PERSPECTIVES OF SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

INTRODUCTION Social institutions have been variously perceived by different Sociologists. Three (3) of these main perspectives – functionalist, conflict and interactionists are presented in this unit. Furthermore, the institutions are presented as pivotal or basic institutions because they perform some functions that are essential for the survival of the group and individuals in the society. Finally, the characteristics exhibited by virtually all the social institutions are considered. Theory of Institutions Functionalist View One way to understand social institutions is to see how they fulfill essential functions. Sociologists have identified five major tasks or functional prerequisites that a society must accomplish if it is to survive. (a) Replacing Members or Personnel: Any group or society must replace personnel or members when they die, leave or become incapacitated. This is accomplished through such means as immigration, annexation, normal sexual reproduction of members. (b) Teaching New Recruits: No group or society can survive if many of its members reject the established behaviour and responsibility. Therefore, finding or producing new members is not sufficient. The group or society must encourage recruits to learn and accept its values and customs. This learning can take place formally within schools or through interaction and negotiation in peer groups. (c) Producing and Distributing Goods and Services: Any relatively permanent group or society must provide and distribute desired goods and services for its members. Each society establishes a set of rules for allocation of financial and other resources. (d) Preserving Order: Preserving order and protecting itself from attack is a basic need of each society. If it fails, the society runs the risk of extinction. (e) Providing and Maintaining a Sense of Purpose People must feel motivated to continue as members of a group or society in order to fulfill all requirements mentioned above. Patriotism assists people in developing and maintaining a sense of purpose. Tribal identities, or religions values or personal moral codes are especially meaningful as motivators. If an individual does not have a sense of purpose, he or she has little reason to contribute to a society’s survival. Conflict View Conflict theorists do not agree with the functionalist approach to social institutions. Although both perspectives agree that institutions are organized to meet basic social needs, conflict theorists object to the implication that the outcome is necessarily efficient and desirable. From a conflict perspective, the present organization of social institution is no accident. Major institutions, such as education, help maintain the privileges of the most powerful individuals and groups within a society, while contributing to the powerlessness of others. They argue that social institutions such as education have an inherently conservative nature. That it is difficult to implement educational reforms that promote equal opportunity. Although, from a functional perspective, social change may be dysfunctional (i.e. plays negative roles), since it often lead to instability. However, from a conflict perspective, why should we preserve the existing social structure if it is unfair and discriminatory? Interactionist View Interactionist theorists emphasize those roles and statuses that we accept, the group to which we belong, and the institutions within which we function condition our social behaviour. For example, the social roles associated with being a judge occur within the larger context of the criminal justice system. The status of ‘judge’ stands in relation to other statuses, such as attorney, plaintiff, defendant, and witness, as well as to the social institution of government. Although courts and prisons have great symbolic importance, the judicial system derives its continued significance from the roles people carryout in social interactions. Social Institutions as Pivotal Institutions In a nutshell, certain human functions are essential to the survival of the individual and the group. In a skeleton form the following institutions have become so basic to the society. i. Family: - Every society develops a social arrangement to legitimize (authorize) mating and the care and socializing of the young. ii. Education: - The young must also be inducted into the culture and taught the necessary values and skills. In simple societies this is accomplished largely within the kinship system, but in modern societies a separate system of education develops. iii. Economy: - Every society organizes its population to work, to produce, and to distribute material goods. iv. Polity: - Every society develops a governing system of power and authority, which ensures social control within a system of rights and rules, protects and guarantees established interests, and mediates among conflicting groups. v. Religion and Science: - In past societies there was always a sense of sacredness about their life-ways, which then was a powerful integrating and cohesive force. Religion gave cultural expression in symbol and rite to this sense of the sacred. But in modern societies religion performs this integrating function but weakly, if at all. The legitmation that religion once provided, science now does, though not in exactly the same way. But it is science that claims to possess the only valid knowledge, and which then legitimizes a wide range of practices and actions in modern society. Characteristics of Social Institutions Social institutions exhibit the following characteristics i. Durability: - Because the members of each generation face the same basic problems, and because they maintain ties with both the past and the future through their parents and their children, the organized habits we call “institutions” are durable. ii. Dynamism and Constant Change: - People are not totally conforming but act as individuals. Societal members both follow institutional patterns, and continually create new patterns. The forms of these enduring institutions are therefore constantly changing. iii. Pattern Maintenance: - Besides helping individuals satisfy some of their basic needs, institutions also provide the cement that holds society together. If individual lived 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. In other words, institutions enable societies to keep functioning. Institutions are foundations, or pillars of society. iv. Interdependence: - Institutions are interdependent. Usually, the child first learns about the value of making a good living, about the necessity for order, about religious principles, and about educational goals in the family setting. The family institution supports the other institutions, and is in turn supported by them. The condition of the economy in your society determines whether you can obtain a good job and establish your own family. Your religion may teach that birth control is wrong. If you and others are faithful to such teaching, the results may affect all other institutions. v. Tension between stability and Change: - 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 status quo. But as new ways of doing things appear and are found workable, they challenge stability and impel (push) institutions toward change. vi. Mere Abstraction of Organizations: - Institutions are mere abstract concepts of organized habits and standard ways of doing things. We cannot see institutions. What we can see are families, schools, banks, churches, prisons, mental hospitals. But these would be nothing but empty symbols without one vital ingredient: individuals. The behaviour of individuals gives institutions their form. And institutions give form to individual behaviour. CONCLUSION The survival of the society depends on the effectiveness of social institutions in the performance of their specialized functions. Also, it is noteworthy that the conflict orientation about social institution was considered to balance up the earlier views of the functionalists. The implications of the social institutions for conditioning individuals’ behaviour cannot be overemphasized. Finally, the durability and interindependence of these social institutions reinforce the society and promote predictability. SUMMARY In this unit, various theoretical perspectives on social institutions were presented. The characteristics of social institutions were taken. Finally, the roles of social institutions as pivotal or essential institution were discussed.

Read More

SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

INTRODUCTION The pattern of behaviour that culture establishes for members of the society is habits and traditional ways of doing things that have accumulated around important human functions. This pattern or habits are referred to by Sociologists as institution. Sociologists use the term ‘institution’ differently from the ways others use it. It is more than isolated, physical representation or phenomenon such as schools, hospitals, prisons etc. mores are the basis of all institutions. They became institution when they are given a higher degree of definiteness. In this unit, emphasis is placed on the concept institution, mores and relationships between institutions and mores. Social Institution Defined Patterns of behaviour that have become habit or traditional way of doing thing that have accumulated around an important human function are important in the human society. Sociologists refer to such patterns or habits as institution. As it is true with most terms, sociologists use this term quite differently from the way other people do. For instance, in everyday conversation we hear people speak of “mental institutions”, “penal institutions”, and of such buildings as orphanages and schools, as institutions. But these are not institutions in sociological sense. They are only isolated, physical representations of the abstract concept of institution. The Origin of Social Institutions All institutions have come out of mores. In this sense, institutions combine a “concept” (doctrine defining patterns of activity which are socially approved) with a “structure” (instrumentalities which provide the organizational patterns for the realization of the concept). The structure brings the concept to life and it is this connection (sparks) across the poles of thought and action that empowers institutions to serve the needs and interests of associated men (members of society). Mores are transformed into institutions when they are given a higher degree of definiteness which clearly defines the specific norms, the approved behaviour, and the organizational apparatus which men must uniformly and consistently adhere to in the daily business of satisfying their vital needs and interests. The Connection between Mores and Institutions The connection between mores and institutions is quite obvious in the case of what Sociologists called “crescive” (involving unplanned growth) institutions, which grow in a “natural”, instinctive way out of customs and mores. They are represented by the “primary institutions” of economy, marriage and religion. The connection between mores and institutions is obscured by the strong admixture of rational inventions and intention producing “enacted institutions” – banks, the Electoral College, legislatures, the stock exchange, joint stock companies, and courts. Enacted institutions are systematizations and regulations of usage, which are defined by law and approved (sanctioned) by state power. CONCLUSION Although institution is also used in everyday language, sociologists use the term differently. They establish linkages between behaviour or actions of members of the society and the prescription of the mores. This leads to the formation of habits and established ways of doing things. Beyond the mere abstractions of the institutions, Sociologists have been able to present concise meaning of the concept ‘institution’. SUMMARY In this unit, distinctions were made between popular usage of institution and sociological definition of the concept. The connection between mores and social institutions were established.

Read More

THE SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF CULTURE

INTRODUCTION The study and usage of the concept culture are not limited to Sociology. Social Anthropologists and social Psychologists also use the concept. Furthermore, culture is part and parcel of every language. However, the sociological conception of culture differs from the popular and everyday usage of culture. As man interacts within the society, culture is created. The creation of culture is exclusively a human achievement. The way in which man create culture are made explicit in this unit. The Sociological Meaning of Culture Sociologists and other behaviour scientists, such as social anthropologists and social psychologists, use the word culture as a basic concept to classify, describe and explain a great number of objects, thoughts, feelings, and actions that are produced by human individualsespecially when they interact with man and groups. Although culture constitutes one of the main areas of sociological investigation, it is a part of everyday language. For instance, when people speak of culture they usually think of the “higher things in life” – refined, police behaviour, table manners among others. This popular usage of culture makes the concept into a value judgment. We look down on those who are illiterate, ruralites, and simple as lacking culture and emulate the educated, the urbanities, and modernized persons as cultured. Sociologists have no use for such a concept. They try to understand man’s social behaviour in its anxiety and know that value judgments reveal nothing about the reality of the world around us. Because culture is the sum of human activities and achievements, sociologists call many phenomena culture; classical music and battle cries, political constitution and peace parts, oil painting and hand grenades, religious sermons and cookbooks. The Definition of Culture The simplest definition of culture was stated by Ralph Linton (1893 to 1953). “Culture is the way of life of any society”. Also Robert Bierstedt stressed the all-inclusive nature of culture and called it. “The complex whole consisting of everything we think, do and have in social life”. Lastly, John F. Cuber stressed both the dynamic, changing character of culture and the fact that culture is learned (from parents, teachers, siblings, friends, neighbours and other members of the society). “Culture consists of the always changing patterns or meaningfully integrated ways in which behaviour is learned as well as the products of learned behaviour and past experiences such as attitudes, values, beliefs, knowledge and material objects”. The Origin of Culture Culture is created by human beings as they interact in the complex changing network of group life that we call society. Why do men create Culture? Since problems beget not only solutions but new problems as well, cultures become more and more involved and difficulty in their organization as human beings make their historic way from stone age to Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) age. To solve the problems presented by nature, human beings created such culture traits as dikes, dams and irrigation system. Man’s own mind created problems, as well, and fearing the unknown forces that caused the rivers to flood their fields, human beings created in their thoughts a god or river to whom sacrifices and prayers could be addressed as peace offerings. Eventually religion arose to answer the problems that faced us from vast, mysterious depths of the universe. In prehistoric times, some men invented the wheel, a circular disk constructed to revolve on a central axis. Their invention was prerequisite to the development of the wheel cart: the problem of transport in a material objects and people rapidly and in large amounts and number from one place to another had been solved. Later, they discover a new hand and the growth of economic and socialites between people separated by land and water masses forced man to add sail boats, steamers, locomotives and automobiles to their ever expanding transportation culture. Other problems arose from the very fact of social living and solution came in the form of custom, laws, peace treaties, political constitutions, and international organizations. The Foundations of Culture The following fundamental processes are basic to all of men’s cultural efforts. They answer another pertinent question; “How do men create culture?” i. Language and Communication Certain animal species-notably the social insects also form societies; but the associative life of animals has never led to the formation of culture. The creation of culture is exclusively a human achievement, which originates with man’s capacity to exchange and pass complicated types of knowledge through the media of symbolic language and communication. ii. Tool Using Again, only men were able to make tool using continuous and accumulative, to device machines and technical systems, which enable them to bring forth-material culture. These material cultures include. (a) All artifacts - (material objects that have been “worked” or used as tools-cutlass, hoe, digger, etc). (b) Other material objects such as food (bread), shelter (house), vehicle (car), dress (coat), utensils (fork), tools (hammer), machine (turbine), media (T.V., book), weapons (missiles) and art works (sculpture). iii. Invention and Discovery The origin of new culture traits (smallest element of a culture), and the survival of old ones results from association with and learning from other people. All culture traits owe their origin and survival to social life and are further developed in response to human problems and needs. While we learn or ‘borrow’ many culture traits from other groups there are others that we create ourselves. Invention, therefore, is the ultimate source of all culture traits. They are either invented by individuals belonging to our own groups, or by members of outside groups. The invention of new ideas, forms of behaviour, farm methods, scientific – technological processes, and so forth is sometimes the outcome of accidents, when chance combinations of already existing items lead to a new product. At other times, inventions owe their origin to mistakes or appear as the unexpected result of other activity. But more often inventions are produced by creative thinkers who experiment with new relations of known elements until they have achieved new combinations and new facts. The complex products of modern inventions are mostly a combination of many different, independently invented items of lesser magnitude and owe their existence mainly to the successful integration of many scientists and technologists into research teams. The process whereby men acquire new factual knowledge about empirical reality is called “discovery”. Discovery furnishes the information which inventors need to achieve novel (new) combinations of known elements. Not all discoveries have led to inventions, but all inventions have their beginning in discoveries. iv. Diffusion Sociologists use this concept to express; (a) the realization that it is easier for us to copy, borrow, and use other people’s inventions than to invent new objects, practices, and ideas ourselves. (b) the fact that any individual culture is a serious mixture of many culture traits that have come from the four corners of the earth. (c) the notion that many other societies have accepted practices, ideas, and objects that members of our own society invented. In more technical language, diffusion is the spread of culture traits from one society to another, or from one region or group to another within the same society. The rate of diffusion (its spread and range) depends mainly on these factors: · Geographical distance · Ease of communication and contact · Usefulness or attractiveness of invention · Willingness to receive new ideas, practices, and things on the part of the societies that are to play host to them. CONCLUSION It is true that social insects and animals form societies, their associative lives have not resulted into the formation of culture. Man’s interaction with man, nature and harsh social realities to formation of culture, human adornment, speech, dance, smiles, tears etc. are all culturebound. This unit therefore presents man as a culture creating animal. SUMMARY In this unit, the popular meaning and Sociological definitions of culture were considered. The basis for creation of culture and the modalities for the evolution of culture by man were also presented. Culture is central to the society and it is shared and possessed by all human wherever they are found.

Read More

GROUPS AND NORMATIVE PATTERNS

INTRODUCTION Groups vary in sizes, forms, functions. Sociologists are interested in both small and large groups. Sociologists and Anthropologists have established the common characteristics of groups. The largest social group to which people belong is the society. Relationships are different in groups and societies by their sizes. Each group develops expectations and reward compliance. While some expectations are seriously monitored others are allowed to just exist. This unit gives details on these pertinent issues about groups and normative patterns The Size of Groups. Sociologists also consider groups from the standpoint of their size. Small groups such as the family, a circle of close friends, a clique within a large organization, and a committee formed for a specific problem solving share several common characteristics: i. Relations among members are usually on a face-to-face basis. ii. In general, members share common values iii. The group is usually durable iv. Members exhibit feelings of identification with the group and group loyalty v. In general, members accept one another vi. Members perceive the group as a separate entity vii. Members perceive the group as striving to fulfill definite goals viii. Small groups usually value stable membership ix. The difficulty of joining them enhances memberships x. They greatly influence the behaviour of their members and xi. Within them, democratic leadership is effective than it is within large groups. Large groups or formal organizations of necessity, have characteristics that differ from those of small groups. These are as follows; (a) They tend to be more highly organized. (b) They often assume the proportion of formal organizations (c) They usually possess some kind of definite structure (d) Their goals, programmes and the roles of their personnel are fairly specific (e) When these formal organizations reach large-scale dimensions (such as complex co-operations, state and federal governments, university complexes), their form of organization is called bureaucratic. A bureaucracy is a formal organization characterized by: · Job specialization or division of labour · A set of rigid rules and standards designed to promote uniformity · An attitude of impersonal impartiality · A hierarchical arrangement of officials · The use of rationality in reaching organizational objectives (f) They give opportunity for the formation of primary groups that are vital to organizational success (e.g. labour or workers unions, cooperative societies, ethnic associations, among others). Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft Societies The largest group to which people belong is the society. In general, societies are examined from the standpoint of their attributes – whether urban or rural, traditional or modern, Gemeinschaft or Gesellschaft. German sociologist, Ferdimand Tonnies, in examining different kinds of societies arrived at the concepts similar to those of primary and secondary groups. He noted that in small, homogeneous (made up of people with similar lifestyle) societies, members interacted with one another on an informal, personal, face-to-face basis, and that tradition dictated behaviour. Tonnies called this kind of society a “Gemeinschaft”, which is roughly translated from German as “a communal or traditional society”. Relationships are very different in societies that are large and heterogeneous, (made up of people with diverse lifestyles) such as modern industrial societies. In these societies, relationships among members are impersonal, formal, functional and specialized. Furthermore, there are often contractual-dealings are spelled out in legal contracts rather than being governed by tradition. Tonnies called these societies “Gesellschaft” or “associational societies”. In modern world, there has been an easily observable shift from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft societies. The large size of the societal group and complexities of a technological economy require secondary groups, which are dedicated to efficiency rather than sentiments. Therefore, in Gesellschaft societies, many of the tasks of primary groups, such as education and economic transactions, have passed to secondary groups. Values, Norms and Sanctions To learn a culture is to learn people’s “values”, their ideas of what is desirable in life. When we uncover people’s values, we learn a great deal about them, for values are the standards by which people define good and bad, beautiful and ugly. Values underlie our preferences, guide our choices and indicate what we hold worthwhile in life. Every group develops expectations concerning the right way to reflect its values. Sociologists use the word “norms” to describe those expectations or rules of behaviour that develops out of a group’s values. They use the term “sanctions” to refer to positive and negative reactions to the ways in which people follow norms. A positive sanction expresses approval for following a norm, while a negative sanction reflects disapproval from breaking a norm. Positive sanctions can be material, such as monetary reward, a prize, or a trophy, but in everyday life, they usually consist of hugs, smiles, a pat on the back, soothing words, or even handshakes. Negative sanction can also be material – a fine is an example – but they too, are more likely to consist of facial expressions or gestures, such as frowns, shares, harsh words or raised fists. Being awarded a raise at work is a positive sanction indicating that the norms clustering around work values have been followed, while being fired is a negative sanction, indicating the opposite. Folkways and Mores Norms that are not strictly enforced are called “folkways”. We expect people to comply with folkways, but we are likely to shrug our shoulders and not make a big deal about it if they don’t. If a student uses a left hand to collect an item from a colleague, and would not follow correction, the item may be given to him/her if it is a necessity with adirty look from his/her colleague. Other norms, however, are taken more seriously. We think of them as essential to our core values, and we insist on conformity. These are called “mores” (pronounced MORE-rays). A person who steals, rapes, or kills has violated some of the society’s most important mores. A student who dresses improperly on campus has violated folkways, if he/she walks nakedly on campus he/she has violated society’s most important mores, the requirement that people should cover their nakedness in public places. It should be remembered that one group’s folkways may be another groups mores. Men’s folkways may be women’s mores. A taboo refers to a norm so strongly ingrained that even the thought of its violation is grated with revulsion. Eating human flesh and having sex with one’s parent are example of such behaviours. CONCLUSION While groups vary in sizes, relationships between them also vary by closeness or intimacy. Society eventually becomes the largest social groups to which an individual belongs, whether simple or complex, rural or urban societies have within them values, norms and sanctions. Compliance is expected from group members without which the group goals or purposes will be jeopardize. This unit made clear distinction between the components of the normative system. SUMMARY In this unit the size of groups has been considered in terms of closeness of relationship between members, duration of groups and emergence of leadership. Small groups are compared to the large groups. The input of the German Sociologists, Ferdinand Tonnies in examining different kinds of societies was considered. The place of values, norms and sanctions in the society was considered.

Read More

GROUPS AND HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS

INTRODUCTION The Sociological definition of the word ‘group’ is different from the common definition of “a number of people who congregated at the same time, in the same place”. In the context of Sociology, fifteen students who are cramming for an examination in the library are not necessarily a group. However, two or more persons who congregate together and share common goal or interest constitutes a social group. Every person seeks a sense of belonging, which is the experience of group membership. Human beings cannot survive or become social in the absence of a social group. This unit discussed in details the Sociological definition and usage of the concept ‘social groups’. The Nature of Groups Virtually everyone seeks a sense of belonging, which is the experience of group membership. Human beings come together in couples, families, circle of friends, neighbourhoods, church, clubs and large organizations whatever the form; groups contain people with shared experiences, loyalties, and interest. In short, while keeping their individuality, members of social groups also think of themselves as a special “we”. The Sociological Definition of a Group In sociological terms, a number of people are not a group, regardless of its size, goals, or origin, unless it meets the following conditions. (a) There is physical and more importantly, symbolic interaction among the members. Symbolic interaction is communication through speech, gestures, writing or even music. In this kind of communication members are aware of one another mutual awareness cause them to respond, or behave, in particular ways and thus, to influence one another. (b) Each member recognizes that he is part of the group. Conversely, the group also recognizes him as a member. (c) Members are aware of the roles, duties and obligations, as well as the privileges, resulting from group membership. In short, physical interaction alone is not sufficient to generate a group; several people in a crowded elevator are still part of an aggregate. For sociologists, symbolic interaction is the vital prerequisite for determining whether a collection of people is a group. Symbolic interaction needs not involve face-to-face communication. If relatives and friends who live at opposite points of the earth are still able to affect one another through correspondence, they remain a group. Moreover, members of a group need not be personal friends. As long as there is some kind of communication among people that results in mutual adjustment of behaviour, the people make up a group. In the sense, citizens of a nation of similar loyalties, a common history, and the sense of a common future, are considered a group. Classifications of Groups. There are an extraordinarily large number of groups and great diversity among them. Groups vary in size from two members to several hundred million (from a pair of individual to a whole society). The number of groups in every society is countless; it surpasses the member of individuals, because each individual belongs to more than one group. A researcher must therefore decide whether to categorize groups according to size, interests, duration, type of organization, quality of interaction and so on, in an infinite variety of ways. None of these classifications is right or wrong; classification depends on the purpose in examining the group. Sociological Classification of Groups (a) Primary Groups: The term primary groups refer to groups in which members engage in intimate interaction and cooperation, the influence of which is basic to the development of an individual personality. The primary groups have additional characteristics, which distinguish them from other groups. Other characteristics of primary groups i. Relatively small group size ii. Physical nearness of members iii. Intense interaction among members (they satisfy emotional needs) iv. Group stability v. Relatively long duration of group existence vi. Interaction occurs informally and spontaneously. Examples of a primary group include the family (the foremost example), clique of friends, a circle of playmates or fellow students, neighbourhood or community. (b) Secondary Groups: - These tend to be large and to exist for a short period of time. It also exhibit the following characteristics. i. Interaction among members is formal, that is it is not intimate but official ii. Interaction is based on the benefits to be derived from the group (utilitarian) iii. Interaction of members is specialized because it relates to ability to carry out specific task or responds to the required needs of members. iv. Interaction is temporary because it is tied to specific needs. v. Members interests in one another are tied to roles and functions they perform for the society. vi. The secondary groups satisfy a particular goal such as making a living or deriving personal benefit. (c) In-Groups: - These are found in situation where members have the feelings of “we”, ‘ours;, ‘us’, which provide unity within the in-group. (d) Out-Group: - These are noted when some individuals are considered outsiders to the major issues and relationship of group members. For example where emphasis is on maleness or male gender, those who are females are considered members of the out-group. Members of other race or ethnicity may be considered out-groups. (e) Reference Groups: - These are groups to which an individual aspires to belong and on which he/she patterns his behaviour. A reference group may be a political, economic, religious, ethnic, kinship, or social organization. The reference group provides a model for the individual, on which, he patterns his/her opinion, convictions and actions, and to which he/she continually compares himself/herself. (f) Membership Groups: - These are formal or informal organizations to which an individual belongs. Religious groups orfriendship clubs are examples of formal and informal membership groups. (g) Involuntary Groups: - We cannot choose the family, state, town, or nation to which we are born. We are involuntary group members of there not by individual conscious or formal choice. Young men who are drafted into the armed forces may not be able to choose their respective department. (h) Voluntary Groups: - These are groups which individuals freely join. The choice to be members may be economic, social, religious, etc. Comparison of Primary and Secondary Group Relationships Firstly, if we imagine a long, straight, horizontal line called ideal continuum, and we place primary groups on one end of this continuum, the other end will be occupied by secondary groups. Second, although some relationships may be recognized as purely primary and others as purely secondary, most relationships fall somewhere between the two extremes. Third, some primary relationship may in the course of time slide into secondary relationships and very often secondary relationships become primary ones. Fourth, rural, agricultural and simple societies are characterized by primary relationship, whereas, urban, industrial and complex societies are characterized by secondary relationships. CONCLUSION Social groups are essential for the individual and societal survival. They give identity, goals, satisfaction and focus to members. The society is a multiplicity of relationships within and between social groups. The conditions for social groups have been classified along Sociological conditions for formation of social groups. SUMMARY In this unit the nature of group and sociological definition of groups were discussed. The variability of groups by size, interest, duration and quality of interaction among others has been presented. Lastly a general comparison of primary and secondary group relationships was presented in this unit.

Read More

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND ROLES

INTRODUCTION With the society individuals, groups as well as groups and individuals are bound to interact. While social groups are considered social system within which interdependence relationship take place. There are established guides fro behaviour and product of interaction. This results in social organization. Social interaction occurs within social organization at different levels. The fundamental elements of social organization are norms, roles and statuses. Each of these concepts are explained further in this unit. Social Organization Interaction in terms of the social processes is thought to occur within the framework of a social system. A social system is an imaginary model, or sociologist’s conceptualization, of how social relationships work. Every social group is considered a social system, within which each part interdependent and inter connect to the other parts and to the whole. The elements of this system are individual group members relating to one another to attain a specific goal. In their effort to reach their goal, the members of the social system are guided both by actual behaviour and by shared pattern and recurrent expectations of behaviour. These guides form the “social structure”. The network of patterned behaviour that both guides and is the product of interaction is called “social organization”. In other words, it is defined as the patterned and recurring manner in which individuals and groups interact. It is a dynamic process in which stable and predictable patterns are continually redefined and changed to fit the changing conditions of the social and physical environment. Levels of Social Organization Social interaction occurs on three levels of social organization. First Level: Interpersonal or social relationship level Relationship at this level occurs when two persons occupy definite positions in relation to each other: husband to wife, father to son, teacher to student, girlfriend to boyfriend, and so on. These relationships constitute the basic elements of social structure and underlie all other social relationships. Second Level: Group, Inter-group, or Organization level Relationship at this level occurs within and between organized groups. Sociologists are particularly concerned with the process and structure of inter-group relationships. Third Level: Social Reality Level This emerges as a result of the features that groups develop as they become organized. The social reality is external to the individual and is not merely a total or interpersonal relationship. In other words, even though the relationship at the interpersonal level is the basic unit of social structure, additional group laws, actions, and patterns or organization develop in relationships at the group and society level. These laws, actions, and patterns are independent of those emerging at the interpersonal level. Groups, in short, are not simply individuals multiplied by numbers: they become something more than the sum of their parts. Roles and Status The fundamental elements of social organization are norms, roles and statuses. Role and status are different aspects of the same idea. In its simplest definition, a status is a position in a social group (teacher, banker, senator, plumber, and so on). It generally implies ranking (high or low), or value rating according to the prevailing values of the group or society. A role is the carrying out of the status, its dynamic aspect (what the teacher, banker, senator or plumber does). Role guides the occupant of a status in behaviour befitting that status. Each society is faced with an immense number of functions that must be performed if the society is to operate effectively. Efficiency improves when specific tasks, rather than being performed haphazardly by everyone, are allocated to particular individuals. The allocation of task leads to division of labour, which in turn, creates statuses. As way of behaviour begins to cluster around allocated tasks and become crystallized, transmittable, and to a great extent predictable, roles are developed. Statuses and the roles that grow up around them are not static. They are continually subject to change, growth and replacement by the individuals involved in them. In addition, social change and daily interaction constantly serve to redefine roles. (a) Ascribed and Achieved Status: Some statuses and their salient roles are ours by birth; we cannot avoid occupying them. A newborn child is either a male or a female, it belongs to an ethnic group; and its family already occupies the status of banker, farmer, etc. Such statuses are called ascribed because they are not attained through any individual effort or merit. The family group makes sure that the child behaves in accordance with his/her status – in other words, that he/she fulfills his role. Ascribed statuses are involuntary and depend on gender, age, race, ethnic group, and to an extent, on the social position of one’s family. But there are also statuses that are achieved through individual effort and choice. For example, the statuses of husband and wife are achieved statuses, so are those of father and mother, and certainly those of teacher and plumber. The categories of ascribed and achieved status are not rigid. They may be thought as the two poles of a continuum represented by the availability of choice. (b) The Multiplicity of Statuses and Roles: Each person occupies a large number of statuses in society and is expected to perform the roles associated with them. The managing director of a big company occupies not only a high status in the company, but probably also occupies the status of son, brother, husband, and father. He may be a trustee on the board of a University, a member of a club, an elder in a church, and occasionally a patient in a hospital. These statuses are not equally important, and in our society, the company managing director will be best known for his status. His status may also vary, according to the group that is ranking him. He may be on a very low status in his family. No one performs all his roles equally well. A company managing director must be good at playing the role attached to his main status, but as a husband he may not be doing so well in his role as expected. Finally, people select the roles they consider important. In other words, there is a relationship between a person’s self-image and the role he or she chooses to play. (c) Role Conflict A person performs one role better than another partly because certain facets of his personality affect him and partly because he may have learned his role imperfectly. Role conflict may also contribute to the problem. Frequently, our society prepares us for roles that in real life we do not have opportunity to play. The young are often taught ideal, rather than real patterns of behaviour. This disparity leads to role conflict and disillusionment. All societies have such inner ideal patterns and they are not always hypocritical. Ideal patterns function as brake on real behaviour patterns and practices that may decline to an undesirable level without the example of the ideal societal goals. We are also often expected to play several demanding roles simultaneously. For example, the managing director is expected to spend lots of time promoting the goal of the company. At the same time, he is expected to stay with his wife and children for a long time as a role model in the family. Sometimes role conflict exists within the limits of a single role. Anyone in a position of leadership faces such a conflict. A leader can uphold discipline and increase the chances that the group will reach its goals. But in the process he may become so disliked by his subordinates that the group has difficulty following him. A leader must constantly weigh possible behaviour in terms of the role of leading. (d) Role Confusion and Role Performance Role confusion often follows a change of status. A man who has spent most of his life behind a desk and is suddenly faced with retirement at age sixty five may find that he cannot fill the leisure hours at his disposal. He does not know what his new role should be. Another example is that of a young educated woman who has started a promising career at work and who is suddenly confronted with motherhood, housekeeping, and school run. She is not well prepared for her new roles. She may not therefore be able to decode which role should predominate. Faulty role performance is another problem, which can result in mental illness, maladjustment, or general frustration. For many reasons, people fail in the roles for which they have been prepared. Sometimes they never achieve the status of the role, and do not have the chance to even try the role. In highly competitive economic system, people frequently fail in their businesses and professions. However, many people who seem to fail in one role may actually be fulfilling a conflicting role very well. Many people are dissatisfied with the roles they are expected to perform. The current generation seems determined to break the bonds that have for so long held people so rigidly to their roles. Women are rebelling against their status as second-class citizens. CONCLUSION Central to the concept of social organization is the interaction between individuals and groups. For interaction to be meaningful there are expectations between individuals and/or groups in interaction. Although levels of interaction may differ in norms, roles and statuses are fundamental elements. Roles and status are so related that one cannot exist without another. The dynamics of social interaction and the relationship between role and status have been discussed in this unit. SUMMARY In this unit, emphasis has been placed on the explanation of social organization. Furthermore, the relationship between roles and status has been stressed. Other derivation of roles – multiple, conflicting, confusion and performance were also discussed. Social organization cannot be realized without norms, roles and status.

Read More

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR

INTRODUCTION Every society is made up of different groups with different interests. While some of these interests may be very close to the other interests, some others are far apart. While some interests are satisfied, others are sacrificed. Members of the society who felt that their interests, goals or purposes are sacrificed may react against the organization, system or arrangement of things. Therefore, social movement is a product of dissatisfaction by some members of the society about some problematic conditions. Social movements are of different types and have different stages of development. Reactions that produce social movement have the tendency also to produce collective behaviour. These issues are discussed in this unit. Social Movements Defined Social movements are made up of individuals who are dissatisfied with parts or all of an existing type of social organization. These individuals rally around a programme directed at a ‘change’ of the problematic conditions. Types of Social Movements Social movements differ widely in many respects such as size, forms,and degree of organization, leadership and goals. They include but not limited to i. General Social Movements: These include feminism, the youth movement, and labour movement. They reflect new self-images that individuals formulate against the background of gradual and general cultural drifts. Since these new self-images are not clearly defined, they inspire only uncertain and loosely organized efforts among the followers of general movements which consequently lacks clear goals, formal organization, effective leadership, and recognized membership. ii. Specific Social Movements: These are undergrowths of the first type. In the course of their development, these movements achieve clarity, definiteness, and effectiveness in their goals, organizations, leadership and membership. These movements include reform movements and revolutionary movements. iii. Expressive Movements: These are represented by religious and fashion movements. They do not function as agents of social change but as crystallizations of restless emotions which are released in expressive behavior through participation in the movement. iv. Revival and Nationalistic Movements: These are actually mixed types merging, in different degrees, the characteristics of specific social movements and expressive movements. Revival movements glorify the past. They share this feature with many nationalistic movements. A specific social movement with revolutionary aims may combine veneration for a nation’s past with emotional fervor of religious movement while its success may be attributed to its fashionable attraction. Stages in the Development of Social Movements There is more agreement on the generalized pattern of development which fits most social movements that succeed in running their course. A social movement goes through roughly four stages, each of which brings to dominance a different type of leader. Stage 1: Social Unrest All social movements are “action-oriented”. They get under way when social and cultural conditions foster a combination of disruptive feelings and attitudes such as dissatisfaction, insecurity, hostility, and frustration. After the initial outbursts of mass discontent in the form of undirected, sporadic and futile demonstrations, there usually appears the “agitator” who focuses the restless energy of susceptible people through wellaimed suggestions upon specific goals. Stage 2: Popular Excitement As soon as the people marched with success toward suggested goals and against common enemies the agitator is replaced by (or changed into) “the prophet or reformer” who further sharpens the objectives of the movement under his direction the enthusiasm of the masses is channeled toward more enduring forms of thought and action. Soon a deep sense of solidarity and idealism emerges along with a distinctive outlook, morale, and ideology. Stage 3: Formalized Organization With the formulations of tactics, discipline, rules, policies, and the establishment of formalized organization, the movement passes into the hands of a leader whose temperament resembles that of a “statesman”. At this point many movements that have survived the second stage become arrested in the development because of their failure to realize desired goals and to attract new followers. Stage 4: Institutionalization All social movements strive toward complete social acceptance which makes their programme and goal part of the general culture. Since the achievement of institutionalization frequently depends on the passing of laws and similar technical processes the movement is likely to accept the leadership of an “administrator”. Few movements achieve the rank of social institutions and most of those that do vanish soon after the attainment of their final objectives. Collective Behaviour The analyst of collective behaviour, however, may not limit his studies to social movements, but many additional phenomena listed below: i. Crowds: The crowd has been described as having “collective mind” and a psychic unity which change the normal behaviour of people into half-conscious and hypnotic forms of conduct modern explanations stress the emotional effects of heightened suggestion, and the restless, contagious nature of crowd action. Crowd behaviour is viewed as highly emotional, uncritical, and often automatic. The concrete influences of crowd behaviour are skilled leadership, protective anonymity, the increased volume of interstimulation in large groups, and the rhythmic repetition of stimuli brought about by willing and expressive crowd activities such as singing or cheering. Four types of crowds have been identified: (a) The Casual Crowd: This is represented by the momentary assemblage of individuals who watch a performer in the window of a store. (b) The Conventionalized Crowd: This consists of people listening to a concert or observing a football game. (c) The Acting Crowd: This is an aggressive crowd which directs its activity toward a goal such as the lynching of a victim (i.e. mob aggression) or those carrying out revolution. (d) The Expressive or Dancing Crowd: This often provides the basis for the development of religious sects or the ‘careers’ of howling teenage idols. Individuals who participate in the activities of an expressive crowd do not aim their excitement toward goal, but express and release their emotional fervour in physical movement. ii Audiences There are two broad types of audiences: (a) The Physical Audience: This is a physically compact group of spectators, simply a conventional crowd. (b) The Diffused Audience: This is represented by many viewers of a television programme who are physically separated from one another, but still witness the same event. iii. Publics Groups with special interests but differing opinions are called publics. Modern societies develop many issues (education, entertainment, industry, medical care etc.) which are taken up by a public that feels concerned for these issues. The different opinions are discussed in an atmosphere where facts and rational arguments play a role of some importance. iv. Masses A mass is an assemblage of individuals which possess four outstanding features: (1) heterogeneity, (2) anonymity, (3) poverty of interaction, and (4) looseness of organization. A mass is therefore made up of individuals who come from many different groups and background. The members do not know one another. They are physically separated from one another and must, most of the time, act on their own. Finally, the members of a mass tend to act in a confused and groping manner since they are only loosely organized. v. Rumour, Public Opinion and Propaganda Rumour and spectacular suggestion dominate the behaviour of crowds. They are give and take of discussion. Argument and counter-argument lead to the formation of “public opinion” - a universe of discourse which reflects the concerns and consideration of publics. Propaganda plays upon emotions to create convictions and corresponding action. Successful propaganda displaces publics and their opinions it returns collective behaviour to the level of crowd and, increasingly, mass activity. CONCLUSION Even in simple homogeneous societies group with differing interest emerge. Sometimes, certain interests are deliberately satisfied as priority for group survival. The reactions of some members of the society (simple or complex) have the tendency of becoming factors in the development of social movement and expression of crowd behaviour. While it is possible to classify social movement by their main concerns, it may be impossible to distinctly draw a line between the types of social movement and the crowd behaviour that may become outcomes of formation and development of social movement. SUMMARY In this unit, emphasis has been placed on developing an operational definition of social movement. The different stages in the development of social movements were presented also. The phenomena of crowd behaviour were made obvious through appropriate classifications.

Read More