Relationship between members of society and social structure

Social structure - Structure and social organization |

relationship between members of society and social structure

They must be careful not to wake the other members of the tribe, lest they be accosted by As the basic structure of all human society until about 10,– 12, years ago, Difference in social standing between men and women appeared. The way we create relationships with others is based on certain the definition and theory of social structure in society and offers a quiz to test your knowledge. To unlock this lesson you must be a Member. relations which exist among and between the groups constituting a given society, while social structure refers to the placement and position of in- dividuals and To arrive at these evidences, one may inquire of members of a society, first, what .

Although social scientists since Spencer and Marx have disagreed on the concept of social structure, their definitions share common elements. In the most general way, social structure is identified by those features of a social entity a society or a group within a society that persist over time, are interrelated, and influence both the functioning of the entity as a whole and the activities of its individual members.

In other words, Durkheim believed that individual human behaviour is shaped by external forces. Similarly, American anthropologist George P. Murdockin his book Social Structureexamined kinship systems in preliterate societies and used social structure as a taxonomic device for classifying, comparing, and correlating various aspects of kinship systems.

Several ideas are implicit in the notion of social structure. First, human beings form social relations that are not arbitrary and coincidental but exhibit some regularity and continuity. Second, social life is not chaotic and formless but is, in fact, differentiated into certain groups, positions, and institutions that are interdependent or functionally interrelated.

Third, individual choices are shaped and circumscribed by the social environmentbecause social groups, although constituted by the social activities of individuals, are not a direct result of the wishes and intentions of the individual members.

The notion of social structure implies, in other words, that human beings are not completely free and autonomous in their choices and actions but are instead constrained by the social world they inhabit and the social relations they form with one another.

Within the broad framework of these and other general features of human society, there is an enormous variety of social forms between and within societies.

Some social scientists use the concept of social structure as a device for creating an order for the various aspects of social life.

relationship between members of society and social structure

In other studies, the concept is of greater theoretical importance; it is regarded as an explanatory concept, a key to the understanding of human social life. Several theories have been developed to account for both the similarities and the varieties. It is true that, human achievement is marked by his ability to do, so to a more remarkable degree than any other animal. Everywhere there is a social life setting limitations and pre- dominatingly influencing individual action. Because they work together, combine and organize for specific purposes, so that no man lives to himself.

This unity of effort is to make society [12]. There are different kinds of social life and these are depends on various factors.

Social structure - New World Encyclopedia

These types of factors of social life are normal and for normal people. Nevertheless, social life depends on different things such as a The political life; b The economic life; c Voluntary associations; d Educational associations; e Methods of communication and; f The family [14]. Man Is a Social Animal Though accurate information about the exact origin of society is not known still it is an accepted fact that man has been living in society since time immemorial.

He cannot live without society, if he does so; he is either beast or God. Man has to live in society for his existence and welfare. In almost all aspect of his life he feels the need of society. Biologically and psychologically he compelled to live in society.

The essence of the fact is that man has always belonged to a society of some sort, without which man cannot exist at all. Society fulfills all his needs and provides security. Every human took birth, grows, live and die in society. Hence there exists a great deal of close relationships between man and society. Both are closely inter-related, interconnected and inter-dependent. Relationship between the two is bilateral in nature.

But this close relationship between man and society raises one of the most important questions i. No doubt Aristotle said so long ago. However, man is a social animal mainly because of the following three reasons: Sociality or sociability is his natural instinct. All his human qualities such as: All this developed through interaction with others. His nature compels him to live with his fellow beings. The first case was of Kasper Hauser who from his childhood until his seventeenth year was brought up in woods of Nuremberg.

In his case it was found that at the age of seventeen he could hardly walk, had the mind of an infant and mutter only a few meaningless phrases.

relationship between members of society and social structure

In spite of his subsequent education he could never make himself a normal man. The second case was of two Hindu children who in were discovered in a wolf den. One of the children died soon after discovery. The other could walk only on all four, possessed no language except wolf like growls. She was shy of human being and afraid of them. It was only after careful and sympathetic training that she could learn some social habits.

The third case was of Anna, an illegitimate American child who had been placed in a room at age of six months and discovered five years later.

On discovery it was found that she could not walk or speech and was indifferent to people around her. All the above cases prove that man is social by nature.

Human nature develops in man only when he lives in society, only when he shares with his fellow begins a common life. He knows himself and his fellow beings within the framework of society. Indeed, man is social by nature. The social nature is not super-imposed on him or added to him rather it is inborn.

It is said that needs and necessities makes man social. Man has many needs and necessities. Out of these different needs social, mental and physical needs are very important and needs fulfillment. All his needs and necessities compel him to live in society. Many of his needs and necessities will remain unfulfilled without the co-operation of his fellow beings.

His psychological safety, social recognition, loves and self-actualization needs only fulfilled only within the course of living in society. He is totally dependent for his survival upon the existence of society. Human baby is brought up under the care of his parents and family members. He would not survive even a day without the support of society. All his basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, health and education are fulfilled only within the framework of society. He also needs society for his social and mental developments.

His need for self-preservation compels him to live in society. Individual also satisfy his sex needs in a socially accepted way in a society. To fulfill his security concern at the old age individual lives in society. Similarly helplessness at the time of birth compels him to live in society. A nutrition, shelter, warmth and affection need compels him to live in society.

Thus for the satisfaction of human wants man lives in society. Hence it is also true that not only for nature but also for the fulfillment of his needs and necessities man lives in society. Society not only fulfils his physical needs and determines his social nature but also determines his personality and guides the course of development of human mind.

Development of human mind and self is possible only living in society. Society moulds our attitudes, beliefs, morals, ideals and thereby moulds individual personality. Man acquires a self or personality only living in a society. From birth to death individual acquires different social qualities by social interaction with his fellow beings which moulds his personality. Individual mind without society remains undeveloped at infant stage.

Thus, from the above discussion we conclude that Man is a social animal. His nature and necessities makes him a social being. He also depends on society to be a human being. He acquires personality within society. There exists a very close relationship between individual and society like that of cells and body.

Relation between Individual and Society Human cannot survive without society and societies cannot exist without members. Likewise can competition with other societies strengthen the social system, while wearing out its constituent members? This idea was voiced by Rousseau who believed that we lived better in the original state of nature than under civilization, and who was for that reason less positive about classic Greek civilization than his contemporaries.

The relation between individual and society has been an interesting and a complex problem at the same time.

Social structure

It can be stated more or less that it has defied all solutions so far. No sociologist has been able to give a solution of the relation between the two that will be fully satisfactory and convincing by reducing the conflict between the two to the minimum and by showing a way in which both will tend to bring about a healthy growth of each other.

Aristotle has treated of the individual only from the point of view of the state and he wants the individual to fit in the mechanism of the state and the society. It is very clear that relation between individual and society are very close. So we will discuss here Rawls three models of the relation between the individual and society: His most telling argument against the utilitarian position is that it conflates the system of desires of all individuals and arrives at the good for a society by treating it as one large individual choice.

relationship between members of society and social structure

It is a summing up over the field of individual desires. Utilitarianism has often been described as individualistic, but Rawls argues convincingly that the classical utilitarian position does not take seriously the plurality and distinctness of individuals [15]. It applies to society the principle of choice for one man. Rawls also observes that the notion of the ideal observer or the impartial sympathetic spectator is closely bound up with this classical utilitarian position.

It is only from the perspective of some such hypothetical sympathetic ideal person that the various individual interests can be summed over an entire society [16]. The paradigm presented here, and rejected by Rawls, is one in which the interests of society are considered as the interests of one person. Plurality is ignored, and the desires of individuals are conflated. The tension between individual and society is resolved by subordinating the individual to the social sum.

The social order is conceived as a unity. The principles of individual choice, derived from the experience of the self as a unity, are applied to society as a whole.

Rawls rightly rejects this position as being unable to account for justice, except perhaps by some administrative decision that it is desirable for the whole to give individuals some minimum level of liberty and happiness. But individual persons do not enter into the theoretical position. They are merely sources or directions from which desires are drawn. Justice as Fairness The second paradigm is that which characterizes the original position.

It has already been suggested that this is a picture of an aggregate of individuals, mutually disinterested, and conceived primarily as will. While not necessarily egoistic, their interests are each of their own choosing. They have their own life plans. They coexist on the same geographical territory and they have roughly similar needs and interests so that mutually advantageous cooperation among them is possible.

Thus, one can say, in brief, that the circumstances of justice obtain whenever mutually disinterested persons put forward conflicting claims to the division of social advantages under conditions of moderate scarcity [17]. Here the tension between individual and society is resolved in favor of plurality, of an aggregate of mutually disinterested individuals occupying the same space at the same time.

It is resolved in favor of the plural, while giving up any social unity which might obtain. The classical utilitarian model and the original position as sketched by Rawls provide paradigms for two polar ways in which the tension between the plurality of individuals and the unity of social structure might be resolved. One resolution favors unity and the other favors plurality.

social structure | Definition, Examples, Characteristics, & Facts |

It is described as a good, as an end in itself which is a shared end. This paradigm is distinct both from the conflated application to the entire society of the principle of choice for one person and from the conception of society as an aggregate of mutually disinterested individuals.

The idea of a social union is described in contrast to the idea of a private society. A private society is essentially the second model as realized in the actual world. It stems from a consideration of the conditions of the original position as descriptive of a social order. Over against this notion of private society, Rawls proposes his idea of a social union [18].

It is one in which final ends are shared and communal institutes are valued. Marx and Engels on Relationship between Individuals and Society The direct elaborations of Marx and Engels on relationships between individual action and social process can be divided into three categories for purposes of discussion: Besides, the relationship between individual and society can be viewed from another three angles: Functionalist, Inter-actionist, and Culture and personality.

How Society Affects the Individual?