This paper discusses social structure as the phenomenon that is of great interest to me as a sociologist. Social structure is an abstract entity or idea because its parts are constantly changing with time. Its ideas are so widespread in the spatial sense; therefore, it is difficult to see in whole perspective.
Social structure refers to the design within the cultural group through which social action takes place. It is a reflection of the norms, organization, interests, and roles systematically arranged in order to produce a distinct pattern. Human life on the social life has been defined by these components, since time immemorial. This definition, however, is often altered time to time on the different levels of socio-analysis. On the micro-sociology point of view, social structure is defined as the cultures and norms that govern the behaviors and interactions of various social factors. In macro-sociology, social structure is understood as socioeconomics, social institutions, or other relations between large social groups that are patterned (Spencer, 1969)
Sociology has tried to explain the behaviors in society using sociological and behavioral theories. There has, however, been a need to define society, not just in the social theory terms but also incorporate the social-political and socioeconomic aspects because of demand by the world (Spencer, 1969). As a point, human culture and behavior are defined from their daily interactions that are essential for their survival. Through these interactions, the society has been able to define the basics in the institutional frameworks that have an impact on human lives.
Social structure is defined as the general reflection of the interests, norms, and roles that are systematically arranged to produce a definite pattern. The social structure theory has four core units: normative, interest, ideas, and information. The normative structure is the observed patterns in an organization between norms and modes of operation in different social statuses. This premise presents a social setup with developed ideals and values. The social actors who are the people set attachment and emotional importance to these norms. Individuals know their place in the social structure and perform duties according to the established social norms and behaviors. There is a patterned relation between beliefs and views of people with social status disparity in this premise. It is an interpretation of observations made by individuals on the society including social development (Spencer, 1969). The interest structure explains the patterned relations existing between the goals and desires of various individuals occupying different positions in the society today. Understanding the information platforms and patterns of individuals belonging to different social statuses and positions explains the communication structure premise.
The significance of social structure has eight main attributes. These are the origin of the society, abstraction of the empirical reality, maintained continuity, spatial dimensions, non-basis on the unique particular, persistent social groups, contact with a social character, and abstraction (Levy , 1952) These define how social structure does not dwell on the specialty and specificities of social groups. This idea adopts generalities, for example, the collective identification of the social groups as tribes, castes, or regions instead of identifying groups by their real names. The societies’ matrix as an attribute defines social structure concept as the total that defines the society in all senses. It contains norms, inbuilt values, ideologies and social control that create an elaborate and complete society. The types of relationships created depend on these inbuilt values, ideologies, principles, and norms.
Elements of my general sociological orientation
- Focal unit is the social structures phenomenon in the society
- Relevance of time in understanding the social aspect: time is relevant in understanding how couples pick out the partners, they find suitable in order to start a family.
Social interactions are necessary for fulfilling the need in life. Interactions begin from the smallest social structure that an individual is first introduced to at an early age such as the nuclear family. Interactions between an individual and their nuclear family are responsible for an individual’s proper growth and development in their early age. A set of the interactions and their persistence over a long period defines a family as an institution where particular demands are met on a collective basis in order for all members to benefit. The family, the basic institution, cannot survive on its own. It is forms relationships with other families in order to cover all its demands (Levy, 1952). The choice of the relationship depends on the person’s inbuilt principles, ideologies, values, and norms. Family as a social institution starts as an intimate relationship between couples who love each other and feel that they can supplement each other adequately. The relationship forming process is a long and difficult task involving a series of trials often with a tendency to eliminate the partner when compatibility is minimal in terms social class or ideologies.
The Social Exchange Theory, in this case, can be used to demonstrate how the idea of social structure, social institutions, and social interactions can be used to develop theories upon which the society can be properly evaluated.
The first theory is that people are more likely to develop relationships with others bearing similar ideologies and eliminate those who bear different ideologies as their own. Since social interactions are abstract in nature, there are norms associated to particular aspects of social life. The norms are defined by a social construct that subsequently form the foundations of social organizations. Ideologies are the components used to define the constructs; there is a unanimous agreement that for people to share a similar concept, they must have own similar ideologies. Some members in the societal institutions are eliminated because of their disagreements in the ideologies. Their communication patterns are deemed unfit for that social structure or a particular institution .A society is defined by interlocking roles, the society, therefore, tends to avoid future conflicts that would arise from those roles. This process eliminates the members who as seen as unviable (Olthuis, 1968)
The second theory is that people are most likely to start relationships, or marry those they deem their ‘equals’ but not with those above or below their social status. People with general social status are likely to mingle as they adequately live up to their obligations in the relationship. Performance, abilities, desirability, and features are the elements that define the obligations to be met. Two individuals possessing similar elements are brought together by their ability element. This element ensures that no one in that relationship is more pressed.
The Social Exchange Theory
Individuals communicate by gauging the possible benefits from their interactions and the alternatives that are available to them. This end benefit is the reason people engage in meaningful interactions after making their evaluation on such interactions since individuals aim at maximizing the profits from their interactions with other people. The result of the interaction determines the viability of interactions, mainly determined by the rewards, which are obtained because of the relationship such as acceptance companionship (Fararo, 2001)
The social exchange theory explains how individuals relate with one another for them to maximize the returns of each relationship. This theory is in agreement with the theoretical propositions mentioned because it focuses mainly on the on the benefits going to be offered by the relationship considering the cost of such relationships, in terms of finances and time spent (Fararo, 2001) Most relationships endure in situations where benefits of the relationship are bound to be high. On the other hand, relationships with low yield benefits or are not useful do not survive since individuals are likely to end them.
Social interactions mostly influence the behavior of individuals in societies. People who often interact with each other in society tend to behave in a similar manner. Social stratification depends on the relationships established between individuals because people relate in accordance to their social classes. This stratification is because individuals belonging to the related social class share the same ideologies (Olthuis, 1968). The rewards that are received from relationships encourage other individuals to boost their performance. Individuals select the choices available to them before they engage in any relationship.
According to the second theory, people from associations where the costs and the benefits are equal between the parties involved. For example, an individual chooses a marriage partner with whom they share similar opinions and values. In the same way, individuals reject partners whose views and ideas are not related to their own. This move ensures the continuity of relationships since the goal is attaining similar results ((Fararo, 2001)
This communication is not only limited to individuals, but it is applicable as well to groups and organizations. Religious groups for example and other social groups, for example, relate with others who share common ideologies as they do. Since the parties have similar goals, this ensures efficiency in the exchange of thoughts. In marriage organizations, partners show their appreciation of each other through praises (Olthuis, 1968). Individuals feel satisfied when they see the positive returns of the relationships balanced out with the cost invested in the relationship. Having similar opinions and values helps in creating a stronger bond among members of different types of social organizations.
Relationships between individuals are based on the profitability of the rewards obtained, as well. Therefore, people seek to maximize the rewards by selecting the best option of the relationships available. In addition, people opt to enter relationships that promise to give immediate returns as compared to those that have long-term benefits. A good example is such as when people choose friends whom they consider beneficial to them, and, end relationships that do not offer benefits to them. In this way, individuals are able to prosper since their goals are set to meet standards of the new group (Olthuis, 1968). These standards are usually higher than their normal standards. The social exchange theory is used to describe the relationships between members of the different social found in the society because each communication is seen to be based on the useful result of the relationship.
In determining the effects of the effects of the independent, dependent variables, and their correlation, the study used different methods of obtaining the data required for the study primary sources of obtaining data such as sampling and surveying give useful information concerning the society. The observable human characteristics present in the society that give relevant information for the study are the levels of social between different social categories in terms of distribution of natural resources, poverty levels and the education level. The results of the study show differences between different social groups including a high level on inequality between people who belong to different social classes (Olthuis, 1968). This result proves that the differences in the interaction depend on the benefits gained from the relationship. This finding is evidently shown by the difference in the social categories ranging from the poor to the rich. Individuals belonging to the same class relate effectively with each other because they have similar ideologies, values, and people depending on their economic capabilities. The levels of disparity reveal that individuals are mindful of themselves because the rich do only so little to bridge the gap existing between them and the poor not regarding the fact that they coexist in the same society. A very significant positive change in the independent variables leads to a subsequent positive change in the independent variable showing that the two variables are correlated. In situations where people share similar positive ideologies, there is a significant change for the positive in terms of reduction in crime rates and poverty levels.
This result shows that the economic capability is one of the significant factors that are determinants of the differences in social groups among members of that particular society. People belonging to a similar society have similar ideologies and beliefs. The results of shared beliefs and ideologies are that members of the same social structures have similar beliefs and norms (Levy, 1952)
Conclusion
Social structure as a social phenomenon illustrates the contact with a social character as an attribute. Using a social analysis model, the social structure can be defined as the outcome of social interactions within every social institution in society. The lack of these social structures effectively means lack of institutions and interactions and subsequently, the lack of life .The social structure embraces the fact that an individual in the society stands both as a person and as an individual.
The human being as a person has been known to establish complex social relationships that are the founding basis of the study of social structures. As sociologists, we can only study and understand the social structure in terms of individuals who happen to be units in which the idea is made up. There exists a close relationship between individuals, persons, and social structures. The social group’s persistence further characterizes the social structure. The social culture is defined by continuous and persistent social interactions of different social statuses and positions. Independent existence of the actors who make up the society is also another important attribute of the concept of social concept. Individuals do not found social structure on interactions between different statuses rather, on communication whether big or small. The family, for example, will remain a social structure regardless of the individuals who constitute it.
GENERAL SOCIOLOGICAL ORIENTATION (GSO)
GENERAL SOCIOLOGICAL ORIENTATION – WHAT YOU STUDY AND OBSERVE
GENERAL SOCIOLOGICAL ORIENTATION – THEORECTICAL ARTICULATION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER
GENERAL SOCIOLOGICAL ORIENTATION – HOW THE SUBJECT MATTER IS OBSERVED/ANALYZED
GENERAL SOCIOLOGICAL ORIENTATION – THE IMPORTANCE OF DOING SOCIOLOGY
References
Fararo, T. J. (2001). Social action systems: Foundation and synthesis in sociological theory. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
Levy, M. J. (1952). The structure of society. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Pr.
Olthuis, J. H. (1968). The reality of societal structures. Toronto: Distributed by Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship.
Spencer, H. (1969). Principles of sociology. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books.
