Conceptualizing Social Structure: A Reorientative...

© Kamla-Raj 2016 Anthropologist, 24(2): 667-675 (2016)

Conceptualizing Social Structure: A Reorientative DiscussionBased on Persistent Paradoxical Debates

A.H. M. Zehadul Karim

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, International Islamic University Malaysia,Gombak 53100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Telephone +60163907940, E-mail: [email protected]

KEYWORDS Social Structure. Theoretical Conceptualization. Empirical Evidences for Clarity. The ReorientativeViewpoints

ABSTRACT Social structure is the most fundamental and major concept in Sociology and Social Anthropologyand for that reason, the theorists have consistently argued that if we want to understand the social system andsocial relationship in human society, then certainly we have to be very clear about the concept of social structurewithout having any ambiguity of it. There are a myriad of definitional references on social structure with persistentparadoxical debates, which are clarified in this paper through the writings and enunciation of sociologists and socialanthropologists with referential sequences of time. While the concept of social structure has received theoreticaltreatise through the writings of different scholars and theoreticians, many empiricists however, have narrated theconcept from their own field-based ethnographic details at the micro-level investigations, viewing that all formsof social interactions and activities occur within the framework of social structure in the societal and communitycontexts. This paper thus generates a cumulative number of critical discussions both at the theoretical andempirical spheres of sociological literature stemming towards developing its own paradigmatic thinking of socialstructure.

INTRODUCTION

Sociologists have always identified ‘socialstructure’ as the most fundamental and majorconcept in Sociology and it’s theorists haveconsistently argued that if we want to under-stand the social system and social relationshipin human society, then certainly we have to bevery clear about the concept of social structurewithout having any ambiguity of it. Although ineuphemistic explanation, it apparently seems thatthe term ‘social structure’ is very simple, as amatter of fact, to be vey analytical, it remainsvery vast and is inclusive of many importantcomponents of society. In this context, the au-thor fully endorses the views of Claude Levi-Strauss who says that, “it is hardly possible fora paper strictly limited in size to meet them fullyto understand the concept of social structure”(1954: 524; italics are added by the author).

The concept of social structure has beenused by many pioneering Western sociologistsand forefathers of the discipline (for example, IbnKhaldun 1967 orig 1789; Herbert Spencer 2003orig 1893; Emile Durkheim 1893; Max Weber 1949;Karl Marx 1848, 1859)1 who have conceptualizedsocial interaction and social activities as part ofindicating a social structure. Eventually, the con-

cept became very significant to the structural-functionalists and remained a dominant world-view in the sociological and anthropological lit-erature of the twentieth century. Towards the endof the century, the concept was further modifiedby many post-structuralists to emphasize onhuman life modeled through a unilinear or mono-lithic organizing framework (see Scott 2006). Thekey contribution of the structural school devel-oped by Claude Levi-Straus was seeking it forsocial order in a cultural structure, which waslater conceptualized by Talcott Parsons (1954),R.K. Merton (1949) and their followers in an an-alytic perspective to conceptualize social sys-tem (see Lopez and Scott 2000). Karl Marx, onthe other hand, focused on the economic dimen-sion of social structure based on the mode ofproduction, relating it clearly to political powerby having access to the means of production(see Marx 1848)2.

Although Western sociologists emphasizeon the importance of social structure in humansociety, the concept of social structure focuseson patterned social arrangements to form a com-plex relationship, from a holistic perspective tobuilding a life relating to society. While lookingat social structure from the occidental perspec-tive, we do not usually conceptualize the mean-

668 A.H. M. ZEHADUL KARIM

ing of it as portrayed in many empirical situa-tions. This paper therefore, is an attempt to ana-lyze the conceptual clarification of the term ‘so-cial structure’, from the socio-anthropologicalperspective, and then bringing forth a reflectiveview of it by using a contextual explanation.

Defining Social Structure: ConceptualClarification and Terminological Explanation

When we define the concept of ‘social struc-ture’, we at once relate it very closely to the is-sue of social relationship as it is an importantcomponent in society. Very often, some confu-sion between the concepts like ‘social structure’,‘social organization’ and ‘social relationship’emerges. When the relationship becomes formal,it tends to concentrate on social structure andthe statuses of the actors in it, forming a kind ofsocial relationship, which becomes an importantpart for constituting a social structure (see Ber-nard and Spencer 1996). The author does nothave any intention here to differentiate theseterms and concepts rather, the author, in thiswriting combines both of them to use them in asynonymous meaning.

The concept of social structure, as the au-thor has indicated before, exhibits the character-istics of a social system, where social relation-ship revolves around a componential and insti-tutional framework. It is a ‘composite-whole’,where all parts invariably work together, but cer-tainly not isolated from each other (see Levi-Strauss 1953)3. Accordingly from that line ofthinking, social structure has been defined byGinsberg (1979: 92) “as the complex of variousgroups and institutions”. Based on Ginsberg’sdefinition, social structure may accomplish aninstitutional relationship between both of them.Most explicitly the concept social structure hasbeen defined by A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, “as a kindof existing social relationship which maintains alink-up among human beings” (1952: 191). Simi-lar to A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, John Scott (2006)defines ‘social structure’ as “recurring and en-during patterns that are found in social behaviorand the various elements that make up any so-cial system” (pp. 157-158). In this context, socialstructure encompasses the social arrangementsof the society, a kind of social organization orsocial framework which is not disorganized orunsystematic; rather they are coherent.

Although there are myriad definitional refer-ences on social structure, we may prolong ourdiscussion by clarifying the concept based onthe views enunciated by social theorists with areferential sequence of time. In the 19th century,Lewis Henry Morgan has showed a relationshipand interdependence of technology and familyforms to demonstrate a structural arrangementbetween these two variables (see Morgan 1877).It is true that Morgan did not postulate any dis-tinctive term of social structure as such, but heclearly indicated the co-existence and depen-dence of family and technology, which seeming-ly is the reflective of social structure. Intrinsical-ly, Morgan was saying about a processualchange of family structure through human stag-es of technological progression.

In the early twentieth century, the concept ofsocial structure became quite popular in the eth-nographic writings of the social anthropologistswho focused on ordered arrangement of socialorganization (see Malinowski 1922; Radcliffe-Brown 1922). The same trend had continued inthe decade following World War II when it be-came quite essential for the anthropologists touse the term social structure to make a holisticviewpoint of their ethnographic research. Al-though the required use of the term social struc-ture by the sociologists and social anthropolo-gists in the post-1945 was quite prominent, ithas a chronological background requiring fur-ther explanation.

Among the sociologists, Herbert Spencerhas been specially repudiated for using the term‘social structure’ for the first time from the socio-logical perspective, but he was considerably fas-cinated by his biological analogies to show anorganic structure of society, with stages of hu-man evolution. After at least three decades later,Ferdinand Tonnies (1905) first had published abook entitled ‘The Present Problems of SocialStructure in the USA’, where he propounded theconstitution of multitudes of unity to form a so-cial structure. Drawing on the same analogiesbetween biological and social systems, EmileDurkheim also similarly conceptualized the ideaof diverse social institutions to work for a func-tional integration of the society and it can clear-ly be viewed in his book, ‘The Division of Laborin Society’, which was originally published inthe year 1893. In his writings, Durkheim insistedon the structural arrangement of the forms ofsociety having shown a differential relationship

CONCEPTUALIZING SOCIAL STRUCTURE 669

based on mechanical solidarity and organic sol-idarity. The former explains the structure thatderives cohesion and integrity from the homo-geneity of individuals that unites them for ashared culture and the latter is the manifestationof the differentiation to refer to a state of interde-pendence based on specialized roles in whichindividuals and institutions are dependent on acomplex division of labour. This division of la-bour has also been brought into discussion byKarl Marx in his works to provide a comprehen-sive analysis of the social structure to relate it tothe political, cultural and religious life with thatof the mode of production (see Marx 1848, 1859).Karl Marx specifically differentiated betweenbasic structure and superstructure based on therelations of production as constituting the ‘eco-nomic structure’ being the real force on whichpolitical and juridical superstructures are depen-dent. Max Weber, on the other hand, formulateda ‘three dimension or multi-dimensional theoryof social stratification’ with class, status and partyfor analyzing market economy, bureaucracy andpolitics to relate them to the structural phenome-na in any modern state (Gerth and Mills 2009).Many of these studies relating to social struc-ture, nonetheless, over-emphasize on social insti-tutions, culture and social interactions as part ofdefining the concept of social structure in a veryconcise manner. But, the concept has receivedmore specific dealing with the issue in the laterperiod from many sociologists and anthropolo-gists with greater elaboration and analysis.

George Peter Merdock published a book spe-cifically entitled, ‘Social Structure’ in the year1949, based on the information reported on cross-cultural survey of 150 primitive and contempo-rary societies. It is perhaps unique in a sense asit gathered information on a wide range of soci-eties focusing specifically on kinship and socialorganization, having described very analytical-ly, from diachronic and synchronic perspectives(see Murdock 1949). As a matter of fact, Mur-dock’s study has given a particular direction intalking about the social structure attracting an-thropologists to look at it from an empirical viewpoint. Although Murdock apparently used theterm ‘social structure’ more specifically as thetitle of his book, he often arguably was in favourof replacing the word ‘structure’ with ‘process’(see Sills 1968). By providing evidence of a hugenumber of societies from past and present, Mur-dock regarded society as an assemblage of inde-

pendent bricks, which contrasted him with A.R.Radcliffe-Brown, who had some inclination topresume that society should be compared withliving organism.

As a matter of fact, it was A.R. Radcliffe-Brown who has drawn an emphatic precision inconceptualizing structuralism as the principalheader for institutional functioning of the soci-ety. This eventually deviates him partially fromBronislaw Malinowski who emphasized on cul-tural functioning of society with rituals and per-formances having significant bearing on it. Inthis context, Radcliffe- Brown’s idea of function-ing of the society is based on taking a compositeview of the social structure. Reflectively, therehas been a number of anthropological researchon political and kinship structures of Africansocieties during the 1940s where a number ofveteran anthropologists have shown the soci-etal system as a set of procedure based on mutu-al interdependence of the rules that fit into theirecological setting (see Fortes and Evans Prit-chard 1940; Evans Pritchard 1940). Firth (1963)differed from Radcliffe-Brown (1952) in this con-text, and as a matter of fact, viewpoints of Fortesand Evans-Pritchard, supported Malinowski’sfunctionalism giving more emphasis on socialorganization in explaining social structure. WhileRadcliffe-Brown used the word ‘social organiza-tion’ in several places to denote social structurein a synonymous meaning, Firth, for many yearshas been using the term ‘social organization’ asthe principal prerequisite to understanding whatis happening in a particular society. Firth clearlymentioned social organization as a synonym forsocial structure (see Firth 1963, 1964).

There is another aspect in defining socialstructure which restrictively used the view of‘social role’, and it has been advocated by S.F.Nadel in his book, ‘The Theory of Social Struc-ture (1957) and H. Gerth and C.W. Mills (2009) intheir writings. Nadel argues that, “we mentionabout the structure of a society by knowing therelationship obtained between actors in theircapacity of playing roles relative to one anoth-er” (see Nadel 1957: 12). While talking about so-cial structure, Gerth and Mills (2009: 22-23) alsoheld a similar view saying that, “role is the key-term for defining institution which is the signifi-cant part for conceptualizing social structure”.This view of Gerth and Mills tends to facilitate akind of individualistic conception of social be-haviour, unknowingly having an indirect incli-


nation towards symbolic interactionist perspec-tive, which actually deemphasizes the behav-ioural interaction of individuals in groups.

As we have indicated that Radcliffe-Brownmainly identified the components of social insti-tutions to define the concept of social structure,French structuralists view it to apply to otheraspects of human experience. For example, Mar-cell Mauss, a French anthropologist, put forwardhis opinion saying that we have to understandsociety based on the two way relationship ofindividuals and economic reciprocity which isthe significant issue for constructing social or-ganization. As a matter of fact, the famous struc-turalist, Claude Levi-Strauss was much enchant-ed by Mauss’s model of reciprocity (see Jamesand Allen 1998). But Levi-Strauss also concep-tualized his model of structuralist theory, beinginspired through other sources. Ferdinand Sau-ssure’s idea of ‘knowing about language as partof structure’ is a significant point which empha-sizes on understanding socio-structural relation-ship of individuals through grasping the lan-guage. During the early part of the twentieth cen-tury, Ferdinand de Saussure had produced a dis-tinction between parole or language as acts ofspeech, and langue or language as a structuralsystem (see Perry 2003).

Incidentally, it is worth mentioning here andevidentially it is learned that a famous linguistworking on these issues prior to Saussure, wasR. Jacobson at the New School for Social Re-search in New York, where Levi-Strauss was ap-pointed in an academic position during the 1940s;and being positioned there, Levi-Strauss wassubsequently influenced much by the ideas ofJacobson (see Jacobson 1971; Perry 2003). Be-ing a colleague of his, Levi-Strauss had devel-oped a personal acquaintance with Jacobson andfrom there, Levi-Strauss conceptualized the ‘bi-nary system of linguistic features’ to be com-bined with the concept of reciprocity of MarcelMauss (see Perry 2003).

Yet, Levi-Strauss had gained a profound in-fluence through the writings of Karl Marx, whoseidea of dialectical materialism seemed to be com-patible with the binary opposition, following thethematic idea of dialectic which he borrowed fromHegel. In regard to contradictions, Levi-Strauss’sstructural model did not mention that revolution-ary social change as propounded by Karl Marxcould serve to maintain contradictory postulates(see Perry 2003). If we want to compare the views

of Levi-Strauss in regard to social structure withthose of Radcliffe-Brown, we may note that ac-cording to the later, structure persists in a partic-ular society is associated with a particular cul-ture based on a specific geographical localitywhereas, the underlying features of Levi-Strauss’s version of culture are those which en-compass multiple aspects of life; they do notpersist only with the interrelationship of institu-tions (see Sills 1968).

While the concept of social structure hasdrawn interest through the theoretical writingsof a number of sociologists since 1867, HerbertSpencer used the term for socio-structural expla-nation of his organic analogy, which continuedto receive further empirical investigations in sev-eral African societies during the 1940s. Mean-while, a different yet fascinating group of sociol-ogists from Harvard school however, had showninterest in it, explaining the concept under a newtitle of ‘institutional structure’ (cf. Parsons 1967).Since the 1930s, Talcott Parsons along with Rob-ert Merton (1968), Kinsley Davis and a few oth-ers, have diffused the idea of social structure inthe form of normative function of the system inthe institutional framework (see Lopez and Scott2000). As a matter of fact, during the post-WorldWar II period of the 1950s, there was an increas-ing economic boom in the United States, whichrequired emphasizing the issue of social stabili-ty to match the institutions like economy, familyand the political system in the country. In talkingabout the social system, Parsons (1945) arguedthat “the over-all system and sub-systems ofwhich it is composed, work together to form abalanced, stable-whole and that the system nat-urally tends towards stability rather than mov-ing towards disorder” (as cited in Levin 1991:77). In continuation of it, Talcott Parsons furthermentioned that “institutional pattern are the back-bone of social system” (Parsons 1954: 239). Thenormative pattern in the institutional frameworkindicatively becomes the social structure in afunctional subsystem of the social system.

As recently as the beginning of the 21st cen-tury, a few structuralist writers have directed ustowards a different view of social structure, whichwas headed by Anthony Giddens (1984) andPiere Bourdieue (1977). Being influenced by afew linguists, both writers treated social struc-ture as analogous to the grammatical structuresof speech and language. Relating to a number ofcentral concepts in Social Science, social struc-


ture was conceived by Anthony Giddens (1984)who combined the ‘agency’ in context to his ‘the-ory of structuration’. Giddens’s theory of struc-turation notes that social life is more than ran-dom individual acts, but it is not merely deter-mined by social forces. Instead, Giddens sug-gests that human agency and social structureare in a relationship with each other, and it is therepetition of the acts of individual agents whichreproduce the structure. This means that there isa social structure—traditions, institutions, mor-al codes and established ways of doing things—which can be changed when people start to ig-nore, replace or reproduce them differently.

Giddens gives an example of it by drawing ananalogy with language when he says that al-though language only exists in those instanceswhere we speak or write, people react stronglyagainst others who disregard its rules and con-ventions. In a similar way, the ‘rules’ of socialorder may only be ‘in our mental make-up’ - theyare not usually written down and often they donot have any formal force to back them up - butnevertheless, people can be shocked when seem-ingly minor social expectations are not adheredto. Therefore, Giddens mentioned that societyonly has form which eventually has effects onpeople; thus structure is always is produced andreproduced through people’s interaction (Giddens1996).

In his book, ‘Outline of a Theory of Practice’(1977), Pieree Bourdieu’s hermeneutic (relatingto the whole) understanding of the way peopleread, understand, interpret and live their every-day lives amplifies an objective analysis of thestructures which frame, limit, control and influ-ence social life and link the objective with thesubjective social spheres. Breaking down the tra-ditional sociological dualism, he argues for com-plexity of peoples’ activities as simultaneouslyshaping and being shaped by the social world.Bourdieu (1977) concludes that in the structure(the field), social relations are not reproduced ina vacuum, but as an outcome of power relations.The field of social relations refers to the areas ofsocial life where strategies are used in the strug-gle for resources. Therefore, he views the rela-tions between practice (what we do in our imme-diate environment) and the field (the larger pa-rameters of power relations) as being intrinsical-ly linked.

In the foregoing pages, the author has docu-mented a few valuable authoritative views on

social structure as enunciated by sociologists,anthropologists and theoreticians of different eraand phases. These discussions clearly formu-late their explanations from an analytical view-point indicating as to how the concept of socialstructure has been defined and redefined bythese theorists with several paradigmatic shiftsin its definition. In the following section, the au-thor relates the concept of social structure withthat of specific socio-cultural situations and alsoat the same time, highlights the empiricists’ view-points in this context with regard to their respec-tive intensive micro-level investigations.4

SOCIAL STRUCTURE AS VIEWEDTHROUGH EMPIRICISM IN MICRO LEVEL

INVESTIGATIONS

While the concept of social structure receivedtheoretical treatise through the writings of dif-ferent scholars and theoreticians, many empiri-cists narrated it from their field-based ethno-graphic experiences at the micro-level investiga-tions. They viewed social structure as it is re-flected in their own societal context and commu-nity perspectives. When we say that every soci-ety has its own social structure, it immediatelycontextualizes us to empiricism indicating aboutthe multiplicity of existing societies with their di-versities. In this section, the researcher deals withsocial structure in reference to such writings,where it has been treated ethnographically andalso it has been described through empiricism.

The continued discussion begins here withA.R. Radcliffe-Brown’s most convincing argu-ment whereby he consistently employed the term‘social structure’ specifically by giving the ap-propriate title to his book ‘Structure and Func-tion in Primitive Society’, but also because Rad-cliffe-Brown always regarded the accessibilityof structures and deals with it only empirically.Although Radcliffe-Brown has often been blamedfor slipping very frequently in using the term‘social structure’, it must be admitted that hisbook on ‘Structure and Function’ contains muchdiscussion on social structure based on ethno-graphic examples and also at the same time, itspecifically includes a special chapter on socialstructure. As we clarify the conceptual use ofthe term ‘social organization’ very often and syn-onymously used for the term ‘social structure’,it is essentially the same in the case of Radcliffe-


Brown, when he explained about the structuralcontext of the Andaman Islanders in speakingabout the social organization of that community(see Radcliffe-Brown 1922). To make a sequen-tial treatment, we now refer to the work of Bronis-law Malinowski, who has been repudiated as abrilliant ethnographer in compiling his experienc-es in his publication ‘Argonauts of the WesternPacific’ (1922). It has given us a different exam-ple of inter-island trade, linking everyone in anetwork of relationship. Among the Trobrianders,a person who has been able to maintain moreKula partners overseas, can claim more statusand prestige in the society. Each Kula expeditionrequires extensive social and ritual performanc-es which are the functional part of the societywithin the structural framework.

We now turn our attention to Fortes andEvans-Pritchard’s African Political System (1940)which included as many as eight condensed ar-ticles in the edited volume; each one of thesearticles is taken from their individually detailedethnographic research relating to different seg-ments of African societies conducted by a groupeminent anthropologist during that period. Thebook specially discusses tribal communities likeZulu, Bantu, Tallensi and Nuer and by makingintensive narratives on comparative political sys-tem that have prevailed in African societies.Fortes and Evans-Pritchard (1940) maintained that“there are innumerable ties which counteract to-wards political fission arising out of tensions andcleavages in the social structure” (1940: 17).Evans-Pritchard’s solo work on the Nuer is a fur-ther description of the modes of livelihood andpolitical institutions of a Nilotic group of peoplefrom Sudan. Nuer’s social structure is inclusiveof the political organization based on segmen-tary lineage system which is the social means oftemporary unification of a fragmented tribal so-ciety to join in a network of relationship.

In this context, Edmund Leach’s ethnogra-phy, ‘Political Systems of Highland Burma’ is asplendidly ornate example of the Kachin societyand its social structure intensively describedthere in it. The book was published in the year1954 and Leach was very thoughtful in analyz-ing an integrated Kachin way of life, their politi-cal system that focuses on social structure. Leach(1954) mentioned that “I hold that social struc-ture in practical situations (as contrasted withthe sociologists’ abstract model) consists of aset of ideas about the distribution of power be-

tween persons and groups of persons”. At thislevel he added, “We may discuss social struc-ture simply in terms of the principles of organiza-tion that unite the component parts of the sys-tem where Kachin social organization is analy-sed in an ethnographic description of that com-munity” (Leach 1954: 4). As a matter of fact, inthe sub-heading of his ethnographic text, Leachclearly used the term ‘social structure’, to givespecial emphasis on it analyzing most intensive-ly the practical situations of the Kachin politicalprocess, and thus thematically, dealt with theconcept of social structure by providing his owncritical insight of it by citing arguments of May-er Fortes (1949) and Claude Levi-Strauss (1949).Leach explained the Kachin political system as astructure of persisting processual political cate-gories and arguably showed the context of his-torical changes in the Kachin society. Accord-ing to him, these changes are simply the reinter-pretation of the existing political system; theyare not actually changes in the structure of ideas.

In another ethnographic research on the!Kung San of Kalahari Desert in Botswana, Ri-chard B. Lee (1963) provided a detailed accountof their subsistence system. In explaining theecology, group structure and nutritional part oflife, Lee gathered most reliable data by remain-ing with them in three phases. His descriptiongave us an idea about the flexible social organi-zation of the !Kung society in regard to theirsharing of food from egalitarian ethics, an impor-tant indication about their social structure. Ray-mond Firth conducted a study in the title of ‘Ma-lay Fisherman’ to identify a peasant economy ofthe fishing community in Kelantan and Tereng-ganu, two states in the east coast of Malaysia.The research however, did not specifically talkabout the social structure or social organizationas such, as it did not actually concentrate onany specific village community. But the econom-ics of the fishing community have been dealtwith in describing their way of life relating tofishing activities are crucial to understand theMalay social structure at the village level.

Victor Turner’s (1967) work on aspects of theNdembu ritual is an excellent description of thissociety where the majority of the local groupsare found to be very much unstable with regardto their organizational principles but the organi-zation itself remains persistent. While talkingabout symbols, Turner mentioned that theirmeaning must be derived from their relationship


with each other, and their significance lies withthe Ndembu system as a whole formulating struc-ture and composition of the groups. To say aboutsymbols, social structure has been identified asthe significant indicator for analyzing the Ndem-bu society. George Peter Murdock (1960) editeda book titled ‘Social Structure of Southeast Asia’,which is a compilation of a number of articlespresented earlier in a symposium at the 9th Pacif-ic Science Congress in Bangkok in 1957 with thefinancial support of Wenner-Gren. The book is atextual incorporation of a number of selectivearticles which aroused some special interestamong the anthropologists related to socialstructure in the South East Asian context.

In describing about Malay peasants and lead-ership, S. Husin Ali (1975) studied a small territo-rial region comprising of three areas which wereselected from three mukim (a higher tier of localgovernment administration above the village lev-el) of Malaysia. A rural life in Malaysia is verymuch based on a composite relationship to main-tain social solidarity and kinship ties among thevillagers though it often can be traced throughtheir ancestor’s genealogy. It becomes part ofsocial structure and leadership in the villagesdue to having status and position within thatsocial structure. Similarly, in the intensive eth-nographic discussion on three Malay villages,social structure has also been considered as asignificant issue for analyzing their life and liv-ing style (see Kuchiba et al. 1979).

In many empirical research, the terms ‘socialorganization’ and ‘social structure’ have fre-quently been used synonymously although fromthe conceptual point of view, they are not exact-ly the same yet are often truly indistinguishable.The main concern of these anthropologists is toprovide the genealogical background and taxo-nomic classification of the societies on the basisof their institutional interplay for community sol-idarity. We will continue exploring this situationin further documentation of community studiesin regard to South Asian societies dealing withsocial structure more intensively in the follow-ing section.

The issue of social structure has also beendealt with exactly in a very similar manner bythese South Asianists, as it was done by theirclassic forerunners in the global context. Onemay avidly look at the situation in South Asiancontext and the author begins here by referringmy readers to the work of Peter J. Bertocci, a

renowned anthropologist who had studied twovillages in rural Bangladesh during the 1970s.Like many other ethnographers, Bertocci alsostudied social structure more specifically by put-ting specific emphasis on the title of his work(see Bertocci 1970). Bertocci observed that inrural Bangladesh, a group of rich landholdershaving greater access to the agrarian produc-tion system exercised greater power in the so-cio-structural context of the villages. Due to par-tible inheritance of Islamic law, “there appears tooccur a regular rise and fall of families, the de-cline of wealth for some and the increase of it(wealth) for others” (Bertocci 1970: 43) He re-ferred to this process as “cyclical Kulakism”, andadmitted that the change that occurred due tothis cyclical change had some direct bearing onthe social structure of the villages. In regard tomicro-studies, S.C. Dube has published two im-portant books in the context of Indian villages,where he spoke about the social structure to re-late it to the development context. His analysisof social structure has been presented in a sepa-rate section of his book and his indication of thechange that had occurred due to the impact ofdevelopment programmes had direct influenceon the villages’ social structure (see Dube 1958:138-140).

In a recent ethnographic work on rural powerstructure during 1990s, the author of this paper hasdocumented the dynamics of two villages namedDhononjoypara and Gopalhati in the northern partof Bangladesh to examine the leadership pattern asexercised through the samaj (an informal villagesocial organization) and government agencies fordevelopment programmes. The author examinedmost intensively the traditional and emerging po-litical structures of the two villages where he hasclearly mentioned that the villages’ social organiza-tion was very much significant and part of the vil-lages’ social structure. In outlining the major con-cern of the research, it has been clearly mentionedin a statement in the book saying that, “the focusof this research is based on the village social struc-ture, for it provides both traditional and formal pat-terns of leadership” (see Karim 1990: 15). Thus atthis point, to conclude this section of the discus-sion, the author views that each researcher at themicro-level investigation seemed to have his ownway of looking at the society based on its socialstructure. As a matter of fact, it links up with themain theme and provides intelligent analysis of thesocial structure and social organization.


CONCLUSION

In conceptualizing society from the socio-logical point of view, it must be kept in mind thatthe concept of social structure is componential-ly relevant for its formation, and from the soci-etal context, it is also conceptually significant aswell. Accordingly for that reason, sociologistsfrom the very beginning have started some par-adoxical debates and discussions on the con-cept of social structure by providing significantimportance on it. Although a few sociologistsand anthropologists often want to use a slightlydifferent connotation for the term ‘social struc-ture’, their discussions have not deviated fromthe principal thematic ideas. The socio-institu-tional components are the essential prerequisitesfor a society which provide the formation of asocial structure and we find its reflection in thesame way in our small communities at the micro-level as proven in the foregoing discussion. It isalso useful to have a discussion with a few de-scriptions of some empirical studies based on in-depth narration of some specific cultures from thesocio-anthropological perspective. We cannot dis-regard those micro-analytical studies if we wantto understand social structure in general.

The preceding discussion clearly indicatesthat individuals from the very beginning havelived in communities with distinct and essentialsocial institutions and various types of socialorganizations to interact in a group which hasbeen designated as social structure. This viewwas clearly held by A.R.Radcliffe-Brown andothers, though Raymond Firth and a few othersociologists designated it as a social organiza-tion that has a synonymous meaning to socialstructure. When social structure comprises thesocio-behavioural roles of individuals in a soci-ety, and there exists an interactive-process ofvarious groups and institutions, it is not alwaystrue to believe that it is constantly stable andwell-integrated. It gets modified frequently andbecomes flexible because of the changing dimen-sion in the functional process of the society. Forthat reason, social structures of all societies donot always seem to be similar, nor do they remainstatic for all times and situations. From that per-spective, it seems to be justified to say that soci-ologists often apply a comparative outlook incontextualizing the different types of social struc-tures from different perspectives. T.B. Botto-

more’s statement seems to be apposite here whenhe stated that each and every society has itsown social structure which might be differentfrom each other; on the other hand, several soci-eties might have similar social structure. His state-ment clearly indicates a change in social struc-ture; its dynamism and non-static nature whichmay occur due to processual function of socialsub-system in an integrative framework.

NOTES

1. Although many of these classical sociologists didnot however, use the term social structure specifi-cally for their theoretical interpretations, a few ofthem clearly hinted on it by giving importance ofsocial structure in their sociological analysis. To bespecific we may mention here the name of AbdelRahman Ibn-Khaldun, a Tunisian sociologist (1332-1476) who produced a corpus of works that hadcontained many ideas common to society and so-cial structure (see Ritzer 1992).

2. Basically, Karl Marx propounded a theory of alien-ation rooted in social structure. According to him,it is the social structure which plays an importantrole of domination of a particular group havingpossessed the forces of production in the humansociety (see Karl Marx 1859, 1848, 1867; Ritzer1992:57).

3. In explaining social structure, empiricist viewpointis very significant and crucial. As a matter of fact,at the initial stage, Levi-Strauss himself was reluc-tant to use empirical viewpoint in regard to socialstructure when he mentioned, ‘social structure hasnothing to do with ‘empirical reality’ (see Levi-Strauss 1953). But later on, he fully left that view-point and emphasized on the importance of empir-icism in explaining social structure (see Bottomore1962:11)

4. In regard to functional pre-requisites of society, Bot-tomore (1962) mentioned five important compo-nents, which he borrowed from Aberle et al. (1950).These components are (1) a system of communica-tion, (ii) an economic system, (iii) arrangementsfor socialization of new generations through fami-ly and education, (iv) a system of authority andpower and (v) a system of rituals (for details seeBottomore 1962:115-116). One sociologist (e.g.Schaefer 2009) regarded these components as themost ‘predictable’ elements of human social rela-tionships making up a social structure and the indi-viduals are socialized through them in a life-longprocess.

REFERENCES

Aberle D, Cohen A, Davies A, Levy M, Sutton F 1950.The functional pre-requisites of Society. Ethics, LX(2): 1-10.

Ali SH 1975. Malay Peasant Society and Leadership.Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.


Barnard A, Spencer J 1996. Social structure and socialorganization. In: Encyclopedia of Social and Cul-tural Anthropology. London and New York: Rout-ledge.

Bertocci PJ 1970. Elusive Village: Social structure andCommunity Organization in Rural East Pakistan.PhD Dissertation, Unpublished. Michigan: Michi-gan State University.

Bottomore TB 1962. Sociology: A Problems and Guideto Literature. London: Allen and Unwin.

Bourdieu P 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice (tr.Richard Nice). Cambridge: Cambridge: UniversityPress.

Crathers C 1996. Social Structure. London: Routledge.Davis K 1959. The myth of Functional Analysis as a

special method in Sociology and Anthropology.American Sociological Review, 24: 757-772.

Dube SC 1958. India’s Changing Village: Human Fac-tors in Community Development. London: Rout-ledge and Kegan Paul.

Durkheim E 1893. The Division of Labour in Society.New York: The Free Press.

Firth R 1946. Malay Fishermen: Their Peasant Econo-my. London: Routledge.

Firth R 1963. Elements of Social Organization. Lon-don: Watts and Company.

Firth R 1964. Essays on Social Organization and Val-ues. London School of Economics and PoliticalScience Monographs on Social Anthropology, No.28, London: Athlone.

Fortes M (Ed.) 1949. Social Structure: Studies Pre-sented to A.R. Radcliffe-Brown. Oxford: ClarendonPress.

Fortes M, Evans-Pritchard EE 1940. African PoliticalSystem. London: International African Institute andOxford University Press.

Gerth HW, Mills CW 2009 From Max Weber: Essays inSociology. New York and London: Routledge.

Giddens A 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline ofthe Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Giddens A 1996. In Defense of Sociology: Essays, Inter-pretations and Rejoinders. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Ginsberg M 1964. Sociology. London: The Free Press.Evans-Prichard EE 1940. The Nuer: A Description of

the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutionsof a Nilotic People. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Harper CL, Kevin TL 2007. Exploring Social Change:America and the World. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Jacobson Roman 1971. Selected Writings I: Phonolog-ical Studies. New York: Mouton.

James W, Allen NJ 1998. Marcell Mauss: A CentenaryTribute. New York: Bergham Books.

Karim AHMZ 1990.The Pattern of Rural Leadershipin an Agrarian Society: A Case Study of the Chang-ing Power Structure in Bangladesh. New Delhi:Northern Book Center.

Khaldun I 1967. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction toHistory. (Translated from Arabic by Franz Rosenthal).London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Kuchiba M, Tsubouchi Y, Maedo N (Eds.) 1979. ThreeMalay Villages: Sociology of Paddy Growers in WestMalaysia. Honolulu: The University Press of Ha-waii.

Leach Edmund 1954. Political Systems of High LandBurma: A Study of Kachin Social Structure. Lon-don: The Athlone Press.

Lee RB 1979. The Kung San: Men, Women and Work ina Foraging Society. London: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Levi-Strauss C 1953. Social structure. In: AL Kroeber(Ed.): Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic In-ventory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.524-553.

Levin WC 1991. Sociological Ideas. Belmont: CAWadsworth.

Lopez J, Scott J (Eds.) 2000. Social Structure. Buck-ingham: Open University Press.

Malinowski B 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific.London: Allen and Unwin.

Marx K 1848. The Communist Manifesto. New York:International Publishers.

Marx K 1859. A Contribution to Critique of PoliticalEconomy. New York: International Publishers.

Marx K 1867. Das Capital. New York: Modern Library.Merton RK 1949. Social Theory and Social Structure.

New York: The Free Press.Morgan LH 1877. Ancient Society. New York: Meridan

Press.Murdock GP 1949. Social Structure. New York. The

Free Press.Murdock GP (Ed.) 1960. Social Structure in South East

Asia. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for An-thropological Research.

Nadel SF 1957. The Theory of Social Structure. Lon-don: Orient-Longman.

Parsons T 1951. The Social System. New York: TheFree Press.

Parsons T 1954. Essays in Sociological Theory. NewYork: The Free Press.

Parsons T 1967. Structure and Process in ModernSocieties. New York: The Free Press.

Perry RJ 2003.Five Key Concepts in AnthropologicalThinking. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Porpora DV 1987. The Concept of Social Structure.London: Greenwood Press.

Radcliffe-Brown AR 1922. The Andaman Islanders. NewYork: The Free Press.

Radcliffe-Brown, AR 1952. Structure and Function inPrimitive Society. London: The Free Press.

Ritzer G 1992. Sociological Theory. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, Inc.

Schaefer RT 2009. Sociology Matters. Boston: McGrawHills.

Scott, J (Ed.) 2006. Sociology: The Key Concepts. Lon-don: Routledge.

Sills DL (Ed.) 1968. Social Structure. International En-cyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Volume 13. Lon-don: The Macmillan Company and the Free Pressof New York, pp. 482-489.

Spencer H 2003. Principles of Sociology. New York:Appleton Publisher.

Tonnies F 1905. The present problems of social struc-ture. American Journal of Sociology, 10(5): 569-586.

Turner V 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndem-bu Ritual. Ithaca and London: Cornell UniversityPress.

Vago S 1996. Social Change. Upper Saddle River, NewJersey: Prentice Hall.

Paper received for publicaiton on December 2014Paper accepted for publication on May 2016

Conceptualizing Social Structure: A Reorientative...

Documents

Transcript of Conceptualizing Social Structure: A Reorientative...