes patterned, and institutionalized incorporates both culture and the resources of social organization. Social structures have a dual character, defined as composed simultaneously of schemas, which are virtual, and of resources, which are actual. Schemas function as fundamental tools of thought not the formally stated prescriptions but the informal and not always conscious schemas, metaphors and assumptions presupposed by such formal statements. Schemas are the effects of resources, just as resources act as the effects of schemas. The organized set of social relationships in which members of the society or group are variously implicated, patterned behavior and relationships. Social Structure is a relatively stable system of social relationships and opportunities in which individuals find themselves and by which they are vitally affected, but over which most of them have no control and of the exact nature of which they are usually unaware.
In this sense, it is often used to distinguish the fundamental elements of society from the secondary ones, the essential aspects from the superfluous ones, the stable ones from the contingent ones (Boudon 1968). The idea of social structure refers, in this general case, to the idea of an ordered or organized arrangement of elements (Smelser 1992). On other occasions, the structure of a social aggregate is equivalent to the distribution of its elements in given positions. Sometimes the structure of a social entity is simply identified with its form or shape.
The Latin source of the word structure is “struere”, which means “to build.” And the most general notion of this term does, in fact, refer to the framework of elements and materials that constitute and support a building (López and Scott 2000). Another relevant and more recent (nineteenth century) historical source of meaning for the term structure comes from the anatomy of living beings, where the term designates the relation of the parts to the organic whole. In his classic work on structuralism, Jean Piaget (1970) went far beyond the constructive and organic analogies to specify three important characteristics that define the idea of structure in a great variety of scientific fields and disciplines.
Every structure is, first, a totality whose properties cannot be reduced to those of its constituent elements. Second, it is a system with its own laws or mechanisms for functioning. And third, it is a self-regulated entity that to some degree maintains itself or preserves itself throughout time. Different understandings of the term can be derived from both the disciplines.
According to Ginsberg, “Social structure is concerned with the principal forms of social organisation, i.e. types of groups, associations and institutions and the complex of those which constitute societies” (Ginsberg 1947: 1). This apparently seems to be a framework manifesting the integrative pattern of any society under study.
According to MacIver and Page, “The analysis of social structure reveals the role of the diverse attitudes and interests of social beings. ‘Group Structures’ represent the kind of reality into which we are born and within which we find work and recreation, rewards and penalties, struggle and mutual aid. All the various modes of grouping together comprise the complex pattern of social structure” (MacIver and Page 1962: 209).
More often, social structure refers to the institutions of society and the particular ways in which these institutions’ are arranged into patterned wholes. Often social structure is conceptualised as constituting a series of systems within a total system and in the investigation of individual societies or communities the goal is to determine the principles according to which the systems within a system keep each going in ways which are meaningful to the members of each society and in ways which are compatible with their values, motivations, beliefs and attitudes. By social structure Cohen means the positions in which individuals, families and other groups stand in relation to each other (Cohen 1961: 4). Bottomore endorses the views of Ginsberg in defining social structure as the complex of the combination of major institutions and groups that constitute the society (Bottomore 1962: 111). Among others Talcott Parsons define social structure as: “In the first instance, it is the kind of grouping of persons in roles that combined with their interlacings and criss-crossings, constitute the structure of the societies” (Parsons 1965: 239). R.K. Merton also defines social structure as comprising the patterned arrangements of rolesets, status sets and status sequences (Merton 1968: 41). This definition of Merton can be compared with the Parsonian interpretation of role relationships.
Well-developed meaning has been attached to the concept by various trendsetters in sociology and anthropology. In spite of all its specifications in scope and usage, the concept is frequently used in its wider connotation. Nadel (1957) has rightly observed that the concept of social structure has been used interchangeably with, and becomes a synonym for system, organization or pattern in fact, does not fall very short of society as a whole. A critique of the development of the concept of social structure reveals that Spencer and Durkheim were responsible for the broad and blanket use of the concept, and were the pioneers in setting the sociological and anthropological traditions in the study of social structure. Nadel (1957) observes that while in sociology the concept had to rest heavily on the writings of Spencer, in anthropology, Durkheim influenced Radcliffe Brown, under whose powerful leadership, the discipline of anthropology started picking up a new direction.
Although no less difference of opinion exists with regard to the definition of social structure in the domain of anthropology, the concept has been used specifically in its comparatively developed and refined meaning than in sociology. Picking up the cue from the writings of his intellectual mentor and particularly, being inspired by the idea of organismic analogy of Durkheim, the British anthropologist, Radcliffe Brown initially defined social structure in 1937 as the interrelationships or arrangements of ‘parts’ in some total entity as the ‘whole’. Fred Eggan, strongly influenced by Radcliffe Brown, finds the components of social structure in the interpersonal relations, which become part of the social structure in the form of status and social positions occupied by the individuals in the society. Instead of interpersonal relations, Evans-Pritchard searches for the uniformities, regularities and set-order in the social life is the structure of the society (Evans-Pritchard 1979: 19).
Another important dimension of the concept of social structure comes from the French school of anthropologists, pioneered by Claude Levi Strauss. Levi-Strauss contradicts the view points of Radcliffe Brown with the remark that social structure cannot be reduced to an ensemble of social relations, as observed by an anthropologist; rather it is an abstract model built by the researcher, on the basis of observed empirical realities (Bohannan and Glazer 1973: 375). Edmund leach carries the concept a little further, leaning heavily on the ideal socio-political rules of the society. For him, social structure consists of a set of ideal rules about the distribution of power between persons or group of persons. This power however refers to the institutionalized and socially regulated power, manifesting the structure of the society. Finally, S.F. Nadel has defined social structure in his own way, with his usual bent on Logic and Mathematics, that “……it is a property of empirical data – of objects, events or series of events, something they exhibit or prove to possess an observation or analysis; and the data are said to exhibit structure in as much as they exhibit a definable articulation, an ordered arrangement of parts” (Nadel 1957).
The only reason for bringing together all these definitions of social structure from the disciplines of sociology and anthropology is precisely to expose their apparent lack of compatibility and uniformity in conceptualization and explanation. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to express that any attempt to seek for a mutually agreed and unified definition of social structure will culminate in sheer despair. A synthetic and integrative approach seems to be only viable, which has rightly been told by Robert Redfield (1955) that social structure is the holistic concept: the central organizing idea in terms of which everything else in the life of a community so far as it proves possible is seen. In this context, however, the explanation given by Evans-Pritchard seems equally appropriate that “A total social structure, that is to say the entire structure of a given society, is composed of a number of subsidiary structures or systems, and we may speak of its kinship system, its economic system, its religious system and its political system” (Evans-Pritchard 1979: 20).
Social Organization
An organization is a social arrangement which pursues collective goals, controls its own performance, and has a boundary separating it from its environment. The word itself is derived from the Greek word ‘organon’ meaning association of individuals. There are a variety of legal types of organizations, including: corporations, governments, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, armed forces, charities, not-for-profit corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, and universities. A hybrid organization is a body that operates in both the public sector and the private sector, simultaneously fulfilling public duties and developing commercial market activities. As a result the hybrid organization becomes a mixture of a government and a corporate organization.
In social sciences, organizations are the object of analysis for a number of disciplines, such as sociology, economics, political science, psychology, management, and organizational communication. The broader analysis of organizations are commonly referred to as organizational structure, organizational studies, organizational behavior, or organization analysis. A number of different perspectives exist, some of which are compatible:
- From a process-related perspective, an organization is viewed as an entity which is being (re-) organized, and the focus is on the organization as a set of tasks or actions.
- From a functional perspective, the focus is on how entities like businesses or state authorities are used.
- From an institutional perspective, an organization is viewed as a purposeful structure within a social context.
Definitions
According to Elliott and Merrill, “Social organization is a state of being, a condition, in which the various institutions, in a society are functioning in accordance with their recognized or implied purposes”.
- According to M.E. Jones, “social organization is a system by which the parts of society are related to each other and to the whole society in a meaningful way”.
- According to Ralph Piddington, “the most important basis of social organization are sex, age, kinship, locality, social status, political power, occupation, religion and magic, totemism and voluntary associations”.
Primitive Social Organization
M.J. Herskovits has classified the social classes into those based upon kinship and those not connected with kinship system. In the primitive society the family is the unit of social organization. Most of the needs of males and females are fulfilled in the family. These families, again, may be of different types such as nuclear family, joint family, matriarchal and patriarchal family, etc. after the family, the next unit of the social organization is the clan. Clan is the group of people considering themselves descending from a common ancestor. Like family the clan is also based upon kinship organization.
Besides the clan, the primitive social organization includes what is known as phratry and dual organization, etc. again, another important part of primitive social organization is totem groups based upon totemism. Totemism is the belief according to which members of a clan are related to some natural object, tree, plant or animal in some super natural way. Therefore, the members of the clan express similar faith towards the object of totem. This commonness increases ‘we consciousness’ among the members of a clan. In the social organization the main elements are status and role, class system and other institutions and associations.