The genesis of the study of social conformity or stability is the assumption that there is order in nature and it can be discovered, described and understood. Applying this analogy to society what sociologists aim is to discover, describe and explain the order which characterizes the social life of man.
It is justifiable search because members of any large society perform millions and billions of social acts in the course of a single day. The outcome of such social activity is not chaos but rather a reasonable approximation of order. Sociology is concerned with an explanation of how this wonder comes about. In doing so, sociologists talk of social system which means that the coordination and integration of social structure which ends in order rather than in chaos. It is also to be borne in mind that when sociologists study social conformity, it is not their business to condemn or justify it. Logically, sociologists do study social stability in totalitarian societies too.
The means by which individuals or groups are induced and/or compelled to confirm to certain norms and values are numerous. The most obvious and uniform manifestations of social control are found in social institutions. Some of the prominent ones are law, government, religion, marriage, family, education and social classes. Also, caste distinctions and classes provide effective control over the behavior of individuals. These work in two ways. These distinctions create patterns of behavior within limits which govern each class in its relation with other classes. The importance of these patterns largely depends on the social setting of a potent means of enforcing conformity, but it would be of little importance in enforcing conformity in the impersonal life of an American metropolis.
In studying the values and norms that contribute to the order or conformity of society, sociologists select only those of the social facts which are of sociological value. One's conscience, too, can be regarded as a power that restrains and inhibits, but this cannot be a subject-matter of sociology since it relates only to individuals. Hence the first pre-requisite for any social fact to be regarded as one that has a bearing on social order is that it should affect every member of society in one way or other.
Social decontrol or disorder is a part and parcel of the study of social control and conformity. No social system is perfect in the sense that it is very orderly and stable. Social decontrol is endemic in social life, as some norms are not followed, some values are not fulfilled, and some goals are not attained. And in some societies the majority violates socially and/or legally defined standards and value of life. Almost all societies experience riots, civil war, mob violence, terror, crime and general disorganization, whether for short or long periods. It should also be kept in mind that social disorder does not necessarily mean chaos.
All social groups show some absence or uniformity both in standards and effectiveness of social control. There are always some mal by adjustments and conflicts, as illustrated psychopaths, eccentrics and criminals. Moreover, in times of rapid social change the deviations may be numerous and wide spread so as to be characterized as social disorganization. When pre-literate people come under domination of a complex civilization the old norms and/or controls may become weak so as to destroy all incentive for ordinary activities of life apart from zest of living.
The order of any social system consists of both regularized patterns of action and institutions that control and channelize the conflict produced by persistent strains. The coordination that exists in a society at a single point of time is perhaps miraculous. More wondrous is the fact that system persists over relatively long periods of time. However, societies do change. And when they change, certain amount of disorder creeps in. The concept of control and conformity, therefore, includes the efforts to retain it and the departures from it.
VISIT -www.sociologyguide.com
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Deviance
In everyday language to deviate means to stray from an accepted path. Many sociological definitions of deviance simply elaborate upon this idea. Thus deviance consists of those areas which do not follow the norms and expectations of a particular social group. Deviance may be positively sanctioned (rewarded), negatively sanctioned (punished), or simply accepted without reward or punishment. In terms of the above definition of deviance, the soldier on the battlefield who risks his life above and beyond the normal call of duty may be termed deviant, as the physicist who breaks the rules of his discipline and develops a new theory. Their deviance may be positively sanctioned; the soldier might be rewarded with a medal, the physicist with a Noble prize. In one sense, though, neither is deviant since both conform to the values of society, the soldier to the value of courage; the physicist to the value of academic progress. By comparison, a murderer deviates not only from society's norms and expectations but also from its values, in particular the value placed on human life. His deviance generally results in widespread disapproval and punishment. A third form of deviance consists of acts which depart from the norms and expectations of a particular society but are generally tolerated and accepted. The little old lady with a house full of cats or the old gentleman with an obsession for collecting clocks would fall into this category. Usually their eccentricities are neither rewarded nor punished by others. They are simply defined as a 'bit odd' but harmless, and therefore tolerated. Deviance is relative. This means that there is no absolute way of defining a deviant act. Deviance can only be defined in relation to a particular standard, but no standards are fixed or absolute. As such deviance varies from time to time and place to place. In a particular society an act which is considered deviant today may be defined as normal in the future. An act defined as deviant in one society may be seen as perfectly normal in another. Put another way, deviance is culturally determined and cultures change over time and vary from society to society. The following examples will serve to illustrate the above points. Sometimes ago in Western society it had been considered deviant for women to smoke, use make-up and consume alcoholic drinks in public. Today this is no longer the case. In the same way, definitions of crime change over time. Homosexuality was formerly a criminal offence in Britain. Since 1969, however, homosexual acts conducted between consenting adults in private are no longer illegal. A comparison of modern Western culture with the traditional culture of the Teton Sioux Indians of the USA illustrates how deviance varies from society to society. As part of their religions rituals during the annual Sun Dance Ceremony Sioux Warriors mutilated their bodies, leather thongs were inserted through strips of flesh on the chest and attached to a central pole, and warriors had to break free by tearing their flesh and in return they were granted favors by the supernatural powers. Similar actions by members of Western society may well be viewed as masochism or madness. In the same way behaviour accepted as normal in Western society may be defined as deviant within primitive society. In the West the private ownership of property is an established norm; members of society strive to accumulate wealth and substantial property holding brings power and prestige. Such behaviour would have incurred strong disapproval amongst the Sioux and those who acted in terms of the above norms would be regarded as deviant. Generosity was a major value of Sioux culture and the distributed rather than accumulation of wealth was the route to power and prestige. Chiefs were expected to distribute gifts of horses, beadwork and weapons to their followers. The norms of Sioux culture prevented the accumulation of Wealth. The Sioux had no conception of the individual ownership of land; the produce of the hunt was automatically shared by all members of the group. Emile Durkheim developed his view on deviance in his discussion of crime in The Rules of Sociological Method. He argues that crime is an inevitable and normal aspect of social life; it is an integral part of all healthy societies. It is inevitable because not every member of society can be equally committed to the 'collective sentiments, the shared values and beliefs of society. Since individuals are exposed to different influences and circumstances, it is impossible for all to be alike. Therefore, not everybody shares the same restraints about breaking the law.
Crime is not only inevitable, it can also be functional. Durkheim argues that it only becomes dysfunctional when its rate is unusually high. He argues that all social change begins with some form of deviance. In order for change to occur, Yesterday's deviance must become today's normality. Since a certain amount of change is healthy for society, so it can progress rather than stagnate. So for change to occur, the collective sentiments must not be too strong, or too hostile. Infact, they must have only moderate energy' because if they were to strong they would crush all originality both of the criminal and of the genius. Thus the collective sentiments must not be sufficiently powerful to block the expression of people like Jesus, William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa. Durkheim regarded some crime as and anticipation of the morality of the future. Thus heretics who were denounced by both the state and the established church may represent the collective sentiments of the future. In the same way terrorists of freedom fighters may represent a future established order .If crime is inevitable, what is the function of punishment. Durkheim argues that its function is not to remove crime in society. Rather it is to maintain the collective sentiments at their necessary level of strength. In Durkheim's words, punishment 'serves to heal the wounds done to the collective sentiments'. Without punishment the collective sentiments would lose their force to control behaviour and the crime rate would reach the point where it becomes dysfunctional. Thus in Durkheim's view, a healthy society requires both crime and punishment, both are inevitable, both are functional.
Following Durkheim, Merton argues that deviance results not from pathological personalities but from the culture and structure of society itself. He begins from the standard functionalist position of value consensus, that is, all members of society share the same values. However, since members of society are placed in different positions in the social structure, for example, they differ in terms of class position; they do not have the same opportunity of realizing the shared value. This situation can generate deviance. In Merton's words: 'The social and cultural structure generates pressure for socially deviant behaviour upon people variously located in that structure.
Using USA as an example, Merton outlines his theory as follows. Members of American Society share the major values of American culture. In particular they share the goal of success for which they all strive and which is largely measured in terms of wealth and material possessions. The 'American Dream' states that all members of society have an equal opportunity of achieving success, of owning a Cadillac, a Beverley Hills mansion and a substantial bank balance. In all societies there are institutionalized means of reaching culturally defined goals. In America the accepted ways of achieving success are through educational qualifications, talent, hard work, drive, determination and ambition. In a balanced society an equal emphasis is placed upon both cultural goals and institutionalized means, and members are satisfied with both. But in America great importance is attached to success and relatively less importance is given to the accepted ways of achieving success. As such, American society is unstable, unbalanced. There is a tendency to reject the 'rules of the game' and to strive for success by all available means. The situation becomes like a game of cards in which winning becomes so important that the rules are abandoned by some of the players. When rules cease to operate a situation of normlessness or 'anomie' results. In this situation of anything norms no longer direct behavior and deviance is encouraged. However, individuals will respond to a situation of anomie in different ways. In particular, their reaction will be shaped by their position in the social structure. Merton outlines five possible ways in which members of American society can respond to success goals. The first and most common response is conformity. Members of society conform both to success goals and the normative means of reaching them. A second response is 'innovation'. This response rejects normative means of achieving success and turns to deviant means, crime in particular. Merton argues that members of the lower social strata are most likely to select this route to success.
Merton uses the term 'ritualism' to describe the third possible response. Those who select this alternative are deviant because they have largely abandoned the commonly held success goals. The pressure to adopt this alternative is greatest on members of the lower middle class. Their occupations provide less opportunity for success than those of other members of the middle class. However, compared o members of the working class, they have been strongly socialized to conform to social norms. This prevents them from turning to crime. Unable to innovate and with jobs that offer little opportunity for advancement, their only solution is to scale down or abandon their success goals. Merton terms the fourth and least common response, 'retreatism'. It applies to psychotics, artists, pariahs, drug addicts. They have strongly internalized both the cultural goals and the institutionalized means but is unable to achieve success. They resolve the conflict of their situation by abandoning both the goals and the means of reaching them. They are unable to cope with challenges and drop out of society defeated and resigned to their failure. They are deviant in two ways: they have rejected both the cultural goals and the institutionalized means. Merton does not relate retreatism to social class position. Rebellion forms the fifth and final response. It is a rejection of both the success goals and the institutionalized means and their replacement by different goals and means. Those who adopt this alternative want to create a new society. Thus urban guerillas in Western European capitalist societies adopt deviant means- terrorism- to reach deviant goals such as a communist society. Merton argues that it is typically members of a rising class rather than the most depressed strata who organize the resentful and rebellious into a revolutionary group.
To summarize, Merton claims that his analysis shows how the culture and structure of society generates deviance.
Crime is not only inevitable, it can also be functional. Durkheim argues that it only becomes dysfunctional when its rate is unusually high. He argues that all social change begins with some form of deviance. In order for change to occur, Yesterday's deviance must become today's normality. Since a certain amount of change is healthy for society, so it can progress rather than stagnate. So for change to occur, the collective sentiments must not be too strong, or too hostile. Infact, they must have only moderate energy' because if they were to strong they would crush all originality both of the criminal and of the genius. Thus the collective sentiments must not be sufficiently powerful to block the expression of people like Jesus, William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa. Durkheim regarded some crime as and anticipation of the morality of the future. Thus heretics who were denounced by both the state and the established church may represent the collective sentiments of the future. In the same way terrorists of freedom fighters may represent a future established order .If crime is inevitable, what is the function of punishment. Durkheim argues that its function is not to remove crime in society. Rather it is to maintain the collective sentiments at their necessary level of strength. In Durkheim's words, punishment 'serves to heal the wounds done to the collective sentiments'. Without punishment the collective sentiments would lose their force to control behaviour and the crime rate would reach the point where it becomes dysfunctional. Thus in Durkheim's view, a healthy society requires both crime and punishment, both are inevitable, both are functional.
Following Durkheim, Merton argues that deviance results not from pathological personalities but from the culture and structure of society itself. He begins from the standard functionalist position of value consensus, that is, all members of society share the same values. However, since members of society are placed in different positions in the social structure, for example, they differ in terms of class position; they do not have the same opportunity of realizing the shared value. This situation can generate deviance. In Merton's words: 'The social and cultural structure generates pressure for socially deviant behaviour upon people variously located in that structure.
Using USA as an example, Merton outlines his theory as follows. Members of American Society share the major values of American culture. In particular they share the goal of success for which they all strive and which is largely measured in terms of wealth and material possessions. The 'American Dream' states that all members of society have an equal opportunity of achieving success, of owning a Cadillac, a Beverley Hills mansion and a substantial bank balance. In all societies there are institutionalized means of reaching culturally defined goals. In America the accepted ways of achieving success are through educational qualifications, talent, hard work, drive, determination and ambition. In a balanced society an equal emphasis is placed upon both cultural goals and institutionalized means, and members are satisfied with both. But in America great importance is attached to success and relatively less importance is given to the accepted ways of achieving success. As such, American society is unstable, unbalanced. There is a tendency to reject the 'rules of the game' and to strive for success by all available means. The situation becomes like a game of cards in which winning becomes so important that the rules are abandoned by some of the players. When rules cease to operate a situation of normlessness or 'anomie' results. In this situation of anything norms no longer direct behavior and deviance is encouraged. However, individuals will respond to a situation of anomie in different ways. In particular, their reaction will be shaped by their position in the social structure. Merton outlines five possible ways in which members of American society can respond to success goals. The first and most common response is conformity. Members of society conform both to success goals and the normative means of reaching them. A second response is 'innovation'. This response rejects normative means of achieving success and turns to deviant means, crime in particular. Merton argues that members of the lower social strata are most likely to select this route to success.
Merton uses the term 'ritualism' to describe the third possible response. Those who select this alternative are deviant because they have largely abandoned the commonly held success goals. The pressure to adopt this alternative is greatest on members of the lower middle class. Their occupations provide less opportunity for success than those of other members of the middle class. However, compared o members of the working class, they have been strongly socialized to conform to social norms. This prevents them from turning to crime. Unable to innovate and with jobs that offer little opportunity for advancement, their only solution is to scale down or abandon their success goals. Merton terms the fourth and least common response, 'retreatism'. It applies to psychotics, artists, pariahs, drug addicts. They have strongly internalized both the cultural goals and the institutionalized means but is unable to achieve success. They resolve the conflict of their situation by abandoning both the goals and the means of reaching them. They are unable to cope with challenges and drop out of society defeated and resigned to their failure. They are deviant in two ways: they have rejected both the cultural goals and the institutionalized means. Merton does not relate retreatism to social class position. Rebellion forms the fifth and final response. It is a rejection of both the success goals and the institutionalized means and their replacement by different goals and means. Those who adopt this alternative want to create a new society. Thus urban guerillas in Western European capitalist societies adopt deviant means- terrorism- to reach deviant goals such as a communist society. Merton argues that it is typically members of a rising class rather than the most depressed strata who organize the resentful and rebellious into a revolutionary group.
To summarize, Merton claims that his analysis shows how the culture and structure of society generates deviance.
Socialization
Socialization is predominately an unconscious process by which a newborn child learns the values, beliefs, rules and regulations of society or internalizes the culture in which it is born. Socialization, in fact, includes learning of three important processes: (1) cognitive; (2) affective, and (3) evaluative. In other words, socialization includes the knowledge of how things are caused and the establishment of emotional links with the rest of the members of the society. Socialization, therefore, equips an individual in such a way that he can perform his duties in his society. Who are the agents of socialization? The agents of socialization vary from society to society. However, in most of the cases, it is the family which is a major socializing agent, that is, the nearest kinsmen are the first and the most important agents of socialization. The other groups which are socializing units in a society vary according to the complexity. Thus, in modern complex society, the important socializing agents are educational institutions, while in primitive societies, clans and lineages play a more important role. Socialization is a slow process. There is no fixed time regarding the beginning and the end of this process. However, some sociologists formulated different stages of socialization. These are (1) oral stage, (2) anal stage (3) oedipal stage, and (4) adolescence. In all these stages, especially in the first three, the main socializing agent is the family. The first stage is that of a new-born child when he is not involved in the family as a whole but only with his mother. He does not recognize anyone except his mother. The time at which the second stage begins is generally after first year and ends when the infant is around three. At this stage, the child separates the role of his mother and his own. Also during this time force is used on the child, that is, he is made to learn a few basic things. The third stage extends from about fourth year to 12th to 13th year, that is, till puberty. During this time, the child becomes a member of the family as a whole and identifies himself with the social role ascribed to him. The fourth stage begins at puberty when a child wants freedom from parental control. He has to choose a job and a partner for himself. He also learns about incest taboo.
Social Groups
A social group consists of two or more people who interact with one another and who recognize themselves as a distinct social unit. The definition is simple enough, but it has significant implications. Frequent interaction leads people to share values and beliefs. This similarity and the interaction cause them to identify with one another. Identification and attachment, in turn, stimulate more frequent and intense interaction. Each group maintains solidarity with all to other groups and other types of social systems.
Groups are among the most stable and enduring of social units. They are important both to their members and to the society at large. Through encouraging regular and predictable behavior, groups form the foundation upon which society rests. Thus, a family, a village, a political party a trade union is all social groups. These, it should be noted are different from social classes, status groups or crowds, which not only lack structure but whose members are less aware or even unaware of the existence of the group. These have been called quasi-groups or groupings. Nevertheless, the distinction between social groups and quasi-groups is fluid and variable since quasi-groups very often give rise to social groups, as for example, social classes give rise to political parties.
Groups are among the most stable and enduring of social units. They are important both to their members and to the society at large. Through encouraging regular and predictable behavior, groups form the foundation upon which society rests. Thus, a family, a village, a political party a trade union is all social groups. These, it should be noted are different from social classes, status groups or crowds, which not only lack structure but whose members are less aware or even unaware of the existence of the group. These have been called quasi-groups or groupings. Nevertheless, the distinction between social groups and quasi-groups is fluid and variable since quasi-groups very often give rise to social groups, as for example, social classes give rise to political parties.
Primary Groups
If all groups are important to their members and to society, some groups are more important than others. Early in the twentieth century, Charles H. Cooley gave the name, primary groups, to those groups that he said are characterized by intimate face-to-face association and those are fundamental in the development and continued adjustment of their members. He identified three basic primary groups, the family, the child's play group, and the neighborhoods or community among adults. These groups, he said, are almost universal in all societies; they give to people their earliest and most complete experiences of social unity; they are instrumental in the development of the social life; and they promote the integration of their members in the larger society. Since Cooley wrote, over 65 years ago, life in the United States has become much more urban, complex, and impersonal, and the family play group and neighborhood have become less dominant features of the social order. Secondary groups, characterized by anonymous, impersonal, and instrumental relationships, have become much more numerous. People move frequently, often from one section of the country to another and they change from established relationships and promoting widespread loneliness. Young people, particularly, turn to drugs, seek communal living groups and adopt deviant lifestyles in attempts to find meaningful primary-group relationships. The social context has changed so much so that primary group relationship today is not as simple as they were in Cooley's time.
Secondary groups
An understanding of the modern industrial society requires an understanding of the secondary groups. The social groups other than those of primary groups may be termed as secondary groups. They are a residual category. They are often called special interest groups.Maclver and Page refers to them as great associations. They are of the opinion that secondary groups have become almost inevitable today. Their appearance is mainly due to the growing cultural complexity. Primary groups are found predominantly in societies where life is relatively simple. With the expansion in population and territory of a society however interests become diversified and other types of relationships which can be called secondary or impersonal become necessary. Interests become differentiated. The services of experts are required. The new range of the interests demands a complex organization. Especially selected persons act on behalf of all and hence arises a hierarchy of officials called bureaucracy. These features characterize the rise of the modern state, the great corporation, the factory, the labor union, a university or a nationwide political party and so on. These are secondary groups.Ogburn and Nimkoff defines secondary groups as groups which provide experience lacking in intimacy. Frank D. Watson writes that the secondary group is larger and more formal ,is specialized and direct in its contacts and relies more for unity and continuance upon the stability of its social organization than does the primary group.
Characteristics of secondary group:
Dominance of secondary relations: Secondary groups are characterized by indirect, impersonal, contractual and non-inclusive relations. Relations are indirect because secondary groups are bigger in size and members may not stay together. Relations are contractual in the sense they are oriented towards certain interests
Largeness of the size: Secondary groups are relatively larger in size. City, nation, political parties, trade unions and corporations, international associations are bigger in size. They may have thousands and lakhs of members. There may not be any limit to the membership in the case of some secondary groups.
Membership: Membership in the case of secondary groups is mainly voluntary. Individuals are at liberty to join or to go away from the groups. However there are some secondary groups like the state whose membership is almost involuntary.
No physical basis: Secondary groups are not characterized by physical proximity. Many secondary groups are not limited to any definite area. There are some secondary groups like the Rotary Club and Lions Club which are international in character. The members of such groups are scattered over a vast area.
Specific ends or interest: Secondary groups are formed for the realization of some specific interests or ends. They are called special interest groups. Members are interested in the groups because they have specific ends to aim at. Indirect communication: Contacts and communications in the case of secondary groups are mostly indirect. Mass media of communication such as radio, telephone, television, newspaper, movies, magazines and post and telegraph are resorted to by the members to have communication.
Communication may not be quick and effective even. Impersonal nature of social relationships in secondary groups is both the cause and the effect of indirect communication.
Nature of group control: Informal means of social control are less effective in regulating the relations of members. Moral control is only secondary. Formal means of social control such as law, legislation, police, court etc are made of to control the behavior of members. The behavior of the people is largely influenced and controlled by public opinion, propaganda, rule of law and political ideologies. Group structure: The secondary group has a formal structure. A formal authority is set up with designated powers and a clear-cut division of labor in which the function of each is specified in relation to the function of all. Secondary groups are mostly organized groups. Different statuses and roles that the members assume are specified. Distinctions based on caste, colour, religion, class, language etc are less rigid and there is greater tolerance towards other people or groups.
Limited influence on personality: Secondary groups are specialized in character. People involvement in them is also of limited significance.Members's attachment to them is also very much limited. Further people spend most of their time in primary groups than in secondary groups. Hence secondary groups have very limited influence on the personality of the members.
Characteristics of secondary group:
Dominance of secondary relations: Secondary groups are characterized by indirect, impersonal, contractual and non-inclusive relations. Relations are indirect because secondary groups are bigger in size and members may not stay together. Relations are contractual in the sense they are oriented towards certain interests
Largeness of the size: Secondary groups are relatively larger in size. City, nation, political parties, trade unions and corporations, international associations are bigger in size. They may have thousands and lakhs of members. There may not be any limit to the membership in the case of some secondary groups.
Membership: Membership in the case of secondary groups is mainly voluntary. Individuals are at liberty to join or to go away from the groups. However there are some secondary groups like the state whose membership is almost involuntary.
No physical basis: Secondary groups are not characterized by physical proximity. Many secondary groups are not limited to any definite area. There are some secondary groups like the Rotary Club and Lions Club which are international in character. The members of such groups are scattered over a vast area.
Specific ends or interest: Secondary groups are formed for the realization of some specific interests or ends. They are called special interest groups. Members are interested in the groups because they have specific ends to aim at. Indirect communication: Contacts and communications in the case of secondary groups are mostly indirect. Mass media of communication such as radio, telephone, television, newspaper, movies, magazines and post and telegraph are resorted to by the members to have communication.
Communication may not be quick and effective even. Impersonal nature of social relationships in secondary groups is both the cause and the effect of indirect communication.
Nature of group control: Informal means of social control are less effective in regulating the relations of members. Moral control is only secondary. Formal means of social control such as law, legislation, police, court etc are made of to control the behavior of members. The behavior of the people is largely influenced and controlled by public opinion, propaganda, rule of law and political ideologies. Group structure: The secondary group has a formal structure. A formal authority is set up with designated powers and a clear-cut division of labor in which the function of each is specified in relation to the function of all. Secondary groups are mostly organized groups. Different statuses and roles that the members assume are specified. Distinctions based on caste, colour, religion, class, language etc are less rigid and there is greater tolerance towards other people or groups.
Limited influence on personality: Secondary groups are specialized in character. People involvement in them is also of limited significance.Members's attachment to them is also very much limited. Further people spend most of their time in primary groups than in secondary groups. Hence secondary groups have very limited influence on the personality of the members.
Reference Groups
According to Merton reference groups are those groups which are the referring points of the individuals, towards which he is oriented and which influences his opinion, tendency and behaviour.The individual is surrounded by countless reference groups. Both the memberships and inner groups and non memberships and outer groups may be reference groups.
Acculturation
This term is used to describe both the process of contacts between different cultures and also the customs of such contacts. As the process of contact between cultures, acculturation may involve either direct social interaction or exposure to other cultures by means of the mass media of communication. As the outcome of such contact, acculturation refers to the assimilation by one group of the culture of another which modifies the existing culture and so changes group identity. There may be a tension between old and new cultures which leads to the adapting of the new as well as the old.
Assimilation
The term 'assimilation' again is in general use, being applied most often to the process whereby large numbers of migrants from Europe were absorbed into the American population during the 19th and the early part of the 20th century. The assimilation of immigrants was a dramatic and highly visible set of events and illustrates the process well. There are other types of assimilation, however, and there are aspects of the assimilation of European migrants that might be put in propositional form. First, assimilation is a two-way process. Second, assimilation of groups as well as individuals takes place. Third some assimilation probably occurs in all lasting interpersonal situations. Fourth, assimilation is often incomplete and creates adjustment problems for individuals. And, fifth, assimilation does not proceed equally rapidly and equally effectively in all inter-group situations.
Definitions:
According to Young and Mack, Assimilation is the fusion or blending of two previously distinct groups into one.
For Bogardus Assimilation is the social process whereby attitudes of many persons are united and thus develop into a united group.
Biesanz describes Assimilation is the social process whereby individuals or groups come to share the same sentiments and goals.
For Ogburh and Nimkoff; Assimilation is the process whereby individuals or groups once dissimilar become similar and identified in their interest and outlook.
Assimilation is a slow and a gradual process. It takes time. For example, immigrants take time to get assimilated with majority group. Assimilation is concerned with the absorption and incorporation of the culture by another.
Definitions:
According to Young and Mack, Assimilation is the fusion or blending of two previously distinct groups into one.
For Bogardus Assimilation is the social process whereby attitudes of many persons are united and thus develop into a united group.
Biesanz describes Assimilation is the social process whereby individuals or groups come to share the same sentiments and goals.
For Ogburh and Nimkoff; Assimilation is the process whereby individuals or groups once dissimilar become similar and identified in their interest and outlook.
Assimilation is a slow and a gradual process. It takes time. For example, immigrants take time to get assimilated with majority group. Assimilation is concerned with the absorption and incorporation of the culture by another.
Accommodation
The term 'accommodation' refers to several sorts of working agreements between rival groups that permit at least limited cooperation between them even though the issues dividing them remain unsettled. It does not technically end the conflict, but holds it in abeyance. The accommodation may last for only a short time and may be for the purpose of allowing the conflicting parties to consolidate their positions and to prepare for further conflict. Or, as is more often the case, the initial accommodation agreed upon by the parties may be part of the process of seeking solutions to the issues that divide them. If those solutions are not found, the accommodation itself may become permanent.
Definition of Accommodation:
The famous psychologist J.M. Baldwin was the first to use the concept of accommodation. According to him, the term denotes acquired changes in the behaviour of individuals which help them to adjust to their environment.
Mac Irer says that the term accommodation refers particularly to the process in which man attains a sense of harmony with his environment.
Lundberg is of the opinion that the word accommodation has been used to designate the adjustments which people in groups make to relieve the fatigue and tensions of competition and conflict.
According to Ogburn and Nimkoff Accommodation is a term used by the sociologists to describe the adjustment of hostile individuals or groups.
It is clear from the above that accommodation assumes various forms. Without accommodation social life could hardly go on. Accommodation checks conflicts and helps persons and groups to maintain cooperation. It enables person and groups to adjust themselves to changes functions and status which is brought about by changed conditions. The only way in which conflicts between groups may be eliminated permanently is through assimilation. Formally, assimilation is the process whereby group differences gradually disappear. Issues are based upon differences. When the differences disappear so do the issue and the conflict.
Definition of Accommodation:
The famous psychologist J.M. Baldwin was the first to use the concept of accommodation. According to him, the term denotes acquired changes in the behaviour of individuals which help them to adjust to their environment.
Mac Irer says that the term accommodation refers particularly to the process in which man attains a sense of harmony with his environment.
Lundberg is of the opinion that the word accommodation has been used to designate the adjustments which people in groups make to relieve the fatigue and tensions of competition and conflict.
According to Ogburn and Nimkoff Accommodation is a term used by the sociologists to describe the adjustment of hostile individuals or groups.
It is clear from the above that accommodation assumes various forms. Without accommodation social life could hardly go on. Accommodation checks conflicts and helps persons and groups to maintain cooperation. It enables person and groups to adjust themselves to changes functions and status which is brought about by changed conditions. The only way in which conflicts between groups may be eliminated permanently is through assimilation. Formally, assimilation is the process whereby group differences gradually disappear. Issues are based upon differences. When the differences disappear so do the issue and the conflict.
Conflict
Conflict is goal-oriented, just as cooperation and competition are, but, there is a difference, in conflict, one seeks deliberately to harm and/ or destroy one's antagonists. The rules of competition always include restrictions upon the injury that may be done to a foe. But in conflict these rules break down; one seeks to win at any cost. In talking about conflict, the notion of a continuum or scale is again useful. It is useful in at least two ways: in differentiating conflict from competition; and in differentiating personal form group and organizational conflict. If we have the data with which to do it, all rival situations probably could be ranged along a continuum defined at one end by pure competition and at the other end by pure conflict. There might be a few situations that would be located near to each end of the continuum, but many would prove to be mixed types and would cluster near the centre. Conflict also tends to be more or less personal, just as is the case with cooperation and competition. First, fights and 'shoot-out' illustrate highly personal conflicts. The conflicts within football games generally are a little less personal, and the conflict between students and campus police at a sit-in or rally is personal. Yet, when two labor unions or two corporations set out to destroy each other, personal conflict may be almost completely submerged in organizational struggle. Perhaps the most impersonal of all conflicts is war between nations, where the enemy is perceived to be almost faceless. Again, rather than being discrete types of personal and impersonal conflicts, conflicts probably range almost imperceptibly along a continuum from the purely personal to the completely impersonal.
Probably the most striking thing about conflict is its destructive potential. The word 'conflict' itself often conjures up images of heads being broken, of buildings burning, and of deaths and destruction. Moreover, the destructiveness that accompanies conflicts quickly cumulates. In a confrontation between police and students, for example, things may be orderly until the first blow is struck. Once that happens, however, a frenzy of skull cracking, shootings, burning, and destroying may follow. Because the immediate results of conflict often are so horrible, there is a tendency to see it, not as a normal and universal process of social interaction, but as pathological process. It is very difficult for the unsophisticated not to imply value judgments in discussing these social processes because our society as a whole tends to do so. Cooperation and competition are more often perceived to be socially useful; but conflict, to be harmful.
The situation, however, it is not that simple. Few would defend the cooperation of a group of men in the rape of a woman. And the school drop-out problem is hardly a beneficial effect of competition. Thus, competition and cooperation, which otherwise receive a good deal of social approval, also have untoward effects. So it is, also with conflict. Conflict is an abnormal and universal form of social interaction as are any of the others. Analysis of conflict needs to describe both the ways in which it is harmful and destructive and the way in which it is useful and socially integrative
Probably the most striking thing about conflict is its destructive potential. The word 'conflict' itself often conjures up images of heads being broken, of buildings burning, and of deaths and destruction. Moreover, the destructiveness that accompanies conflicts quickly cumulates. In a confrontation between police and students, for example, things may be orderly until the first blow is struck. Once that happens, however, a frenzy of skull cracking, shootings, burning, and destroying may follow. Because the immediate results of conflict often are so horrible, there is a tendency to see it, not as a normal and universal process of social interaction, but as pathological process. It is very difficult for the unsophisticated not to imply value judgments in discussing these social processes because our society as a whole tends to do so. Cooperation and competition are more often perceived to be socially useful; but conflict, to be harmful.
The situation, however, it is not that simple. Few would defend the cooperation of a group of men in the rape of a woman. And the school drop-out problem is hardly a beneficial effect of competition. Thus, competition and cooperation, which otherwise receive a good deal of social approval, also have untoward effects. So it is, also with conflict. Conflict is an abnormal and universal form of social interaction as are any of the others. Analysis of conflict needs to describe both the ways in which it is harmful and destructive and the way in which it is useful and socially integrative
Harmful Effects of Conflict
The harmful effects probably are easier to see. We have already indicated that conflict tends to cumulate rapidly. This snowballing tendency may lead to complete breakdown before the self-limiting features of most inter-personal exchanges have a chance to operate. Before people can decide that the pain is not worth it, people may have been killed and property destroyed. Establishments may be closed or they may find themselves in chaos. Similarly, a company of soldiers may shoot down women and children in an orgy of destruction. A second negative feature of conflict, closely related to the first, is that it is often extremely costly. War probably provides the best example, for nothing else in human experience exacts such a toll. The third negative feature has to do with social costs. Conflict is inherently divisive. It sets person against person and group against group in ways that threaten to destroy organized social life. United States has seen conflict so widespread as to raise questions whether anarchy might prevail. Youth against the establishment, blacks against whites, the poor against the affluent, and Jews against Arabs represent something of the range of conflicts. In such situations, the question becomes not simply how many people will be killed, how much property destroyed, or who will win; it becomes one of the societal survival. Can race wars be avoided? Can the police maintain order? Can universities operate? And can presidents keep the support of the populace? Whatever else they may be, these are real questions. And the answers are by no means obvious. Conflict threatens the existence of society itself.
Useful Functions of Conflict
The explosiveness, the outward costs, and the divisiveness of conflict are so great that it is often difficult to see the ways in which conflict fulfils socially useful functions. Yet it does at least the following three things. First, it promotes loyalty within the group. Second, it signals the needs for and helps promote short-run social change. And third, it appears intimately involved in moving societies towards new levels of social integration.
If conflict pits groups and organizations against one another, it also tends to promote unity within each of the conflicting groups. The necessity to work together against a common foe submerges rivalries within the group and people, who otherwise are competitors, to work together in harmony. Competing football halfbacks flock for each other, rival student leaders work together to win concessions from the administration, and union leaders join forces against management. Nations that are torn by dissent in peacetime rally together when they are attacked by other countries. Thus, conflict is not simply divisive, it works to unify groups.
A second positive function of conflict is that it serves to notify the society that serious problems exist that is not being handled by the traditional social organization. It forces the recognition of those problems and encourages the development of new solutions to them.
The third general positive function of conflict is closely related to the second. And it is much more problematic. One view of human history tends to focus upon conflict particularly upon war - as a primary mechanism through which nations have developed. In other words, war was the mechanism that permitted the consolidation of scattered, weak societies into large, powerful ones. Similar arguments have been advanced that war was necessary during the early modern period in Europe to permit the formation of nations as we know them.
If conflict pits groups and organizations against one another, it also tends to promote unity within each of the conflicting groups. The necessity to work together against a common foe submerges rivalries within the group and people, who otherwise are competitors, to work together in harmony. Competing football halfbacks flock for each other, rival student leaders work together to win concessions from the administration, and union leaders join forces against management. Nations that are torn by dissent in peacetime rally together when they are attacked by other countries. Thus, conflict is not simply divisive, it works to unify groups.
A second positive function of conflict is that it serves to notify the society that serious problems exist that is not being handled by the traditional social organization. It forces the recognition of those problems and encourages the development of new solutions to them.
The third general positive function of conflict is closely related to the second. And it is much more problematic. One view of human history tends to focus upon conflict particularly upon war - as a primary mechanism through which nations have developed. In other words, war was the mechanism that permitted the consolidation of scattered, weak societies into large, powerful ones. Similar arguments have been advanced that war was necessary during the early modern period in Europe to permit the formation of nations as we know them.
Nature and characteristics of Competition
1. Scarcity as a condition of competition: Wherever there are commonly desired goods and services, there is competition. Infact economics starts with its fundamental proposition that while human wants are unlimited the resources that can satisfy these wants are strictly limited. Hence people compete for the possession of these limited resources. As Hamilton has pointed out competition is necessitated by a population of insatiable wants and a world of stubborn and inadequate resources.
2. Competition is continuous: it is found virtually in every area of social activity and social interaction- particularly, competition for status, wealth and fame is always present in almost all societies.
3. Competition is a cause of social change: Competition is a cause of social change in that; it causes persons to adopt new forms of behavior in order to attain desired ends. New forms of behavior involve inventions and innovations which naturally bring about social change.
4. Competition may be personal or impersonal: Competition is normally directed towards a goal and not against any individual. Some times, it takes place without the actual knowledge of other's existence. It is impersonal as in the case of civil service examination in which the contestants are not even aware of one another's identity. Competition may also be personal as when two individuals contest for election to an office. As competition becomes more personal it leads to rivalry and shades into conflict. Competition in the social world is largely impersonal.
5. Competition is always governed by norms: Competition is not limitless nor is it un- regulated. There is no such thing as unrestricted competition. Such a phrase is contradiction in terms. Moral norms or legal rules always govern and control competition. Competitors are expected to use fair tactics and not cut throat devices.
Some sociologists have also spoken of cultural competition. It may take place between two or more cultural groups. Human history provides examples of such a competition for example; there has always been a keen competition between the culture of the native and that of the invaders. Like cooperation, competition occurs at personal, group, and organizational levels. People competing for affection, a promotion, or public office all are examples of personal competition. The competitors are likely to know one another and to regard others defeat as essential to the attainment of their own goals.
2. Competition is continuous: it is found virtually in every area of social activity and social interaction- particularly, competition for status, wealth and fame is always present in almost all societies.
3. Competition is a cause of social change: Competition is a cause of social change in that; it causes persons to adopt new forms of behavior in order to attain desired ends. New forms of behavior involve inventions and innovations which naturally bring about social change.
4. Competition may be personal or impersonal: Competition is normally directed towards a goal and not against any individual. Some times, it takes place without the actual knowledge of other's existence. It is impersonal as in the case of civil service examination in which the contestants are not even aware of one another's identity. Competition may also be personal as when two individuals contest for election to an office. As competition becomes more personal it leads to rivalry and shades into conflict. Competition in the social world is largely impersonal.
5. Competition is always governed by norms: Competition is not limitless nor is it un- regulated. There is no such thing as unrestricted competition. Such a phrase is contradiction in terms. Moral norms or legal rules always govern and control competition. Competitors are expected to use fair tactics and not cut throat devices.
Some sociologists have also spoken of cultural competition. It may take place between two or more cultural groups. Human history provides examples of such a competition for example; there has always been a keen competition between the culture of the native and that of the invaders. Like cooperation, competition occurs at personal, group, and organizational levels. People competing for affection, a promotion, or public office all are examples of personal competition. The competitors are likely to know one another and to regard others defeat as essential to the attainment of their own goals.
Competition
Just as cooperation exists as a universal form of social interaction, so is competition found in all societies. Competition grows out of the fact that human needs and desires appears to be insatiable and the goods, prestige, and perquisites that are the rewards for successful competition always are in short supply. People everywhere compete for dwelling space, for mates, for elaborate clothing and other bodily ornaments, and for wealth whether defined in terms of land, animals, money or even cockle shells.
Although all societies acknowledge and support the value of competition in some areas of life, they differ in the relative emphasis that they place on competition and cooperation, cooperation and competition always exist as reciprocal aspects of the same general experience. European capitalist society, generally, has accepted the view that the collective interest further by individual and group competition spurs people on to accomplish more than can be managed under other circumstances. This stands in marked contrast to the beliefs of some other societies; to that of the Zuni Indians of the American South west. The Zunis discouraged the accumulation of wealth and they minimize status differences among themselves. They also regard overt competitiveness as a matter of taste in their children. There is some justification for this reaction to competition. Competition, however, is an ideal type. An ideal type is a form of concept that is constructed by taking one or more characteristics of a phenomenon and accentuating those characteristics to their logical maximum or reducing them to their logical minimum. The type thus constructed does not represent reality because the very process of its construction involves exaggeration. Ideal types, nevertheless, are very useful as logical standards by which reality can be measured. This often is done by making a pair of ideal types and letting them represent the ends of a continuum or scale. Because the ends of the scale are defined in terms of logical extremes, no existing case falls at either end of the continuum, but all cases may be ranged somewhere along the continuum between the two end points.
Although all societies acknowledge and support the value of competition in some areas of life, they differ in the relative emphasis that they place on competition and cooperation, cooperation and competition always exist as reciprocal aspects of the same general experience. European capitalist society, generally, has accepted the view that the collective interest further by individual and group competition spurs people on to accomplish more than can be managed under other circumstances. This stands in marked contrast to the beliefs of some other societies; to that of the Zuni Indians of the American South west. The Zunis discouraged the accumulation of wealth and they minimize status differences among themselves. They also regard overt competitiveness as a matter of taste in their children. There is some justification for this reaction to competition. Competition, however, is an ideal type. An ideal type is a form of concept that is constructed by taking one or more characteristics of a phenomenon and accentuating those characteristics to their logical maximum or reducing them to their logical minimum. The type thus constructed does not represent reality because the very process of its construction involves exaggeration. Ideal types, nevertheless, are very useful as logical standards by which reality can be measured. This often is done by making a pair of ideal types and letting them represent the ends of a continuum or scale. Because the ends of the scale are defined in terms of logical extremes, no existing case falls at either end of the continuum, but all cases may be ranged somewhere along the continuum between the two end points.
Cooperation
Cooperation involves individuals or groups working together for the achievement of their individual or collective goals. In its simplest form, cooperation may involve only two people who work together towards a common goal. Two college students working together to complete a laboratory experiment, or two inter-city youths working together to protect their 'turf' from violation by outsiders are examples. In these cases, solidarity between the collaborators is encouraged and they share jointly the reward of their cooperation. Again at the level of two-person interactions, the goals towards which the cooperation parties work may be consistent with each other, but they may not be identical or shared. From the college experience again, student and professor may cooperate towards the student's mastery of professor's discipline, but the student may be working to make a good grade while the professor is working to establish or reinforce his/her reputation as a good teacher. If some of their rewards are shared, some also are individual but attainable only through joint effort. The cooperating parties in this case may be either neutral or kindly disposed towards one another but their relationship is not likely to have lasting solidarity.
Man can't associate without cooperating, without working together in the pursuit of like to common interests. It can be divided into five principal types.
1. Direct Cooperation:
Those activities in which people do like things together play together, worship together, labor together in myriad ways. The essential character is that people do in company, the things which they can also do separately or in isolation. They do them together because it brings social satisfaction.
2. Indirect Cooperation:
Those activities in which people do definitely unlike tasks toward a single end. Here the famous principle of the 'division of labour' is introduced, a principle that is imbedded in the nature of social revealed wherever people combine their difference for mutual satisfaction or for a common end.
3. Primary Cooperation:
It is found in primary groups such as family, neighborhood, friends and so on. Here, there is an identity end. The rewards for which everyone works are shared or meant to be shared, with every other member in the group. Means and goals become one, for cooperation itself is a highly prized value.
4. Secondary Cooperation:
It is the characteristic feature of the modern civilized society and is found mainly in social groups. It is highly formalized and specialized. Each performs his/her task, and thus helps others to perform their tasks, so that he/she can separately enjoy the fruits of his/her cooperation.
5. Tertiary Cooperation:
It may be found between 2 or more political parties, castes, tribes, religions groups etc. It is often called accommodation. The two groups may cooperate and work together for antagonistic goals.
Cooperation is important in the life of an individual that it is difficult for man to survive without it. C.H. Cooley says that Cooperation arises only when men realize that they have a common interest. They have sufficient theme, intelligence and self control, to seek this interest through united action.
Man can't associate without cooperating, without working together in the pursuit of like to common interests. It can be divided into five principal types.
1. Direct Cooperation:
Those activities in which people do like things together play together, worship together, labor together in myriad ways. The essential character is that people do in company, the things which they can also do separately or in isolation. They do them together because it brings social satisfaction.
2. Indirect Cooperation:
Those activities in which people do definitely unlike tasks toward a single end. Here the famous principle of the 'division of labour' is introduced, a principle that is imbedded in the nature of social revealed wherever people combine their difference for mutual satisfaction or for a common end.
3. Primary Cooperation:
It is found in primary groups such as family, neighborhood, friends and so on. Here, there is an identity end. The rewards for which everyone works are shared or meant to be shared, with every other member in the group. Means and goals become one, for cooperation itself is a highly prized value.
4. Secondary Cooperation:
It is the characteristic feature of the modern civilized society and is found mainly in social groups. It is highly formalized and specialized. Each performs his/her task, and thus helps others to perform their tasks, so that he/she can separately enjoy the fruits of his/her cooperation.
5. Tertiary Cooperation:
It may be found between 2 or more political parties, castes, tribes, religions groups etc. It is often called accommodation. The two groups may cooperate and work together for antagonistic goals.
Cooperation is important in the life of an individual that it is difficult for man to survive without it. C.H. Cooley says that Cooperation arises only when men realize that they have a common interest. They have sufficient theme, intelligence and self control, to seek this interest through united action.
Social Institutions
A social institution is a complex, integrated set of social norms organized around the preservation of a basic societal value. Obviously, the sociologist does not define institutions in the same way as does the person on the street. Lay persons are likely to use the term "institution" very loosely, for churches, hospitals, jails, and many other things as institutions.
Sociologists often reserve the term "institution" to describe normative systems that operate in five basic areas of life, which may be designated as the primary institutions. (1) In determining Kinship; (2) in providing for the legitimate use of power; (3) in regulating the distribution of goods and services; (4) in transmitting knowledge from one generation to the next; and (5) in regulating our relation to the supernatural. In shorthand form, or as concepts, these five basic institutions are called the family, government, economy, education and religion.
The five primary institutions are found among all human groups. They are not always as highly elaborated or as distinct from one another as into the United States, but, in rudimentary form at last, they exist everywhere. Their universality indicates that they are deeply rooted in human nature and that they are essential in the development and maintenance of orders. Sociologists operating in terms of the functionalist model society have provided the clearest explanation of the functions served by social institutions. Apparently there are certain minimum tasks that must be performed in all human groups. Unless these tasks are performed adequately, the group will cease to exist. An analogy may help to make the point. We might hypothesize that cost accounting department is essential to the operation of a large corporation. A company might procure a superior product and distribute it then at the price which is assigned to it, the company will soon go out of business. Perhaps the only way to avoid this is to have a careful accounting of the cost of each step in the production and distribution process.
Basic Concepts | Marriage, Family and Kinship | Social Stratification | Types of Society | Economy and Society | Industrial and Urban Society | Social Demography | Social Movements | Political Processes | Social Thinkers | Indian Thinkers | Weaker Section and Minorities | Social Change | Research Method And Statistics | Social Mobility | Introduction To Sociology | Political System | Religion | Sociology Questions | Education | Rural Sociology | Social Pathology | Census of India | Women And Society | Tribal Society
© 2006 Sociology Guide
Site Designed, Developed and Maintained by Concern Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
The Advertising Network
Sociologists often reserve the term "institution" to describe normative systems that operate in five basic areas of life, which may be designated as the primary institutions. (1) In determining Kinship; (2) in providing for the legitimate use of power; (3) in regulating the distribution of goods and services; (4) in transmitting knowledge from one generation to the next; and (5) in regulating our relation to the supernatural. In shorthand form, or as concepts, these five basic institutions are called the family, government, economy, education and religion.
The five primary institutions are found among all human groups. They are not always as highly elaborated or as distinct from one another as into the United States, but, in rudimentary form at last, they exist everywhere. Their universality indicates that they are deeply rooted in human nature and that they are essential in the development and maintenance of orders. Sociologists operating in terms of the functionalist model society have provided the clearest explanation of the functions served by social institutions. Apparently there are certain minimum tasks that must be performed in all human groups. Unless these tasks are performed adequately, the group will cease to exist. An analogy may help to make the point. We might hypothesize that cost accounting department is essential to the operation of a large corporation. A company might procure a superior product and distribute it then at the price which is assigned to it, the company will soon go out of business. Perhaps the only way to avoid this is to have a careful accounting of the cost of each step in the production and distribution process.
Basic Concepts | Marriage, Family and Kinship | Social Stratification | Types of Society | Economy and Society | Industrial and Urban Society | Social Demography | Social Movements | Political Processes | Social Thinkers | Indian Thinkers | Weaker Section and Minorities | Social Change | Research Method And Statistics | Social Mobility | Introduction To Sociology | Political System | Religion | Sociology Questions | Education | Rural Sociology | Social Pathology | Census of India | Women And Society | Tribal Society
© 2006 Sociology Guide
Site Designed, Developed and Maintained by Concern Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
The Advertising Network
SOCIAL NORMS
Social norms grow out of social value and both serve to differentiate human social behavior from that of other species. The significance of learning in behavior varies from species to species and is closely linked to processes of communication. Only human beings are capable of elaborate symbolic communication and of structuring their behavior in terms of abstract preferences that we have called values. Norms are the means through which values are expressed in behavior.
Norms generally are the rules and regulations that groups live by. Or perhaps because the words, rules and regulations, call to mind some kind of formal listing, we might refer to norms as the standards of behavior of a group. For while some of the appropriate standards of behavior in most societies are written down, many of them are not that formal. Many are learned, informally, in interaction with other people and are passed "that way from generation to generation.
The term "norms" covers an exceedingly wide range of behaviour. So that the whole range of that behaviour may be included. Sociologists have offered the following definition. Social norms are rules developed by a group of people that specify how people must, should, may, should not, and must not behave in various situations.
Some norms are defined by individual and societies as crucial to the society. For example, all members of the group are required to wear clothing and to bury their dead. Such "musts" are often labeled "mores", a term coined by the American sociologist William Graham Sumner.
Many social norms are concerned with "should "; that is, there is some pressure on the individual to conform but there is some leeway permitted also. The 'should behaviors' are what Sumner called "folk-ways"; that is, conventional ways of doing things that are not defined as crucial to the survival of either the individual or the society. The 'should behaviors' in our own society include the prescriptions that people's clothes should be clean, and that death should be recognized with public funerals. A complete list of the should behaviors in a complex society would be virtually without end.
The word "May" in the definition of norms indicates that, in most groups, there is a wide range of behaviors in which the individual is given considerable choice. To continue the illustration, in Western countries girls may select to wear dresses or halters and jeans. Funerals may be held with or without flowers, with the casket open or closed, with or without religious participation, and so on. We have confined our examples to just two areas, but students should be able to construct their own examples from all areas of life.
The remainder of the definition, including the 'should-not' and the 'must-not' behaviours, probably does not require lengthy illustration because such examples are implicit in what has already been said. One should not belch in public, dump garbage in the street, run stop signs, or tell lies. One must not kill another person or have sexual intercourse with one's sister or brother.
Social norms cover almost every conceivable situation, and they vary from standards where almost complete conformity is demanded to those where there is great freedom of choice. Norms also vary in the kinds of sanctions that are attached to violation of the norms. Since norms derive from values, and since complex societies have multiple and conflicting value systems, it follows that norms frequently are in conflict also.
Taking the illustration of American sex norms, two proscriptive norms prohibit premarital intercourse and extramarital intercourse. But many boys also have been taught that sex is good and that they should seek to "score" with girls whenever possible. Somewhat similarly, girls have been taught that promiscuous intercourse before marriage is bad; but they have also been taught that sex is acceptable within true love relationships. Members of both sexes, then, find themselves faced with conflicting demands for participation in sex and for abstinence from it. They also discover that there are sanctions associated with either course of action.
Normative conflict is also deeply involved in social change. As statistical norms come to differ too blatantly from existing prescriptive norms, new prescriptive norms give sanction to formerly prohibited behaviour and even extend it. Recent changes in the sex norms of teenage and young adult groups provide examples. The change is more apparent in communal living groups where sometimes there is an explicit ideology of sexual freedom and the assumption that sexual activities will be shared with all members of the group. In less dramatic fashion, the change is evident among couples who simply begin to live together without the formality of a marriage ceremony.
Norms generally are the rules and regulations that groups live by. Or perhaps because the words, rules and regulations, call to mind some kind of formal listing, we might refer to norms as the standards of behavior of a group. For while some of the appropriate standards of behavior in most societies are written down, many of them are not that formal. Many are learned, informally, in interaction with other people and are passed "that way from generation to generation.
The term "norms" covers an exceedingly wide range of behaviour. So that the whole range of that behaviour may be included. Sociologists have offered the following definition. Social norms are rules developed by a group of people that specify how people must, should, may, should not, and must not behave in various situations.
Some norms are defined by individual and societies as crucial to the society. For example, all members of the group are required to wear clothing and to bury their dead. Such "musts" are often labeled "mores", a term coined by the American sociologist William Graham Sumner.
Many social norms are concerned with "should "; that is, there is some pressure on the individual to conform but there is some leeway permitted also. The 'should behaviors' are what Sumner called "folk-ways"; that is, conventional ways of doing things that are not defined as crucial to the survival of either the individual or the society. The 'should behaviors' in our own society include the prescriptions that people's clothes should be clean, and that death should be recognized with public funerals. A complete list of the should behaviors in a complex society would be virtually without end.
The word "May" in the definition of norms indicates that, in most groups, there is a wide range of behaviors in which the individual is given considerable choice. To continue the illustration, in Western countries girls may select to wear dresses or halters and jeans. Funerals may be held with or without flowers, with the casket open or closed, with or without religious participation, and so on. We have confined our examples to just two areas, but students should be able to construct their own examples from all areas of life.
The remainder of the definition, including the 'should-not' and the 'must-not' behaviours, probably does not require lengthy illustration because such examples are implicit in what has already been said. One should not belch in public, dump garbage in the street, run stop signs, or tell lies. One must not kill another person or have sexual intercourse with one's sister or brother.
Social norms cover almost every conceivable situation, and they vary from standards where almost complete conformity is demanded to those where there is great freedom of choice. Norms also vary in the kinds of sanctions that are attached to violation of the norms. Since norms derive from values, and since complex societies have multiple and conflicting value systems, it follows that norms frequently are in conflict also.
Taking the illustration of American sex norms, two proscriptive norms prohibit premarital intercourse and extramarital intercourse. But many boys also have been taught that sex is good and that they should seek to "score" with girls whenever possible. Somewhat similarly, girls have been taught that promiscuous intercourse before marriage is bad; but they have also been taught that sex is acceptable within true love relationships. Members of both sexes, then, find themselves faced with conflicting demands for participation in sex and for abstinence from it. They also discover that there are sanctions associated with either course of action.
Normative conflict is also deeply involved in social change. As statistical norms come to differ too blatantly from existing prescriptive norms, new prescriptive norms give sanction to formerly prohibited behaviour and even extend it. Recent changes in the sex norms of teenage and young adult groups provide examples. The change is more apparent in communal living groups where sometimes there is an explicit ideology of sexual freedom and the assumption that sexual activities will be shared with all members of the group. In less dramatic fashion, the change is evident among couples who simply begin to live together without the formality of a marriage ceremony.
CULTURAL LAG
The role played by material inventions, that is, by technology, in social change probably received most emphasis in the work of William F. Ogburn. It was Ogburn, also, who was chiefly responsible for the idea that the rate of invention within society is a function of the size of the existing culture base. He saw the rate of material invention as increasing with the passage of time.Ogburn believed that material and non-material cultures change in different ways. Change in material culture is believed to have a marked directional or progressive character. This is because there are agreed-upon standards of efficiency that are used to evaluate material inventions. To use air-planes, as an example, we keep working to develop planes that will fly, higher and faster, and carry more payloads on a lower unit cost. Because airplanes can be measured against these standards, inventions in this area appear rapidly and predictably. In the area of non-material culture, on the other hand there often are no such generally accepted standards. Whether one prefers a Hussain, a Picasso, or a Gainsborough, for example, is a matter of taste, and styles of painting fluctuate unevenly. Similarly, in institutions such as government and the economic system there are competing forms of styles, Governments may be dictatorships, oligarchies, republics or democracies.
Economic system includes communist, socialist, feudal, and capitalist ones. As far as can be told, there is no regular progression from one form of government or economic system to another. The obvious directional character of change in material culture is lacking in many areas of non-material culture. In addition to the difference in the directional character of change, Ogburn and others believe that material culture tends to change faster than non-material culture. Certainly one of the imperative aspects of modern American life is the tremendous development of technology. Within this century, life has been transformed by invention of the radio, TV, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, transistors, and computers and so on. While this has been happening in material culture, change in government, economic system, family life, education, and religion seems to have been much slower. This difference in rates of cultural change led Ogburn to formulate the concept of culture lag. Material inventions, he believed bring changes that require adjustments in various areas of non-material culture.Invention of the automobile, for instance, freed young people from direct parental observation, made it possible for them to work at distances from their homes, and, among other things, facilitated crime by making escape easier. Half a century earlier, families still were structured as they were in the era of the family farm when young people were under continuous observation and worked right on the homestead.
Culture lag is defined as the time between the appearance of a new material invention and the making of appropriate adjustments in corresponding area of non-material culture. This time is often long. It was over fifty years, for example, after the typewriter was invented before it was used systematically in offices. Even today, we may have a family system better adapted to a farm economy than to an urban industrial one, and nuclear weapons exist in a diplomatic atmosphere attuned to the nineteenth century. As the discussion implies, the concept of culture lag is associated with the definition of social problems. Scholars envision some balance or adjustment existing between material and non-material cultures. That balance is upset by the appearance of raw material objects. The resulting imbalance is defined as a social problem until non-material culture changes in adjustment to the new technology.
Economic system includes communist, socialist, feudal, and capitalist ones. As far as can be told, there is no regular progression from one form of government or economic system to another. The obvious directional character of change in material culture is lacking in many areas of non-material culture. In addition to the difference in the directional character of change, Ogburn and others believe that material culture tends to change faster than non-material culture. Certainly one of the imperative aspects of modern American life is the tremendous development of technology. Within this century, life has been transformed by invention of the radio, TV, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, transistors, and computers and so on. While this has been happening in material culture, change in government, economic system, family life, education, and religion seems to have been much slower. This difference in rates of cultural change led Ogburn to formulate the concept of culture lag. Material inventions, he believed bring changes that require adjustments in various areas of non-material culture.Invention of the automobile, for instance, freed young people from direct parental observation, made it possible for them to work at distances from their homes, and, among other things, facilitated crime by making escape easier. Half a century earlier, families still were structured as they were in the era of the family farm when young people were under continuous observation and worked right on the homestead.
Culture lag is defined as the time between the appearance of a new material invention and the making of appropriate adjustments in corresponding area of non-material culture. This time is often long. It was over fifty years, for example, after the typewriter was invented before it was used systematically in offices. Even today, we may have a family system better adapted to a farm economy than to an urban industrial one, and nuclear weapons exist in a diplomatic atmosphere attuned to the nineteenth century. As the discussion implies, the concept of culture lag is associated with the definition of social problems. Scholars envision some balance or adjustment existing between material and non-material cultures. That balance is upset by the appearance of raw material objects. The resulting imbalance is defined as a social problem until non-material culture changes in adjustment to the new technology.
Friday, March 14, 2008
R U looking for genuine earning opportunity?
Here it is! Earn real money just for inviting your friends and known ones. Full training provided. Click the following link to know more.
http://www.homepagepublicity.com/earn4free.asp?referer=283197
http://www.homepagepublicity.com/earn4free.asp?referer=283197
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)