Introduction

What is Sociology?

The field of Sociology studies society, including patterns of social relationships, social interaction, and culture. It explores how social influences affect human behaviour and how societies develop, change, and function. Sociologists investigate the structure of groups, organizations, and societies and how people interact within these contexts. This field encompasses a wide range of topics, such as family, religion, education, crime, and race, among others.

History and Nature of Sociology

Sociology emerged as a distinct discipline in the early 19th century during a period of significant social and intellectual change. Several key factors contributed to its development:

The Enlightenment

The Enlightenment period (18th century) emphasized reason, science, and empirical evidence, challenging traditional authority and beliefs. Philosophers John Locke, Voltaire, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discussed society, governance, and human nature, setting the stage for sociological thought.

Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution (late 18th to early 19th century) brought massive social changes, including urbanization, new social classes, and altered family structures. These changes highlighted the need to understand and address social issues scientifically.

Political Revolutions

The American and French Revolutions questioned traditional social and political orders, promoting ideas of democracy, equality, and individual rights. These upheavals fostered interest in understanding social order and change.

Scientific Advancements

Progress in natural sciences inspired scholars to apply scientific methods to the study of society. This led to the development of systematic approaches to understanding social phenomena.

Auguste Comte (1798-1857), who is the father of sociology, introduced the term “sociology” and proposed a positivist approach to studying society, seeking to apply the scientific method to social research. Comte, who is the father of sociology vision of sociology as a science to discover the laws of human behaviour and society influenced the discipline’s early development.

Nature of Sociology

The nature of sociology is defined by several key characteristics. Firstly, sociology employs a scientific approach, utilizing systematic and empirical methods to study social phenomena. This involves observation, experimentation, and analysis to draw conclusions about social behaviour and structures. Secondly, sociology examines social relationships, focusing on how individuals interact within groups, organizations, and societies. It studies the patterns and consequences of these interactions, including the formation of social norms, roles, and institutions. Additionally, sociologists explore diversity and inequality, investigating issues related to race, gender, ethnicity, and class and how these factors contribute to social inequality and power dynamics.

Furthermore, sociology investigates social institutions, such as family, education, religion, and the economy, analyzing how social behaviour shapes and shapes them. It is also concerned with social change, striving to understand how and why societies evolve over time. This includes studying social movements, technological advancements, and shifts in cultural values and norms. Finally, sociology takes a holistic perspective, considering the influence of individual actions and larger social forces. It seeks to understand the interplay between personal experiences and societal structures. 

Scope of Sociology

The scope of sociology is extensive, covering various dimensions of social life, behaviour, and structures. It includes the study of major social institutions such as family, education, religion, government, and the economy, examining their functions, structures, and impacts on individuals and society. Sociology also focuses on social stratification, exploring hierarchical arrangements based on class, caste, race, gender, and other forms of inequality, and the processes that maintain or challenge these hierarchies. 

Additionally, it delves into socialization, investigating how individuals learn and internalize societal norms, values, and roles. The discipline also examines social change, studying how societies evolve over time through movements, technological advancements, and cultural shifts. Furthermore, sociology analyzes social interactions and relationships within groups, communities, and networks, considering micro-level individual behaviours and macro-level societal trends. By addressing these and other areas, sociology provides a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of human social life and the dynamics of societal change.

Scope of Sociology in India

The scope of sociology in India extends further into various realms that deeply influence the country’s social fabric and trajectory. It scrutinizes the intricate interplay between tradition and modernity, examining how cultural practices and norms adapt or resist in the face of rapid social transformations. Sociology also investigates issues of social mobility and aspirations, exploring how individuals and communities navigate opportunities and challenges in pursuit of socio-economic advancement. 

Additionally, it delves into the complexities of governance, bureaucracy, and public administration, analyzing their effectiveness in addressing social issues and delivering public services. Moreover, sociology in India engages with emerging areas such as environmental sociology, studying the intersections between society and the environment and the implications for sustainable development and ecological justice. Furthermore, it examines the role of media, technology, and communication in shaping public discourse, collective identities, and social movements, highlighting their influence on social change and activism. By exploring these multifaceted dimensions, sociology in India provides critical insights into the complexities of contemporary Indian society and contributes to fostering inclusive, equitable, and resilient communities.

Importance of Sociology

The importance of sociology is multifaceted and far-reaching. Firstly, it offers a comprehensive understanding of society by unraveling its structure, norms, and institutions, shedding light on how societies function and evolve. Secondly, sociology is crucial for addressing pressing social issues such as poverty, inequality, and discrimination. By identifying their root causes and consequences, sociologists can advocate for policies that promote social welfare and justice. Thirdly, sociology serves as a champion for social justice, highlighting disparities and mobilizing efforts to challenge systems of oppression and discrimination based on factors like race, gender, and class. Additionally, sociological research informs public policy decisions by providing evidence-based insights into social phenomena and the effectiveness of interventions. Furthermore, sociology fosters social change by analyzing social movements and activism and supporting efforts to create more inclusive and democratic societies. Lastly, sociology enhances interpersonal relationships by offering insights into communication, group dynamics, and socialization, facilitating better understanding and empathy among individuals. In essence, sociology’s importance lies in its ability to illuminate the complexities of human social life and contribute to positive social change and human welfare.

In the social sciences, a social group is defined as two or more people who interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a sense of unity. Regardless, social groups come in a myriad of sizes and varieties. For example, a society can be viewed as a large social group. The system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group or between social groups is known as group dynamics.

Types of Social Group

In-group and Out-group

• Any group or category to which people feel they belong is called as an ‘In-Group’.

• It’s a group where you regard yourself as ‘we’ or ‘us’.

• Any group or category where people feel they do not belong is called as an ‘Out-group’

• William Sumner’s differentiation-
  -In group means ‘we group, and Outgroup means ‘they group’.
  -In group – the sense of belongingness
  -Feeling towards out-group- sometimes sense of indifference, avoidance, disgust, competition or conflict.

• However, the distinction is a matter of situational definition.

Let us understand this with an example:

When we have intraclass competitions, you would definitely support your class and stand against the other class because of competitiveness. So now In-group here is your division and out-group is the other division. But as it is mentioned, it is a matter of situational distinction, therefore this competitiveness only comes during competitions and you can have an in-group comprising of students from the other division during regular college working days.

Voluntary and Involuntary Group

Charles Elwood’s classification-

• The voluntary group includes political parties, trade unions, youth organisations, cultural associations etc.
• Involuntary groups include: family, caste, race etc

One relatable example: (Informal example for better understanding of the concept)

Being the part of the class Whatsapp group is involuntary i.e. you don’t have the choice to leave since it’s important and mandatory for all college students and thus, it’s an involuntary group. But being the part of the student’s council or member of any club is completely your choice. There is no compulsion and thus, it’s a voluntary group.

Small and Large Group

• George Simmel’s classification :

• Sizes are the basis of classification.
  Small groups include- Dyad (a group of two people), Triad (a group of three)
  Large groups include – racial groups, nations and bigger associations.
  

  Small group	Large group
  Informal in nature and unpatterned	Formal in nature and patterned
  based on the informal nature of the interaction	based on the formal nature of the interaction
  There is personal interaction	Personal interaction is difficult
  Examples: family, Dyad, Triad, Kin group	Examples: Race, nation, state, university.

One relatable example: (Informal example for better understanding)

You have a close friend circle in college comprising of maybe three friends, whom we call a ‘Trio’ is the millennial lingo. The way you interact with them isn’t similar to the interactions that you have with the whole class during an interactive session or when you work for an assignment. This is the simple difference between the nature of small groups and large groups.

Things you should know:

• German sociologist George Simmel is credited as the first sociologist to emphasize the importance of interaction processes within groups.

• The smallest group of all social groups is the ‘Dyad’ ( two-member group). Eg – A married couple.

• When a married couple has their first child they become a ‘Triad’ ( a three-member family).

Primary and Secondary Group

• The groups in which individuals work through mutual co-operation and are very closely related are called primary groups.

• In secondary groups, mutual relations of persons are not very close.

1. Primary Group:

• Charles Horton Cooley coined the term ‘Primary Group’ in 1909 in his book ‘Social Organisation’ to refer to a small group characterised by intimate, face-to-face interaction and co-operation.

• Primary groups play an important role both in the socialization process and in the development of roles and status. Indeed, primary groups can be instrumental in a person’s day-to-day life. Family, close friends circle, neighbours are primary groups. This group is based on informal relations. Social life begins through this group.

Characteristics of Primary Group:

(i) Physical proximity: This is essential for a primary group. It is on account of physical proximity that family and neighbourhood are primary groups.

(ii) Smallness of the group: It is necessary that the size of the primary group should be limited. The smallness of the group brings out the close relations among its members.

(iii) The permanence of relationship: Permanent close relations create more solidarity among the members.

(iv) Face-to-face relationship: Primary group is based on closeness. In such a group, face-to-face relations creates greater closeness. It is useful for maintaining group stability.

(v) Similar objectives and goals: There is similarity or uniformity of objectives, goals among the members of primary groups. The members respect each other and share all kinds of feelings also.

(vi) The relationship is an end in itself  : The relationship in a primary group is not a means to fulfill any kind of objective. It is an end in itself. The relations in this group are very natural.

(vii) Informal control: There is no formal control over its members. It is conventional and based on emotional bonds.

2. Secondary Group:

• The term ‘secondary group’ refers to a formal, impersonal group. This group is exactly the opposite of the primary group and totally different in nature.

• Dressler and Willis have defined secondary group as follows: “A group in which the relationship among the members is relatively impersonal is called secondary group.”

Characteristics of Secondary Group:

(i) Large size: It is large in size. Membership is large and unlimited when compared to primary groups.

(ii) Indirect relations: The relations among its members are normally indirect. The relations are based on letters, phone, e-mail, WhatsApp etc. Indirect relations are because the members may be spread over distant places.

(iii) Impersonal relations: Persons in secondary groups may not be known to each other personally. Due to its large size, there is limited personal interaction. According to Horton and Hunt, ‘Secondary groups are goal-oriented’.

(iv) Deliberate establishment: As a ‘Special Interest Group’ secondary groups are intentionally formed to fulfill the objectives of its members.

(v) Formal relations: The relations of members of the secondary group are formal in nature. They are based on rules, laws, functioning etc.

One relatable example: (Informal example for better understanding)

Your relationship with your college friends and that with the association of any club are poles apart. They are two distinct relationships and can’t be synonymous in any aspect. In your friendship, there’s no goal to be achieved but is a member of XYZ club you have to think ways to promote your club and achieve goals that are set. They are temporary or they exist only for a short period. Since it’s a college club, you are a member of that club for an academic year. But in friendship, this isn’t the case.

Difference Between Primary and Secondary Groups

Difference in Meaning

Primary group is the nucleus of all social organizations. It is characterized by intimate face-to-face association and co-operation.

They are primary in several senses but they are fundamental in forming the social nature and ideals of individuals. Family, playgroup and neighborhood are the example of primary group. But secondary groups are large scale groups in which the relationships are relatively casual, impersonal and competitive. They are consciously formed to fulfill some common goals or objectives. Ex-City, Political Party.

Difference in Size

A primary group is very small in size and is confined to a small area. Because it consists of very small number of individuals. But the size of a secondary group is very large and it is spread all over the world. Because it consists of thousands of members who is widespread and scattered all over the world.

Difference in Stability

Primary groups are relatively stable or durable. For example family is a stable organization. But a secondary group may be temporary or permanent. These are temporary groups like flood relief association. As secondary groups are special interest groups after the fulfillment of the interest it automatically vanishes.

Difference in Co-operation

The nature of co-operation in a primary and secondary group also differs from each other. The members of a primary group directly co-operate with each other. They play, sit and discuss together. Because of face to face contact and personal relationships direct co-operation among members is possible. But the members of a secondary group indirectly co­operate with each other. Because there exists indirect relations among the members.

Difference in Structure

According to the type of structure both primary and secondary group can be distinguished from each other. Primary group is based on an informal structure and is very simple. All the members participate in the same process and it is regulated by informal rules and regulations. On the other hand secondary group is based on formal structure and is regulated by a set of formal rules and regulations.

Difference in Relationships

A great deal of differences is found in the relationships among the members of a primary and secondary group. There exist direct, intimate and personal relationships among the members of a primary group. The relations are all inclusive because primary group is relationship directed. But there exists indirect and impersonal relations among the members of a secondary group. Here relations are secondary and formal.

Difference in the method of social control

Both primary and secondary group can be distinguished from each other on the basis of the means by which they exercises control over their members. Primary group exercises controls over its members through informal means such as customs, folkways, mores etc. Secondary group have limited control over its members. But secondary group control the behavior of its members through formal means such as police, jail, court, law etc.

Difference in Goal

Difference in effect on Personality

Both primary and secondary group can be distinguished from each other on the degree by which they affect or determine the personality of an individual. Primary group has a greater influence on the development of personality. It influences the total personality of an individual. But secondary group has a little influence on the development of personality of an individual. It is mainly concerned with a particular aspect of the personality of an individual.

Differences in Physical Closeness

Both primary and secondary group may be distinguished from each other on the grounds of physical nearness. Members of a primary group live in physical proximity to each other. There exits face –to face relations among the member. But members of a secondary group the member of secondary group.

The relationship among the members of a primary group is spontaneous in nature whereas the relationship among the members of a secondary group is governed by external forces.

Primary relationship is all inclusive. Here each member know each other personally and they are concerned with the total aspect of human being. But secondary relationship is not all inclusive. Here members do not know each other personally and they are not concerned with the total aspect of life of members.

Introduction

 In sociology, the primary suffix that is specially discussed after society is community. A community is a community accustomed to following a common social norm where the overall needs of life can be met. People have learned to live socially for their own needs. And due to cultural and ethnographic features, different communities have developed in different areas. So the community refers to the population living in a particular area, who follow the same customs. The people of the community are related to each other on the basis of specific behaviors. A community is a social system where a larger group of society lives in a certain area and develops a common mentality. Hardly a person lives a full life in the community. Community members feel obvious social cohesion and are accustomed to a common life journey. In comparison, the bond of solidarity among the primitive communities was very strong. Between rural and urban communities. Both similarities and differences exist.

Definition

According to sociologist Bhukhis, in terms of solidarity, human society has been transformed from mechanical solidarity to biological solidarity. Generally speaking, it is only when harmony and sympathy develop in the overall life system of a community in a particular area that it becomes known as a community. People are living together as a journey partner. The people of the community are related to each other on the basis of specific behaviors.

One of the great features of a community is that it has a common way of living among its members, which is explained by the fact that when a group of people lives in harmony following certain common interests, feelings and behaviors, Became community.

 The sociologist Agburn and Nimuk refer to a community as a group of one or more groups – who live in the same area. (Community is a group or a collection of groups that inhabits a locality.)

 According to Agburn and Nimkoff, a community living in the same area separates an integrated community from another community. In addition, another characteristic of the community is that it exists among the people living in the same area, Organized way of life.

 Sociologist Kingsly Davis, in his book ‘Human Society’, explains community: One and the same in terms of social customs, ideologies, and attitudes.

 Sociologists McIver and Page say in their book, Society. Whenever 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 common life true call that group a community. Wherever the people of a small or large community live together in such away. They are not pursuing any particular interest but are identical. When we live as partners in a bin, we call that community a community; The hallmark of a community is that a person whole life will be spent in a community. According to them, villages, cities, races, and tribes are just an example of a community. From this point of view, a business organization and a chart are a reflection of a person’s full social life within the community.

Locality

 Any community is always a specific geographical area. Has the right. The importance of a particular area of ​​the community is noticeable. Differences are also observed in the way people live their lives due to differences in the geographical environment. During a long stay in a certain area, a balance is formed in the physical, mental, and behavioral habits of the people. On the basis of this harmony, a special feature emerges among the grouped people, such as the Eskima community, the village community, the hill community, etc., characterized by their regional characteristics. Living together within a certain geographical boundary brings different members of the community into a close social bond and results in their own culture, The atmosphere is formed. It is this cultural milieu that sets them apart from other communities.

Community Sentiment

 All belong to one community. The member must have the mentality of living with one. The solidarity between people belonging to the same community is very strong and they are all in a relationship. Aware. This means that communal feelings are indicative of the interpersonal relationships and awareness of the different people in a community. In fact, the similarity of emotional, behavioral, and ritual characteristics between different individuals belonging to the same community. Is observed. According to McIver and Page, the community is an area of​​common living. And with that common life, there will be a way of life sharing and awareness as a resident of the common world. The community can be small, it can be big. Both types of communities are human needs. However, the larger community can ever destroy the existence of the smaller community. What is heck, in general, we can identify two types of communities:  

1) Rural Community

2) Urban Community

The rural community

lived socially in the primitive age and at one stage became involved in agriculture. As a result, an agrarian society developed. And the unique consequence of this agrarian life is the rural settlement. The rural community has developed in the rural settlements. We can see the rural community in both big and small ways. For example, there is a largely rural community around the world, and there are small rural communities around big cities. According to sociologists, a rural community is a group of people who live in the same geographical area and whose interactions and relationships are very direct and close. Rural settlements have developed in all the countries of the world from the primitive agricultural way of life. Areas, where rural settlements have developed, have definite name boundaries. However, the behavior and way of life of the rural people are different from the behavior and lifestyle of the people of the city. The characteristics of the rural community are mentioned below.

Features

1.  Rural communities are mostly small. Due to the small size of the villages, the rural communities are small.
2.   Almost everyone in the rural community knows everyone and has a personal relationship with each other
3. As people belonging to small communities are isolated from the outside world, some self-centered mentality and backwardness can be noticed among them.
4. The main occupation of the rural community is usually agriculture. The people of this community do a lot of ancillary work in Ara besides agricultural work. For example, animal husbandry, woodwork, house building, weaving, etc.
5. The people of the rural community have deep faith in social customs and traditions.
6. The people of rural communities are generally conservative and respect the right to traditional values.
7. The social and cultural life of the rural community is very limited.
8.  The patriarchal social system is prevalent in most of the rural communities and there is no overall evaluation of women labor.
9. Social mobility is low in rural communities. The importance of social status is greater here. Informal social control systems in rural communities are relatively strict and therefore the influence of religion is also high there.

The Urban Community

Knowledge in the City – As a result of advances in science and technology and administrative and political changes in the natural environment of the village, people settle in urban areas. There is diversity in city life. There is usually no activity related to agriculture, animal husbandry, and hunting. The so-called urban community is the community that is engaged in productive and service-oriented economic activities (such as all activities other than agriculture, animal husbandry, etc.) and has the most infrastructural opportunities.

Features

 As a result of urbanization, a number of distinctive features can be noticed in the urban community. The features are as follows:

1.  People from urban communities are involved in various vocational activities, e.g. Lawyers, doctors, engineers, teachers, and craftsmen, etc.
2.  There are more opportunities for urban education. Diverse cultural activities are observed here.
3.   Mentally, it is natural for people in urban communities to follow a scientific approach and they are free from prejudices and progressive thinking.
4.  The social environment of the community in the city is improved and their way of life is intertwined with the progress of the modern world.
5.  The predominance of single-family in the urban community can be noticed.
6.  The importance of law as a vehicle of social control is high in urban communities. State or administrative rules play a major role in the city.
7.  Social mobility is more functional in urban communities.
8.  Secondary relations are predominant in urban communities. Because of the need. In terms of the urban communities, lakers are bound to each other.
9.  The people belonging to the urban community get the opportunity to meet their different needs by becoming members of different organizations.

  Economic activities in the city community are extremely dynamic. People have been living as a community since ancient times. There were also human communities in the era of hunter life and food gathering. However, the size of the community was small and temporary. Since the beginning of agricultural production, the community has gradually become more stable and growing, and over time, urban communities have sprung up. From the above discussion, we can conclude that a community is formed in a particular area with a communal mindset inspired by solidarity. It may be possible for a person to live a full life within the community.

Differences between society and community

 The word society and community is considered by many to be synonymous. Sociologist MacIver and Page ‘Community Text’ has analyzed in detail the differences between the two. According to him, the word society is widely used to mean the interaction of human beings. One community, he said, did not go to another specific place of organized life, where the population lived.

 One when ripe Some of the characteristics of the difference between the society and the community are mentioned in the index:

Region

 There is no need for a specific area of ​​the population for society. For example, a student society, but in the case of a community, the population must be residents of a certain area. Such as – a rural community, urban community, tribal community, hill community, etc.

Purpose

To live in an organization for the same purpose if the characteristic of the society is, for example, the purpose of the student society is to acquire knowledge. On the other hand, people belonging to the community are entitled to different occupations and livelihoods, for example, a village may have different occupations and livelihoods. Yet they are a community.

Ideals

 People in society can believe in different ideologies. For example, some in the working class may believe in capitalism, while others may believe in socialism. On the other hand, the ideals and customs of the community are one and the same.

Attitude

 Communal harmony or unity is not essential for society. But it is an essential aspect for the community.

Boundaries

 Society is a complex web of interrelationships. Society may not have any definite boundaries. On the other hand, the community is a person, to say the least. Aggregate refers to those who will have a specific geographical location.

The nature of the structure

Society is formed by the interrelationships of individuals. And the community develops spontaneously.

Range

 Society is a large unit. For example, bourgeois society means all the bourgeoisie of the world. On the other hand, the community is smaller than society, for example, the rural community means only the village or town concerned.

 Mobility

 The evolution of society. A review of the history of human society has shown that the existence of different societies can be observed at different levels of human civilization. For example, primitive communist society, slave society, feudal society, capitalist society, and a socialist society. In contrast, the existence of the community is more permanent. Such as rural and urban communities.

Interest

 Society The interests of the people are usually multidimensional. But the differences between the interests of people in the same community are less.

Partnership

 A society can have two or more communities, but a community cannot have two or more societies.

Extension

 The general objectives of the society are comprehensive. The general purpose of the community is relatively limited.

Rituals

 Rituals and society is a system formed by certain man-made customs – through which human beings meet their mutual needs. And the community. Being a population consisting of uniform customs, who may be small or large.

Rights

All kinds of people can live in society. But not all types of people can live in the community normally. Because there are stricter customs and practices within the community than in society.

Reciprocity

Mutual friendship and relationships in society are essential. Everyone in society is dependent on each other. On the other hand, the community is a special circle of living. Here all the members have to follow the same customs. Everything here in the smooth life journey depends on the aggregate.

Necessity

Necessity and society is the strongest organization of human interrelationships, through which all members are bound in a bond of interrelationships. In the case of society, interrelationships and their effectiveness are mainly considered. On the other hand, in the case of a community, geographical proximity is more important than relationships.

Geographical Location

A society is a population that will have a specific geographical area. In the case of a community, a common geographical area, and communal feeling are essential.

Dependence

 Society is not an organization for living a self-sufficient life. But the community can be self-sufficient. For example, pre-British Indian villages were considered self-sufficient and small republics.

Marriage is customary in nearly every known society. The fact that it exists nearly everywhere does not mean marriage takes the same form or is recognized in similar ways. Marriage is a socially legitimate sexual union, begun with a public announcement and undertaken with some idea of permanence; it is assumed with a more or less explicit marriage contract which spells out reciprocal rights and obligations between spouses, and between the spouses and their future children.

Marriage is a socially approved sexual union in that the couple’s sexual relationship is implicitly understood and legitimated. Societies have had a variety of marriage practices. As George Peter Murdock noted, “Sexual relations can occur without economic cooperation, and there can be a division of labour between men and women without sex. But marriage unites the economic and the sexual.”

DEFINITION

1. Marriage has been defined as ‘a union between man and a woman such that children born to the woman are recognized legitimate offspring of both parents.’
2. According to Malinowski says that marriage is a “contract for the production and maintenance of children.”
3. According to Robert H. Lowie, “Marriage is a relatively permanent bond between permissible mates.”

TYPES OR FORMS OF MARRIAGE

As a universal social institution marriage is found to exist in all societies and at all stages of development. Types or forms of marriage vary from society to society but the institution of marriage is very much the same. In some societies, marriage is a religious sacrament whereas in others it is a social contract. However, there are several types of marriage that are classified on a different basis. This can be classified into three types as Monogamy, Polygamy and group marriage.

Monogamy

Monogamy is an ideal, widespread and rational type of marriage. It is found in all civilized societies. Monogamy refers to a marriage in which one man marries one woman. Monogamy is of two types such as serial Monogamy and non-serial Monogamy.

Serial Monogamy

In serial Monogamous marriage, the possibility of remarriage exists in case of divorce or death. Inspite of his remarriage, he remains to be monogamous.

Non-serial Monogamy

In the case of non-serial monogamy, the question of remarriage does not arise by either of the couples. Here a spouse has the same single-spouse throughout his life.

Polygamy

Polygamy is a type of marriage in which there is a plurality of partners. It allows a man to marry more than one woman or a woman to marry more than one man at a time. Polygamy is of two types such as polygamy and polyandry.

Polygyny

Polygyny is a type of marriage in which a man marries more than one wife at a time. It was practiced in most of the ancient civilizations. It prevailed among the ancient Hebrews, Assyrians, Babylonians, Indian and others. At present, it is widespread among primitive tribes but it is often simply confined to the wealthier classes. It is practiced among the Eskimo tribes, Crow Indians, African Negroes, the Naga, Gonds and Baigas of India. However, it is also permitted in Muslim Community. Polygyny is of two types:

Sororal Polygyny

Sororal polygyny is often called a surrogate. The term surrogate comes from the Latin word ‘sorer’ which means sister. Accordingly, it refers to a marriage practice in which a man marries the sisters of his wife at a time or after the death of his wife.

Non-Sororal Polygyny

It is just opposite of the sororal polygyny, when a man marries several women at a time who are not necessarily sister to each other it is known as non-sororal polygyny.

Polyandry

Polyandry is a very rare type of marriage in the present day. In this type of marriage, a woman marries several men at a time. In the words of K.M. Kapadia, “Polyandry is a form of union in which a woman has more than one husband at a time or in which brothers share a wife or wives in common”. It is practiced among the Tibetans, Marquesas Islanders of Polynesia, the Bahamas of Africa, the tribals of Samoa and others. In India, the tribes such as Tiyan, the Toda, the Kota, the Khasa and Ladakhi Bota also practice polyandry. The Nairs of Kerala were polyandrous previously. Polyandry is divided into two types:

Fraternal Polyandry

When several brothers share a common wife it is called fraternal or adelphic polyandry. Draupadi’s marriage to Pandavas is a fine example of fraternal polyandry. The determination of the father is associated with some rituals. It is prevalent among the Todas.

Non-fraternal Polyandry

It is just the opposite of fraternal polyandry. In this type of marriage husbands of a woman is not necessarily brother to each other. This type of marriage is found among the Nairs of Kerala, Wife goes to spend some time with each of her husbands. So long as a woman lives with one of her husbands, the others have no claim on her. This mainly happens due to the scarcity of women.

Cenogamy or Group Marriage

Group marriage means the marriage of two or more women with two or more men. Every woman is the wife of every man belonging to a particular group. Sociologists, like Dr. Rivers call it a kind of sexual communism. This type of marriage is found among some tribals in Australia, India, Tibet and Ceylon are believed to have practiced group marriage.

RULES OF MARRIAGE RESTRICTIONS

Marriage is not a mere license to live as spouses. It provides the basis of social structure and involves social, mutual and individual obligations. Marriage bonds are, therefore, in every society strictly disciplined by exogamous and endogamous restrictions. Marriage is made possible under the conditions that society deems fit. The restrictions differ from society to society; so also differ from time to time. The conditions have been laid and changed also in the interest of harmony and betterment. Endogamy and exogamy are the two main rules of marriage that condition marital choice.

ENDOGAMY OR ENDOGAMOUS MARRIAGE

Endogamy is the form of marriage in which one must marry within one’s own caste or other group. This rule does not permit marriage of close kin. These endogamous groups specifically refer to tribe, caste, sub-caste, and varna endogamy.

Tribal or Divisional Endogamy

This is the endogamy in which no individual can marry outside his own tribe or division. Like caste, a tribe is also an endogamous unit.

Caste Endogamy

This form of caste endogamy, prohibits the members of a caste to marry outside their own caste.

Sub-caste endogamy

This is the type of endogamy in which choice for marriage is restricted to the sub-caste.

Varna Endogamy

Varna endogamy prescribes marriages between the members of the same Varna. Marriage between the members of the same varan was regarded as proper and ideal.

EXOGAMY OR EXOGAMOUS MARRIAGE

Exogamy refers to the rule that a man must marry someone outside his own group. It prohibits marrying within groups such as gotra, pravara, sapinda and village.

Gotra Exogamy

Gotra refers to the clan. Members of a particular gotra or clan are supposed to have close blood relations among themselves. Hence the Hindu practice of one marrying outside one’s own ‘gotra’ is gotra exogamy.

Pravara Exogamy

Pravara means siblings. People originating from a common saint are said to belong to a particular Pravara. According to Pravara exogamy, one has to marry outside one’s own pravara. Marriage within pravara is forbidden.

Sapinda Exogamy

Sapinda means-lineage. People belonging to five generations from the father side and three or seven generations from the mother side are known as sapindas. They believed to belong to a particular pinda. Hence according to sapinda exogamy marriage within one’s own sapinda is forbidden. They are supposed to marry outside one’s own sapinda.

Village Exogamy

According to this principle marriage within one’s own village is forbidden each and every society prescribes certain rules relating to marriage. Some societies put several restrictions on marriage among kins whereas some other societies allow marriage between a limited number of kins.

There is a greater trend towards exogamous marriage. Since endogamy is said to be conservative, it is widely criticized. Exogamy is appreciated as progressive and more scientific. It also brought peoples of various castes, races, religious groups and tribals together. It can effectively reduce social distance among people and encourage and support social solidarity and communal unity.

CHANGING PATTERNS OR TRENDS IN INDIAN MARRIAGE SOCIETY

Indian society is undergoing a drastic change due to economic prosperity and the Internet revolution that has exposed people to social trends prevalent across the world. Marriage has turned out to be the most revolutionized institution of our conservative Indian society. The way people perceive marriage, organize ceremonies, take vows, and build relationships are changing in tandem leading to a new face of Indian society.

Traditionally, parents found the match for their children and the marriage was formalized strictly as per the rituals. The ceremonies were very formal and the objective was to please the boy’s family as much as possible. Today, many children are choosing their own partners and prefer opting for court marriages to avoid arguments over rituals between the families. In other cases, parents accept their children’s choice and take charge of solemnizing the relationship with utmost pomp and show.

Family vacation packages

Earlier, the boy and the girl were not allowed to meet before the marriage. They saw each other only on the day of marriage. Eventually, it gave way to phone chats and then a few meetings in the presence of a family member before the marriage. But today in the 21st century, both the partners try to spend maximum time together. They even buy their marriage trousseau together and spend long hours chatting on phone.

Unlike yesterday, many girls are working before marriage and they put forward their condition to continue working after marriage. As a result, girls are managing both their personal and professional lives smoothly. This, in turn, has dissolved the demarcation between gender roles. Today, boys are equally involved in household chores as girls. On the other hand, girls are also providing financial support in time of need.

As the joint family system is being replaced by nuclear families, the closeness and the level of comfort between the partners is increasing. They have ample space to talk and strengthen their relationships. In a joint system, the partners spent very few hours together because of a lack of space due to a large number of members in the family. This acted as a bottleneck in removing the communication gap between the couple.

An increase in the women employment ratio and the number of women-centric laws has led to the empowerment of women financially and mentally. Now, it is not easy to subject her to any sort of harassment because she is equipped with all the means to live an independent life. Let us put forth some of the changing occurrences in our traditional marriage system in Indian society.

CHANGES OCCURRING IN THE MARRIAGE PATTERNS

Changes in the Forms of Marriage

Though in the traditional Hindu society, monogamy was the prime form of marriage yet polyandry, polygamy, bigamy and marriage by exchange were quite popular. Now over time polygamy, polyandry and exchange marriages have severely declined and monogamy is being followed by most people of Indian society.

Change in the Aim and Purpose of marriage

The traditional Hindu marriage considers “dharma” as for the performance of religious duties. Earlier the marriages were to perform the sacred duties and functions. The prime function was to become kins and protectors of the family. With the advent of a variety of factors like mass media, consumerism, globalization the sacred types of relations are turning fade. The aims and purposes have changed their meaning from respect, faithfulness, sincerity to less respect, greed and unfaithfulness etc.

Change in Process of Mate Selection

In olden times, parents usually selected the spouse and there was hardly any say of the girl. There are numerous stories and stocks which support that parents used to marry their daughters according to their own will. Now due to various factors like increasing education among girls, urbanization, economic independence etc., children are consulted in marriage matters and even girls and boys talk and try to know the views of each other before executing marriage ceremonies. The Indian system therefore crumbled when forced by changing reality in the form of extended education of girls, the effect of this on raising ages at marriages and making the choice of spouse themselves (Cadwell, 1992). The marriages which were earlier held by middlemen are now replaced with matchmaking agencies and the advertisement by newspapers and various social networking sites (Jones, 2010).

Change in the Age at Marriage

When one goes to age at marriage in India, it comes out that children used to get married at an early age and it was more in case of girls. In some specific cases like Rajasthan, girls were married at a very early age i.e. age of 3-4 years even when they did not know the meaning of marriage. The marriage system was heavily dependent on arranged marriage at an early age in the traditional societies of India. The sexuality of women needs to be carefully controlled to uphold the honour of the family husbands and wives should not be too emotionally attached, as this could threaten the unity of the patriarchal family (Jones, 2010). Early marriage helps to protect young women’s chastity, marks a clear break from their natal families, makes them more likely to accept the structure of authority in their new family and weakens the husband-wife bond (Reddy, 1982). Now due to the arrival of various factors like technology and awareness among girls, there is a big change. Legally, the age for a girl’s marriage is 18 years and boys 21 years. Further due to the arrival of professional education, children are busy in studies for a longer time and hence marriages get delayed in 25-30 years. The trend towards late marriage is associated with the socio-economic changes that enhance the status of women by increasing educational and employment opportunities (Puri,1999). It has played a major role in determining the growth rate of the population through its linkage to marital fertility. The delayed marriage makes a considerable difference in lowering fertility rates. The fertility rate in India in 1970 was 5.6 which has reduced to 2.8 in 2008. (World Bank Report, 2008).

Change in the stability of Marriage (Increase in Divorce Rates)

In the olden times, an institution of marriage was quite stable and hardly any divorce was noted. Fear of kinship system, strong social codes, never allowed married couples to break up marriages even if they want to live together or not. In the past divorce carried a considerable stigma and the pressure for the sake of the children and also for the sake of appearances and family honour, was very strong (Goody, 1973). Now due to legislative, education, technology advancement and more awareness has changed stability in the institution of marriage. Divorce is increasing in society across the globe. In the agro-based states like Punjab and Haryana, there is an increase of 150% since last decade and in Kerala known as most literate state there is an increase of 350% divorce rates since last decade. Love, personal commitment and intrinsic satisfaction are now seen as the cornerstone of marriage (Allen and Grow, 2001).

Change in the field of selection (Increasing number of Inter-caste Marriage)

Until sometime back, marrying a person belonging to some other caste or religion was not permitted by the families. Kapadia (1982) conducted a study on inter-caste marriages in India and the data revealed that more than fifty percent of parents expressed their willingness to allow their children to marry outside their own caste. Only one third were against this departure from custom.

Afzal (2009) found that religion plays important role in inter-caste marriage. Women belonging to Muslim and other religious groups were less likely to have inter-caste marriages than Hindus. Also, working women were more likely to have inter-caste marriages than non-working women in Punjab.

Change in Economic Aspects of Marriages

Marriage is often held in cities as a social or a civil ceremony than a religious ceremony. The concept of Indian weddings has seen drastic changes, over the last few years. In the past, the ceremony was a family affair, confined to an economic budget, even though the guest list was long. On the contrary, in the present time, the occasion is generally celebrated in an elaborated way, with a number of rituals that are conducted before, during and after it. A long guest list, colourful and extravagant venue, lavish feast and a series of rituals are the key ingredients of the ‘big fat Indian wedding’ that we see today. In many cases, the wife’s family is expected and obliged to provide a substantial dowry at the time of marriage and thereafter to continue to make presentations to the husband’s family.  (Miher, 1988). Huge amount is spent on the ceremony to make it a ‘grand gala’. Money is spent lavishly for decorating marriage mantaps, arranging grand dinner, take-home sweets, music orchestra, video-shooting, photography, marriage processions etc.

FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGING MARRIAGE PATTERNS

Economic factors

Changes in marriage institutions are clearly related to the remarkable development in education, increasing urbanization and involvement of women in economic activities outside the household. People have started “going out of the family” for work and women also have joined men in process of finding out jobs and earning money. This has boosted the self-respect and self-confidence of women. These developments have affected the institution of marriage (Kapadia, 1982). Another factor is affluence materialism. Through technological improvements, the living standards and real purchasing power of individuals have been enhanced. The primary effect of this increased affluence of marriage breakdown is that people can better afford the expenses of divorce which include not only legal fees but also the cost of maintaining a second home and added cost of recreation for the children (Afzal, 2009). This all is an indication of changes occurring in the institution of marriage.

Social factors

In the past, there were joint families in which there was the interdependence of family members and there was a closely interacting community. In the transition, today’s highly urban and affluent society, work patterns have become more differentiated reducing the necessity to interact with the community. This pattern has given rise to individualism (Sonawat, 2008). There is a sense of ‘Systemness’ this is the concept of functional theory which describes how society becomes increasingly complex through structural differentiation and specialization. Now, society is characterized by high degree of specialization in terms of employment, education, health care, transportation. Prior to this specialization, the family served the economic, educational, recreational, health care, procreative, protection and affection roles for its members. Gradually, through industrialization, these responsibilities have been taken from family and institutionalized outside the home ( Sinha,1984). The institution of marriage has gone a tremendous change as there is a great change in living conditions, values, norms and traditions in the patriarchal society girls had no say in the family matters especially in marriage affairs. Earlier they could not interfere or raise any question even if their own marriages were fixed. In the past, divorce was seen as ‘Stigma’ but now the time has changed. Girls are openly coming forward with the views starting from the selection of a mate and have full rights for divorce if the marriage is not successful. Other things such as changes in public perception are often referred to in the vernacular as ‘changing times.’ People have now become more self-centred and a sense of individualization is pulling them away from traditional norms of marriage and forming households without legal marriage (Herzberger,1993).

Psychological factors

In the past, for women the greatest personal achievement and source of reward was to be married, raise children and ensure an optimal home and family life. No other life content could provide the same sense of personal worth. For men self-fulfillment lay in maintaining good employment, marrying the woman of their dreams and providing financial support to their family. Men and women have clear cut ideas of their respective roles. However, increasing urbanization, institutionalization of family roles, technological improvements in home care products and increased affluence reduced the potential of home life to provide stimulation and feelings of worth from satisfactory personal achievements. (Hines,1997). In addition, the ethos of individualism encouraged both men and women to realize their own potentials. The growing economic independence of women led to demands for more egalitarian family norms in the areas of child-rearing, decision making, finances and household tasks. These changes in family norms and role expectations brought increased friction into homes due to the departure of established patterns. Women grapple with the desire to have both careers and children so there is conflict in marital relations and disturbed domestic life.

Technological factors

The arrival of new technology has also been emerging as a new factor for generating changes in the institution of marriage. Earlier there used to be joint families in which grandparents and other senior members had control over the juniors but now there are nuclear families in which both the parents are working and children are ignored to a great extent. They do not have any surveillance on them and they become isolated and take support of mass media and other technologies such as computers, mobiles, television etc. They make use of networking sites which take them away from family members but closer to outer world (Kolenda, 1987).

Legislative factors

The legislative measures taken by the government in the last 50 years or more has helped to change the nature of institution of marriage as now legal safeguards are provided in marriage which was not part of traditional Hindu society. Many of the beliefs, values, ideals and rules of marriage laid down by the Hindu Shastrakaras have lost their original meaning and importance and purpose now. During the British rule and also after independence legislations were passed in order to bring about desirable changes in the Hindu Marriage system. The laws were related to (i) age at marriage (ii) field of mate selection (iii) number of spouses in marriage (iv) breakage of marriage (v)dowry to be taken and given (vi)remarriage. Various inhuman practices associated with marriage such as the practice of sati has been removed by law. Legislations have not only abolished child marriages but also fixed the minimum marriageable age for boys and girls as for girls is 18 years and boys 21 years. The legislations have also made clear the selection in a marriage that is, who should marry whom. They have also legalized inter-caste and inter-religious marriages and have made provisions for registered marriages. Legislations have made provisions for divorce. Equal rights are conferred on men and women in this regard. (Rao, 2004) Legislations have also specified the conditions of divorce. Legislations have also been undertaken to give special protection to women preventing the exploitation of their helplessness and weaknesses by others. In order to loosen the tight grip of the patriarchal values over the joint family’s legislations have also been undertaken to provide equal opportunities, privileges, rights and facilities even to women.

• Sociology is the scientific study of human society that focuses on society, human social behavior, patterns of social relationships, social interaction, and aspects of culture associated with everyday life. 
• Regarded as a part of both the social sciences and humanities, sociology uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop a body of knowledge about social order and social change. 
• Sociological subject matter ranges from micro-level analyses of individual interaction and agency to macro-level analyses of social systems and social structure.
• Applied sociological research may be applied directly to social policy and welfare, whereas theoretical approaches may focus on the understanding of social processes and phenomenological method.
• Sociology has a long past but only a short history. That is, the subject matter of sociology is quite old. There have been discussions on this subject even before its origin, but the scientific thinking on those topics under an independent subject started a few days ago.
• Auguste Comte, born in 1798 in Montpellier, France, is considered the founding figure of sociology as a distinct academic discipline.
• He was a French philosopher and social scientist who coined the term “sociology” in 1838 and is often regarded as the “Father of Sociology.”
• Initially, Comte named such a science as ‘Social Physics’, but later in 1838 he addressed it as ‘Sociology’.
• Comte’s work laid the foundation for the systematic study of society, its institutions, and the patterns of human behavior within it.
• Sociology is the scientific, systematic and reliable study of society and relationship between individual and society.
• Being a science of society, it deals with the social structure, social relations, social behaviours, social interaction, social groups, social institutions, social stratifications, social processes, social problems, culture, social norms, social movements etc. and the impact of these elements on individuals and groups.
• It explores how societies are organized, how they function, and how they change over time.
• Etymologically, the term Sociology is derived from Latin word ‘Socius’means societyand Greek word ‘ Logos’ means Study or science. Thus etymological meaning of sociology is the Science of Society or Study of Society.

Definitions of Sociology

• L.F. Ward defines, “Sociology is the science of society or of social phenomena”.
• Ginsberg says, “Sociology is the study of human interaction and interrelation of their conditions and consequences”.
• Ogburn and Nimkoff defines, “Sociology as the study of social life”.
• Kimball Young defines, “Sociology deals with the behaviour of men in groups”.
• George Ritzer says, “Sociology is the study of individuals in a social setting that includes groups, organizations, cultures and societies. Sociologists study the interrelationships between individuals, organizations, cultures and societies”.
• According to Maclver and Page, “Sociology is ‘about’ social relationships, the network of relationships we call society.“”
• According to Max Weber, “Sociology is the science which attempts the interpretative understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its cause and effects.”
• According to Giddings, “Sociology is an attempt to account for the origin, growth, structure and activities of the society”
• According to Moore and Cole, “Sociology studies plural behaviour.”
• According to Emile Durkheim, “Sociology is the science of social institutions.”
• According to Morris Ginsberg, “In the broadest sense, sociology is the study of human interactions and interrelations, their conditions and consequences.”

A family is a small social group of parents and children related by blood, marriage or adoption. Families are the basic units of society and play important roles in individuals’ lives.

Functions of Family

Basic functions of family can be summarised as follows:

1. Socialization: Family is the basic unit of socialization. According to Talcott Parsons, family fulfils the basic need of primary socialization of children. This involves the moulding of the personality of children according to shared norms and values. Family plays a crucial role in the on-going process of socialization.
2. Regulation of sexual activity: As pointed out by Murdock, the family provides scope for the expression of sexual desires and drives and sexual gratification for the spouses. At the same time, by framing rules and forbidding sexual activity outside marriage, it provides control and stabilises society. Every culture regulates sexual activity mainly to maintain the kinship organisation, a network of close relations. Sexual relations or marriage between kin is forbidden. (Incest taboo) Precisely which kin falls within this regulation varies from culture to culture. Family and kinship regulate sexual and reproductive activity.
3. Emotional security: Family provides physical protection, emotional support, and also material assistance to its members. Family as a unit of primary relations serves as a ‘haven in the heartless world’, a unit characterised by caring, cooperation, support, and acceptance. Parsons sees this as the stabilisation of adult personalities. Family provides emotional security and acts as a counterweight to the stress and tensions of modern life.
4. Economic stability – The importance of family as an economic unit has lessened, as production is separated from family. Members of a modern family do not work together as they did in the old system. However, the family still provides its members with economic security, through the sharing of economic and material resources. Property is protected and maintained through the family.
5. Social identity – Family provides social identity to its members. Social identity based on race, ethnicity, religion, caste, and social class is ascribed to an individual, at birth, through the family. Families play a crucial role as agents of stable transmission of social standing, from parents to children. All these functions taken together explain why family is seen as ‘the backbone of society’.

Example for better understanding:

When we speak about socialisation, family plays a pivotal role as they are the first agents who help you with communicating, walking, and even moulding you to become independent in life. Everyone needs emotional support and the first one we cling upon is our family. Because that’s our safe space (there can be exceptions). Most of you all are still studying without doing any part-time job and that’s because your family provides you with economic stability. The best example of social identity is the most commonly used phrase “Sharma Ji Ka Beta”. The popular example that parents give or the memes feature is this phrase. The family gives you a social identity, that’s also your ascribed status.

INTRODUCTION

The culture personality school of thought began principally in the United States in the 1930s.The above school explained relationships between childrearing customs and human behaviours in different societies. The culture personality theory combined elements of psychology, anthropology, and sociology, but principally the theory involved the application of psychoanalytic principles to ethnographic data.

MEANING AND DETERMINANTS OF CULTURE AND PERSONALITY

The term culture and personality has been used in several senses, both popularly and psychologically. Before going into discussion of theory let us first discuss the meaning and determinants of culture and personality. Culture is a term practically used in everyday life. Anthropological meaning of culture is different from its popular meaning. Defining culture has never been as simple for anthropologists. It is no wonder in anthropology; culture has over 300 definitions of this concept. For the convenience of learners culture herein is used to mean any knowledge that a person/individual has acquired as a member of his/her society. Such knowledge is important because it subsequently influences the shaping of his/her personality. It was widely believed that early enculturation in particular has very important bearing on personality development of the child as he/she grows into adulthood. The conceptualisation of culture is by no means a simple matter. One possible way to think about culture is that “culture is to society what memory is to individuals” (Kluckhohn 1954). It includes what has worked in the experience of a society, so that it was worth transmitting to future generations.

The term personality is derived from the Latin word persona meaning a mask or character. Personality is a patterned body of habits, traits, attitudes and ideas of an individual as these are organised externally into roles and statuses and as they relate internally to motivation, goals and various aspects of selfhood. It is a term used in routine life as the distinctive way a person thinks, feels and behaves. But in anthropology, the term is used in a different sense. Funder (1997) defined personality as “an individual’s characteristic pattern of thought, emotion, and behaviour, together with the psychological mechanisms—hidden or not-behind those patterns”. Whereas Ralph Linton (1945) defines personality as the individual’s mental qualities the sum total of his rational faculties, perceptions, ideas, habits and conditional emotional responses. He states that there is a close relation between personality and culture of the society to which the individual belongs. The personality of every individual within the society develops and functions in constant association with its culture. Personality affects culture and culture affects personality. In short he says personality embraces the total organised aggregate of psychological processes and status pertaining to the individual.

There are four main factors or determinants that affect personality formation: environment, heredity, culture, and peculiar experiences. The influence of the geographical or physical environment plays a crucial role in determining variations in personality construction among group members. According to the physical environment, humans form ideas and attitudes based on where they live. A close relationship exists between environment, culture, and personality to the extent that the environment determines cultural development, and culture, in turn, shapes personality. In the 18th century, Montesquieu claimed that the bravery of those blessed by a cold climate enables them to maintain their liberties. Great heat weakens courage, while cold causes a certain vigor of body and mind. People who live in mountain or desert areas are usually bold, hard, and powerful. Nevertheless, physical conditions act more as permissive and limiting factors than as causative factors. For example, Andaman tribes have a different cultural personality from Fiji tribes because these groups develop in distinct geographical environments.

Heredity is another factor determining the traits of human personality. Some similarities in individual or group personality are attributed to common heredity. A set of biological needs and capacities are inherited by every human group, explaining some personality similarities within a group. For instance, humans tend to resemble their parents in physical appearance and intelligence. However, human heredity does not shape personality alone and independently. There is an assumption that genes contribute to normal personality traits as well as other aspects. Heredity provides the materials out of which experience will shape personality. Experience dictates how these materials are used. Because of heredity, an individual may be energetic, but whether they are active based on their own beliefs or those of others depends on their training.

Culture plays a significant role in personality development. Worldwide, the influence of culture on personality formation is evident across various cultural groups. Some anthropologists and sociologists view personality as the subjective aspect of culture. They consider personality and culture as interconnected, with Spiro perceiving that personality development and culture acquisition are part of the same learning process. He saw personality as the individual aspect of culture, while culture is a collective aspect of personality. Each culture fosters a distinct personality type. Frank argued that culture exerts a coercive influence, molding personality through ideas, conceptions, and beliefs shaped by communal life. Culture provides the raw material from which individuals build their lives. Social institutions influence group members’ personalities. From birth, every society shapes personality through treatment of the child, and general influences under a particular culture mold individual behavior. However, culture alone does not entirely shape personality; it is one determinant among others, and personality traits vary within each culture.

Another key factor in personality formation is situational experiences. These experiences can be categorized into continuous group associations and unique, non-recurring events. In the first type, individuals who frequently interact with a child significantly influence their personality. For example, parents profoundly impact a child’s personality through socialization processes, including social rituals, table manners, and behavioral norms. The child learns language, behavior, and social conduct from their parents. The second type of situational experience involves group interaction in early childhood. Here, a child’s personality develops through group dynamics. An individual may show honesty in one situation but not in another, demonstrating that personality traits can vary based on specific situations.

Each of these determinant factors plays a role in personality formation, development, and maintenance. However, the relative contribution of each factor varies by characteristic and by individual. For example, the behavior of a juvenile delinquent may be influenced by both heredity and family, though it is impossible to measure the exact contribution of each factor.

The terms personality, character, and temperament have been used interchangeably across disciplines like biology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology. A multidisciplinary approach is essential for a comprehensive understanding of personality. Biologists focus on physiological characteristics, sociologists study social influences, psychologists analyze mental attributes, and anthropologists explore the relationship between culture and personality.

Psychological and anthropological aspects provide a final perspective on the study of culture and personality. This includes factors like cultural background, interest, sentiment, attitudes, values, temperament, impulse, aptitude, and motivation.

CULTURE AND PERSONALITY SCHOOL OF THOUGHT

The culture personality school of thought began primarily in the United States in the 1930s. This school explored relationships between child-rearing customs and human behaviors in various societies. The culture personality theory combined elements of psychology, anthropology, and sociology, but it mainly involved applying psychoanalytic principles to ethnographic data. This school emphasized the cultural shaping of personality and focused on the development of the individual. Culture-and-personality theorists argued that personality types were created through socialization, placing particular emphasis on child-rearing practices like feeding, weaning, and toilet training. The pioneers of this school were students of Franz Boas and Kroeber, including American anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Linton, Kardiner, and Cora DuBois.

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was among the first psychologists to bridge anthropology and psychology. His well-known anthropological work is Totem and Taboo. In this book, Freud provides an insightful discussion on taboos and their origins; however, his theory on the origin of totems is considered speculative. His main ideas on the origins of totemism, incest taboo, exogamy, and the Oedipus complex are widely recognized. Freud proposed the existence of a primal horde, where the oldest male held exclusive sexual rights over all females in the group. Frustrated, the sons killed and ate their father; later, overcome by guilt, they decided to obey prohibitions against incest with mothers and sisters. They selected a totem animal as a symbolic father substitute and declared it sacred, consumed only on ritual occasions. These ritual totem meals reenacted the original act and reinforced self-imposed incest prohibitions. Freud concluded that all cultures originated from this sacrificial meal.

Known for his psychoanalysis, Freud saw childhood trauma reflected in the neuroses of adults. He introduced the Oedipus complex as a universal experience in which a son, jealous of his father’s attention to the mother, feels hostility toward the father and develops an erotic attachment to the mother. This desire is repressed in childhood but reemerges in adulthood behaviors. Freud’s psychoanalysis sought to uncover this repressed childhood trauma through techniques like word associations, dream analysis, and free-flow talking.

Freud’s Oedipus complex theory (where a son hates his father for his authority and is jealous of his sexual rights over the mother, yet admires him for strength and protection) was widely criticized. Malinowski, who tested this hypothesis in the matrilineal Trobriand society (1922), rejected Freud’s claims of the Oedipus complex’s universality. Franz Boas (1858-1942), though not interested in psychology, reacted to Freud’s analysis, describing it as one-sided and ineffective for advancing understanding of cultural development. Kroeber (1876-1960) dismissed Freud’s ideas as a “bewilderingly fertile imagination” but acknowledged the importance of psychology in understanding culture, believing it should not be ignored. Freud’s hypotheses influenced early anthropological research on culture and personality, leading to the emergence of Psychological Anthropology.

The primary aim of the culture and personality school is to examine the interrelationships between culture and personality. This school attempts to study culture as it is reflected in the character of its members, rather than analyzing culture as manifested in material items or social institutions.

Impact of Personality on Culture

Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), a student of Franz Boas, documented in her PhD dissertation the rapidly deteriorating Native American societies, inspiring her to pursue culture and personality studies. Through her work on the patterning of culture at an individual level, Benedict opened anthropology to a broader discussion involving anthropology and psychology. Although the idea of “pattern” was used before her, credit goes to her for providing a methodological model for studying human culture in terms of pattern rather than social contents. She believed that life crisis rites are just one way in which patterns of culture emerge and are reflected in behavior within a group. All basic institutions of a culture tend to mirror the overall pattern of that culture. This concept was highlighted in her classic book Patterns of Culture (1934), which is highly regarded in anthropology.

Benedict’s consideration of cultures as integrated wholes, where each culture is distinct from others, is significant. She stressed that a culture is organized around a basic theme, and all elements of that culture fit together. According to Benedict, a culture is analogous to an individual in that it has a consistent pattern of thought and action. Therefore, analyzing culture requires a psychological approach. When traits and complexes relate functionally, a cultural pattern forms. Many cultural patterns integrate into a functional whole and form a unique design called the configuration of culture. The integration of culture is based on a tendency across all aspects, termed by Benedict as a “special genius” that creates integration. She described two types of geniuses found in societies: Apollonian and Dionysian. The Apollonian pattern is marked by peace, discipline, and kindness, while the Dionysian culture exhibits change and aggressiveness. These two geniuses shape the personality of group members, leading to distinct cultural characteristics.

Applying this approach to cross-cultural studies, Benedict conducted fieldwork among the Zuni, Cochiti, and Pima tribes of America. She analyzed various societies and described them by their basic personality configurations. Her monograph Patterns of Culture (1934) contrasted the Zuni of the Southwest America with the Kwakiutl of the Northeast Coast. The Zuni were foragers in a resource-rich environment, whereas the Kwakiutl were agriculturists. She depicted the Zuni as cooperative and modest, where members preferred group conformity over individual superiority. Their child training suppressed individuality, and initiation ceremonies occurred in groups. Leadership was minimized, and power was shared, such as in medicine societies rather than a single medicine man. Even in death, mourning was minimal.

In contrast, Kwakiutl culture was marked by ambition, individuality, and excess. The ideal Kwakiutl man strove to assert superiority. Child rearing focused on individual achievement over group cooperation. Initiation involved a personal relationship with the supernatural, and marriage was celebrated elaborately. Leadership was competitive, with power being fiercely sought. Religious roles like the shaman held great personal power. Even death was marked by elaborate mourning. Benedict categorized the Zuni as Apollonian and the Kwakiutl as Dionysian, inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy (1956). Benedict disagreed with Freud’s ideas on cultural evolution and supported Wilhelm Dilthey’s view that psychology aims to understand the inner mind.

During World War II, there was a need to understand Japanese national characteristics, leading to the application of content analysis to study culture at a distance. This method, developed by Benedict, was used when fieldwork was limited. The U.S. Office of War Information tasked her with research on Japan, resulting in her influential work The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1946). Although she never visited Japan, she used historical documents, Japanese literature, and immigrant interviews to draw conclusions on Japanese society. She described Japanese child-rearing as divided between childhood (marked by love and freedom) and adolescence (marked by discipline and adherence to family traditions). She compared these practices to the Chrysanthemum (symbolizing childhood socialization) and the Sword (symbolizing the strict adulthood in Japanese life).

In the late 1940s, the school thrived with studies on national character, like Benedict’s The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1946) on Japanese national character and Geoffrey Gorer and John Rickman’s The People of Great Russia: A Psychological Study (1949). However, interest in national character studies faded after the 1950s due to the limitations of linking early childrearing practices with adult personality under the neo-Freudian approach.

Impact of Culture on Personality Formation

Impact of Culture on Personality and Vice-versa

The other early anthropologists who had made significant contribution to this field are Ralph Linton (1893-1953), Abram Kardiner (1891-1981), and Cora Du Bois (1903-1991). The three authors regard culture and personality as interdependent and complementary to each other. They tried to correlate the type of cultural patterns with the type of individual personalities obtained in that society. They firmly believed that as a consequence of continuous contact with a particular type of cultural pattern, similar types of personalities emerge. Linton was a co-founder of the basic personality structure theory with Kardiner. He sought to establish a basic personality for each culture. After studying the cultural behaviour of different societies Ralph Linton (1945) noted three types of culture:

• Real culture (actual behaviour)
• Ideal culture (Philosophical and traditional culture)
• Culture construct (what is written on cultural elements etc.)

Real culture is the sum total of behaviour of the members of the society, which are learned and shared in particular situations. A real culture pattern represents a limited range of behaviour within which the response of the members of a society to a particular situation will normally be form. Thus, various individuals can behave differently but still in accordance with a real culture pattern.

Ideal culture pattern is formed by philosophical traditions. In this, some traits of culture are regarded as ideals.

Linton stated that there is a difference between the way of life of people and what we study and write about. Both are different dimensions of culture. The former is reality and the latter our understanding of the same. If the former is called culture, the latter can be called a culture construct. It is an abstraction from the reality which is the actual human behaviour.

While studying different aspects of culture and personality, he suggested some more concepts, such as basic personality, status personality, and social inventor. Regarding basic culture, he argued that in a society all the individuals undergo a similar type of socialisation, custom, traditions etc., and therefore, individuals acquire a common set of habits, which may be called a basic personality of the society. He suggested that in a society there are certain individuals who are granted some special privileges, which lead to form a status personality. Considering social inventor, he argued that in a society some individuals do not follow the old traditional rules and customs of the society but try to imitate some other norms, behaviour, or mode of living or make certain new discoveries, which are laid down on the society in course of time, and he called such individuals as social inventors. He also discussed (1936) about different types of role, played by an individual in the society. The term role, according to Linton, refers to the rules for behaviour appropriate to a given status or social position. This classical definition of role, given by Linton, has been useful in functional analysis within a synchronic framework. However, he prescribed some criteria for the characteristics a person needs to become eligible for a particular social role. He identified two kinds of status:

• Ascribed status: usually come by birth. For example, roles based on age, sex, kinship, and caste etc., are ascribed status.
• Achieved status: some efforts must be made to qualify for an achieved status. For example, occupational roles, especially leadership, doctor, engineer, lawyer etc., are achieved status.

Abram Kardiner (1891-1981), a student of Sigmund Freud by profession, was a psychoanalyst. He, along with Ralph Linton, argued that while culture and personality were similarly integrated, a specific causal relationship existed between them.

In response to the configurationalist approach, Kardiner, along with Linton, developed the concept “basic personality type” in his book, Psychological Frontiers of Society (1945). The theory of basic personality type is a collection of fundamental personality traits shared by normal members of a society, acquired by adapting to a culture. The above theory was formulated after reading Freud’s The Future of an Illusion (1928/1961) in which he argues that children’s early life experiences determine their later religious life. Similar to Freud, Kardiner understood that the foundations of personality development were laid in the early stage of childhood. Further, Kardiner argued that since basic childrearing procedures are common in a society, they resulted in some common personality traits among members of a society. He said that the basic personality exists in the context of particular cultural institutions or patterned ways of doing things in a society. Such social institutions are of primary and secondary types. Primary cultural institutions include kinship, childrearing, sexuality, and subsistence, which are widely shared by societies. The shared personality traits across the societies are what constitute the basic personality structure. The secondary cultural institutions, on the other hand, include religion, rituals, folkways, norms etc. Between primary and secondary institutions, he poses the basic personality structure. According to him, childhood plays a significant role in the formation of the basic personality structure. Thus, the basic personality type expresses itself in the group’s ideologies, in emotional and cognitive orientation to life and death.

Following the Basic Personality Construct of Kardiner, Cora Du Bois also formulated a similar construct which she named ‘Modal Personality’ involving a more statistical concept. Here, the basic personality is expressed in the most frequent type of patterned individual behaviour observed in a society. Du Bois (1903-) was heavily influenced by the work of Abram Kardiner and Ralph Linton. Her experience as an ethnographer and psychologist provided a valuable link in the chain of thought of the culture and personality school. Du Bois modified Kardiner and Linton’s notion of basic personality structure with her modal personality theory. She assumed that a certain personality structure occurs most frequently within a society, but that it is not necessarily common to all members of that society. Modal personality is defined as the personality typical of a culturally bounded population, as indicated by the central tendency of a defined frequency distribution.

CRITICISMS OF CULTURE AND PERSONALITY THEORY

Despite criticisms of their work from various quarters, studies of Benedict and Mead are best known and widely read, particularly in introductory courses in Anthropology. The following are the major criticisms against the culture and personality school:

Both Benedict and Mead assumed culture as given and determining personality but neither of them demonstrated how it happened. They completely disregarded historical analysis. Because Benedict believed that each society had a wide range of cultural options to choose from, she did not explain why a society chooses one and not the others. Benedict has been criticised for her strong belief that cultures have logical constancy. She has been criticised for saying that Pueblo in her study did take alcohol during her fieldwork and they still do. She has also been criticised for ignoring aspects of cooperation among Kwakiutl and strife, suicide, and alcoholism among the Zuni cultures.

Applying individual personality attributes to characterise whole cultures was considered risky, as was later found in national character studies. Derek Freeman strongly criticised Mead, with findings that are completely contradictory to hers. In her Samoan study, she found the girls carefree about sexual experimentation, whereas Freeman found a strict virginity complex among them. During her studies, Mead noticed a free male-female relationship, while Freeman found male-female hostility. The differences in their studies occurred because their fieldwork was conducted in different Samoan villages at a time-gap of 15 years.

Prior to Freeman, Marvin Harris criticised Mead for being too generalised about the emotions of Samoan girls. In her defense, she emphasised the significance of providing clarification rather than demonstration of facts, particularly about intangible and psychological aspects of human behaviour.

Morris Opler criticised this configurationalist approach, stating that there are not only two bases of cultural integration but many. Thus, this approach is very narrow.

Even in small societies, Kardiner’s basic personality structure could not explain the variation in personality traits; for this reason, he has been criticised. Later on, the weakness of the theory was addressed by Du Bois in her modal personality theory.

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.

Socialisation is heavily centred upon the development of the concept of self. How a sense of self emerges—the awareness that the individual has a distinct identity, separate from other? This problem of the emergence of self is a much-debated one. This is because the most prominent theories about child development emphasise different aspects of socialisation.

Development of self

During the first months of life, the infant possesses little or no under­standing of differences between human beings and material objects in the environment, and has no awareness of self. Children do not begin to use concepts like T, ‘me’ and ‘you’ until the age of about two or after. Only gradually do they then come to understand that others have distinct identities, consciousness and needs separate from their own.

The awareness of self arises in interaction with the social and non-social environment. The social environment is especially important. The development of our personal identity—or self—is a complicated process. The realisation of a distinctive personality is an even more complicated process, which continues throughout life.

The child learns to differentiate between various other people by names—Daddy, Mummy and Baby and he begins to use T which is a sign of definite self-consciousness—that he is becoming aware of himself as a distinct human being (Cooley, 1908). As time passes and social experiences accumulate, he forms an image of the kind of person he is—an image of self. This self develops gradually in the child.

How self emerges?

This is main focus of the problem of socialisation. Here, we shall discuss views of some celebrated authors.

Freud’s theory (psychoanalysis)

Sigmund Freud, the Austrian psychiatrist and founder of psycho­analysis, was not directly concerned with the problem of the individual’s socialisation (he has not used the word ‘socialisation’ anywhere in his writings), he nevertheless contributed amply toward the clarification of the process of personality development. Distin­guished sociologist T. Parsons has also adopted Freud’s account of personality development to provide the psychological underpinnings of his theory of socialisation.

Freud challenged Mead and Cooley’s concept of socialised self who saw no separate identity of self and society. Freud believed that rational portion of human conduct was like the visible portion of an iceberg, with the lager part of human motivation resting in the unseen, unconscious focus which power­fully affects human conduct.

Process of personality development:

Freud’s theory of personality (self) development rests on the following process.

He divided the self (human mind) into three parts:

1. The id,
2. The ego, and
3. The superego.

1. The id represents the instinctive desires, which may be viewed as an unsocialised aspect of human nature. It is the obscure inaccessible part of our personality. It is the source of drives (animal impulses of man—hunger, aggression, and sexual drives) demanding immediate satisfaction in some way or the other. These impulses are controlled and partially repressed into the unconscious, while a reality-oriented conscious self or ego appears.

2. The ego is the acting individual. It serves as the mediator between desires and action representing the urges of the id when necessary. It tries to mediate the resultant conflicting demands of the id and the superego.

3. The superego (the conscience) represents the social ideals (norms, values, traditions, the idea of moral and immoral etc.). It is seen as internalised parental and social authority. The parent is no longer outside telling the child what to do, but is inside the psyche, invisibly overseeing the child’s thoughts and actions, praising what is right and making the child feel guilty for wrong doing. For Parsons, the Freudian superego is the key device by which society’s values are transmitted to the child. Thus society’s norms and values are passed down from gener­ation to generation in this way.

The Freudian theory contends that people possess a number of drives or urges connected with satisfying basic needs, such as the need for food or sexual release. These urges, known collectively as the id, seek immediate satisfaction.

In society, however, instant grati­fication is rarely possible, and id must be controlled. This control is accomplished by what Freud called the superego, the part of the mind that incorporates society’s rules. The id and the superego are in continual conflict. When we are hungry, for example, our id urges us to satisfy’s our hunger in the quickest way possible.

Our superego, however, tells us that this is an unacceptable way to satisfy our hunger. Freud stated that normally developing children develop ego, which reconciles the demands of the id and superego as much as possible.

Freud presents the relation between the id and the ego as similar to that between a horse and its rider. The function of the ego is that of the rider guiding the horse which is the id. But, like the rider, the ego sometimes is unable to guide the horse as it wishes and perforce must guide the id in the direction it is determined to go or in a slightly different direction.

Evaluation of Freud’s theory

Freud’s all theories have inspired bitter controversies and numerous interpretations. This theory (development of self) is opposite to the views of Cooley and Mead. Cooley and Mead have demonstrated that the very emergence of the self is a social process and not a psycho­logical process as contended by Freud. They have viewed self and society as two aspects of the same thing, whereas Freud finds that the self and society are often opponents and self is basically anti-social.

There is always a clash between the impulses of the self and the restraints of society. Mead and Cooley, on the other hand, viewed self and society as merely different expressions of the same phenomenon. Cooley (1902) writes: “A separate individual is an abstraction unknown to experience In other words; ‘society’ and ‘individ­uals’ do not denote separate phenomena but are simply collective and distributive aspects of the same thing.” Moreover, it is very difficult to verify empirically the three layers of human mind—id, ego and superego as suggested by Freud.

Cooley’s theory of the ‘looking-glass self

How does a person arrive at a notion of the kind of person he is? According to Charles Horton Cooley (1902), this concept of self develops through a gradual and complicated process which continues throughout life. He pointed out that when we refer to the self, when we use the word T (the social self is referred to by such words as I, me, mine and myself; the individual distinguishes his ‘self from that of others), we usually not referring to our physical body.

We use the word T to refer to opinions, desires, ideas, feelings, or evaluations of others with whom we interact. Whether one is intelligent, average or stupid, attractive or ugly, these and many other ideas of the self are learned from the reactions of our associates. Even, the elementary knowledge that one tends to be fat or thin, tall or short is a compar­ative judgment based on the opinions of others.

This process of discovering the nature of the self from the reactions of others has been labelled the looking-glass self by Cooley. Looking-glass self simply means how we see ourselves through the eyes of other people. The idea of looking-glass seems to have been taken from Thackeray’s book Vanity Fair in which it is said: “The world is a looking glass and gives back to every man the reflection of his own face.”

Each to each a looking-glass,

Reflects the other that doth pass.

Just as we see our face, figure and dress in the mirror which gives an image of the physical self, so the perception of the reactions of others gives an image of the social self. We “know”, for instance, that we are talented in some field but less talented in others. This knowledge or perception comes to us from the reactions of other persons. Through play and other group activities, one is also helped to perceive the feelings of others and their feelings toward him.

Stages of formation of self

According to Cooley, there are three steps (stages) in the process of formation of looking-glass self:

1. The imagination of our appearance of how we look to others.

2. The imagination of their judgment of how we look or how we think others judge our behaviour.

3. How we feel about their judgment, i.e., our feelings (self feeling) about their judgments.

We know that we exist, that we are beautiful or ugly, serious or funny, lively or dull etc., through the way other people think of us, of course, but we can imagine how we appear to them and how they evaluate our appearance. We often respond to these imagined evalu­ations with pride, embarrassment, humiliation or some other feeling. In conclusion, the looking-glass self means that we see ourselves and we respond to ourselves, not as we are and not as other think we are, but as we imagine others think we are.

Evaluation of Cooley’s theory:

There is a difference of opinion among some scholars about the functioning of the ‘looking-glass self. Several researches have been done to seek empirical evidence of the correlation between one’s perception of responses of others and the actual judgments they have made of him. These studies find that there is often a significant variation between individual’s perception of how other pictures him and the views they actually hold. Clearly, it is our perception of the responses of others and not their mutual responses which self-image, and these perceptions are often inaccurate (Horton and Hunt, 1964).

Theory of G.H. Mead (I and me)

American philosopher and social psychologist George Herbert Mead (1934) developed his ideas about the same time that Cooley did in the early years of the twentieth century. He gave particular attention to the emergence of a sense of self. He emphasised the two-part structure of this self and represented this by the terms ‘I’ and ‘me’. He described in detail the whole process of child development and explained how children learn to use the concepts off and ‘me’.

The ‘I’ is the immediate response of an individual to others. It is the unpre­dictable and creative aspect of the self. People do not know in advance what the action of the ‘I’ will be. “The ‘I’ is the unsocialised infant—a bundle of spontaneous wants and desires” (Giddens, 1997). The ‘I’ reacts against ‘me’. The ‘me’ consists of the attitudes of others that the child adopts and makes his own. Thus, when a parent says things like ‘good child’ or ‘good behaviour’ and ‘bad child’ or ‘bad behaviour’, such communications from ‘significant others’ (parents, siblings, playmates, teachers, relatives) become increasingly patterned or organised into that part of the self that Mead calls the ‘me’.

In other words, the ‘me’ is the adoption of the ‘generalised other’, which according to Mead is the ‘social self. Individuals develop self-consciousness by coming to see themselves as others see them. For Freud this is the outcome of Oedipal phase, while for ‘me’, it is the result of a developed capacity of self-awareness.

In contrast to ‘I’, people are conscious of the ‘me’; the ‘me’ involves conscious responsibility. It is through the ‘me’ that society dominates the individual in the form of social control—the domination of the expression of the ‘me’ over the expression ‘I’.

Phases of the development of self:

Mead traces the genesis of the self through two stages in child devel­opment:

(1) Play stage:

At this stage infants and young children develop as social beings first of all by imitating the actions of those around them. In their play small children often imitate what adults do. They often play ‘house’ (Mummy-Papa) or ‘school’ (Teacher- Student), enacting the role of mother, father, teacher, student or any other person important to them—significant others. Mead calls this process as taking the role of others (role-taking)— learning what is to be in the shoes of another person.

By taking the role of these significant others, they can better understand their own roles as children, students, sons or daughters. By practicing the roles of others in play, children learn to under­stand what others expect of them, and they learn how to behave to meet those expectations. As a result of such play, the child becomes cognisant of himself and obtains a picture of himself by assuming the role of others. However, it is a limited self because the child can take only the role of distinct and separate others. They lack a more general and organised sense of themselves.

(2) Game stage:

It is the next stage of child development, which according to Mead occurs at about eight or nine, the child starts taking part in organised games. To learn organised games, one must understand the rules of the play, notions of fairness and equal participation.

The child at this stage learns to grasp what Mead terms the ‘generalised other’—the general values and moral rules involved in the culture in which he or she is devel­oping. This generalised other is an individual’s total impression of the judgments and expectations that other persons have toward him. At this stage, the sense of the self in the full sense of term emerges.

In the play stage, children are not organised wholes because they play at a series of discrete roles. In Mead’s view they lack definite personalities. However, in the game stage, such organisation begins and a definite personality starts to emerge. Thus, for Mead, taking the role of generalised other, rather than that of discrete others, is essential for the full devel­opment of self.

Mead’s theory of development of self is less cumbersome than that of Freud. It has also been very influential, yet it has been criti­cised on the ground that the concepts used by Mead such as ‘taking the role of other’, ‘making a gesture to one’s self and the ‘generalised other’ are not clear enough. Not only this, the concept of self, which is a combination off and ‘me’, is also ambiguous. Moreover, the theory of Mead does suggest the method of studying social interaction.

Durkheim’s theory of collective representation

Though Emile Durkheim has not directly talked anywhere in his writings about the development of the sense of self or the process of socialisation of the individual, he has definitely described the role of the society in the formation of personality (attitudes, beliefs and behaviour) of the individuals. In his theory of ‘collective representation’, Durkheim insisted that the individual becomes socialised by adopting the behaviour of his group.

He maintained that the individual’s thought and behaviour are determined by collective representation. By collective representation, he meant the body of experiences, a system of ideas, patterns of behaviour, attitudes and values held in common by a group of people.

Durkheim’s main interest in the relationship of the individual to the group was the group control over the individual. For him, sociali­sation is a one-way process because he focussed his attention on how society develops and moulds the individual to fit into the group. Durkheim’s conception left little room for individual’s initiative and freedom in the process of socialisation.

This is a great weakness of his theory of collective representation. Durkheim did not recognise any role of the individual in the process of socialisation. How do these representations become a part of the individual or how does collective representation exert pressure over the individual is not fully explained by Durkheim. He utilised his theory of collective representation (theory of socialisation) in explaining the causes of suicide, the social phenomena of religion and the concept of social solidarity etc.

Sociology, as a social science, is the systematic study of society, social relationships, and human behavior within social contexts. It examines how individuals interact with one another and how social structures shape human experiences, attitudes, and behaviors. Sociology delves into the ways societies are organized, the processes through which they change, and the effects that societal factors have on individuals and groups. The subject matter of sociology is vast and multi-faceted, encompassing everything from individual actions to large-scale social structures and cultural norms.

Social Structure

One of the foundational elements of sociology is the study of social structure. Social structure refers to the organized pattern of relationships and institutions that together compose society. It is the framework within which social interactions and relationships occur. Institutions such as family, education, religion, and government are all key components of social structure. Sociologists are interested in understanding how these institutions shape behaviors, establish norms, and influence people’s lives.

Social structure also encompasses social hierarchies and stratification, which refer to the ranking of individuals and groups in society based on factors like class, race, gender, and occupation. The study of social stratification seeks to explain why inequalities exist, how they are maintained, and the impact of these inequalities on individuals and groups.

Socialization

Socialization is another critical area within sociology, dealing with how individuals learn and internalize the values, norms, and customs of their society. From birth, individuals are socialized into their cultures and societies, acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary to function within them. Socialization happens through various agents such as the family, schools, peers, and media, each playing a crucial role in shaping one’s identity, beliefs, and behavior.

Sociologists study socialization to understand how social norms and values are transmitted across generations and how individuals develop their sense of self. The process of socialization is essential for societal stability as it ensures that members of society share common understandings and expectations.

Culture

Culture is a central concept in sociology. It encompasses the beliefs, values, norms, symbols, and material objects shared by a group of people. Culture gives individuals a sense of identity and a framework for interpreting the world. Sociology examines both material culture (the physical objects people create and use) and non-material culture (the beliefs, values, and norms that shape human behavior).

Culture plays a significant role in shaping social behavior. Through cultural transmission, societies pass on knowledge, traditions, and values from one generation to the next. Sociologists analyze the role of culture in human interactions, social cohesion, and social change. They also study cultural diversity and cultural relativism, exploring how different societies develop unique cultures and how cultural practices should be understood in their own context rather than judged by external standards.

Social Institutions

Social institutions are stable and enduring systems of social order that govern the behavior of individuals within a society. Key social institutions include:

• Family: The primary unit for socialization, where individuals first learn social norms, values, and roles.
• Education: Transmits knowledge, values, and skills to the younger generation, and serves as a mechanism for social mobility and integration.
• Religion: Provides a moral framework and helps individuals find meaning, often influencing other social institutions.
• Economy: Manages the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, shaping people’s roles and relationships within society.
• Politics and Government: Organize power and authority within society, create laws, and manage social order.

Sociologists study these institutions to understand their functions, how they interrelate, and how they impact individuals and groups within society.

Social Change

Social change refers to shifts in the structure, norms, and values of society over time. Sociology examines social change to understand how societies evolve and adapt in response to internal and external forces. Key factors influencing social change include technological advances, cultural diffusion, economic shifts, and social movements. Sociology studies social movements like civil rights, feminism, and environmentalism to understand how they emerge, mobilize support, and bring about societal change.

Modernization, globalization, and industrialization are significant forces of social change that have reshaped societies worldwide, influencing lifestyles, family structures, and even individual identities. Sociologists seek to understand both the causes and consequences of these changes, exploring the complex dynamics that drive social transformation.

Deviance and Social Control

Deviance refers to behaviors or actions that violate social norms. Sociology explores why certain behaviors are considered deviant, the factors that lead individuals to deviate from societal expectations, and the societal reactions to deviance. The study of deviance is closely related to the concept of social control, which includes the mechanisms society uses to regulate behavior and enforce conformity, such as laws, norms, and sanctions.

Sociologists are interested in understanding the role of stigma, the impact of labeling, and how social factors like poverty and education influence deviant behavior. By studying deviance, sociology sheds light on the boundaries of acceptable behavior within society and the consequences of stepping outside those boundaries.

Social Inequality

Social inequality refers to the uneven distribution of resources, power, and opportunities within society. Sociology focuses on class inequality, gender inequality, racial inequality, and health inequality to understand how various forms of inequality affect life chances and social mobility.

Sociologists examine both structural and individual factors that contribute to inequality, analyzing how wealth, power, and privilege are distributed within society and the barriers that prevent certain groups from achieving equal opportunities. Social inequality is a fundamental subject in sociology, as it raises questions about justice, fairness, and human rights.

Social Interaction and Everyday Life

Sociology also studies social interaction, the process by which people act and react to others in society. Interaction takes place in various contexts, from casual conversations to formal settings. Sociologists analyze how social roles, statuses, and identities shape interactions and how individuals navigate social expectations in daily life.

By studying symbolic interactions, sociology explores how individuals interpret symbols, gestures, and language, and how these elements of communication influence social relationships. Dramaturgy, a concept introduced by Erving Goffman, is one sociological approach to understanding social interactions as if individuals were performers on a stage.

Research and Methodology in Sociology

Sociology relies on a variety of research methods to gather empirical evidence and analyze social phenomena. These methods include qualitative approaches, such as interviews and ethnography, which provide in-depth insights into people’s experiences and perspectives, and quantitative methods, like surveys and statistical analysis, which allow for broader generalizations.

Sociological research often involves studying patterns and trends within social phenomena, with a focus on identifying correlations, causations, and underlying mechanisms. The goal is to develop theories that can explain social behavior and predict future social trends.

Conclusion

The subject matter of sociology is incredibly broad and rich, encompassing a diverse range of topics and fields of study. From examining the fundamental structures of society to understanding the nuances of everyday social interactions, sociology provides a framework for understanding human behavior within a societal context. Through the study of social structure, culture, socialization, institutions, inequality, and change, sociology sheds light on the complexities of social life, revealing the patterns and forces that shape individual experiences and societal dynamics. In doing so, sociology not only enhances our understanding of the world but also helps address and resolve critical social issues.

The statement “We belong to an Association, not to an Institution” reflects a nuanced view of social groups and structures within society. While association and institution are both essential to the organization of human social life, they represent fundamentally different concepts. Associations are typically voluntary, purposeful groups that individuals join based on shared interests or goals. Institutions, on the other hand, are enduring structures of social norms, values, and roles that guide and regulate behavior within society. This distinction is important in understanding the nature of social organization, individual roles, and collective purpose.

MEANING AND DEFINITION OF ASSOCIATION

Some of the prominent sociologists have defined association as:

As per R.M MacIver, “an organisation deliberately formed for the collective pursuit of some interest or a set of interests, which its members share”.

According to Morris Ginsberg, an association is “a group of social beings related to one another by the fact that they possess or have instituted in common an organisation with a view to securing a specific end or specific ends”.

An association is “a group organised for the pursuit of an interest or group of interest in common”.

Hence, humans have different interests and they establish different associations to fulfil them. No single association can satisfy all the interests of the individual or individuals.

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF AN ASSOCIATION

From the above definitions some of the definitions of associations are the following:

Association-a Human Group: By the term group here means collection of social being who share distinctive social relationships with one another. As group which refers to reciprocity between its members. Therefore, here association as a group expressly organized around a particular interest. The idea of expressly organized differentiates association as social group from other social groups like primary and secondary groups or class and crowd.

Common Interests: It is not just collection of individuals but association as a distinct social group in terms of interest aspect of association. Because the association is organized for particular purposes, for the pursuit of specific interests, we belong to it by virtue of these interests. Thus, interests are the foundational virtue around which different forms of associations are formed.

Association as an organisation: Association denotes some kind of organisation. An association is known essentially as an organised group. The character of organisation gives stability and proper shape to an association. The idea of association as an organisation also determines the way in which the status and roles are distributed among its members.

Regulation of Relations: Every association has its own ways and means to regulate the behaviour and relations of its members. Therefore, they frame certain rules and regulations which may be in written or unwritten forms.

Co-operative Spirit: One of the characteristics of association is its co-operative pursuit to fulfil its interests. This co-operative pursuit may be spontaneous as offering a helping hand to a stranger. It may be casual or in fact may be determined or guided by the customs of a community as in case of farmers assisting their neighbours at harvest time. But indeed association is guided by common interests of group members.

Membership is Voluntary: Membership in association is voluntary. It depends on individual choice as per their interests. In fact individuals are at liberty to join them. One can join athletic club for purposes of physical recreation or sport, to a business for livelihood or profits, to a social club for fellowship. Therefore, membership in an association has social limited significance.

Associations as Agencies: Associations are means or agencies through which their members realize their similar or share interests. Such social organizations necessarily act, not merely through leaders but through officials or representatives as agencies. In a way associations normally act through agents who are responsible for and to the association. It also give a distinctive character of association as a legal entity.

Association has Corporate Character: Association by virtue of being a social organisation may own property or funds which are held collectively and do not belong to individual members. It possesses rights and obligations, powers and liabilities which the members can not exercise as individuals. It is in this sense, corresponding to its peculiar method of functioning that association has a corporate character.

Durability of Association: The nature of association may be permanent or temporary. There are some more enduring and exist on a larger scale like the state, family, religious organisations etc. However, some associations are very temporary in nature.

Association and Community

It is clear from the above description that an association is deliberately formed for the purpose of fulfilment of certain common needs of people. But a community is more than any specific organization. In fact organization develops within it. For example, the business or the church or the club with the village or city or nation. Thus, we can call a city or a village a community but not a church. These organisations exist in terms of fulfilment of particular interest around which they are organizations. Therefore, there can be multiple of associations within a community. On contrast community is a natural development and is guided by more general principles than specific interests. In fact community is more free and wider than even many bigger associations. Moreover, the membership in community is concerned is more open. But the membership in association has limited significance. As a result community is relatively larger and more stable than associations.

As per the MacIver there are two major social organizations which may seem to lie on the borderline between association and communities are the family and the state. According to him family has worked more as a community in primitive and extremely rural societies. In such societies family has performed larger functions than what family is today. In these cases, people toil, play, and even worship almost wholly within the orbit of the family. In fact family used to define the whole lives of its members. However, in a more complex and civilized societies the family function more as an association. Its functions are getting more and more limited and defined as the social division of labour increases. But here also in a complex society in the initial days of child family performs more than associational functions but gradually it transforms into an association of, often intense, but with limited interest. As eventually adult member of family leaves it and establish a new family.

Similarly, state is also an arena which is frequently confused with the community. However, MacIver says in reality the state is one form of social organisation, not the whole community in all its aspects. While talking about the associational character of state MacIver says that the state is an agency of peculiarly wide range, but nevertheless an agency. Though at times state takes the form of ‘absolutist’ or ‘totalitarian’ and try to control and define every aspect of human lives but the state would not become a community, but an association controlling the community.

Association and Institution

Though it seems similar however, sociologically speaking both the concepts differs in terms of their meaning, nature and in many more ways. However, it needs to be clarified that we belong to associations but not to institutions. In a way institutions are defined as established forms or conditions of procedure characteristic of group activity. While forming association which is a deliberate formation surrounding certain common interests also create rules and procedures to deliver the objective. Thus, every association has, with respect to its particular interest, its characteristic institutions. The church, for example, has its sacraments, its modes of worship, and its rituals. The family has marriage, that is, the institution of mating relationship; it has the home, the family meal, and so forth. The state has its own peculiar institutions, such as representative government and legislative procedures. However, we belong to associations but not institutions. It broadly refers to the idea that when we consider something as an organized group, it is an association but when we consider as a form of procedure it refers to as an institution. Association denotes membership; institution denotes a mode or means of service. When we view a college as a body of teachers and students, we are selecting its associational aspect, but when we regard it as an educational system, we are selecting its institutional features. Therefore, we cannot belong to an institution. We do not belong to marriage or property systems or solitary confinement, but we do belong to families.

DEFINING INSTITUTIONS

Institutions are components of the society that help to maintain order and stability through structuring human interaction and activity. Institutions manifest themselves in terms of overt or implicit rules that structure human interactions. They function through the members of a society being socialised into them. This makes the study of institutions critical to the field of sociology. Emile Durkheim referred to sociology as the scientific study of principle institutions. Institutions such as religion, family, education et cetera are still critical to the discipline of sociology.

Let us consider a few scholarly definitions of institutions to acquaint with the meaning of institution:

According to Morris Ginsberg (1921), “Institutions are definite and sanctioned forms or modes of relationship between social beings, in respect to one another or to some external object”.

Robert Morrison MacIver defines Institutions as “established forms or conditions of procedures characteristic of group activity”.

William Graham Sumner suggests that “an institution consists of a concept, idea, notion, doctrine or interest and a structure”.

Bronislaw Malinowski argues that, “every institution centres around a fundamental need, permanently unites a group of people in a co-operational task and has its particular body of doctrines and its technique or craft. Institutions are not correlated simply and directly to new functions. One need not receive one’s satisfaction in one institution.”

Jonathan Turner defines institution as “a complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of social structures and organising relatively stable patterns of human activity with respect to fundamental problems in producing life-sustaining resources, in reproducing individuals, and in sustaining viable societal structures within a given environment”.

From the above definitions we learn that:

1. Institutions may not be physical entities but visible in the co-ordinated patterns of behaviour of members of a society.
2. Institutions can help explain the behaviour of individual members.
3. Institutions have both restrictive and enabling potential in that it both constraints the choices available to an individual and defines the ways in which choices are to be exercised. Consider a situation whereby two individuals decide to live together the institution of marriage both defines and constraints the way in which they exercise their desire to live with each other.
4. Institutions function to forge and reiterate solidarity among members of a society.
5. It structures the interaction between members.

Institutions can be identified, in terms of the regular and consistent patterns of behaviours that are structured through norms and sanctions. While manifest behaviours may be read as observable form of institution. Institutions cannot be reduced merely to associated behaviour; for if the associated behaviour were to get disrupted that may not necessarily mean that the institution has ceased to exist. There are no clear boundaries that can be drawn between norms and institutions but institutions are distinct in that they are consistent and generalised normative expectation. These normative social expectations are seen as obligatory and are supplemented by strong sanctions against aberrations. For example, the biological fact of reproduction has been institutionalised into marriage and family as institutions. Human reproduction outside of the sanctioned institutions of marriage and family would receive general discouragement and in some cases, a strong backlash. Therefore, institutions seek to assign and define the social roles that members of a particular society must fulfil and adhered to. Institutions may therefore be understood as an ensemble of such roles. For instance, the institution of family expects a heterosexual man to adopt certain roles and responsibilities and the heterosexual woman to adopt other roles and responsibilities. The children in a family also have socially defined roles and responsibilities. However, such delineation of roles and responsibilities is not final and absolute. The institution of family has been attacked for its assumptions about the roles of ‘man’ and ‘woman’, of sexuality and division of labour.

Institutions function well in so far as they maintain stable patterns of expectation, thought and action. The consistency and synchronisation among these elements determine the stability of the institution. It is often argued that institutions have equilibrium like qualities, in that, when disturbed, institutions reinstate their stability by reinforcing order as purpose or preference. Repeated and consistent behaviour that has rule-like qualities assumes normative weight and act in ways that stabilise the equilibrium status of the institution.

Sociologists consider institutions not singularly as stable static phenomena but as process. Institutions have been understood in terms of the processes of institutionalisation, de-institutionalisation, and re-institutionalisation. They are generally considered as the “more enduring features of social life” (Giddens, 1984: 24).

Origin of the Term

The term became popular through its usage in economics where it signified constraints on human endeavour of utility maximisation due to parallel efforts towards utility maximisation by other members. The two economists who are associated with its usage are Oliver Williamson and D.C. North. As you may notice its usage in economics is quite different from its usage in sociology. While, the usage of the term in economics is of little significance to sociology, the sociological conception of institutions, institutional change and institutionalisation have been significant to the discipline of economics. To economics, institution in the sociological sense can help predict and explain individual behaviours. Unlike its original usage in economics one can start at the understanding of institution and comprehend individual behaviour, which is what the sociological concept of institution suggests.

After its initial usage in economics, the term then spread into sociology. The first sociologist credited with the usage of the term is Herbert Spencer. Spencer suggested that society is an organism and the institutions are all organs of the society.

Purpose of Institutions

German Sociologist Arnold Gehlen (1980) suggested that human being seek to supplement their instinctual world with a cultural world. He suggests that this feeling of incompleteness and the attempt to supplement explains the emergence of institutions. In his book ‘the social construction of reality’ (1967) Thomas Luckman elaborates this idea and suggests that human beings compensate for their biological underdevelopment through surrounding themselves with a social canopy or religion. Institutions therefore make human life meaningful through connecting human beings to their natural environment.

Types of Institutions

Sociologists generally classify institutions into five clusters of major institutions. They are:

• Economic Institutions: These are the institutions that correspond to production, consumption and distribution of goods and services.
• Institutions of Social Stratification: These are the institutions that regulate and control differential access to social status and prestige.
• Kinship, Marriage and Family: These institutions control and regulate reproduction.
• Political Institutions: They are concerned with regulation and distribution of power.
• Cultural Institutions: They regulate religious, symbolic and cultural practices.

Culture is a term that refers to a large and diverse set of mostly intangible aspects of social life. According to sociologists, culture consists of the values, beliefs, systems of language, communication, and practices that people share in common and that can be used to define them as a collective.

Culture also includes the material objects that are common to that group or society. Culture is distinct from social structure and economic aspects of society, but it is connected to them—both continuously informing them and being informed by them. Common cultures include those shaped by regional traditions, religious beliefs, and historical experiences.

How Do Sociologists Define Culture?

Culture is one of the most important concepts within sociology because sociologists recognize that it plays a crucial role in our social lives. It is important for shaping social relationships, maintaining and challenging social order, determining how we make sense of the world and our place in it, and shaping our everyday actions and experiences in society. It is composed of both non-material and material things.

In brief, sociologists define the non-material aspects of culture as the values and beliefs, language, communication, and practices that are shared in common by a group of people. Expanding on these categories, culture is made up of our knowledge, common sense, assumptions, and expectations. It is also the rules, norms, laws, and morals that govern society; the words we use as well as how we speak and write them (what sociologists call “discourse”); and the symbols we use to express meaning, ideas, and concepts (like traffic signs and emojis, for example). Culture is also what we do and how we behave and perform (for example, theater and dance). It informs and is encapsulated in how we walk, sit, carry our bodies, and interact with others; how we behave depending on the place, time, and audience; and how we express identities of race, class, gender, and sexuality, among others. Culture also includes the collective practices we participate in, such as religious ceremonies, the celebration of secular holidays, and attending sporting events.

What Is Material Culture?

Material culture is composed of the things that humans make and use. This aspect of culture includes a wide variety of things, from buildings, technological gadgets, and clothing, to film, music, literature, and art, among others. Aspects of material culture are more commonly referred to as cultural products.

Sociologists see the two sides of culture—the material and non-material—as intimately connected. Material culture emerges from and is shaped by the non-material aspects of culture. In other words, what we value, believe, and know (and what we do together in everyday life) influences the things that we make. However, it is not a one-way relationship between material and non-material culture.

Material culture can also influence the non-material aspects of culture. For example, a powerful documentary film (an aspect of material culture) might change people’s attitudes and beliefs (i.e. non-material culture). This is why cultural products tend to follow patterns. What has come before in terms of music, film, television, and art, for example, influences the values, beliefs, and expectations of those who interact with them, which then, in turn, influence the creation of additional cultural products.

Why Culture Matters to Sociologists

Culture is important to sociologists because it plays a significant role in the production of social order. The social order refers to the stability of society based on the collective agreement to rules and norms that allow us to cooperate, function as a society, and live together (ideally) in peace and harmony. For sociologists, there are both good and bad aspects of social order.

History of Culture

Rooted in the theory of classical French sociologist Émile Durkheim, both material and non-material aspects of culture are valuable in that they hold society together. The values, beliefs, morals, communication, and practices that we share in common provide us with a shared sense of purpose and a valuable collective identity. Durkheim revealed through his research that when people come together to participate in rituals, they reaffirm the culture they hold in common, and in doing so, strengthen the social ties that bind them together. Today, sociologists see this important social phenomenon happening not only in religious rituals and celebrations like (some) weddings and the Indian festival of Holi but also in secular ones—such as high school dances and widely attended, televised sporting events (for example, the Super Bowl and March Madness, both of which one could consider part of American culture).

Famous Prussian social theorist and activist Karl Marx established the critical approach to culture in the social sciences. According to Marx, it is in the realm of non-material culture that a minority can maintain unjust power over the majority. He reasoned that subscribing to mainstream values, norms, and beliefs keeps people invested in unequal social systems that do not work in their best interests, but rather, benefit the powerful minority. Sociologists today see Marx’s theory in action in the way that most people in capitalist societies buy into the belief that success comes from hard work and dedication and that anyone can live a good life if they do these things—despite the reality that a job which pays a living wage is increasingly hard to come by.

Both theorists were right about the role that culture plays in society, but neither was exclusively right. Culture can be a force for oppression and domination, but it can also be a force for creativity, resistance, and liberation. It is also a deeply important aspect of human social life and social organization. Without it, we would not have relationships or society.

Difference between Material and Non-Material Culture

The question of whether sociology is a science has been widely debated among scholars and continues to be a fundamental topic within the field. To address this question, we need to examine what constitutes a science, the methodology and goals of sociology, and the unique challenges associated with studying human behavior and social structures. While sociology exhibits many characteristics of a science, it also differs in important ways due to its focus on complex social phenomena, human subjectivity, and cultural diversity.

What is Science?

The Positivist Approach to social research is usually regarded as the scientific approach to studying society.

• Durkheim’s Suicide (1897) illustrates the positivist view of science. It is the most influential on sociology. Durkheim’s views are based on the following principles:
• There are objective facts about the social world and they are expressed in statistics.
• These facts are not influenced by the personal beliefs of the researcher.
• Having collected stats, you should look for correlations which can reveal causal relationships
• Durkheim believed human behaviour can be explained by external stimuli
• By following this approach it is possible to uncover the laws of human behaviour
• To be scientific, you should only study what you observe. It would be unscientific to study people’s emotions.
• Durkheim’s approach is inductive – it involves starting with the evidence and then deriving theory.

Questioning Sociology as Scientific

Differences between society and the natural world

The three criticisms below hinge on the idea that the social world is fundamentally different to the natural, physical world

• Social action theorists argue the social world is socially constructed
• You cannot understand the world, or human action without understanding the meanings people attach to their actions
• Some postmodernists argue you can only understand the world through language, thus there is no way to observe it directly.

Problems of prediction

• People have consciousness, they judge situations and how to respond to them based on their life-histories, and personal opinions, which we cannot know objectively.
• Thus if sociology aimed to make predictions, it would always be proved wrong.

Questioning the Objectivity of Science

The ‘objectivity’ of the natural sciences has increasingly been questioned. In the 1960s a branch of sociology called ‘science and technology studies’ emerged which argues From this perspective, David Bloor (1976) argued that it is a mistake to see science as something which is apart from the social world, it is itself shaped by a range of social factors.

From this point of view, we should study the processes through which scientific knowledge is constructed, rather than accepting the scientific method as apart from society and ‘superior’

Bruno Latour: Science as the ‘construction of versions of reality’

• Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar (1979) studied the way scientists did their research. They found that they spent a lot of time trying to win research grants (rather than doing actual research) and there was little incentive to disprove ideas
• Scientists tended to form networks in which many individuals were all engaged in a ‘fierce battle to construct reality’, which could involve inventing special machines just to prove a theory true. If an individual challenged the version of reality being produced, they could be dis-enrolled from the network.

Thomas Kuhn: Paradigms and Scientific Revolutions

• Kuhn noted that we tend to see scientists as objective and neutral, and working together to refine scientific knowledge, which is generally seen as evolving gradually, as new evidence helps to refine and develop existing theories.
• Kuhn disagreed with this, arguing that the evolution of scientific knowledge is limited by what he called ‘paradigms’. A paradigm is a basic world-view which provides a framework for thinking about the world. It includes basic assumptions about the nature of reality, which limit the kind of questions scientists ask in their research.
• According to Kuhn, most scientists build their careers working within the dominant paradigm, effectively ignoring any evidence which doesn’t fit in with their general framework, and any scientist who tries to ask questions outside of the ‘dominant paradigm’ is marginalised, and not taken seriously.
• However, ‘rogue scientists’ who look at the world differently do exist, and engage in alternative research, and when sufficient evidence builds up which contradicts already existing paradigms, a ‘paradigm shift’ occurs, in which the old paradigms are rejected, and a new dominant paradigm comes into force.
• One example of this is the science surrounding climate change. According to Sutton (2015) some (marginal) scientists were finding evidence of a link between the burning of fossil fuels and a warming climate in the 1950s, but this was largely dismissed by the scientific community until the 1990s, but today this is widely accepted.
• In summary Kuhn argued that scientific knowledge shifted in a series of ‘revolutions’ as new ‘paradigms’ came to replace old ‘paradigms’; he is also suggesting that science should not be seen as being characterised by consensus – rather there are a number of competing paradigms within science, and not all of them get taken seriously by those with power.
• Kuhn has been criticised by Lakatos (1970) – he argues that modern science is much more open to testing new ideas today than it was in the past.

Realist Views of Science and Open and Closed Systems

• Sayer suggests that there are two types of science – those which operate in closed systems, such as physics and chemistry, and those which operate in open systems such as meteorology.
• Closed systems have only a limited number of variables interacting, all of which can be controlled, which makes it possible to carry out laboratory experiments and for precise predictions to be made.
• However, sciences such as meteorology operate in open systems, where you cannot control all of the variables. These sciences recognise unpredictability.
• Meteorology is still scientific – there are still forecasting models based on observation which allows us to predict with some degree of certainty when certain weather events will happen, and these models can, and are being refined.
• Moreover, open systems sciences are engaged in trying to find ‘underlying structures’ which cannot be directly observed, such as magnetic fields, which can interfere with weather patterns.
• Sayer argues that sociology can be scientific in the way meteorology is scientific, but not scientific in the way physics or chemistry can be scientific:
• Quantitative sociology, for example can reveal hidden structures (such as the class structure), and make broad predictions about what percentage of people from a lower class background will fail, compared to those from a middle class background, without being able to predict exactly who will fail, and without us being able to SEE that class structure directly.

Modernity, Postmodernity and Science

• The scientific world view and the idea of scientific sociology evolved out of the enlightenment and modernity – the belief that there was ‘one truth’ and science could reveal it.
• Postmodernists challenge the idea that science produces the truth about the natural world. For Rorty (1984) scientists have just replaced priests as the source of truth – we want experts to explain the world to us. However, there are still many unanswered questions about the nature of reality even with science.
• Lyotard (1984) also criticises the view that science stands apart from the natural world. He argues that language shapes the way we think about the world, and while scientific language may open our eyes to some truths; it just closes our eyes to others.

Can Sociology Be Scientific?

• Early positivists suggested that sociology should aim to be scientific – this has largely been rejected
• Interpretivists reject this because they believe reality is social reality is different to natural reality – we need to understand meanings.
• Moreover, many people such as Kuhn argue scientific knowledge is also socially constructed
• Sayer believes there is a ‘half way house’ – we can still do quantitative ‘scientific sociology’ in an open systems ways – many people within sociology subscribe to this.
• Postmodernists reject the view that we should be scientific in any way, this closes our minds.

Nature of Sociology

1. Sociology is an empirical science: Sociology studies and analyses social facts on the basis of the scientific method. It is not based only on ‘arm-chair’ philosophy, or speculation. Rules are framed in Sociology with the help of observation and experiences. Sociology holds that empiricism is its central feature as a science.
2. Sociology is a theoretical and applied science: There are a systematic development and formulation of sociological theory. The verification of already existing theories and the formulation of new theories is a constant process in Sociology. Hence, it was known as ‘pure science.’ However, today we can not call Sociology only as pure science since many branches of Sociology are based on the application of sociological knowledge to the field. Hence, it is ‘pure’ as well as an ‘applied’ social science.
3. Sociology is a factual science: The aim of Sociology is to find out the reality of society. Sociology understands society ‘as it is.’ It confines itself to ‘what is’, and not, ‘what should be’ or ‘what ought to be’ e.g. Sociology studies the constructive part and destructive elements in society, moral and immoral, organised and disorganised aspects of society.
4. Sociology is a holistic science: Sociology studies society as a whole. It does not limit itself to the study of any specific or particular aspect of society; rather, it studies all aspects of social life.

Difference Between Urban and Rural Area: Rural areas (or countryside) are areas with open spaces and small towns, usually located outside of cities. On the other hand, urban areas are places like cities and towns with more people and buildings. One of the main differences between Urban and Rural Areas is population density. Urban areas are densely populated, while rural areas have less population.

Rural areas are typically quieter and less developed, whereas urban areas offer more educational and job opportunities and have rapidly developing infrastructure. Rural areas usually have small communities with less than 2,500 people and Urban areas have bigger towns and more crowded places.

What is an Urban Area?

Urban areas are regions with a high population density and well-developed infrastructure, including cities, towns, and suburbs. People living in these areas usually work in jobs that aren’t related to farming. Urban areas are known for their developed infrastructure, such as advanced transportation systems, healthcare, and educational facilities. Urban areas are centers of economic activity, cultural diversity, and social interaction. Due to the high population and active commute, these areas face challenges like pollution and traffic congestion.

Examples of Urban Area

Urban areas are places where lots of people live together and a lot of building and development is going on. These areas are usually cities or big towns. Urban areas are known for having a variety of jobs and opportunities, also lots of shops and places to visit. In urban areas, we can see tall buildings, busy streets, and lots of activities like concerts, museums, and restaurants. People from many different backgrounds live in these areas, making an Urban area very diverse and interesting.

Here are five examples of well-known urban areas:

• New York City, USA: This city is famous for its big buildings and busy streets. This place is a hotspot where people from different cultures live.
• Tokyo, Japan: This city is known for its modern technology and fashion. Tokyo also has a mix of new and old skyscrapers and historic temples.
• Mumbai, India: Mumbai is the center of India’s movie industry, known as Bollywood. This is a busy city with markets and beautiful old buildings.
• London, UK: It is a city full of history. London has famous museums and old buildings, and people from all over the world live there.
• Paris, France: This city is known as the city of love. It’s famous for art, fashion, and famous places like the Eiffel Tower.

What is a Rural Area?

A rural area is a region outside cities and towns. Such an area is known for its open spaces and small communities. These areas usually have fewer people and are surrounded by nature. Primary work of people living in rural areas are mostly agriculture or small local businesses. In India, about 70% of people live in rural areas are involved in agriculture, self-employment, services, and construction. Rural life is generally quieter and slower-paced compared to urban life. These areas often have fewer services like big hospitals or many schools, but thier lifestyle includes a closer connection to nature and a strong sense of community.

Examples of Rural Area

Rural areas are peaceful places with lots of nature, not crowded like cities. People here often know each other and live a simple life. Rural areas are known for wide-open spaces with fresh air, and lot of calmness which is hard to find in cities.

Here are some unique rural areas:

• The Cotswolds, England: This place has gentle hills and old villages made of stone. It’s quiet and pretty.
• Napa Valley, California, USA: This villege is known for its grape farms. People come here to see the farms and taste wine.
• Tuscany, Italy: It is famous for its beautiful views and old farms. It’s like a picture from a storybook.
• The Highlands, Scotland: This place has big hills and deep lakes.
• Kerala Backwaters, India: Kerala is a place with water canals and green lands. People live a slow life, close to nature and water.

Difference Between Urban and Rural Area

Here are the points of difference between Urban area and Rural area on the basis of definition, composition, environment etc:

In the social sciences, a social group is defined as two or more people who interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a sense of unity. Regardless, social groups come in a myriad of sizes and varieties. For example, a society can be viewed as a large social group. The system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group or between social groups is known as group dynamics.

A social group exhibits some degree of social cohesion and is more than a simple collection or aggregate of individuals, such as people waiting at a bus stop, or people waiting in a line. Characteristics shared by members of a group may include interests, values, representations, ethnic or social background, and kinship ties. Kinship ties being a social bond based on common ancestry, marriage or adoption. In a similar vein, some researchers consider the defining characteristic of a group as social interaction. According to Dunbar’s number, on average, people cannot maintain stable social relationships with more than 150 individuals.

Social psychologist Muzafer Sherif proposed to define a social unit as a number of individuals interacting with each other with respect to:

1. Common motives and goals
2. An accepted division of labor, i.e. roles
3. Established status (social rank, dominance) relationships
4. Accepted norms and values with reference to matters relevant to the group
5. Development of accepted sanctions (praise and punishment) if and when norms were respected or violated

This definition succeeds in providing the researcher with the tools required to answer three important questions:

1. “How is a group formed?”
2. “How does a group function?”
3. “How does one describe those social interactions that occur on the way to forming a group?”

The attention of those who use, participate in, or study groups has focused on functioning groups, on larger organizations, or on the decisions made in these organizations. Much less attention has been paid to the more ubiquitous and universal social behaviors that do not clearly demonstrate one or more of the five necessary elements described by Sherif.

Some of the earliest efforts to understand these social units have been the extensive descriptions of urban street gangs in the 1920s and 1930s, continuing through the 1950s, which understood them to be largely reactions to the established authority. The primary goal of gang members was to defend gang territory, and to define and maintain the dominance structure within the gang. There remains in the popular media and urban law enforcement agencies an avid interest in gangs, reflected in daily headlines which emphasize the criminal aspects of gang behavior. However, these studies and the continued interest have not improved the capacity to influence gang behavior or to reduce gang related violence.

The relevant literature on animal social behaviors, such as work on territory and dominance, has been available since the 1950s. Also, they have been largely neglected by policy makers, sociologists and anthropologists. Indeed, vast literature on organization, property, law enforcement, ownership, religion, warfare, values, conflict resolution, authority, rights, and families have grown and evolved without any reference to any analogous social behaviors in animals. This disconnect may be the result of the belief that social behavior in humankind is radically different from the social behavior in animals because of the human capacity for language use and rationality. Of course, while this is true, it is equally likely that the study of the social (group) behaviors of other animals might shed light on the evolutionary roots of social behavior in people.

Territorial and dominance behaviors in humans are so universal and commonplace that they are simply taken for granted (though sometimes admired, as in home ownership, or deplored, as in violence). But these social behaviors and interactions between human individuals play a special role in the study of groups: they are necessarily prior to the formation of groups. The psychological internalization of territorial and dominance experiences in conscious and unconscious memory are established through the formation of social identity, personal identity, body concept, or self concept. An adequately functioning individual identity is necessary before an individual can function in a division of labor (role), and hence, within a cohesive group. Coming to understand territorial and dominance behaviors may thus help to clarify the development, functioning, and productivity of groups.

Difference Between Primary and Secondary Groups

Difference in Meaning

Primary group is the nucleus of all social organizations. It is characterized by intimate face-to-face association and co-operation.

They are primary in several senses but they are fundamental in forming the social nature and ideals of individuals. Family, playgroup and neighborhood are the example of primary group. But secondary groups are large scale groups in which the relationships are relatively casual, impersonal and competitive. They are consciously formed to fulfill some common goals or objectives. Ex-City, Political Party.

Difference in Size

A primary group is very small in size and is confined to a small area. Because it consists of very small number of individuals. But the size of a secondary group is very large and it is spread all over the world. Because it consists of thousands of members who is widespread and scattered all over the world.

Difference in Stability

Primary groups are relatively stable or durable. For example family is a stable organization. But a secondary group may be temporary or permanent. These are temporary groups like flood relief association. As secondary groups are special interest groups after the fulfillment of the interest it automatically vanishes.

Difference in Co-operation

The nature of co-operation in a primary and secondary group also differs from each other. The members of a primary group directly co-operate with each other. They play, sit and discuss together. Because of face to face contact and personal relationships direct co-operation among members is possible. But the members of a secondary group indirectly co­operate with each other. Because there exists indirect relations among the members.

Difference in Structure

According to the type of structure both primary and secondary group can be distinguished from each other. Primary group is based on an informal structure and is very simple. All the members participate in the same process and it is regulated by informal rules and regulations. On the other hand secondary group is based on formal structure and is regulated by a set of formal rules and regulations.

Difference in Relationships

A great deal of differences is found in the relationships among the members of a primary and secondary group. There exist direct, intimate and personal relationships among the members of a primary group. The relations are all inclusive because primary group is relationship directed. But there exists indirect and impersonal relations among the members of a secondary group. Here relations are secondary and formal.

Difference in the method of social control

Both primary and secondary group can be distinguished from each other on the basis of the means by which they exercises control over their members. Primary group exercises controls over its members through informal means such as customs, folkways, mores etc. Secondary group have limited control over its members. But secondary group control the behavior of its members through formal means such as police, jail, court, law etc.

Difference in Goal

Difference in effect on Personality

Both primary and secondary group can be distinguished from each other on the degree by which they affect or determine the personality of an individual. Primary group has a greater influence on the development of personality. It influences the total personality of an individual. But secondary group has a little influence on the development of personality of an individual. It is mainly concerned with a particular aspect of the personality of an individual.

Differences in Physical Closeness

Both primary and secondary group may be distinguished from each other on the grounds of physical nearness. Members of a primary group live in physical proximity to each other. There exits face –to face relations among the member. But members of a secondary group the member of secondary group.

The relationship among the members of a primary group is spontaneous in nature whereas the relationship among the members of a secondary group is governed by external forces.

Primary relationship is all inclusive. Here each member know each other personally and they are concerned with the total aspect of human being. But secondary relationship is not all inclusive. Here members do not know each other personally and they are not concerned with the total aspect of life of members.

Some people have more resources then others within a society. Some professions are high paid while other are less paid. Few people have more wealth than others. People with specific education and skills earn more compare to others. One might wonder why there is in equality in society? Why people are divided in to different groups based on acquisition of resources? Sociologists answer these question by, studying the area of social stratification from three different sociological perspectives, structural function perspective, conflict perspective and symbolic interaction perspective.

Structural Function Perspective

According to structural functional perspective, different parts and aspects of society exist to serve a purpose within a society. Each individual, institution and group has its own roles and objectives, which contribute to the organization of social structure. Therefore, functionalist believe that, social stratification serve a purpose too, for the sustenance of society.

What Are The Functions Of Social Stratification?

Wilbert Moore and Kingsley Davis published; “Davis-Moore thesis” in, 1945. In which they argued, the roles which have greatest functions within a society, should be rewarded highly. According to the thesis, different roles, qualification and skills have different values. Those skills or education; which are valued, play an important role within a society. The person who acquires those skills and education must be valued and should be highly rewarded.

Different professions require different training and education; some of them need less effort compare to others. Education, skills and training which need more efforts and time to learn are highly valued in society. The person whose job requirement is based on these valued professional traits are rewarded highly than others. For instance, doctors are paid more than childcare workers because, for entering in the field of medicine require high intelligence. The education and training which is required for the profession, need more efforts and time. In order to motivate people to become doctors; they should be highly rewarded. On the other hand, skills which are required to become childcare worker; does not need that much effort to learn. Many people can enter into the profession because it is easy; it does not need much skills and education. Therefore, doctors are paid more than childcare workers.

Conflict Perspective

Conflict theorist view differ from functionalists; they think stratification do not fulfil any need and function of society. However, inequality is the product of class conflict.

According to Karl Marx inequality exist in society due to the private ownership of property. People who owns means of production; they exploit workers for profit maximization. Workers do not have any means to earn their livelihood except to sell their labor. All the efforts which are required for the production are invested by, workers in factories. However, they do not get the fair share of wealth which is earned through those products. Owners of the factories give workers minimum wages in order to maximize their profits. Therefore, conflict theorist believe that, stratification does not benefits the society but it only benefits the rich. Modern conflict theorist believe that, not only the economic sources of power are used to suppress weak but, non-economic sources of power too. Many people in the society are exploited on the basis of gender and race. Most organization pay less to women compare to man for the same job.

Symbolic Interaction Perspective

Interactionists view society from micro level, they use social interaction to define society as whole. This perspective explains how social stratification affect social interaction among people. Mostly people interact with those who share similar social class within a society. Because people who belong to similar social class, have same income level, similar jobs, education, taste in food and clothing. They associate with one another on many levels. These associations bring people and groups together within a society. The social status of people are reflected through their appearance i.e. clothing, transportation, hairstyle and accessories.

Meaning

The family is an intimate domestic group made up of people related to one another by bonds of blood, sexual mating or legal ties. It is the smallest and most basic social unit, which is also the most important primary group found in any society.

It is the simplest and most elementary group found in a society. It is a social group consisting of a father, mother and one or more children. It is the most immediate group a child is exposed to. In fact, it is the most enduring group, which has tremendous influence on the life of an individual, from birth until death. It also accounts for the most enduring social relation­ship found in society. Family has been defined by different social scientists.

Some of these definitions are given below:

‘Family is a group defined by sexual relationship, sufficiently precise and enduring to provide for the procreation and upbringing of children.’

– Maclver

‘The family, almost without question, is the most important of any groups that human experience offers … the family … is with us always, or more precisely, we are with it.’

– Robert Bierstedt

‘Family is a more or less durable association of husband and wife, with or without child, or of a man or woman alone, with children.’

– M. F. Nimkoff

‘Family is the biological social unit composed of husband, wife and children.’

– Eliot and Merrill

‘Family is a group of persons united by ties of marriage, blood or adoption constitut­ing a single household interacting and inter-communicating with each other in their respective social roles of husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter, brother and sister, creating a common culture.’

– Burgess and Locke

‘Family is a group of persons, whose relations to one another are based upon con­sanguinity and who are therefore kin to one another.’

– Kingsley Davis

Characteristics of Family

1. Family is a Universal group. It is found in some form or the other, in all types of societies whether primitive or modern.
2. A family is based on marriage, which results in a mating relationship between two adults of opposite sex.
3. Every family provides an individual with a name, and hence, it is a source of nomenclature.
4. Family is the group through which descent or ancestry can be traced.
5. Family is the most important group in any individual’s life.
6. Family is the most basic and important group in primary socialization of an individual.
7. A family is generally limited in size, even large, joint and extended families.
8. The family is the most important group in society; it is the nucleus of all institu­tions, organizations and groups.
9. Family is based on emotions and sentiments. Mating, procreation, maternal and fraternal devotion, love and affection are the basis of family ties.
10. The family is a unit of emotional and economic cooperation.
11. Each member of family shares duties and responsibilities.
12. Every family is made up of husband and wife, and/or one or more children, both natural and adopted.
13. Each family is made up of different social roles, like those of husband, wife, mother, father, children, brothers or sisters.

Functions of Family

As a social group and as an important social institution, family performs various func­tions that are as follows:

1. Family is a unit through which procreation takes place. Marriage sanctions sexual relationships, and it also establishes a family, which is further reinforced with the birth of children.

2. The process of reproduction is institutionalized, regulated and controlled in a family. The family legitimizes the act of reproduction.

3. Family helps in propagation of human species and perpetuation of human race.

4. Family provides an individual with an identity.

5. It is through the family that every family name is carried on from one genera­tion to another.

6. Family is responsible for the production and upbringing of children.

7. Family is an important agent of socialization. The primary socialization of any individual takes place within the family. The imme­diate family members teach all the basic rules and norms of social life to a child.

8. Family is also an important agent of cultural transmission. Culture is transmit­ted from one generation to another through family. All the aspects of culture are learnt within the family structure.

9. Family is a great source of strength, emotional and psychological, for its mem­bers. All the members are aware that they can depend upon their family in the times of need.

10. Family provides an individual with a home, and establishes enduring social re­lationships.

11. The family is the basis of division of labour, where all members have their duties and obligations towards each other.

12. A family fulfills the economic needs of its members. This function has undergone transformation, with families moving from being production and consumption units in earlier times, to becoming more of consuming units rather than a pro­ducing one. Now-a-days, members of a family no longer produce things them­selves; rather, they go out and work for some monetary remuneration or wages.

13. Family is traditionally responsible for the education of the children.

14. Family also has a recreational function. Earlier, most recreation was family- based. Family gatherings during festivals, functions, family reunions, marriages, brought entire families together. Now-a-days, taking family members out on holidays or for movies, plays, dinners, or parties, etc., perform the same func­tion.

Types or Forms of Family

A description of the above classification of types or forms of family is explained here:

Based on Birth

Family of Orientation:

The family in which an individual is born is his family of orientation.

Family of Procreation:

The family where an individual sets up after his/her marriage is his/her family of procreation.

The family of orientation and procreation may live together under the same roof, but can still be distinguished.

Based on Marriage

Monogamous Family:

This family consists of one husband and wife, including children and is based on monogamous marriages.

Polygynous Family:

A family consisting of one husband, and more than one wife, and all the children born to all the wives or adopted by each of them. This type of family has its basis in the polygynous form of marriage.

Polyandrous Family:

A family made up of one wife and more than one husband, and the children, either born or adopted with each one of them. This family is based on poly­androus marriage.

Based on Residence

Family of Matrilocal Residence:

When a couple stays in the wife’s house, the family is known as family of matrilocal residence.

Family of Patrilocal Residence:

When a family stays in the house of husband, the fam­ily is known as family of patrilocal residence.

Family of Changing Residence:

When a family stays in the husband’s house for some time, and moves to wife’s house, stays there for a period of time, and then moves back to husband’s parents, or starts living in another place, the family is called a family of chang­ing residence.

Based on Ancestry or Descent

Matrilineal Family:

When ancestry or descent is traced through the female line, or through the mother’s side, the family is called matrilineal family.

Patrilineal Family:

A family in which the authority is carried down the male line, and descent is traced through the male line or the father’s side, is called a patrilineal family.

Based on Authority

Matriarchal Family:

Matriarchal families are generally found in matrilineal societies. In these families, a woman is the head of the family, and authority is vested in her. Succession of property is through the female line, i.e., only daughters inherit the property.

After marriage, the husband resides in the wife’s house and descent is traced through the mother’s side. Here, children are brought up in mother’s house. Thus, in matriarchal societies, the matrilocal system exists. Matriarchal families are found only in matrilineal societies, which are very limited in number all over the world. They are found in parts of Latin America, Ceylon, parts of Africa and India (the Khasis and the Garos).

Patriarchal Family:

Patriarchal families are commonly found in all parts of the world, since most societies in the world are patrilineal societies. In patriarchal families, the head of the family is a male, and authority is vested in him. Descent and property is passed through the male line and children are brought up in father’s house. Such families are patrilocal in nature.

Based on the Nature of Relations

Conjugal Family:

The conjugal family is made up of adults among whom there is a sexual relationship. It refers to a family system of spouses and their dependent children. The emphasis is placed on the marital relationship that exists between spouses. In modern times, the term ‘conjugal family’ is being used for partners, who have a long- term sexual relationship, but are not actually married.

Consanguine Family:

A consanguine family is made up of members among whom a blood relation exists, or those who are consanguineal kin, i.e., a family consisting of parent(s) and children, or siblings (brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters).

Based on state or structure

Nuclear Family:

A nuclear family is a small group consisting of a husband, a wife and children, natural or adopted. It is more or less an autonomous unit that is not under the control of adults or elders of the family. It consists of two generations only. In all modern societies, nuclear family is the most common type of family. In fact, nuclear family is both the consequence as well as the cause of the disintegration of joint family.

Joint Family:

A joint family consists of three generation, living together under the same roof, sharing the same kitchen and purse or economic expenses. It is a family consisting of three nuclear families living together. According to Iravati Karve, a joint family is ‘a group of people, who generally live under the same roof, who eat food cooked at one hearth, who hold property in common, and who participate in common family worship and are related to each other as some particular type of kindered.’

In Figure 2, Ego (the shaded figure) is a part of a joint family consisting of four gen­erations—the children, parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, all from the fathers side. These types of joint families are also known as patriarchal (father- centred) or patrilineal (lineage traced through the father s or male side) joint families.

In such families, only unmarried daughters, or at times widowed daughters are a part of the family. Married daughters no longer belong to the family as they become a part of their husbands family. However, in the case of matriarchal joint families (mother-centered) or matrilineal (lineage or descent traced through the mothers side or the female side), daughters are a part of the joint family, whereas sons become a part of their wives’ families.

Functionalism examines how the social institutions that make up society, such as the economy, education, family, religion, and media, all perform a useful purpose, and also influence members of society.

Functionalism is a theory that views society as a complex but orderly and stable system with interconnected structures and social patterns that operate to meet the needs of individuals’ needs.

Functionalism originated in British anthropology. In particular, the Polish-British anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (1943) proposed functional analysis as a solution for sociologists to interpret social situations through intuition rather than observation.

According to Malinowski, this functional analysis brings scientific attention to the study of cultures different from those of the ones observing it. Thus, before analyzing a social phenomenon typical of a given culture — say, an institution, material object, or idea — people first must think about what function that social phenomenon has within this culture.

The essential assumption of Malinowski”s functionalism is that in every single civilization, every custom, material object, idea, and opinion fulfills some vital function, helping to both express and maintain it.

This expression and maintenance of culture through phenomena that take place within it is called integration.

Examples of Functionalism

Durkheim and Functionalism

Emile Durkheim is widely considered to be the father of sociology. Durkheim believed that individuals are inherently selfish and social structure and social order are important in that they constrain their selfishness.

However, Durkheim also believed that, as societies evolved in a way that made people more individualistic, maintaining social order became an increasingly difficult problem for society.

Durkheim and Social Solidarity

• Social solidarity and cohesion is achieved and maintained through socialization process and learning of norms and values of society.
• To restrain naturally selfish tendencies, Durkheim believed that societies need to create a sense of social solidarity — making individuals feel as if they are part of something bigger and teaching them the standards of acceptable behavior.
• This is what Durkheim called moral regulation. Both social solidarity and moral regulation rely on effectively socializing individuals into wider society (Pope, 1975).
• While Durkheim believed that solidarity and moral regulation were achieved in different ways in primitive and advanced industrial societies, these goals were far harder to achieve in industrialized ones.
• For example, in “primitive” societies such as Feudal Europe, social regulation worked on a small scale and was locally based, and people lived in the same area their entire lives. There was very little role differentiation and no complex division of labor.
• That is to say, people generally had the shared experiences of living in the same village, carrying out the same activities, and living with the same people their entire lives.
• Durkheim believed that, because the people in societies such as Feudal Britain shared the same reality, the same goals, and even the same religion, they are closely reliant on one another, meaning that moral regulation and social solidarity are easily achieved. Durkheim called this situation mechanical solidarity: solidarity based on similarity.
• Meanwhile, during the Industrial Revolution, the number of specialized tasks increased. The division of labor, as a result, also became more complex.
• Individuals, despite shifting more toward individualism, became more interdependent — trading self-sufficiency for dependence on a large number of people that they did not know.
• As a result, the ability of large social institutions — like religion — to provide universal morals declined. As people within a society ceased to live the same lives, a need to find solidarity grounded in something other than similarity arose.
• Durkheim called this organic solidarity, a social cohesion that results from the interdependence of people in a society.

Durkheim and Anomie

• Without a sense of social solidarity society can fall into anomie, a normlessness where a person doesn’t know what it means to be normal within society.
• Durkheim (1897) believed that the vast differences between individuals in industrialized societies created a crisis of moral regulation. Durkheim calls this condition anomie.
• He argued that the question of how modern societies could achieve moral regulation and keep individuals compliant was the primary problem of contemporary civilization.
• He called this moral regulation organic solidarity: social solidarity based on difference (Pope, 1975).
• Durkheim believed that labor organizations and education would provide society with necessary moral regulation because education could simultaneously teach people the diverse skills required for an advanced specialization of labor and provide them with shared norms and values through teaching subjects such as history.

Talcott Parsons’ Functionalism

While functionalism before Parsons attempted to produce explanations of everything that exists and happens in a particular time, Parsons aimed to use functionalism to create a general theory of how all social systems work.

Parsons melded together the theories and key issues of several other sociologists — Durkheim, Marshall and Pereto, and Weber — to create his grand theory.

The Organic Analogy

Talcott Parsons believed that society acts in a similar way to the human body, as social institutions interact in the same way as human organs.

Both are interconnected and interdependent parts that function for the good of the whole. This is called the organic analogy.

Organisms like the human body have needs that need to be met and so does society. Social institutions have evolved to meet society’s needs, such as value consensus and social order.

Parsons believed that one of the most important functions of social institutions is the creation of value consensus: an agreement around shared values. This commitment to common values was, for Parsons, the basis for order in society.

Value Consensus

• Value consensus means that a majority of society agree with the goals that society sets to show success. These included values such as a belief in work ethic and meritocracy.
• Parsons argued that work ethic ensures that people value working rather than leisure. This helps create more goods that can help society function, and a belief in meritocracy, that people believe that hard work should be rewarded, thus incentivizing people to work harder.
• Value consensus and social order are maintained through institutions of formal social control, such as the police, and informal social groups, such as families and schools, who socialize children into social values and norms shared by the majority of society.
• Parsons believed that the family is responsible for passing on society’s basic norms and values by providing early socialization, the stabilization of adult personalities, and a place for people to escape from the pressures of modern life.
• Education integrates individuals into wider society, promoting a sense of belonging and identity. Parsons believed that education does this through teaching students a shared history and language.
• Finally, other institutions can regulate individual behavior through social sanctions. This can prevent crime and deviance from becoming unmanageable.

Functional Prerequisites

Parsons also believed that societies have certain functional prerequisites — things that societies need in order to survive. For example, a society must produce and distribute food and shelter, organize and resolve conflicts, and socialize young people.

Parsons believed that social systems have four needs that must be met for continued survival: adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency.

Parsons also viewed social change as a process of social evolution.

That is to say; he thought that human societies underwent a progression from hunter-gatherers to complex industrial ones and that more complex societies were inherently better because they are more adaptive — able to respond to changes in the environment, more innovative, and more capable of utilizing the talents of a wider range of people.

As a result, in a conclusion echoing Darwinism, these advanced societies are better able to survive.

Parsons believed that several factors bolster societal progress. While economic and technological changes lead to societies evolving, he argued that values increasingly become the driver of social progress in advanced societies.

To Parsons, the values of advanced industrialized societies are superior to those of traditional societies because modern values allow society to be more adaptive.

Parsons believed that the collapse of major social institutions — family, education, and so forth, could cause regression into a more primitive form of social organization.

The Social System

Parsons was influenced by many European scholars, such as Malinowski and Weber. Some have argued that Parson’s sociology addresses American society in particular, and that it is, rather than an ideological justification of the state of America contemporary to him, an attempt to identify the minimum requirements of integration in a society composed of different ethnic groups with different traditions and cultures.

This means that an action is only a social action when social purposes and standards are identified in the context of interactions that consider their finalities and rules an integral part of the social situation.

Parsons (1951) introduced the idea of a system to address the problem of integration. Parsons said that since people perform actions according to defined principles, rather than in a random way, they have a “personality system.”

Here, a system is the set of symbols that make the interaction possible and the network of relationships between people that do not act in an uncoordinated way but according to the positions assigned to them in this network of relations.

Parsons believed that the cultural, personality, and society systems all had to be the same as each other. The culture helps people to create their personality through internalizing the rules and values of a society (Parsons, 1951).

Meanwhile, the internalization of these cultural models gives order and stability to society because all of the people in a society tend to behave in a way that conforms to society”s expectations.

There are three parts of every action, according to Parsons:

• the finality — the goal to reach and negative consequences to avoid (the “cathetic” element);
• the knowledge of a situation necessary to complete an action — the knowledge element; and, finally, the ability to pick out among many possible choices —
• the “evaluation” element.

Parson believed that personality can only arise in the context of social relations, which can create a system of common signs and symbols for navigating symbols.

These social relations take place in mutual relations among people who act according to their status and roles. While status defines the position that a person occupies in a system of relations considered to be a structure regardless of personality, roles relate to what someone does in relation to others, and what is typical of a certain status.

Criticisms of Functionalism

Although Parson”s first attempts at creating a grand theory of sociology were well-regarded in the 1950s, Neo-Marxists, conflict theorists, and symbolic interactionists criticized him heavily.

Eventually, American sociologists attempted to revive the grand theory.

In all societies people differ from each other on the basis of their age, sex and personal characteristics. Human society is not homogeneous but heterogeneous. Apart from the natural differences, human beings are also differentiated according to socially approved criteria.

So socially differentiated men are treated as socially unequal from the point of view of enjoyment of social rewards like status, power, income etc. That may be called social inequality. The term social inequality simply refers to the existence of socially created inequalities.

Meanings

Social stratification is a particular form of social inequality. All societies arrange their members in terms of superiority, inferiority and equality. Stratification is a process of interaction or differentiation whereby some people come to rank higher than others.

In one word, when individuals and groups are ranked, according to some commonly accepted basis of valuation in a hierarchy of status levels based upon the inequality of social positions, social stratification occurs. Social stratification means division of society into different strata or layers. It involves a hierarchy of social groups. Members of a particular layer have a common identity. They have a similar life style.

The Indian Caste system provides an example of stratification system. The society in which divisions of social classes exist is known as a stratified society. Modern stratification fundamentally differs from stratification of primitive societies. Social stratification involves two phenomena (i) differentiation of individuals or groups on the basis of possession of certain characteristics whereby some individuals or groups come to rank higher than others, (ii) the ranking of individuals according to some basis of evaluation.

Sociologists are concerned not merely with the facts of social differences but also with their social evaluation.

Definitions

1. Ogburn and Nimkoff

‘The process by which individuals and groups are ranked in more or less enduring hierarchy of status is known as stratification”

2. Lundberg:

“A stratified society is one marked by inequality, by differences among people that are evaluated by them as being “lower” and “higher”.

3. Gisbert:

“Social stratification is the division of society into permanent groups of categories linked with each other by the relationship of superiority and subordinations”.

4. Williams:

Social Stratification refers to “The ranking of individuals on a scale of superiority-inferiority-equality, according to some commonly accepted basis of valuation.

5. Raymond W. Murray:

Social stratification is horizontal division of society into “higher” and “lower” social units.”

6. Melvin M Tumin:

“Social stratification refers to “arrangement of any social group or society into hierarchy of positions that are unequal with regard to power, property, social evaluation and psychic gratification”.

Origin of Stratification

Regarding the origin of stratification many views have been given.

• According to Davis, social stratification has come into being due to the functional necessity of the social system.
• (Professor Sorokin attributed social stratification mainly to inherited difference in environmental conditions.
• (According to Karl Mrax, social factors are responsible for the emergence of different social strata, i.e. social stratification.
• Gumplowioz and other contended that the origin of social stratification is to be found in the conquest of one group by another.
• According to Spengler, social stratification is founded upon scarcity which is created whenever society differentiates positive in terms of functions and powers.
• Racial differences accompanied by dissimilarity also leads to stratification.

Types of Social Stratification

Social stratification is based upon a variety of principles. So we find different type of stratification.

The major types of stratification are

1. Caste
2. Class
3. Estate
4. Slavery

• Caste is a hereditary endogamous social group in which a person’s rank and its accompanying rights and obligations are ascribed on the basis of his birth into a particular group. For example-Brahmins, Kshyatryas, Vaishyas and Sudra Caste.
• Class-Stratification on the basis of class is dominant in modern society. In this, a person’s position depends to a very great extent upon achievement and his ability to use to advantage the inborn characteristics and wealth that he may possess.
• Estate system of medieval Europe provides another system of stratification which gave much emphasis to birth as well as to wealth and possessions. Each estate had a state.
• Slavery had economic basis. In slavery, every slave had his master to whom he was subjected. The master’s power over the slave was unlimited.

Characteristics of Social Stratification

On the basis of the analysis of the different definitions given by eminent scholars, social stratification may have the following characteristics.

• Social stratification is universal

There is no society on this world which is free from stratification. Modern stratification differs from stratification of primitive societies. It is a worldwide phenomenon. According to Sorokin “all permanently organized groups are stratified.”

• Stratification is social

It is true that biological qualities do not determine one’s superiority and inferiority. Factors like age, sex, intelligence as well as strength often contribute as the basis on which statues are distinguished. But one’s education, property, power, experience, character, personality etc. are found to be more important than biological qualities. Hence, stratification is social by nature.

• It is ancient

Stratification system is very old. It was present even in the small wondering bonds. In almost all the ancient civilizations, the differences between the rich and poor, humble andpowerful existed. During the period of Plato and Kautilya even emphasis was given to political, social and economic inequalities.

• It is in diverse forms

The forms of stratification is not uniform in all the societies. In the modern world class, caste and estate are the general forms of stratification. In India a special type of stratification in the form of caste is found. The ancient Aryas were divided into four varnas: the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras. The ancient Greeks were divided into freemen and slaves and the ancient Romans were divided into the particians and the plebians. So every society, past or present, big or small is characterized by diversed forms of social stratification.

• Social stratification is Consequential

Social stratification has two important consequences one is “life chances” and the other one is “life style”. A class system not only affects the “life- chances” of the individuals but also their “life style”.

The members of a class have similar social chances but the social chances vary in every society. It includes chances of survival and of good physical and mental health, opportunities for education, chances of obtaining justice, marital conflict, separation and divorce etc.

Life style denotes a style of life which is distinctive of a particular social status. Life-styles include such matters like the residential areas in every community which have gradations of prestige-ranking, mode of housing, means of recreation, the kinds of dress, the kinds of books, TV shows to which one is exposed and so on. Life-style may be viewed as a sub-culture in which one stratum differs from another within the frame work of a commonly shared over-all culture.

Marxist/Conflict Theory

A different view of society is taken by the conflict theorists, who see stratification as the result of the differential distribution of power in which coercion, domination, exploitation are viewed as key processes. The assumptions of the conflict theorists basically are:

1. Every society is at every point subject to processes of change, social change is ubiquitous.
2. Every society displays at every point dissensions and conflict, social conflict is ubiquitous.
3. Every element in a society renders a contribution to its integration and change.
4. Every society is based on the coercion of some of its members by others.

Conflict theorists view stratification in terms of individuals and subgroups within a society. This theory argues that inequality exists in society because there is always a shortage of available valued goods and services and therefore there is always a struggle over who shall get what. Inequality results because desirable social positions are attained not by talent or ability, but by force, by birth, by dominance, by exploitation or by coercion.

Karl Marx never gave theory of stratification; he gave a theory of social class on the basis of which we derive stratification or inequality in society. In the view of Marx, the concept of class is fundamental.

Classes according to Marx, are large groups of people who differ from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of production, by their relation to the means of production, and by their role in the social organisation of labour, and consequently the methods by which they receive their share of social wealth and the amount of this wealth they possess.

Class, according to Marx, is a historical category. It is connected with a certain stage in the development of production, with certain stage in development of production with certain type of production relation. Classes arise for reasons of historical necessity connected with appearance of exploitative modes of production.

The fast exploitative mode of production was slavery, in which the principal classes were slaves and slave-owners. Slavery was followed by feudalism under which the landowners and the serfs constituted two principal classes. Feudalism was replaced by capitalism under which capitalists and the proletariat are two main contending classes.

Besides these classes of an exploitative society, Marx recognised that social differentiation produced many other groups with conflicting interests. He also recognised the existence of the middle classes (petty bourgeoisie).

These classes own the means of production but also contribute their labour power, like the proletariat. Every class-society becomes a theatre of conflict-conflict between classes of opposing interests. Men in different relations to the means of production naturally have opposed interests.

In capitalist society, the owners of capital have a vested interest in maximizing profit and seek to keep the profit for themselves which has been created by the workers. Thus, class conflict, according to Marx, takes place between capitalist and the proletariat under capitalism. The development of society is determined by the outcome of this class conflict. “The history of all hitherto existing society”, wrote Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, “is a history of class struggle.”

Marx said that class conflict is resolved by revolutionary abolition of the old production relation and old classes and their replacement by new ones. He showed that in capitalist society the class struggle inevitably leads to the abolition of classes and the establishment of classless society, socialism’.

The transition from feudalism to capitalism was produced by struggle between landed aristocracy and a rising capitalist class. The rising capitalist class overthrew the feudal aristocracy and will be similarly displaced by the working class. Marx’s basic thought was that the proletariat which sets all the means of production in motion yet never owns them is the ‘last class ‘.

The proletariat comes in to conflict with the bourgeoisie, and in the course of the struggle, becomes of its position as a “class-for-itself” in economic and political competition with the capitalist class. The outcome of their struggle, other things being equal, is the overthrow of the capitalist class and the capitalist relation of production.

The proletariat cannot emancipate itself as a class without abolishing the capitalist system of production, where it is the exploited and oppressed class. To liberate itself, therefore, the proletariat must abolish itself as a class, thus abolishing all classes and class rule as such.

The transition to socialism does not takes place automatically. It is the historic role of the working class to bring about this transition which is opposed by the capitalist class. The question of the form in which the revolutionary process was to occur by peaceful or violence means. The transfer of state power from the capitalist class is the basic question of the socialist revolution. It can only be effected through a sharp class struggle, the highest form of which is revolution.

Criticism

Sorokin has criticised Marx’s theory on three grounds. Fast he says, it is old. Marx himself referred to Augustine Theory as the “father of class struggle in French historical writings”.

In his Letter to Weydemeyer he stated that the new that he did was to prove that “the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical process in the development of production” and the class struggle in capitalist society would lead to the establishment of a classes society.

This is the originality of Marx. Secondly Sorokin says, the acceptance of class struggle as the motive force of the development of society leads to the denial ‘of cooperation of social classes which has been the basis of the progress of mankind. Thirdly, Marx’s class theory is wrong because it does not recognise the importance of other antagonism such as the struggle of racial, national and religious groups.

Raymond Aron and Lipset have tried to argue against Marx’s theory of class. They argued that with the advancement of economy, there is minimum opposition or hostility among classes. The ruling class engages in welfare activities like making charitable schools, hospitals etc. But antagonism would not disappear, class antagonism would disappear in a Marxist Utopia, but surely other types of antagonism would arise.

T.B. Bottomore is another thoughtful critic of Marxism. According to Bottomore, Marx assigned too much significance to social class and class conflict. He has ignored other important social relationships. Bottomore claims that gulf between the two major classes has not widened because there has been a general rise in everyone’s standard of living.

The working class has developed new attitudes and aspirations which are not receptive to revolution. Revolution has not occurred and will not occur because of expanded social services, greater employment, security and increased employment benefits. Bottomore criticized Marx’s argument that middle class would disappear because its members would join one or the other two great classes. Instead there has been tremendous growth in the middle class.

Dahrendorf argued that Marxist analysis is not applicable to post capitalist society. Internal contradictions which Marx thinks will arise, do not arise easily. Dahrendorf says as Marx himself talked of Division of Labour, we can see that economic factors are not the important factors.

Weber treats Marx’s concept of class as an ideal type, a logical construct based on observed tendencies. He gives more importance to Status, Prestige and Power. He says that class is not something to be perceived in terms of means of production.

Community, society, and association are foundational concepts in sociology that explain different forms of human grouping, each with distinct characteristics and purposes. These concepts help us understand how individuals organize, interact, and fulfill their needs within various social structures.

Community

The term community refers to a group of people who share a common geographical area and engage in close, personal interactions. Communities are characterized by a strong sense of belonging and shared identity. The bonds within a community are usually emotional, and members have common interests, traditions, and values that promote a collective identity. Unlike broader societies, communities are typically smaller and more intimate, allowing members to develop deep interpersonal relationships.

Ferdinand Tönnies, a German sociologist, was one of the first to explore the concept of community in depth. He introduced the idea of Gemeinschaft (often translated as “community”) as a social structure based on close, personal bonds. In Gemeinschaft, relationships are natural, organic, and informal. Tönnies contrasted this with Gesellschaft (translated as “society”), a structure where relationships are more impersonal and based on self-interest rather than close emotional ties.

MacIver and Page, two influential sociologists, also offered a definition of community that emphasizes spatial relations. They defined a community as an area of social living marked by shared values and a sense of belonging. According to them, a community has two primary features: a locality where members live close to one another and sentiments that bind members emotionally.

Another aspect of community is solidarity. Émile Durkheim distinguished between mechanical solidarity (typical of small, traditional communities) and organic solidarity (found in complex, industrial societies). In mechanical solidarity, social cohesion is derived from the homogeneity of individuals, where people share similar work, values, and beliefs, making community bonds strong.

Society

Society, in contrast, is a much broader concept that refers to a large, organized group of people who share a common territory and culture but do not necessarily have close, personal ties. Society represents a complex system of social relationships governed by established norms, laws, and institutions. While communities focus on personal relationships and a sense of belonging, societies are more formal and structured, often encompassing diverse communities within a larger organizational framework.

Tönnies’s Gesellschaft concept illustrates this notion of society as an entity where relationships are primarily based on contracts, laws, and self-interest. In Gesellschaft, interactions are often rational and goal-oriented rather than emotional and intimate. This model reflects the characteristics of modern, industrial societies, where individuals often interact based on roles and functions rather than personal ties.

The concept of organic solidarity introduced by Durkheim also applies to society. In industrialized societies, individuals perform specialized roles, creating an interdependent network where cohesion arises from the mutual need for each other’s work and services. Society in this sense is characterized by division of labor, where different individuals fulfill specialized functions, making social relationships more formal and rational than in traditional communities.

Max Weber also provided insights into society by focusing on rationalization and bureaucratization. According to Weber, modern societies are characterized by bureaucratic institutions where formal rules and procedures govern social interactions. This form of organization ensures efficiency but often lacks the close, personal bonds found in communities. For Weber, societies are driven by goal-oriented actions, with social structures organized to achieve specific objectives, such as economic productivity or political governance.

Association

An association is a formal organization created by individuals with a specific, shared goal or interest. Unlike communities, associations do not rely on emotional or personal bonds; instead, they are formed intentionally to achieve particular objectives. Associations are often voluntary, and membership can be temporary. They are structured, with defined rules, roles, and regulations that guide the behavior of members.

MacIver and Page describe associations as secondary groups organized for a specific purpose. They distinguish associations from communities by noting that associations are functional and goal-oriented, while communities are based on personal relationships and emotional attachment. Examples of associations include political parties, business organizations, labor unions, and clubs. These entities operate based on formal procedures and often use a hierarchical structure to ensure that members work towards the organization’s goals.

Weber’s concept of formal rationality applies to associations, as they tend to be highly structured and governed by formal rules to maximize efficiency. Associations differ from communities and societies in that their existence is often dependent on their ability to achieve specific goals or fulfill the interests of their members. Unlike societies, which encompass all social relations within a certain territory, associations are more narrowly focused on particular interests.

Key Differences between Community, Society, and Association

1. Nature of Relationships:

   • Community: Relationships are personal and emotionally driven. Members share a sense of belonging and closeness.
   • Society: Relationships are impersonal and formal. Interaction is based on roles and interdependence in achieving social order.
   • Association: Relationships are goal-oriented and formal. Members come together for a specific purpose or function.

2. Purpose and Structure:

   • Community: Formed naturally among people sharing a common area and culture. Emphasis on shared identity and tradition.
   • Society: A larger, organized group with formal structures and institutions aimed at maintaining social order and continuity.
   • Association: Formed intentionally for a specific purpose, with a structured organization and formalized rules guiding interactions.

3. Basis of Social Cohesion:

   • Community: Cohesion arises from shared values, traditions, and emotional bonds.
   • Society: Cohesion is maintained through laws, institutions, and a division of labor that creates interdependence.
   • Association: Cohesion is based on shared goals and adherence to organizational rules.

4. Membership:

   • Community: Membership is often involuntary (based on birthplace or residence) and long-lasting.
   • Society: Membership is broad, typically involuntary, encompassing all individuals within a given territory.
   • Association: Membership is typically voluntary and can be temporary, depending on the interest or goal of the members.

Thinkers and Their Perspectives

• Ferdinand Tönnies: Differentiated between Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society), where community involves intimate relationships, and society involves formal, rational interactions.
• Émile Durkheim: His concepts of mechanical solidarity (community) and organic solidarity (society) highlight how different social structures create cohesion.
• MacIver and Page: Emphasized the emotional basis of community and the goal-oriented nature of associations.
• Max Weber: His ideas on bureaucracy and formal rationality explain the organization of society and association, where interactions are governed by rational, procedural rules.

Conclusion

In summary, community, society, and association are distinct yet interconnected social structures that shape human interactions in different ways. Community centers on personal, emotional bonds in a shared locality, society encompasses a broader organizational structure with formal institutions, and association represents purposeful, goal-oriented organizations. Thinkers like Tönnies, Durkheim, Weber, and MacIver and Page have provided valuable insights that highlight the unique characteristics and roles of each in forming and maintaining social order. Together, these structures represent the diverse ways people organize and connect in their pursuit of belonging, cooperation, and collective achievements.

Sociology is a science of society. As a social science it attempts to study social life as a whole. But for the understanding of social life as a whole sociology requires the help of other social sciences which studies a particular aspect of society. Economics studies the economic aspects whereas political science studies political aspects.

Hence it is obvious that other social sciences are closely related to sociology. Sociology is considered as the mother of social sciences. Besides sociology synthesizes other social sciences. Hence there exists a very close and intimate relationship between Sociology and other social sciences. For our precise understanding of the relationship between sociology and other social sciences we have to discuss them individually, which are discussed below:

Sociology and Political Science

As a mother of social sciences Sociology has close and intimate relationship with all other social science. Hence it has close relationship with political science as well. Their relationship is so close and intimate that led G.E.C. Catlin to remark “Political Science and Sociology are two faces or aspects of the same figure.” Similarly other scholars could not find any difference between the two disciplines.

Sociology is a Science of society. It is a science of social groups and social institutions. It is a general science of society. It studies human interaction and inter-relations their conditions and consequences. Political Science is a science of state and Government. It studies power, political processes, political systems, types of government and international relations. It deals with social groups organised under the sovereign of the state.

In the words of Paul Junet, “Political Science is that part of social science which treats the foundation of the state and principles of government.” It studies the political activities of man. It only studies the organised society. However their inter-relationship and inter-dependence can be known from inter­dependence and mutual relationship.

Sociology depends on political science. In the words of Morris Ginsberg, “Historically Sociology has its main roots in politics and philosophy of history.” Sociology greatly benefited by the books written by political scientists like Plato, Aristotle and Kautilya such as The Republic, The Politics and Arthasastra respectively.

Each and every social problem has a political cause. Political Science is a part of sociology. Hence sociology depends on political science to comprehend itself. To understand different political events sociology takes the help from political science. Sociology to draw it’s conclusions depends on political science. Any change in the political system or nature of power structure brings changes in society. Hence Sociology takes the help of political science to understand the changes in society. Hence both are inter-dependent.

Similarly political science also depends on Sociology. Political Science is a part of sociology. To understand the part it is necessary to understand the whole. Almost all political problems has a social cause and for the solution of these political problems political science takes the help of sociology.

State frames its rules, regulations and laws on the basis of social customs, tradition and values. Without Sociological background the study of political science will be incomplete. Political Scientists largely benefited by the researches and research methods of the Sociologist. Some consider political science as a branch of Sociology. State is considered as a social group hence is a subject of Sociology.

Besides, there are some common topics which are being studied by both the subjects. These topics are War, Propaganda, authority, communal riots and law. With the help of both political science and sociology a new subject comes into existence which is known as political sociology. Some political events like war are also significant social events.

Thus both political science and sociology contribute to each other. But inspite of their inter-relationship and inter-dependence both the sciences differ from each other in the following way.

Differences

1. Sociology is a science of society and social relationship whereas political science is a science of state and government.
2. The scope of sociology is very wide but scope of political science is limited.
3. Sociology is a general science but political science is a special science.
4. Sociology studied organised, unorganized and disorganized society whereas political science studies only politically organised society.
5. Sociology studies the social activities of man whereas political science studies political activities of man.
6. Sociology is a new or young science but political science is an older science.
7. Sociology studies man as a social animal whereas political science studies man as a political animal.
8. (8) Sociology studies both formal and informal relations whereas political science studies only formal relations.
9. (9) Sociology analyses both conscious and unconscious activities of man whereas political science analyses only conscious activities of man.
10. (10) Sociology deals with all forms of association whereas political science deals with only one form of association named state.

Sociology and History

As a mother of social sciences sociology has close and intimate relationship with all other social sciences. Accordingly it has close relationship with history. Because present society bears symbols of past. Relationship between the two is so close and intimate that scholars like G. Von Bulow have refused to acknowledge sociology as a science distinct from history.

Sociology is the science of society. It is a study of systems of social action and their inter-relations. Sociology is a science of social groups and social institutions. History studies the important past events and incidents. It records men past life and life of societies in a systematic and chronological order. It also tries to find out the causes of past events. It also studies the past political, social and economic events of the world.

It not only studies the past but also establishes relations with present and future. That is why it is said that “History is the microscope of the past, the horoscope of the present and telescope of the future.

However, both the sciences are closely inter-related and inter­dependent on each other. Both study the same human society. Their mutual dependence led G.H. Howard to remark that, “History is past Sociology and Sociology is present history.” Both takes help from each other. At the same time one depends on the other for its own comprehension.

History helps and enriches Sociology. History is the store house of knowledge from which Sociology gained a lot. History provides materials sociologists use. History is a record of past social matters, social customs and information about different stages of life. Sociology uses this information. Books written by historians like A. Toynbee are of great use for Sociologists. To know the impact of a particular past event sociology depends on history.

Similarly Sociology also provides help to history and enriches it. A historian greatly benefited from the research conducted by Sociologists. Historians now study caste, class and family by using sociological data. Sociology provides the background for the study of history.

Now history is being studied from Sociological angle. Every historical event has a social cause or social background. To understand that historical event history need the help from Sociology and Sociology helps history in this respect. Sociology provides facts on which historians rely on.

Thus history and Sociology are mutually dependent on each other. History is now being studied from Sociological angle and Sociology also now studied from historical point of view. Historical sociology now became a new branch of Sociology which depends on history. Similarly Sociological history is another specialized subject which based on both the Sciences. But in spite of the above close relationship and inter-dependence both the sciences differ from each other from different angles which are described below.

Differences

1. (Sociology is a science of society and is concerned with the present society. But history deals with the past events and studies the past society.
2. Sociology is a modern or new subject whereas history is an older social science.
3. Sociology is abstract whereas history is concrete in nature.
4. The scope of Sociology is very wide whereas the scope of history is limited. Sociology includes history within its scope.
5. Sociology is an analytical science whereas history is a descriptive science.
6. Attitude of sociology and history differ from each other. Sociology studies a particular event as a social phenomenon whereas history studies a particular event in it’s entirety.
7. Sociology is a general science whereas history is a special science.

Sociology and Economics

Sociology is mother of all social sciences. Hence it has close relationship with all social sciences and so also with Economics. The relationship of sociology with economics is very close, intimate and personal. There exists close relationship between these two because economic relationships bear a close relation to social activities and relationships. Likewise social relationships are also affected by economic relationships. Economic activities to a great extent are social activities. Hence both are mutually related.

Sociology is a science of society. It is concerned with the association of human beings. Sociology is the study of human inter­actions and inter-relations their conditions and consequences. But Economics deals with economic activities of man. It is a science of wealth and choice. According to Prof. Robbins Economics is a social “science which studies human behavior in relation to his unlimited ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.” It is concerned with the activities of man such as production, consumption, distribution and exchange. It also studies the structure and functions of different economic organizations like banks, markets etc. It is concerned with the material needs of man as well as his material welfare.

However, there exists a great deal of inter-relationship between these two sciences. Both are interdependent and inter-related with each other. Because of this inter-relationship Thomas opines that, “Economics is, in fact, but one branch of Sociology.” Similarly Silverman opines Economics is regarded as offshoot of sociology which studies the general principles of all social relations. Their inter-relationships are as follows:

Economics takes the help of Sociology. For its own comprehension economics takes the help of sociology and depends on it. Economics is a part of Sociology hence without the help from sociology economics can’t understand itself completely. Economics is concerned with material welfare of man which is common welfare.

Economic welfare is a part of social welfare. For the solution of different economic problems such as inflation, poverty, unemployment etc. economists takes the help of sociology and takes into account the social events of that particular time. At the same time society controls the economic activities of man. Economics is greatly benefited by the research conducted by Sociologists like Max-weber, Pareto etc. Some economists also consider economic change as an aspect of social change. Economic draws its generalization basing on the data provided by Sociology. Thus economics cannot go far or develop without the help of Sociology.

Similarly Sociology also takes the help from economics. Economics greatly enriches sociological knowledge. An economic factor greatly influences each and every aspects of social life. Economics is a part of sociology hence without the help of economics we can’t understand sociology properly.

Knowledge and research in the field of economics greatly contributes to sociology. Each and every social problem has an economic cause. For the solution of social problems like dowry, suicide etc. Sociologists take the help from economics.

Marx opines economic relations constitute the foundation of Society. Economic factors play a very important role in every aspect of our social life that is why Sociologists concerned with economic institutions. For this reason Sociologists like Spencer, Weber, Durkheim and others have taken the help from economics in their analysis of social relationships.

Thus both sociology and economics are very closely related with each other. There are some problems which are being studied by both sociologists and economists. Economic changes results in social changes and vice versa. However, inspite of the above closeness, inter-relationship and inter-dependence both the sciences have certain differences which are described below:

Differences

1. Sociology is a science of society and social relationships whereas economics is a science of wealth and choice.
2. Sociology is a much younger science which has very recent origin whereas economics is comparatively an older science.
3. Sociology is an abstract science whereas economics is concrete in nature.
4. Sociology is a general social science whereas economics is a special social science.
5. The scope of sociology is very wide whereas the scope of economics is very limited.
6. Sociology is concerned with the social activities of man whereas economics is concerned with the economic activities of man.
7. Society is studied as a unit of study in Sociology whereas man is taken as a unit of study in economics.
8. Both Sociology and economics differ from each other in respect of the methods and techniques they use for their study.

Sociology and Psychology

Sociology is a science of society. Hence it is closely related to other social sciences and so also with psychology. Sociology and Psychology are very closely interlinked interrelated and interdependent. Relationship between the two is so close and intimate that Psychologist like Karl Pearson refuses to accept both as special science. Both depend on each other for their own comprehension. Their relationship will be clear if we analyze their inter-relationship and mutual dependency.

Sociology is a science of social phenomena and social relationship. It is a science of social group and social institutions. It is a science of collective behavior. It studies human behavior in groups. But psychology is a science of mind or mental processes.

It is a science of human behavior. It analyses attitudes, emotions, perception, process of learning and values of individuals and process of personality formation in society. In the words of Thouless ‘Psychology is the positive science of human experience and behavior.’ But both the sciences are closely related to each other which can be known from the following.

Sociology receives help from Psychology. Psychology is a part of sociology hence without the help from Psychology Sociology can’t understand itself fully and properly. There are many psychologists like Freud, MacDougal and others who have enrich Sociology in many respects. They opines that the whole social life could be reduced finally to psychological forces. Each and every social problems and social phenomenon must have a psychological basis for the solution of which sociology requires the help from psychology. A new branch of knowledge has developed with the combination of sociology and psychology which is known as social psychology.

Similarly, psychology depends on Sociology to comprehend itself fully. Psychology also requires help from sociology in many cases. As human mind and personality is being influenced by social environment, culture, customs and traditions hence psychology take the help from Sociology to understand this.

To understand human nature and behaviour properly psychology depends on sociology. There are many Psychological problems which must have a Social Cause. Psychology requires the help from Sociology to understand these social problems. A research in Sociology richly contributes to psychology. Contributions and theories of many Sociologists also are of great help to Psychologists.

Thus Sociology and Psychology are mutually dependent on each other. One can’t comprehend itself without the help from others. Besides there are some common area of study such as social disorganization, public opinion etc. which are being studied by both Sociologists and Psychologists. Social Psychology a branch of

Psychology is developed with the combination of the two. In the words of Kretch and Crutchfield Social Psychology is the science of behaviour of the individuals in society.

Differences

However, inspite of the mutual relationship and dependence both the sciences differ from each other in the following ways.

1. Sociology is a science of society but Psychology is a science of mind.
2. Scope of Sociology is wide whereas scope of Psychology is limited.
3. Society is the unit of study in sociology but individual is the unit of study in case of Psychology.
4. Sociology studies social processes whereas Psychology studies mental processes.
5. Sociology studies and analyses human behavior from Sociological angle whereas psychology studies and analyses human behavior from Psychological angles.

Sociology and Anthropology

Sociology is the mother of all social sciences. Hence it has close and intimate relationship with Anthropology. The relationship is so close that Anthropologists like A.L. Kroeber consider Sociology and Anthropology as twin sisters. They often appear as two names for the same subject. R. Reddfield recognizes the closeness between these two social sciences.

Sociology is a science of society. It studies behavior of man in groups. The term Sociology has been derived from the Latin word ‘Socius’ means society, companion or association and the Greek word ‘logos’ means study or science. Hence Sociology is concerned with the association of human beings. It is a science that deals with social groups.

Similarly the term Anthropology is derived from two Greek words ‘anthropos’ meaning man and ‘logos’ meaning study or science. Accordingly anthropology means study of man. As a science of man it deals with man, his works and behavior. Anthropology studies the biological and cultural development of man. Anthropology has a wide field of study which can be broadly divided into three main divisions such as physical anthropology. Archeology cultural anthropology and social anthropology. Physical anthropology studies bodily characteristics of early man and thereby try to understand both primitive and modern cultures.

Archeology studies cultures of pre-historic period. This study facilitates sociologists to make a comparative study of present social structure. It is concerned with the early periods of human existence. It reconstructs the origin, spread and evolution of culture by examining the remains of the past societies. Social anthropology deals with the behaviour of man in social institutions. Social anthropology and sociology are one and the same. Evan Pritchard considers social anthropology as a branch of Sociology.

Mutual Help

However there exists a very close and intimate relationship between Sociology and Anthropology. Both contribute to the growth of others. Both are mutually related to each other. Of course Sociology studies society whereas anthropology studies man. But as man and society are mutually interrelated hence it is very difficult to distinguish two. However their close relationship can be known from the following.

Anthropology contributes to the growth of Sociology. Without the help of anthropology the study of Sociology can’t be complete. It is a part of Sociology. Anthropology provides knowledge about ancient societies. To have a comprehensive understanding of present society Sociology takes the help of anthropology. Contributions of many Anthropologists like R. Brown, Linton, Mead and Pritchard enriches sociological knowledge’s. The origin of family, marriage, religion etc. can be better understood through anthropological knowledge. The concepts like cultural area, cultural traits, and cultural lag etc. sociology accept from anthropology.

Sociology accepts the anthropological conclusion that ‘racial superiority is not responsible for mental development.’ Thus Sociology is greatly benefited by anthropological studies.

Similarly, Sociology contributes richly towards the growth of anthropology. Anthropology accepts many concepts of Sociology. Research and contributions of many Sociologists like Emile Durkheim, Herbert Spencer is of great help to anthropology. Anthropologists greatly benefited by the Sociological researches. Ideas and conclusions of Sociology contributes to the research in anthropology.

Thus there exists a great deal of relationship between Sociology and Anthropology. Both study human society and both are concerned with all kinds of social groups like families, friends, tribes etc. Many of the ideas and concepts are used in both the discipline. Hence both are interrelated and interdependent. But in spite of the inter-relationship both differ from each other.

Differences

1. Sociology is a science of society whereas anthropology is a science of man and his behavior.
2. The scope of Sociology is very wide whereas the scope of Anthropology is very limited. Because anthropology is a part of Sociology.
3. Sociology studies society as a whole whereas anthropology studies man as a part of society.
4. Sociology studies civilizations which are vast and dynamic on the other hand Anthropology studies cultures which are small and static.
5. Sociology studies modern, civilized and complex societies whereas Anthropology studies ancient and non-literate societies.
6. Sociology is concerned with social planning whereas anthropology is not concerned with social planning. On the basis of social planning sociology make suggestion for future but anthropology do not make any suggestion for future.
7. In the words of Kluckhon, “The Sociological attitude has tended towards the Practical and Present, the anthropological towards pure understanding of the past.”

Social processes are the ways in which individuals and groups interact, adjust and readjust and establish relationships and pattern of behaviour which are again modified through social interactions.

The concept of social process refers to some of the general and recurrent forms that social interaction may take. The interaction or mutual activity is the essence of social life. Interaction between individuals and groups occurs in the form of social process. Social processes refers to forms of social interaction that occur again and again.

Meaning of Social Interaction

Man is a social animal. It is difficult for him to live in isolation. They always live in groups. As members of these groups they act in a certain manner. Their behaviour is mutually affected. This interaction or mutual activity is the essence of social life. Social life is not possible without interactions.

Social interactions are reciprocal relationships which not only influence the interacting individuals but also the quality of relationships. According to Gillin and Gillin, “By social interaction we refer to social relations of all sorts in functions – dynamic social relations of all kinds – whether such relations exist between individual and individual, between group and group and group and individual, as the case may be”.

Eldredge and Merrill say, “Social interaction is thus the general process whereby two or more persons are in meaningful contact-as a result of which their behaviour is modified, however, slightly”. The mere placing of individuals in physical proximity, although it usually results in at least a medium of interaction, does not weld them into a social unit or group.

When the interacting individuals or groups influence the behaviour of each other it is called social interaction. People in action with one another means interaction of some kind. But not every kind of action is social.

When people and their attitudes are involved the process become social. Social interaction may then be defined as that dynamic interplay of forces in which contact between persons and groups result in a modifications of the attitudes and behaviour of the participants.

The two basic condition of social interaction are (i) social contact and (ii) communication. In the words of Gillin and Gillin, “social contact is the first phase of interaction”. Social contacts are always established through the medium of someone causes sense organ.

An object can be perceived by the sense organ only when that object causes communication with that sense organ. Hence the means of communication are essential adjuncts of social contact. Communication may be the form of direct person to person or it may take place through some medium of long-range contact such as the telephone, telegraph, television etc.

Social interaction usually takes place in the forms of cooperation’s, competition, conflict, accommodation and assimilation. These forms of social interaction are called “social processes”.

Meaning of Social Process

Social processes refer to forms of social interaction that occur repeatedly. By social processes we mean those ways in which individuals and groups interact and establish social relationships. There are various of forms of social interaction such as cooperation, conflict, competition and accommodation etc. According to Maclver, “Social process is the manner in which the relations of the members of a group, once brought together, acquire a distinctive character”.

(1) According to Maclver, “Social Process is the manner in which the relations of the members of a group, once bought together, acquire a distinctive character”.

(2) According to Gillin and Gillin, “By social process we mean those ways of interacting which we can observe when individuals and groups meet and establish system of relationships of what hap­pens when changes disturb already existing modes of life.”

(3) Horton and Hunt opinion “The term social process refers to the repetitive form of behavior which is commonly found in social life.”

(4) According to Morris Ginsberg, “Social processes are the various modes of social interaction between individuals or groups in­cluding co-operation and conflict, social differentiation and integra­tion, development, arrest and decay.”

Defining Dissociative Social Processes

Dissociative social processes are forms of social interaction that involve disagreement, tension, or competition between individuals or groups. Rather than creating immediate unity, these interactions generate rivalries, clashes, or conflicts that can lead to social reform, the redistribution of power, or adjustments in social norms. Dissociative processes are often viewed as destructive, but they have a constructive side as well, driving society toward greater adaptability and resilience.

Georg Simmel, a German sociologist, provided an influential perspective on conflict as a social force. In his view, conflict is not only inevitable but also necessary for societal growth. He argued that without conflict, there is no opportunity for society to challenge existing structures or for individuals to express diverse perspectives. For Simmel, dissociative processes create social integration by revealing and addressing underlying issues that may otherwise go unchallenged. He argued that even though conflicts disrupt the status quo, they ultimately bring people together by forcing them to resolve their differences.

Types of Dissociative Social Processes

Dissociative social processes are typically divided into three primary types: competition, conflict, and contravention. Each type plays a distinct role in society, contributing to its development and strength in different ways.

1. Competition

Competition is a dissociative process in which individuals or groups strive to achieve goals that are mutually exclusive. Unlike conflict, competition is often regulated by rules and social norms, which prevent it from devolving into open hostility. Competition exists in various areas, including economic markets, politics, and education.

In a competitive environment, people or groups work to outdo each other, leading to innovation and efficiency. For instance, in economic competition, companies are motivated to create better products or services, ultimately benefiting society. Similarly, political competition encourages political parties to address public issues, thereby enhancing democratic processes. Herbert Spencer emphasized the role of competition in his theory of Social Darwinism, where he described competition as a natural force that promotes the survival of the fittest. Spencer argued that competition in human societies leads to progress by pushing individuals to improve themselves and strive for success.

Through competition, society identifies capable leaders, new ideas, and effective systems. This process contributes to the overall development of society by fostering growth, stimulating economic productivity, and encouraging social mobility. Despite its competitive nature, this form of dissociative process strengthens society by ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently and that individuals are motivated to contribute to society.

2. Conflict

Conflict is a more intense form of dissociative social process and is often associated with direct opposition between individuals or groups. It occurs when one group’s actions or goals threaten or oppose those of another group. Conflict may involve ideological differences, class struggles, ethnic tensions, or political rivalries. However, sociologists recognize that conflict is not necessarily harmful; it can serve as a catalyst for social change and reform.

Karl Marx famously explored conflict through his Conflict Theory, emphasizing the importance of class struggles as a driving force in historical development. Marx argued that societies are characterized by conflicts between the bourgeoisie (the ruling capitalist class) and the proletariat (the working class). According to Marx, this conflict, driven by inequality, would eventually lead to social transformation, as the working class would seek to overthrow the capitalist system. Marx believed that conflict exposed societal injustices, allowing for structural change and the establishment of a more equitable society.

Ralf Dahrendorf, a 20th-century sociologist, expanded on Marx’s ideas, arguing that conflict is an inherent aspect of all social structures, not just class struggles. Dahrendorf suggested that conflicts exist wherever there are differences in authority, and these conflicts are instrumental in maintaining a dynamic society. Dahrendorf’s theory highlighted that conflict is a mechanism for stability, as it prompts societies to adjust, reorganize, and address grievances.

The positive effects of conflict on society include increased awareness of social issues, legislation reform, and power redistribution. For example, movements like the civil rights movement in the United States were rooted in conflict but led to significant social progress by challenging discriminatory laws and practices. Such conflicts contribute to a more just and balanced society by allowing marginalized groups to gain recognition and equal rights.

3. Contravention

Contravention is a milder form of dissociative social process that involves disagreement or opposition without overt conflict. This process allows individuals or groups to challenge norms or express dissent in a manner that doesn’t result in open confrontation. Contravention occurs when people question social norms, voice alternative perspectives, or advocate for change without directly challenging the existing social order.

For example, the emergence of countercultures in society represents a form of contravention. Countercultures often oppose mainstream values or lifestyles without engaging in direct conflict. This type of dissociative process encourages diversity and provides a platform for alternative views, ultimately enriching society. Sociologist Howard S. Becker highlighted how contravention shapes social identities, especially through his work on labeling theory. Becker argued that by questioning norms, people engage in social processes that redefine acceptable behavior, leading to shifts in collective consciousness.

Contravention fosters critical thinking and creativity within society, encouraging people to consider new ways of solving problems. By allowing space for dissent and alternative perspectives, contravention promotes adaptability, ensuring that society remains responsive to changing conditions and evolving values.

How Dissociative Social Processes Strengthen Society

While dissociative social processes may seem disruptive, they play a critical role in strengthening society in several ways:

1. Promotion of Innovation and Progress:

   • Competition in economic and scientific fields encourages innovation, as individuals and organizations strive to outperform each other. This drives technological advancements and improves living standards.
   • Conflict between old and new ideologies often leads to progressive change. For instance, conflicts around issues such as civil rights and gender equality have led to significant legal and social reforms, ultimately benefiting society.

2. Balancing Power Dynamics:

   • Through conflict, power dynamics within society are challenged, leading to power redistribution. For example, labor movements have historically fought for workers’ rights, resulting in policies that protect employees and balance power in the workplace.
   • Dissociative processes ensure that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few, thereby fostering a more equitable society.

3. Enhancing Social Cohesion through Resolution:

   • Conflicts force societies to address underlying issues and bring about constructive solutions. This process, known as conflict resolution, can strengthen social bonds, as groups work together to find common ground.
   • Georg Simmel emphasized that conflict, by revealing hidden issues, encourages members of society to engage in dialogue and cooperation, fostering social integration.

4. Encouraging Diversity of Thought and Adaptation:

   • Contravention allows for a diversity of viewpoints, promoting adaptability and resilience. By tolerating dissent, societies can adapt to changing values and challenges.
   • Howard S. Becker’s labeling theory suggests that by questioning norms, contravention leads to the evolution of social identities and norms, making society more inclusive and responsive.

5. Development of Social Institutions and Legal Frameworks:

   • Conflicts often result in the establishment of new social institutions, policies, and legal frameworks designed to prevent future conflicts. For instance, the feminist movement has led to laws that protect women’s rights and promote gender equality.
   • By addressing grievances through institutional change, society becomes more organized and capable of managing future challenges.

Conclusion

In summary, dissociative social processes such as competition, conflict, and contravention are essential for societal strength and progression. Though they involve tension and disagreement, these processes serve as catalysts for change, driving innovation, fostering inclusivity, and promoting social justice. Thinkers like Georg Simmel, Karl Marx, Ralf Dahrendorf, and Howard S. Becker have provided valuable insights into the role of dissociative processes, demonstrating that even conflict and opposition have constructive roles in society.

Sociology is often referred to as the science of society because it involves the systematic study of social behavior, institutions, relationships, and the structures that shape human life. This definition emphasizes the scientific nature of sociology, which, like other sciences, uses empirical methods to observe, analyze, and theorize about social phenomena. Sociology seeks to understand the patterns and processes that underpin society, making it a field that relies on rigorous methods and theoretical frameworks to achieve this goal.

To explain why sociology is regarded as the science of society, it is essential to explore its scientific approach, its foundational thinkers, and the principles that distinguish it from other sciences. The scientific nature of sociology is based on its empirical research methods, objectivity, systematic study, and use of theories to explain and predict social behavior.

The Nature of Science and Its Application to Sociology

Science is characterized by a methodical approach to understanding natural or social phenomena through observation, experimentation, and reasoning. To be considered scientific, a field must follow specific principles, including empiricism, objectivity, and systematic observation. Sociology fulfills these criteria by employing quantitative and qualitative research methods, such as surveys, experiments, ethnography, and statistical analysis, to collect and analyze data about human behavior and social institutions.

Auguste Comte, a French philosopher, is often regarded as the father of sociology and was one of the first to assert that sociology should be considered a science. Comte introduced positivism, the idea that society should be studied using the same rigorous scientific methods applied to natural sciences. He believed that by observing society systematically and objectively, sociologists could uncover the laws of social order and social change. Comte’s emphasis on scientific rigor laid the foundation for sociology as a science of society, aiming to understand and improve the human condition through empirical research.

Sociology’s Scientific Approach to Studying Society

Sociology employs a scientific approach by focusing on the systematic observation of social facts and the use of theories to interpret these facts. The field applies objective and empirical methods to study human interactions, social institutions, and cultural norms.

Émile Durkheim, another foundational sociologist, made significant contributions to the scientific approach in sociology. He introduced the concept of social facts, which he defined as values, norms, and structures that exist independently of individuals and influence their behavior. According to Durkheim, social facts should be treated as objects of study, just like natural phenomena, and should be analyzed through empirical investigation. For instance, in his study of suicide, Durkheim used a scientific approach by collecting data from various societies and examining patterns in suicide rates. He demonstrated that even a personal act like suicide could be understood scientifically, as it is influenced by social factors such as religion, family structure, and economic conditions.

Sociology also emphasizes the importance of objectivity, which is essential to scientific inquiry. Max Weber, a German sociologist, advocated for value-free sociology, arguing that sociologists should separate their personal beliefs from their research to maintain objectivity. Weber’s emphasis on objectivity reinforced sociology’s scientific standing by promoting a neutral stance in the study of social phenomena. He developed the concept of Verstehen (understanding), a method of interpretive analysis where sociologists seek to understand social action by viewing it from the perspective of the people involved. By combining objectivity with interpretive understanding, Weber showed how sociology could be scientific yet sensitive to the subjective dimensions of human experience.

Systematic Methods in Sociology

One of the reasons sociology is considered a science is its reliance on systematic methods to study society. Sociologists use both quantitative and qualitative research methods to collect and analyze data, allowing them to test hypotheses, validate theories, and draw conclusions.

• Quantitative Methods: These methods involve collecting and analyzing numerical data to understand social patterns. Statistical analysis, surveys, and experiments are common quantitative techniques in sociology. For example, sociologists use surveys to gather data from large populations, which allows them to identify trends and make generalizations about social behavior.

• Qualitative Methods: These methods focus on collecting descriptive data to understand the complexity of social life. Ethnography, in-depth interviews, and content analysis are qualitative techniques that provide insights into human behavior, social norms, and cultural values. Qualitative methods allow sociologists to explore social phenomena in depth, capturing the experiences and perspectives of individuals within their social context.

The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods allows sociology to be both comprehensive and scientifically rigorous. Sociologists can provide empirical evidence for their findings while also capturing the complexities of social life, distinguishing sociology as a science that studies both macro (large-scale societal trends) and micro (individual interactions) aspects of society.

Use of Theory and Hypotheses in Sociology

Another hallmark of scientific inquiry in sociology is the use of theory to guide research and explain social phenomena. Sociologists develop theories to understand social behavior, identify patterns, and predict future trends. These theories are often tested and refined through empirical research, much like theories in natural sciences.

Karl Marx, for example, developed a theoretical framework for understanding society based on the concept of class conflict. According to Marx, society is divided into classes with conflicting interests, specifically the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) and the proletariat (working class). Marx’s theory provided a scientific explanation for social inequality and predicted that class struggle would eventually lead to social change. His Conflict Theory is still widely used in sociology to study issues related to power, inequality, and social change.

Robert K. Merton, an influential sociologist in the 20th century, introduced the concepts of manifest and latent functions to explain the functions of social institutions. According to Merton, social institutions have both intended (manifest) and unintended (latent) functions, and sociologists can uncover these functions through empirical study. Merton’s work illustrated how sociological theories can explain complex social structures and interactions, further establishing sociology as a science with practical and explanatory power.

The scientific use of theories in sociology also involves the formulation of hypotheses, which are tested through research. For instance, a sociologist might hypothesize that economic inequality increases crime rates. By collecting and analyzing data, the sociologist can determine whether this hypothesis holds true, contributing to a broader understanding of the relationship between economic conditions and social behavior.

Objectivity and Value-Free Research in Sociology

A fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry is objectivity, and sociology strives to maintain this principle in the study of social phenomena. Objectivity ensures that research findings are not influenced by personal biases, beliefs, or values, allowing for a more accurate representation of reality.

Max Weber emphasized the importance of value neutrality in sociology, arguing that sociologists should remain impartial and detached from their subjects. He proposed that sociologists could achieve objectivity by adopting a value-free approach, where they separate their personal beliefs from their research. This approach has helped sociology gain credibility as a science, as it demonstrates that sociological research can produce unbiased and reliable findings.

In addition to Weber, other sociologists, such as Durkheim, also advocated for scientific neutrality. Durkheim believed that sociologists should view social facts as things that exist independently of individual perceptions. This objective approach allows sociologists to study social facts scientifically, treating them as real phenomena that can be observed, measured, and analyzed.

Contributions of Foundational Thinkers to Sociology as a Science

1. Auguste Comte: As the founder of sociology, Comte introduced positivism and argued for the scientific study of society, laying the groundwork for sociology as a science.

2. Émile Durkheim: Durkheim’s work on social facts and his studies on topics like suicide exemplified the scientific approach to sociology. He used empirical methods to understand social phenomena, reinforcing sociology’s status as a science.

3. Max Weber: Weber’s insistence on objectivity and his method of Verstehen showed how sociology could combine scientific rigor with a deep understanding of human behavior. His value-free sociology emphasized the importance of unbiased research in understanding social life.

4. Karl Marx: Although not always recognized as a scientist in the traditional sense, Marx’s development of Conflict Theory provided a scientific explanation for social inequality and dynamics, which continues to influence sociological research.

5. Robert K. Merton: Merton’s concepts of manifest and latent functions showed how sociological theories could explain the functions of social institutions, reinforcing the idea that sociology provides insights into the structure and functioning of society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, sociology is called the science of society because it applies scientific principles—such as empiricism, objectivity, and systematic analysis—to study social behavior, relationships, and institutions. Foundational thinkers like Auguste Comte, Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Robert K. Merton have contributed to the scientific foundation of sociology, each emphasizing different aspects that highlight its scientific nature. Sociology’s reliance on theory, hypotheses, and empirical methods allows it to observe, analyze, and interpret social phenomena systematically, making it a science that aims to understand and explain the structure and dynamics of society.

Definition of Culture

The term ‘culture’ is a Latin origin of the world ‘cultus’, which refers to cultivating or refining something, in such a way that it provides admiration and respect. In finer terms, culture is the way people live, reflected in the language they spoke, food they eat, clothes they wear and the Diety they follow or worship. It expresses the manner in which one thinks and do things.

In other words, culture is the set of knowledge, experiences and behaviours which is commonly shared by a group of people. It is something that a person gains through learning.

Culture includes art, knowledge, belief, customs, traditions, morals, festivals, values, attitudes, habits and so on which are inherited by a person as a member of society. It is everything; an individual achieves as a member of a social group. It can be seen in the literature, music, dance forms, religious practices, dressing style, food habits, ways of greeting others, recreation and enjoyment. Different cultures can be found in different places, as it varies from region to region.

Definition of Civilization

Civilization is described as a process of civilizing or say developing the state of human society, to the extent that the culture, industry, technology, government, etc. reaches the maximum level. The term ‘civilization’ is derived from a Latin term ‘civis’ which indicates ‘someone who resides in a town’.

The term ‘civilization’ is not confined to town; rather it talks about adopting better ways of living, and making best possible use of nature’s resources, so as to satisfy the needs of the group of people. Further, it stresses on systematising society into various groups that work collectively and constantly to improve the quality of life, regarding food, education, dress, communication, transportation, and the like.

Therefore, one should not confuse culture for civilization. However, both are created by human beings and expresses, the way we led our lives. These two gives us the ideas, ideals, values and ways to live a decent and lavish life.

Socialisation is heavily centred upon the development of the concept of self. How a sense of self emerges—the awareness that the individual has a distinct identity, separate from other? This problem of the emergence of self is a much-debated one. This is because the most prominent theories about child development emphasise different aspects of socialisation.

Development of self

During the first months of life, the infant possesses little or no under­standing of differences between human beings and material objects in the environment, and has no awareness of self. Children do not begin to use concepts like T, ‘me’ and ‘you’ until the age of about two or after. Only gradually do they then come to understand that others have distinct identities, consciousness and needs separate from their own.

The awareness of self arises in interaction with the social and non-social environment. The social environment is especially important. The development of our personal identity—or self—is a complicated process. The realisation of a distinctive personality is an even more complicated process, which continues throughout life.

The child learns to differentiate between various other people by names—Daddy, Mummy and Baby and he begins to use T which is a sign of definite self-consciousness—that he is becoming aware of himself as a distinct human being (Cooley, 1908). As time passes and social experiences accumulate, he forms an image of the kind of person he is—an image of self. This self develops gradually in the child.

Freud’s theory (psychoanalysis)

Sigmund Freud, the Austrian psychiatrist and founder of psycho­analysis, was not directly concerned with the problem of the individual’s socialisation (he has not used the word ‘socialisation’ anywhere in his writings), he nevertheless contributed amply toward the clarification of the process of personality development. Distin­guished sociologist T. Parsons has also adopted Freud’s account of personality development to provide the psychological underpinnings of his theory of socialisation.

Freud challenged Mead and Cooley’s concept of socialised self who saw no separate identity of self and society. Freud believed that rational portion of human conduct was like the visible portion of an iceberg, with the lager part of human motivation resting in the unseen, unconscious focus which power­fully affects human conduct.

Process of personality development

Freud’s theory of personality (self) development rests on the following process.

He divided the self (human mind) into three parts:

1. The id,
2. The ego, and
3. The superego.

1. The id represents the instinctive desires, which may be viewed as an unsocialised aspect of human nature. It is the obscure inaccessible part of our personality. It is the source of drives (animal impulses of man—hunger, aggression, and sexual drives) demanding immediate satisfaction in some way or the other. These impulses are controlled and partially repressed into the unconscious, while a reality-oriented conscious self or ego appears.

2. The ego is the acting individual. It serves as the mediator between desires and action representing the urges of the id when necessary. It tries to mediate the resultant conflicting demands of the id and the superego.

3. The superego (the conscience) represents the social ideals (norms, values, traditions, the idea of moral and immoral etc.). It is seen as internalised parental and social authority. The parent is no longer outside telling the child what to do, but is inside the psyche, invisibly overseeing the child’s thoughts and actions, praising what is right and making the child feel guilty for wrong doing. For Parsons, the Freudian superego is the key device by which society’s values are transmitted to the child. Thus society’s norms and values are passed down from gener­ation to generation in this way.

The Freudian theory contends that people possess a number of drives or urges connected with satisfying basic needs, such as the need for food or sexual release. These urges, known collectively as the id, seek immediate satisfaction.

In society, however, instant grati­fication is rarely possible, and id must be controlled. This control is accomplished by what Freud called the superego, the part of the mind that incorporates society’s rules. The id and the superego are in continual conflict. When we are hungry, for example, our id urges us to satisfy’s our hunger in the quickest way possible.

Our superego, however, tells us that this is an unacceptable way to satisfy our hunger. Freud stated that normally developing children develop ego, which reconciles the demands of the id and superego as much as possible.

Freud presents the relation between the id and the ego as similar to that between a horse and its rider. The function of the ego is that of the rider guiding the horse which is the id. But, like the rider, the ego sometimes is unable to guide the horse as it wishes and perforce must guide the id in the direction it is determined to go or in a slightly different direction.

Evaluation of Freud’s theory

Freud’s all theories have inspired bitter controversies and numerous interpretations. This theory (development of self) is opposite to the views of Cooley and Mead. Cooley and Mead have demonstrated that the very emergence of the self is a social process and not a psycho­logical process as contended by Freud. They have viewed self and society as two aspects of the same thing, whereas Freud finds that the self and society are often opponents and self is basically anti-social.

There is always a clash between the impulses of the self and the restraints of society. Mead and Cooley, on the other hand, viewed self and society as merely different expressions of the same phenomenon. Cooley (1902) writes: “A separate individual is an abstraction unknown to experience In other words; ‘society’ and ‘individ­uals’ do not denote separate phenomena but are simply collective and distributive aspects of the same thing.” Moreover, it is very difficult to verify empirically the three layers of human mind—id, ego and superego as suggested by Freud.

Since the influential writing of Ralph Linton (1936), status and role have become the key concepts of sociology. By status, Linton meant a position in a social system involving designated rights and obligation, whereas, by role, he meant the behaviour oriented to others’ patterned expectations. Linton states the long recognized and basic fact that each person in society inevitably occupies multiple statuses and each of these statuses has an associated role.

In every society and every group, each member has some function or activity with which he is associated and carries some degree of power or prestige. What the individual does or performs, we generally call his role. The degree of prestige or power we refer to as his status. Roles are related to statuses.

In a sense, ‘status’ and ‘role’ are two words for the same phenomenon. This is why, Linton remarked, “role is the dynamic aspect of status,” or the behaviour or tasks associated with or ascribed to a status. In other words, status and role are two sides of a single coin. It simply means that both are closely related and one cannot be separated from the other.

Social status and role are analytic terms; they have a more general quality than the concrete descriptive terms they reference. Sociologist prefers to choose such analytic terms rather than descriptive terms like bus conductor, customer, father or mother etc. After Linton, these two terms have become the basic features of the structural-functional theory. Later on, many sociologists have refined and added many ideas to these two terms.

For instance, R.K. Merton (1968), who is known to be the champion of role theory, departs from Linton’s conception of status and role. According to Merton, each social status involves not a single associated role, but an array of roles he calls ‘role set’.

The concepts of status and role are basic building blocks of social structure or social systems. According to Parsons, ‘status-roles’ are the sub-units of society. Participation by an actor in social system means that he is ‘located’ relative to other actors. This is his ‘status’. In this position, he does various things, and what he does is called his ‘role’. For him, ‘status-role’ is the proper unit of the social system. A social system can be thought of as a network of statuses and their associated roles.

What is Status?

Simply defined, status is a socially defined position in a group or a social system, such as female, student, teacher, child, mother, father etc. A status occupant is expected by others to behave in a special way, relative to the specific situation. The relation of the father and the child is reciprocal and gives to each a position in the family group. The position is always relative; status always implies a group. With every status certain privileges, rights and duties are associated.

Most sociologists have used the two terms position and status synonymously, but some have made a distinction between these terms. ‘Position’ denotes one’s situation in the role structure.

Which is subjective, while ‘status’ refers to the evaluative aspect of position whether others see it as ‘high’ or ‘low’. In this sense, it is an objective term.

Harry M. Johnson distinguished the three related concepts, viz., ‘role’, ‘status’ and ‘position’. He defined a social position as something filled by an individual member of a social system.

The position consists of two main elements

1. Expectations and obligations held by other members concerning the behaviour of the position incumbent; and
2. Right or the legitimate expectations of the position incumbent concerning the behaviour of other members. The first element Johnson calls the role of a position, while the second element he calls a position’s status. It denotes the prestige of a position or an individual.

Though generally used synonymously status and social status there is a bit difference between the two terms. The term ‘status’ simple indicates the position a person occupies in a group. Whereas social status is the amount of honour and prestige a person receives from community members and the larger society in a stratification system.

It denotes the position and relative ‘social standing’ of a person on a publicly recognized scale or hierarchy of social worth. In this sense, it embraces all his particular statuses and roles that determine his social standing in society. It is the social identity an individual has in a group or society.

Social statuses may be very general (such as those associated with gender roles) or maybe much more specific (as in occupational positions). A person’s social status is determined by a wide range of factors, facts and conditions such as original nature and physical characteristics, accidental conditions, physique, mentality, and temperament. Sex, age, race, caste, class, economic position, etc. are also important factors that affect a person’s social standing in society or the community he lives in.

Definition of Status

1. Ralph Linton says that “status is the place in a particular system, which a certain individual occupies at a particular time.”
2. For Morris Ginsberg, “A status is a position in a social group or grouping, a relation to other positions held by other individuals in the group or grouping.”
3. According to Kingsley Davis, “status is a position in the general institutional system, recognized and supported by the entire society.”
4. For Horton and Hunt, “status is the rank or position of an individual in a group.”
5. Status in Weber’s theory refers to the esteem or ‘social honour’ given to individuals or groups.

Types of Status

Statuses are culturally defined, despite the fact that they may be based on biological factors such as sex, caste or race. Ralph Linton has noted two types of status:

1. Ascribed status:

An ascribed status is a social position assigned at birth and is, therefore, usually permanent. Hence, an ascribed status is one into which a person is born and in which he or she remains throughout his or her life, e.g., sex, caste, race and age. A Brahmin, for example, enjoys the ascribed status of a Brahmin by virtue of his birth. In addition, sex, ethnic background, place of birth, and family name supply assigned statuses. Such statuses are said to be ascribed. Ascribed statuses are usually fixed at birth. In India, caste status is generally ascribed, although several changes have been going through ‘Sanskritization’ and ‘inter-caste marriages’.

2. Achieved status:

An achieved status is one that is chosen or achieved, such as a married person, a parent, a friend, a doctor or an engineer. An achieved status is acquired through one’s efforts. Society recognizes such changes in achieved status. Statuses that are not fixed by inheritance, biological characteristics, or other factors, over which the individual has no control, are known as achieved statuses. An achieved status is entered as a result of some degree of purposive action and choice. Thus, an achieved status, by contrast, is one that is based on something the person has done. For example, a boy of 17 can be an athlete, a guitarist, a student of history and a member of a local club enjoying different forms of achieved status.

Ascribed and achieved statuses have numerous differences and similarities. They each affect a person’s and a group’s roles both socially and industrially, and they may even affect the characteristics of a person and the public’s perception of them.

Another concept of status that existed to not known in the study matter is ‘Master Status’. Let us put in simple, a master status is the defining social position a person holds, to choose interactions or to relate self to others. A person’s social identity influences that person’s roles and behaviours in a societal context and often shape a person’s entire life. For many people occupation determines the basic status and everything revolves around it. For example, occupation is often a master status because it forms such an important part of a person’s identity and affects the other roles one may occupy such as a family member or friend, a resident of a city, or even a hobby enthusiast. In this way, a person may identify as a teacher, firefighter, or pilot. Gender, age, and race are also common master statuses. Often physical disabilities serve as a master status to the point where the person’s entire life suffers from de-humanization affecting the possibility of achieving any status.

ROLE

The role, in sociology, is expected of an individual who occupies a given social position or status. A role is a comprehensive pattern of socially recognized behaviour, providing a means of identifying and placing an individual in a society. It also serves as a strategy for coping with recurrent situations and dealing with others’ roles (e.g., parent-child roles). The term, borrowed from theatrical usage, emphasizes the distinction between the actor and the part. A role remains relatively stable even though different people occupy the position: any individual assigned the role of the physician, like any actor in the role of Hamlet, is expected to behave in a particular way. An individual may have a unique style, but this is exhibited within the expected behaviour’s boundaries.

Role expectations include both actions and qualities: a teacher may be expected not only to deliver lectures, assign homework, and prepare examinations but also to be dedicated, concerned, honest, and responsible. Individuals usually occupy several positions, which may or may not be compatible with one another: one person may be husband, father, artist, and patient. Each role entailing certain obligations, duties, privileges, and rights vis-à-vis other persons.

Definition of Role

1. According to Ogburn and Nimkoff a role is “a set of socially expected and approved behavior patterns consisting of both duties and privileges, associated with a particular position in a group.”
2. According to Johnson “role is expectations and obligations held by other members concerning the behaviour of the position incumbent.”
3. Alex Inkles ‘role’ refers to “the set of expected or normative rights and obligations allowed to and demanded of persons generally felt to be incumbent of a recognized status by others who participate in the same social system.”

Classification of Role

Ascribed and Achieved Roles

Like ascribed statuses, the ascribed roles are the ones that are given at birth. From the time an individual is born, role learning begins which is a part of what we know as socialization. These roles pertain to one’s sex (gender), age, kinship, caste, class, and so on.

The achieved roles on the other hand are the ones that are largely acquired over a lifetime on the basis of merit such as occupational roles of a farmer, salesperson, banker, shopkeeper, driver, lawyer, professor et cetera.

Relational and Non-relational Roles

There are certain roles which are complementary in nature and are conceived of and defined in relation to another. One good example of relational role is that of a wife which cannot be conceived of without the husband. Similarly, the role of a debtor cannot exist without the role of a creditor.

Non-relational roles on the other hand are not dependent or complementary such as the role of a musician, researcher, and painter. Age and sex roles largely fall in the category of non-relational roles whereas kinship roles can be classified as relational.

Basic, General and Independent Roles

Banton (1965:33) developed a scale giving a comparison of the extent to which particular roles are independent of other roles:

a) Basic roles: Basic roles are mostly determined by sex and age, ascribed to individuals at birth and these roles shape conduct in a large number of social contexts.

b) General roles: General roles are mostly assigned on the basis of merit of the individual.

c) Independent roles: Independent roles are determined by merit and have very less implications for other roles and on the way people respond to the person who occupies the independent role. Examples of independent roles are leisure roles and many occupational roles.

Usually an individual’s sex role shapes the individual’s conduct and the response of others towards him or her more than any other role. Occupational roles also shape the way people respond to an individual particularly in work space or social gatherings. The leisure roles are more independent and have limited influence outside of a particular setting for example, golfer in a golf club.

Placement of different roles in this scale will vary from one society to another. In primitive societies, for example, there were small number of highly undifferentiated basic roles linked to sex and age (Banton 1965: 34) but in advanced industrial societies the importance of age and sex roles is limited and less. We see more independent roles in advanced societies. For example, in primitive societies of Bushmen role of a woman was tied to her sex and she was restricted from taking up roles that were defined for men. However, in modern societies women occupy more independent roles like a female manager or doctor where they are judged in the same way as men are.

Interrelationships between social status and role

The concepts of status and role have a growing significance in the social sciences. Status and role are simplified by Ralph Linton when he said, ‘you occupy a status, but you play a role’. Every position or status in society carries with it a set of expected behaviour patterns. Status and role are ‘two sides of the same coin’.

Statuses and Roles constitute an important element in social structure. Young and Mack say “A role is the function of a status”. A person in a social set-up is bound to play a role. Sometimes he plays so many roles at a given time. According to his role, he gets status.

Similarly, the status of an individual gives him a definite role. Sometimes status is ascribed and sometimes it is achieved. Therefore, status and role, both are interrelated.

1. The terms ‘role’ and ‘status’ are inter-related: A status is simply a position in society or a group. A role is the behavioural aspect of status. Statuses are occupied and roles are played. A role is how a given individual fulfills the obligations of status and enjoys its privileges and prerogatives.
2. The role is a relational term: An individual plays a role vis-a-vis another person’s role, attached to a ‘counter-position’.
3. Role and status point out two divergent interests: Status is a sociological concept and sociological phenomena. On the other hand, the role is a concept and a phenomenon of social psychology.
4. Both are dynamic: Role changes with each new incumbent in a status. The status changes as the norms attached to it are altered. New obligations and new responsibilities may be added to status or old ones may be removed over time. Sometimes more rigorous role-playing may expand the functions of a status.
5. Both are correlative: Though status and role are co-related, it is possible to have one without the other. A status without a role may simply denote an unfulfilled position in an association. In the same way, roles are often played without occupying a status.
6. Status as an institutionalized role: The structure of society consists of statuses and not roles. It has become regularized, standardized, and formalized in the society at large or any specific association with society. It is statuses together with norms that give an order, predictability and even possibility to social relations.

Therefore, the concepts of status and role are the initial tools for analyzing social structure. A status is simply a position in society or a group. Every society and every group has many such positions, and every individual occupies as many positions as there are groups to which they belong.

Institutions are components of the society that help to maintain order and stability through structuring human interaction and activity. Institutions manifest themselves in terms of overt or implicit rules that structure human interactions. They function through the members of a society being socialised into them. This makes the study of institutions critical to the field of sociology. Emile Durkheim referred to sociology as the scientific study of principle institutions. Institutions such as religion, family, education et cetera are still critical to the discipline of sociology.

Let us consider a few scholarly definitions of institutions to acquaint with the meaning of institution:

According to Morris Ginsberg (1921), “Institutions are definite and sanctioned forms or modes of relationship between social beings, in respect to one another or to some external object”.

Robert Morrison MacIver defines Institutions as “established forms or conditions of procedures characteristic of group activity”

William Graham Sumner suggests that “an institution consists of a concept, idea, notion, doctrine or interest and a structure”.

Bronislaw Malinowski argues that, “every institution centres around a fundamental need, permanently unites a group of people in a co-operational task and has its particular body of doctrines and its technique or craft. Institutions are not correlated simply and directly to new functions. One need not receive one’s satisfaction in one institution.”

Jonathan Turner defines institution as “a complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of social structures and organising relatively stable patterns of human activity with respect to fundamental problems in producing life-sustaining resources, in reproducing individuals, and in sustaining viable societal structures within a given environment”.

From the above definitions we learn that 1) institutions may not be physical entities but visible in the co-ordinated patterns of behaviour of members of a society. 2) Institutions can help explain the behaviour of individual members. 3) Institutions have both restrictive and enabling potential in that it both constraints the choices available to an individual and defines the ways in which choices are to be exercised. Consider a situation whereby two individuals decide to live together the institution of marriage both defines and constraints the way in which they exercise their desire to live with each other. 4) Institutions function to forge and reiterate solidarity among members of a society. 5) It structures the interaction between members.

Institutions can be identified, in terms of the regular and consistent patterns of behaviours that are structured through norms and sanctions. While manifest behaviours may be read as observable form of institution. Institutions cannot be reduced merely to associated behaviour; for if the associated behaviour were to get disrupted that may not necessarily mean that the institution has ceased to exist. There are no clear boundaries that can be drawn between norms and institutions but institutions are distinct in that they are consistent and generalised normative expectation. These normative social expectations are seen as obligatory and are supplemented by strong sanctions against aberrations. For example, the biological fact of reproduction has been institutionalised into marriage and family as institutions. Human reproduction outside of the sanctioned institutions of marriage and family would receive general discouragement and in some cases, a strong backlash. Therefore, institutions seek to assign and define the social roles that members of a particular society must fulfil and adhered to. Institutions may therefore be understood as an ensemble of such roles. For instance, the institution of family expects a heterosexual man to adopt certain roles and responsibilities and the heterosexual woman to adopt other roles and responsibilities. The children in a family also have socially defined roles and responsibilities. However, such delineation of roles and responsibilities is not final and absolute. The institution of family has been attacked for its assumptions about the roles of ‘man’ and ‘woman’, of sexuality and division of labour.

Institutions function well in so far as they maintain stable patterns of expectation, thought and action. The consistency and synchronisation among these elements determine the stability of the institution. It is often argued that institutions have equilibrium like qualities, in that, when disturbed, institutions reinstate their stability by reinforcing order as purpose or preference. Repeated and consistent behaviour that has rule-like qualities assumes normative weight and act in ways that stabilise the equilibrium status of the institution.

Sociologists consider institutions not singularly as stable static phenomena but as process. Institutions have been understood in terms of the processes of institutionalisation, de-institutionalisation, and re-institutionalisation. They are generally considered as the “more enduring features of social life”.

Origin of the Term

The term became popular through its usage in economics where it signified constraints on human endeavour of utility maximisation due to parallel efforts towards utility maximisation by other members. The two economists who are associated with its usage are Oliver Williamson and D.C. North. As you may notice its usage in economics is quite different from its usage in sociology. While, the usage of the term in economics is of little significance to sociology, the sociological conception of institutions, institutional change and institutionalisation have been significant to the discipline of economics. To economics, institution in the sociological sense can help predict and explain individual behaviours. Unlike its original usage in economics one can start at the understanding of institution and comprehend individual behaviour, which is what the sociological concept of institution suggests.

After its initial usage in economics, the term then spread into sociology. The first sociologist credited with the usage of the term is Herbert Spencer. Spencer suggested that society is an organism and the institutions are all organs of the society.

Purpose of Institutions

German Sociologist Arnold Gehlen (1980) suggested that human being seek to supplement their instinctual world with a cultural world. He suggests that this feeling of incompleteness and the attempt to supplement explains the emergence of institutions. In his book ‘the social construction of reality’ (1967) Thomas Luckman elaborates this idea and suggests that human beings compensate for their biological underdevelopment through surrounding themselves with a social canopy or religion. Institutions therefore make human life meaningful through connecting human beings to their natural environment.

Types of Institutions

Sociologists generally classify institutions into five clusters of major institutions. They are:

• Economic Institutions: These are the institutions that correspond to production, consumption and distribution of goods and services.
• Institutions of Social Stratification: These are the institutions that regulate and control differential access to social status and prestige.
• Kinship, Marriage and Family: These institutions control and regulate reproduction.
• Political Institutions: They are concerned with regulation and distribution of power.
• Cultural Institutions: They regulate religious, symbolic and cultural practices.

Meaning of Social Mobility

Mobility stands for shift, change and movement. The change may be of a place or from one position to another. Further, change is value free ile it cannot be said that change is for good or bad. When we prefix ‘social’ along with mobility it would imply that people or individual occupying a social position, move to another position or status.

In the social ladder this movement may be upward or downward or it may be inter-generational or intra- generational. In short, social mobility stands for change in the position of an individual or a group of individuals from one status to another.

On mobility Sorokin was the first sociologist who wrote a book “Social and Cultural Mobility”. He was of the opinion that there is no society which is closed (Caste System in India) and no society which is completely open (Class System). He further contended that no two societies are exactly same in the amount of movement allowed or discouraged. Further the speed of movement or change may differ from one period of time to another. The rate of change depends upon the level of modernization of a given society.

In this sense, mobility “provides the individual with more or less of the benefits which his economy and society have to offer.” A rickshaw puller’s son becomes a lawyer; a clerk’s son becomes a doctor. In each case, a change in role between father and son provides the latter with more of the good things of life.

The roles of lawyer, doctor and engineer require initiative, training and self- sacrifice. Persons are motivated according to a complex variety of factors to work toward new roles, with their higher status and greater rewards. The good things of life are scarce and individuals must compete, conflict and cooperate with others to gain them.

The mobile individual must constantly adapt to socially unfamiliar situations a new class, new norms, new values. A member of a closed society spends his life in an environment that is familiar to him. In other words, an open society, with its high degree of mobility, does not guarantee happiness.

Mobility may be considered in different senses, such as:

• A change in occupation that involves a consequent change in status.
• A promotion within the same occupational group.
• The accumulation of seniority within a given occupation.
• A change in occupation from one generation to another, as from father to son.

Types of Mobility

Change of social position of an individual or group of individuals takes different forms and shapes. At one period of time there would be one type of mobility and another period of time it can be another type. Each of the following types are not exclusive but they may overlap, it is only for the purpose of convenience and analysis they are given different labels.

1. Horizontal Mobility:

Under this type of social mobility, a person changes his or her occupation but the overall social standing remains the same. Certain occupations like Doctor, Engineer, and Professor may enjoy the same status but when an engineer changes his occupation from engineer to teaching engineering, he has horizontally moved from one occupational category to another. But no change has taken place in the system of social stratification.

According to Sorokin, “Horizontal mobility refers to territorial, religious, political party, family, occupational and other horizontal shifting without any noticeable change in vertical position.” An increase of territorial circulation of individuals within Western societies since the second half of the nineteenth century indicate horizontal mobility.

The individuals are no more attached to their place of birth. The individuals move from one place to another in search of jobs which may be of same prestige. The modern means of transportation have brought in more territorial movement of individuals.

The other expression of territorial mobility, according to Sorokin, is greater circulation of social things and values which refer to newspaper news, automobile implements, birth control or money, if social thing is used by more and more people of the same class, regardless of the country or territorial boundaries, then this is an example of horizontal expression.

2. Vertical Mobility:

Vertical mobility refers to any change in the occupational, economic or political status of an individual or a group which leads to change of their position. In the words of Sorokin, by vertical social mobility is meant the relations involved in transition of an individual (or a social object) from one social stratum to another.

According to the direction of transition, there are two types of vertical social mobility ascending and descending or social climbing and social sinking. The ascending currents exist in the two principal forms – as an infiltration of the individuals of a lower stratum into an existing higher one, and as a creation of such a group into a higher stratum instead of, or side by side, with the existing group of this stratum.

In simple words, vertical mobility stands for change of social position either upward or downward, which can be labelled as ascending or descending type of mobility. When a big businessman meets with losses in his business and is declared bankrupt, he occupies a low status. On the other hand, if a small businessman with occupational skills of money and manipulation becomes an industrialist he occupies a higher position in the social ladder. Hence his position improves in the hierarchical order.

Vertical mobility is intensive in relatively open societies. Sorokin has indicated the following general principles of vertical mobility:

• There has scarcely been any society whose strata were absolutely closed or in which vertical mobility in its three forms-economic, political and occupational was not present.
• There has never been existed a society in which vertical social mobility has been absolutely free and the transition from one social stratum to another has had no resistance.
• The intensiveness as well as the generality of vertical social mobility, varies from society to society, 
• The intensiveness and generality of the vertical mobility the economic, the political and the occupational- fluctuate in the same society at different lines.

3. Upward Mobility

When a person or a group of persons move from lower position to upper position it is called Upward Mobility eg a person belonging to a lower caste and occupying a lower position after winning elections becomes a Minister and occupies a higher position. He may not be able to change his caste but with his economic and political power he may move upward. For example, Yadavs in India stand as a testimony to this fact.

For the individuals involved, there are many social and psychic costs of upward mobility. Some of the costs are obvious, as men and women break under the strain of a consistent drive for ‘success’. In the course of his upward movement, the mobile man must leave behind many people and places. He must leave the ways of thinking and behaving that characterized many of his earlier associations and he must learn, if he can, new ways of thinking and behaving appropriate to his new status.

4. Downward Mobility

Downward mobility indicates that one loses his higher position and occupies a lower position. We can take the example of an individual, who is an Engineer and occupies a respectable position in the society because of his occupational position, education and may be caste.

If he is caught for accepting bribe or has committed a sin or has done something wrong, he may be sentenced to jail or members of his caste may outcaste him and as a criminal or as an outcaste he may occupy a lower position vis-a-vis position he was occupying earlier. Under the traditional Indian system if a lady of higher Brahmin caste married a man of Sudra caste, not only the man and woman were out casted but their children were declared as ‘chandals.”

5. Inter-Generational Mobility

This type of mobility means that one generation changes its social status in contrast to preceding generation. However, this mobility may be upward or downward e.g. people of lower caste or class may provide facilities to their children to get higher education, training and skills.

With the help of these skills the younger generation may get employment in higher position. If the father is a shoemaker but his son after acquiring education becomes a clerk or a doctor or an engineer, this would be called upward inter- generational mobility.

With the improvement in economic position, people start changing their style of living by discarding the old practices and adopting the practices of those who are high in social ladder. After two or three generations their new position may be recognized. This process of social mobility, according to Srinivas is a process of Sanskritizon

Conditions for Inter-generational Mobility

According to Sorokin, the following conditions affect rates of mobility between generations:

(a) Differences between Parents and Offspring’s:

If a parent occupies an important position requiring high capacity, his children who are less capable are likely to be downward mobile. Conversely, children who are more capable than their parents are likely to be upwardly mobile, especially open-class societies.

(b) Population Change:

In developed and developing countries, greater population expansion at the lower than at the higher levels contribute to upward mobility. Overall population growth creates new positions in the upper and middle levels, where growth is not great enough to fill the vacancies.

(c) Changes in Occupational Structure:

With the changing times many occupations have been upgraded and downgraded because their socially defined importance has changed. Some occupations have moved up or down because of changes in the scarcity of workers willing and able to perform their tasks. Such changes in occupational structure has also effected the rates of mobility between generations.

6. Intra-Generational Mobility

This type of mobility takes place in life span of one generation. This can be further divided into two:

(a) Change in the position of one individual in his life span

(b) Change in the position of one brother but no change in the position of another brother.

A person may start his career as a clerk. He acquires more education and skills. Over a period of time, he becomes an IAS officer or a Professor. In this way he moves up and occupies a higher social position than the one with which he had started his career.

His brother may have also started his career as a clerk but did not occupy higher position in his life span and continued to remain at the same position. Hence, within the same generation we find that one brother changes his position and other brother does not.

7. Occupational Mobility

Occupational mobility means change from one occupation to another. Different occupations’ are hierarchically arranged because the incumbent of these occupations gets different economic rewards and enjoys different power, prestige and privileges based on the economic returns, authority and prestige.

These occupations are stratified or hierarchically arranged. When a person or a group of persons move from occupations of lower prestige to occupations of higher prestige, this is called Upward Vertical Mobility. Similarly if an individual or a group of individuals from occupations of higher prestige take up occupations of lower prestige, then this occupational mobility is called Downward Vertical Mobility.

Factors Responsible for Social Mobility

1. Motivation

Each individual has a desire not only to have a better way of living but also wants to improve upon his social stand. In open system it is possible to achieve any status. This openness motivates people to work hard and improve upon the skills so that one can attain higher social status. Without such motivation and efforts on the part of the individual social mobility is impossible.

2. Achievements and Failures

Achievement here refers to extra ordinary, usually unexpected performance, which attracts the attention of a wider public to the abilities of a person. Not all achievements will result in social mobility. Achievements affect status only if they are remarkable. For example, a poor man who has acquired wealth or an unknown writer who has won a literary prize will improve his status.

Failures and misdeeds have a similar effect on downward mobility. Fraudulent bankruptcy will remove a member of the upper classes from blue books; he will receive no dinner invitations from his peers and he will become ineligible as a marriage partner. If he is already married, his wife may divorce him. He will have to resign from his clubs and all positions he holds. But he will not become a member of the lowest stratum, although it will be difficult for him to find new association.

3. Education

Education not only helps an individual to acquire knowledge but is also a passport for occupational position for higher prestige. To become a doctor one has to have education in science subjects. Similarly, to appear in a competitive examination of L.A.S., one has to be at least graduate.

It is only after acquiring minimum formal education that individual can aspire to occupy higher positions. It is through education that in modern India the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not only able to change their traditional occupation but have also started occupying jobs of higher prestige. In the modern industrial society in which statuses can be achieved, education is basic requirement.

4. Skills and Training

Each society makes provision to impart skill and training to the younger generation. To acquire skill and training one has to spend a lot of time as well as money. Why these persons spend money and time? The reason being that society gives incentives to such persons. When they complete their training, they are entitled to high positions, which are far better than those positions which they might have taken without such training.

Society not only assigns higher social status but also gives higher economic rewards and other privileges to those persons who have these training. Keeping in view these incentives people undergo these training with a hope to move up in the social ladder. In other words, skills and training facilitate in improvement of the position, this leading to social mobility.

5. Migration

Migration also facilitates social mobility. People migrate from one place to another either due to pull or push factors. A particular place may not have opportunities and facilities to improve upon. Hence, people are forced to migrate to other places to earn their livelihood. At new places, where they migrate, may have different openings and opportunities.

These persons avail of these opportunities and improve upon their social position. We can take the example of people belonging to the Scheduled Castes of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, who migrate to the States of Punjab and Haryana to earn their livelihood. Here they become farm labourers.

After acquiring an accumulating money they go back to their villages and buy land. They till their own land and become owner cultivators. Hence, from traditional work of Chamars or scavengers, they improve their status and become owner cultivators. Similar is the situation with regard to Asians who migrate to various European countries and the United State of America.

The pull factors attract the people because they do not have those facilities at their place of residence and the new place attracts them by providing these facilities, so that after acquiring new skills and knowledge they could occupy better positions.

6. Industrialization

Industrial Revolution ushered in a new social system in which people are given status according to their ability and training. No importance was given to their caste, race, religion and ethnicity. Industrialization, resulted in mass production at cheaper rate. This forced the artisans out of their work. In search of jobs they migrated to industrial towns.

They acquired new vocational training and got jobs in industries. With experience and training they moved up in the social ladder. In the industrial society, the statuses are achieved, whereas in the traditional society like India, the statuses are ascribed according to birth. Hence industrialization facilitates greater social mobility.

7. Urbanization

In the cities there are more people, they have formal relations. People do not know each other intimately. Urban centres are marked by anonymity. People are close to their friends and relatives only. Urban settlements provide secrecy to individual’s caste and background. Individual’s position is largely dependent upon his education, occupation and income rather than his background.

If an individual has higher education, income and is engaged in occupation of higher prestige, he occupies high social status irrespective of his caste. Urbanization facilitates social mobility by removing those factors which hinder social mobility.

8. Legislation

The enactment of new laws can also facilitate social mobility. When Zamindari Abolition Act was passed, most of the tenant cultivators became owner cultivators which indicates improvement in their status i.e. from tenants to owner cultivators. Similarly, the legal provision for reservation of jobs and promotion for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has also helped in social mobility.

Reservation with regard to admission in professional colleges, job reservation and promotions have a large number of individuals from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to improve upon their status. When V.R Singh Government accepted the Mandal Commission report it provided job reservation for the other Backward Classes (OBCs) also.

9. Politicisation

With education and greater exposure to mass media of communication as well as greater contacts have made people aware about their rights. The political parties also educate the people about their rights. To achieve their rights people unite and force the authority in power to accept their demands. These persons may use agitations, strikes etc. as methods of attaining the desired goals.

The political party to get votes provides a number of concessions. With the help of these new concessions and provisions, they improve upon their social status. A few persons may become political leaders, Ministers, Cabinet Ministers or Chief Minister of a State.

10. Modernization

The process of modernization involves use of scientific knowledge and modern technology. It also refers to rationality and secular way of life. With the improvement in technology, people engaged in occupations of low prestige like scavengers discard their traditional occupations and take up occupations which are not dirty and have no polluting effects.

In this way, they change their position upward. Similarly, the level of development of a country also facilitates or hinders social mobility. The less developed and traditional societies continue with old system of stratification and with accretive statuses.

Whereas the developed and modern societies paved the way for greater opportunities and competition, it is only in the developed countries that there is a greater possibility of achieved statuses. In other words, modernization facilitates social mobility.

In all societies people differ from each other on the basis of their age, sex and personal characteristics. Human society is not homogeneous but heterogeneous. Apart from the natural differences, human beings are also differentiated according to socially approved criteria.

So socially differentiated men are treated as socially unequal from the point of view of enjoyment of social rewards like status, power, income etc. That may be called social inequality. The term social inequality simply refers to the existence of socially created inequalities.

Meanings

Social stratification is a particular form of social inequality. All societies arrange their members in terms of superiority, inferiority and equality. Stratification is a process of interaction or differentiation whereby some people come to rank higher than others.

In one word, when individuals and groups are ranked, according to some commonly accepted basis of valuation in a hierarchy of status levels based upon the inequality of social positions, social stratification occurs. Social stratification means division of society into different strata or layers. It involves a hierarchy of social groups. Members of a particular layer have a common identity. They have a similar life style.

The Indian Caste system provides an example of stratification system. The society in which divisions of social classes exist is known as a stratified society. Modern stratification fundamentally differs from stratification of primitive societies. Social stratification involves two phenomena (i) differentiation of individuals or groups on the basis of possession of certain characteristics whereby some individuals or groups come to rank higher than others, (ii) the ranking of individuals according to some basis of evaluation.

Sociologists are concerned not merely with the facts of social differences but also with their social evaluation.

Definitions

1. Ogburn and Nimkoff

‘The process by which individuals and groups are ranked in more or less enduring hierarchy of status is known as stratification”

2. Lundberg:

“A stratified society is one marked by inequality, by differences among people that are evaluated by them as being “lower” and “higher”.

3. Gisbert:

“Social stratification is the division of society into permanent groups of categories linked with each other by the relationship of superiority and subordinations”.

4. Williams:

Social Stratification refers to “The ranking of individuals on a scale of superiority-inferiority-equality, according to some commonly accepted basis of valuation.

5. Raymond W. Murray:

Social stratification is horizontal division of society into “higher” and “lower” social units.”

6. Melvin M Tumin:

“Social stratification refers to “arrangement of any social group or society into hierarchy of positions that are unequal with regard to power, property, social evaluation and psychic gratification”.

Origin of Stratification

Regarding the origin of stratification many views have been given.

• According to Davis, social stratification has come into being due to the functional necessity of the social system.
• (Professor Sorokin attributed social stratification mainly to inherited difference in environmental conditions.
• (According to Karl Mrax, social factors are responsible for the emergence of different social strata, i.e. social stratification.
• Gumplowioz and other contended that the origin of social stratification is to be found in the conquest of one group by another.
• According to Spengler, social stratification is founded upon scarcity which is created whenever society differentiates positive in terms of functions and powers.
• Racial differences accompanied by dissimilarity also leads to stratification.

Marxian Theory of Social Stratification

Introduction

Karl Marx (1818-1881) is regarded as one of the greatest thinkers of all times. His views have influenced people classes and nations. His main contribution to understanding society and social processes was through his theory of historical materialism. This presented a radical alternative to the traditional views. Marx tried to understand social development in terms of class conflict. Social stratification was central in his analysis. On the one hand he saw it as a divisive rather than an integrative structure and on the other hand he saw it as inevitable for social development.

Marx on Stratification

Marx used Historical Materialism as the theory to understand social change. For him the first premise of history was the existence of living human beings. The physical organization of human society and the relations human beings have with nature are important indications of development. All living things depend on nature for survival. Plants need soil and water, cows need grass and tigers need to hunt other animals for survival. Human beings also depend on nature for survival. However the basic difference between human beings and other living things is that they can transform nature for their survival while other living things adapt to nature. A cow eats grass but it cannot grow grass. Human beings exploit nature but they have the power to transform it as well. This means that human beings are able to produce their own means of subsistence. This is the basic difference between human and other living things. Marx therefore noted in his work, German Ideology, that “Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion, or by anything one likes. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is determined by their physical condition. In producing their actual means of subsistence men indirectly produce their actual material life”.

It was through production that human beings developed. Primitive human beings were totally dependent on nature as they subsisted through hunting or food gathering. These societies produced the minimum needs for survival. As human beings gradually started transforming nature society was able to produce more for existence of the people.

Division of Labour

Through the development of technology, human beings were able to improve agriculture and could form settled communities. As production grew, the community produced more than its requirements. There was surplus. It was now possible to support people who were not directly involved in the production of food. In earlier societies all people performed similar activities which were needed for survival, namely, food, clothing and shelter. Once there was surplus it was possible for people to diversify their activities. Hence some produced food, which was sufficient to feed all, while others were engaged in other activities. This is called the division of labour.

This system resulted in some people gaining control over the mean of production by excluding others. Thus property, which was held by all, came under die control of only some members giving rise to the notion of private property. Hence now the interests of all people were no longer common. There were differences in interests. Thus the interests of individuals became different from the interests of the community. Marx stated that “Division of Labour and private property are identical expressions”. It implied the contradictions between individual and communal interest.

These differences which occur in human society which are due to the existence of private property lead to the formation of classes which form the basis of social stratifictition. In all stratified societies, there are two major groups: a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class exploits the subject class. As a result there is basic conflict of interest between the two classes. Marx further stated in his work, Contributions of the Critique of Political Economy, that the various institutions of society such as the legal and political systems, religion etc. are instruments of ruling class domination and serve to further its interests. Let. us now examine the term ‘class’.

Meaning of Class

Marx used the term ‘class’ to refer to the two main strata in all stratification systems. As mentioned earlier, there are two major social groups in all stratified societies: a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class derives its power through its control over the means of production. It is thus able to appropriate the labour of another class. In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx describes class in this way: “Insofar as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class.”

From Marx’s perspective, systems of stratification derive from the relationships of social groups to the forces of production. Marx used the term class to refer to the main strata in all stratification systems. His definition of class has specific features. Class comprises two major groups, one of which controls the means of production is able to appropriate the labour of the other class due to the specific position it occupies in the social economy. Hence a class is a social group whose members share the same relationship to the forces of production. This in fact distinguishes one class from the other.

Another aspect of classes, which is seen from Marx’s description given above, is that they are in opposition to each other. At the same time there is a relationship of dependence between classes. If one class can appropriate the labour of another class because of its control over the means of production, it means that the two classes are dependent on each other but they are also opposed to each other. The dialectics of class therefore is a result of this combination of dependence and opposition. The relationship between classes is a dynamic relationship which results in social change. This is why classes are central to Marx’s approach to social transformation. In The Communist Manifesto Marx wrote, “Hitherto, the history of all societies is the history of class struggle.” In other words, changes in the history of mankind are caused by the conflict of classes. Classes conflict is hence the engine for social change.

Growth of Class

Development of society is through the process of class conflict. The domination of one class over the other leads to class conflict. Alongside the production process also develops due to changes in technology, resulting in its improvement. This leads to changes in the class structure as classes become obsolete with increase in production techniques. New classes are then formed, replacing the old classes. This leads to further class conflict. Marx believed that Western societies had: developed through four main stages, primitive communism, ancient society, feudal society and capitalist society. Primitive communism is represented by societies of pre-history. Those societies, which are dependent on hunting and food gathering and which, have no division of labour. From then onwards, all societies are divided into two major classes: masters and slaves in ancient society, land lords and serfs (tenants) in feudal society and capitalist and wage labour in capitalist society. During each historical epoch, the labour power required for production was supplied by the subject class, that is by slaves, serfs and wage labourers respectively.

The polarization of classes into opposite groups is a result of class-consciousness. This is a separate but related phenomenon. It is not necessarily the result of class formation. Class-consciousness in linked with the process of polarization of classes. A class can exist without its being aware of its class interests.

In the extract from Eighteenth Bmmaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx has referred to the importance of class formation when he noted that only when a class is aware of its opposition to another class it is conscious of its being. In another place, in his major contribution, Capital, he comments that workers left on their own may not be aware of their class interests as being opposed to those of the other (capitalist) class. He noted that the advance of capitalist production develops a working class, which by education, tradition, habit looks upon the conditions of production as self-evident laws of nature. In the ordinary run of things the labourer can be left to the natural laws of production as self-evident laws of nature. In the ordinary run of things the labourer can be left to the natural laws of production.

This static nature of class relations changes into a dynamic one with the development of class-consciousness. Without class-consciousness the working is merely is relation to capital. It is a class in itself. In his work The Poverty of Philosophy Marx obverses that the working class which exists in this manner is only a mass of individuals and is a mere class in itself. When it unites in its struggle against capital it “forms itself into a class for itself. The interests it defends becomes class interests.”

Hence in the Marxist framework we find that class is a dynamic unit. It may be subject to change with the advancement of technology, but the basis for its formulation remains the same. Class forms the basis of the stratification system in any society. Classes are related to the production process of each society. Changes in the class structure occur when there are changes in the production process. Thus the system of stratification in a society is dependent on the relations of production.

Mode of Production

The mode of production of each epoch determines the social, political and religious feature of society at that particular state in history, as well as the nature of class relations. Classes in society arise from a particular mode of production. For example, in capitalist mode of production, high level technology and capital comprise the means of production. This creates a system where in one section own the means of Production and others do not. This gets bifurcated into two classes, namely the Capitalist and the workers.

Class Struggle

Class struggle is a recurring feature according to Marx in all societies. This struggle, he says is inevitable because the ruling class in every society sows the seeds of its own destruction, sooner or later. Oppression economic, political and ideological is a feature of this class-struggle. Exploitation leads to rise of opposed class. Thus, they feel alienated from a system which they help in treating, without labour, for instance, capitalism can never subsist. Yet, the workers are alienated. A consciousness develops around which working class is formed and when they clash, with the oppressions they overthrow the system leading to a new stage of social formation and the abolition of private means of ownership, as a consequence of which class-lessness emerges.

From the above, it becomes clear that only when class consciousness evolve and the class organises itself towards the pursuit of its own does a “class exists in the Marxian sense”. So, from a class in itself, it becomes a class for itself.

Thus, for Marx, the essential feature of social inequality is Power – the economic power. Society is divided into those who have it and those who do not, i.e., the oppressors and the oppressed. Marx’s economic interpretation is an explanation of what accounts for this inequality in power. Those who own the means of production have the power to rule and oppress those who do not own it. Class controls the prevailing ideas in a given society.

Class Consciousness

Marx specified a number of variables for the formation of class-class consciousness:

1. Conflicts over the distribution of economic rewards between the classes.
2. Easy communication between the individual in the same class position so that ideal and programmes are readily disseminated.
3. Growth of class – Consciousness in the sense that the members of the class have a feeling of solidarity and understanding of their historical role.
4. Profound dissatisfaction of the Lower Class over its inability to control the economic structure of which it feels itself to be the exploited victim.
5. Established of a political organisation resulting from the economic structure, the historical situation and maturation of class-consciousness.

The ideas of the ruling class in every epoch determine the ruling ideas, i.e., the class, which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The existence of revolutionary ideas in a particular period pre- supposes the exist-ence of a revolutionary class. Of all the instruments of production, the greatest productive power is the revolutionary class itself. Thus, he sees classes, as distinct sub-divisions whose interests often diverge. From the Marxian perspective, we can conclude that the relationship between the major social classes is one of mutual dependence and conflict.

Capitalist Industrial Society

Thus, Marx in capitalist industrial society, identifies two main classes. The capitalist who pays the wage (Bourgeoisie) and the workers, who receives the wages (Proletariat). Marx predicted that as capitalism develops these two classes become more and more homog-enous, but as compared to him Dahrendorf argues that classes will become more and more heterogeneous, i.e., dissimilar and the working class get divided into three distinct levels -Unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled manual, workers with divergence interests.

Unlike Marx, who talked about two classes, Weber talks about the middle class also. According to him, as capitalism develops the middle class expands. In the 19th century, Marxist predicted that a stage will come in capitalist development when the middle class would sink into the Proletariat (Pauperisation). But during 1950’s and 1960’s, a number of Sociologists and suggested that just the opposite was happening.

They said a process of embourgeoisement was occurring whereby increasing number of manual workers were entering the middle class. According to them, the classes in Industrial society was acquiring the Pentagon shape where the mass of population was middle class rather than working class. According to Clark Kerr, this was the requirement of the advanced industrialism which requires a highly educated, trained and skilled workforce.

These were placed according to their value of skill in the market. Those whose skills were scarce on the market commanded high salaries and constituted a separate class. Weber rejects the polarisation of two classes and talks of Middle class of white-collar or skilled workers. Middle class expands as capitalism develops. He argues that modern nation state requires a “rational bureaucratic set-up” which requires clerks and managers.

Those who belong to lower class may try for reforms. For this purpose, they come together to demand but never have drastic revolution to change the system. Another example, in industrial strikes, there may be lock-outs but revolution to change the system may not be there.

According to Weber, for workers to change the entire system, is not possible. For, to attack any system an ideological formula is essential. An intellectual class is essential, i.e., elite group, uneducated people cannot bring about a revolution without an ideological set-up, therefore, to do so.

Criticism

Marx’s theories have subjected to much criticism. Thus:

1. His pre-occupation with class led him to neglect other social relationships as well as the influence of nationalism and of conflict between nations in history. He also neglected the growing sense of national community in European nations that brought about new moral and social conceptions with emphasise common human interests.
2. Marx is also criticised on the grounds of his conception of class division. Evidence shows that 20″” Century capitalism has created condition where the working class can no longer be regarded as totally alienated. Man’s condition has improved along with the general standard of living and the expansion of social services and security of employment.
3. Also the growth of a new middle class contradicts the theory of Polarisation of classes. This new class comprising of workers, supervisors, managers etc. introduces an important element of stratification namely social prestige based on occupation,’ consumption and styles of Lillie.
4. Rapid rates of mobility present the persistence of class in Marxian sense, as a result, status group become more important.
5. The working class remains highly differentiated in terms of skill occupation. Therefore, classes are not homogenous. The expansion of the middle class and the general improvement in the standard of living has led to embuogeoisment of the working class.

What is Socialisation?

Socialisation is an important process for the functioning and continuation of society. Different societies have different ways and methods to train their new born members so that they are able to develop their own personalities. This training ofand building the personality of the child is called socialisation. Socialisation is a process of learning rules, habits and values of a group to which a person belongs whether it is family, friends, colleagues or any other group. It is the process by which a child slowly becomes aware of her/himself as a member of a group and gains knowledge about the culture of the family and also the society into which she/he is born.

Socialisation is also considered as the passing of culture from one generation to the next. During the process of socialisation, children learn about their family traditions from their elders and preserve them and pass them on to the next generation as they grow older. Socialisation helps children to learn and perform the different roles and responsibilities which they have learnt from their elders. It therefore, helps to associate one generation with the others.

Some Definitions of Socialisation

1. Anthony Giddens: “Socialisation refers to the process which transforms a quite helpless human infant into a self-aware, knowledgeable person who is skilled in the ways of their society’s culture”.
2. Peter Worsley: “By this is meant, simply, the transmission of culture, the process whereby men learn the rules and practices of social groups. Socialisation is an aspect of all activity within all human societies”.
3. Tony Bilton: “The process by which we acquire the culture of the society into which we are born the process by which we acquire our social characteristics and learn the ways of thought and behaviour considered appropriate in our society is called socialisation”.

Cooley’s theory of the ‘looking-glass self

How does a person arrive at a notion of the kind of person he is? According to Charles Horton Cooley (1902), this concept of self develops through a gradual and complicated process which continues throughout life. He pointed out that when we refer to the self, when we use the word T (the social self is referred to by such words as I, me, mine and myself; the individual distinguishes his ‘self from that of others), we usually not referring to our physical body.

We use the word T to refer to opinions, desires, ideas, feelings, or evaluations of others with whom we interact. Whether one is intelligent, average or stupid, attractive or ugly, these and many other ideas of the self are learned from the reactions of our associates. Even, the elementary knowledge that one tends to be fat or thin, tall or short is a compar­ative judgment based on the opinions of others.

This process of discovering the nature of the self from the reactions of others has been labelled the looking-glass self by Cooley. Looking-glass self simply means how we see ourselves through the eyes of other people. The idea of looking-glass seems to have been taken from Thackeray’s book Vanity Fair in which it is said: “The world is a looking glass and gives back to every man the reflection of his own face.”

Each to each a looking-glass,

Reflects the other that doth pass.

Just as we see our face, figure and dress in the mirror which gives an image of the physical self, so the perception of the reactions of others gives an image of the social self. We “know”, for instance, that we are talented in some field but less talented in others. This knowledge or perception comes to us from the reactions of other persons. Through play and other group activities, one is also helped to perceive the feelings of others and their feelings toward him.

Stages of formation of self

According to Cooley, there are three steps (stages) in the process of formation of looking-glass self:

1. The imagination of our appearance of how we look to others.
2. The imagination of their judgment of how we look or how we think others judge our behaviour.
3. How we feel about their judgment, i.e., our feelings (self feeling) about their judgments.

We know that we exist, that we are beautiful or ugly, serious or funny, lively or dull etc., through the way other people think of us, of course, but we can imagine how we appear to them and how they evaluate our appearance. We often respond to these imagined evalu­ations with pride, embarrassment, humiliation or some other feeling. In conclusion, the looking-glass self means that we see ourselves and we respond to ourselves, not as we are and not as other think we are, but as we imagine others think we are.

Evaluation of Cooley’s theory

There is a difference of opinion among some scholars about the functioning of the ‘looking-glass self. Several researches have been done to seek empirical evidence of the correlation between one’s perception of responses of others and the actual judgments they have made of him. These studies find that there is often a significant variation between individual’s perception of how other pictures him and the views they actually hold. Clearly, it is our perception of the responses of others and not their mutual responses which self-image, and these perceptions are often inaccurate (Horton and Hunt, 1964).