ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this article we will discuss about the meaning and views of society.
Definition of Society:
The concept of society is given different meanings by different writers; It is difficult to find a definition which will be universally accepted by all sociologists. It does not, of course, mean that society means different things to different men. It will be more appropriate to say that different sociologists look at society from different angles and emphasize one or two aspects more than others.
This will be clear from the following definitions of society.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Mac Iver has defined society thus:
“Society is a system of usages and procedures, of authority and mutual aid, of many groupings and divisions, of controls of human behaviour and of liberties. This ever-changing, complex system we call society. It is the web of social relationships. And it is always changing”.
C. H. Cooley has given a broadly similar definition of society:
“Society is a complex of forms or processes each of which is living and growing by interaction with the others, the whole being so unified that what takes place in one part affects all the rest”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Looking at the society from a different angle, Ginsberg defines society as “a collection of individuals united by certain relations or modes of behaviour which mark them off from others who do not enter into these relations or who differ from them in behaviour”.
Giddings shares the viewpoint of Ginsberg and gives the following definition of society:
“Society is the union itself, the organisation, the sum of formal relations in which associating individuals are bound together”.
If we analyse these four definitions, it will appear that these fall under two types:
(i) The functional definition which views society as a process, and
(ii) The structural definition which views society as d structure.
Views of Society:
The definitions of Mac Iver and Cooley come under the first category while those of Ginsberg and Giddings under the second. It should be noted, however, that there is really no conflict between the two views of society, viz., society viewed as social relationships or as a process and society viewed as a structure. As a matter of fact, these two views complement each other.
Society Viewed as Social Relationships:
As social beings, men not only live together, but they also continually interact. Every man shapes his action and conduct in relation to the behaviour of others with whom he comes in contact. Such interaction may take various patterns. Thus, one’s action may be modeled on the example of others, as in the case of a student imitating his teacher or of a child imitating his parents.
Or, one’s action may be influenced by considerations of what others might do, as in the case of a consumer buying, say, stocks of sugar on the anticipation that the traders would raise prices. Or, one’s action might be oriented so as to bring out response from others, as in the case of a journalist or a writer exaggerating a particular event in order to focus public attention to a particular issue.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Interaction is not, however, one-sided. It is a two-way process. Thus, from one point of view, society is the “web of social relationships,” as Mac Iver puts it, or “a complex of forms or processes each of which is living and growing by interaction with the others”, as Cooley defines it.
This social relationship or interaction is not something static; it is always changing. In the words of E. Chinoy, “interaction is a persisting process of action and interaction”.
When we view society as social relationships, we should bear in mind two features, which characterize society:
(i) Mutual recognition. That is, different members in a society recognise the presence of one another, and orient their behaviour one way or the other. In the case of physical relationship, such as the relationship between a typist and the typewriter, there is no such mutual recognition. The psychical condition, a characteristic feature of social relationship, is lacking here.
(ii) The second feature is a sense of belonging together or a consciousness of kind, as Giddings puts it. If social relationships are marked merely by conflict or hostility, then the term society cannot be appropriately applied, as in the case of two armies engaged in conflict in the field of battle.
A society consists of people who share attitudes, beliefs and ideals in common. There might, of course, be feuds and mutual hostility among members of a society. But these are, in the nature of things, transitory and occasional. In the words of Mac Iver: “Co-operation crossed by conflict marks society wherever it is revealed…”
Society Viewed as a Structure:
Those who view society as a structure conceive of society as a set of institutions that provide a framework for social life. According to this view, society is not merely a collection of institutions, but a complex structure of institutions relating to and impinging upon one another which, according to Ginsberg, “mark them off from others who do not enter into these relations or who differ from them in behaviour”.
The view of society as a structure may be illustrated with reference to the concepts of status and role.
If we look around us, we shall find a variety of norms or standards for behaviour. Relatively few of these standards apply universally to all people. Some apply to a group and some may apply to a single individual. Thus, every civilized society recognises that murder is a serious offence punishable under law.
This is a universal norm. But if it is established that a man murdered the burglar in self-defence, he may escape punishment. Or, when a soldier kills people in the field of battle, he escapes legal action. These illustrations reveal that the question whether a social norm will apply to a particular person or not depends upon the position or status he occupies in society.
The norm attaching to a particular status will be quite unacceptable for people belonging to another status. The combination of these norms is known as role, appropriate for a particular status. Status and role are thus two sides of a single coin. Status is the position in relation to other positions.
Role is the pattern of behaviour expected of persons who occupy a particular status. Status is thus only a social identification tag. A significantly large number of the social interactions between people in a complex society are status interactions and not personal interactions. Each of us has social relations with barbers, bus conductors, bus drivers and many other persons.
It is interesting to recognise that we have social relations with many of these people without knowing their names or their antecedents except their status. When we board a bus, there are status interactions between passengers on the one hand and bus conductors on the other. There are hardly any personal interactions.
If we consider just a point of time, both status and role would appear to be static concepts. Status is fixed and unchanging. So also is role. Viewed in this context, the society is a structure. If, however, we consider a period of time, both status and role would appear to be dynamic concepts. Status changes in relation to other statuses from time to time.
There a corresponding change in role also. The relation between teachers and students is not the same today as it was, say, fifty years ago. In terms of status and role, there has been a perceptible change. We may easily imagine that similar changes would take place in course of time in future.
Sometimes new obligations and new responsibilities may be added to a status or old ones removed. If, for example, a new Act provides that the General Secretary of the students’ union would be an ex officio member of the Governing Body of a College, the additional responsibility would alter both the status and role of the incumbent of this office.
We may also conceive of two different incumbents of particular office (i.e., the status remaining the same) performing quite different roles (i.e., performing its functions in different fashions). In almost all areas two different incumbents of an office will approach their tasks in different ways.
Two successive Principals of a College, for instance, may tackle the task of maintaining discipline in two different ways. Viewed in the context of period of time, it would thus appear that society is a process and that social relationships are in a state of flux. If there is any equilibrium in society, it is a moving equilibrium.
The society is, thus, viewed both as a process and as a structure. It is, however, important to bear in mind that there is really no conflict between the two views of society. Those writers who look at society as social relationships have to consider institutions (i.e., the complex structure of status and role) in their analysis of society.
Those who look at society as a structure must necessarily pay some attention to social relationships also which obviously change with the passage of time. The two views complement one another. It may be noted in passing that it is not without reason that one who studies society must take into account these two views of society.
As Mac Iver has said:
“Society exists only as a time-sequence. It is a becoming, not a being; a process, not a product”.
This is the essence of society. If, however, we are to analyse society, distinguishing its different parts and studying inter-relationships among these parts, we have no other way but to conceive society as a structure.
One cannot make such an analysis when the object of analysis is ever-changing and novel. A medical student studies a skeleton in order to gain knowledge about human anatomy. Likewise, analysis of society as a structure is a step towards understanding the essence of society.