SOCIOLOGY NOTES

ROLE OF CULTURE IN SOCIALIZTAION PROCESS

What is culture in socialization?

Cultural socialization refers to the manner by which parents address ethnic and racial issues
within the family, specifically, the ways parents communicate or transmit cultural values, beliefs,
customs, and behaviors to the child and the extent to which the child internalizes these messages,
adopts the cultural norms …
What are the relation between personality socialization and culture?
Culture influences socialization patterns, which in turn shapes some of the variance of
personality (Maccoby 2000). Because of distinctive socialization practices in different societies,
each society has a unique culture and history

SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIOLIZATION:

 The discipline of sociology can be defined as the scientific study of human social behavior

and activities and of the results of these social activities.  Sociology is concerned with how

human beings think and act as social creatures.  In fact, the basic premise of sociology is

that human existence is social existence.  This means that people are linked to one

another and depend on each other for their very existence.  In fact, our sense of

individual identity, that is, our sense of who and what we are, depends on how we

interact with other people. 

 We all enter this world as potentially social beings.  When we are born, we are essentially

helpless and must depend upon others to fulfill our most basic physiological needs.  As we

grow and mature, we experience an ongoing process of social interaction which

enables us to develop the skills we will need to participate in human society.  This

ongoing process is called socialization.  Socialization is critical for human society as a

whole because it is the means of teaching culture to each new generation.

 Social Experience and Human Development

 The importance of social experience is evident in the lack of human development

characteristic of socially isolated children.  Specifically, if early childhood is devoid of

 social experience, the child may fail to develop normal language skills leading to

limitations in other social learning. 

   MANY PSYCHOLOGISTS AND SOCIOLOGISTS HAVE STUDIED THE PROCESS
OF SOCIALIZATION. 

 Sigmund Freud believed that people learn the cultural values and norms which make up
a part of the personality which he called, the superego.  If the superego did not develop
properly, the person would have a very difficult time functioning in society. 
  Jean Piaget believed that human development is the result of both
biological maturation and increasing social experiences.  
 George Herbert Mead believed that an individual's social experience was the
primary determinant of individual identity, which Mead called "the self."  To Mead, the
self contained two dimensions: the "I," which was partly guided from within; and the
"me," which was partly guided by the reactions of others. 
  Charles Horton Cooley also emphasized the importance of the reactions of others to the
developing self-concept.  He used the term, "looking-glass self," to describe how our
conception of ourselves is influenced by our perceptions of how others respond to us.

AGENTS OF SOCIALIZATION: FAMILY, SCHOOL, PEERS, AND THE MASS

MEDIA
o FAMILY: We begin the process of socialization within the context of our family.  The

family has primary importance in shaping a child's attitudes and behavior because it

provides the context in which the first and most long-lasting intimate social

relationships are formed.  In addition to representing the child's entire social world, the

family also determines the child's initial social status and identity in terms of race,

religion, social class, and gender.

o SCHOOL: While the family offers the child intimate social relationships,

the school offers more objective social relationships.  School is a social institution,

and as such, has direct responsibility for instilling in, or teaching, the individual the

information, skills, and values that society considers important for social life.  In
 school, children learn the skills of interpersonal interaction.  They learn to share, to

take turns, and to compromise with their peers. 

o THE PEER GROUP: Exerts a most powerful social influence on the child.  The peer

group is composed of status equals; that is, all children within a given peer group are

the same age and come from the same social status.  A child must earn his/her social

position within the peer group; this position does not come naturally, as it does in the

family.  Interaction with a peer group loosens the child's bonds to the family; it

provides both an alternative model for behavior and new social norms and values.  To

become fully socialized, children must learn how to deal with the conflicting views

and values of all of the people who are important in their lives.  These people are

called "significant others."

o THE MASS MEDIA:  includes television, newspapers, magazines; in fact, all means

of communication which are directed toward a vast audience in society.  The mass

media, especially television, have considerable influence on the process of

socialization.  Children spend a great deal of their time watching television, and the

violent content of many television programs is believed to be a contributing factor

in aggressive behavior.
CULTURE
 Socialization helps to shape and define our thoughts, feelings, and actions, and it provides

us with a model for our behavior.   As children become socialized, they learn how to fit

into and to function as productive members of human society.  Socialization teaches us

the cultural values and norms that provide the guidelines for our everyday life. 

 Culture may be defined as the beliefs, values, behavior, and material objects shared

by a particular group of people. 

 Language is also the most important means of cultural transmission

 
SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS:  
states that we know the world only in terms of what our language provides, that language
shapes culture as a whole.  For example, while the English language has only one word for
"snow," the Inuit language has different words that describe different types of snow.  This occurs
because distinguishing between, for example, falling snow and drifting snow is so important to
the life of the Inuit.

SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS:
FAMILY:

According to J.L. Rachroo , “family is a universal concept, the sexual urge of men and women,
the desire of a woman to bear a child, of a man to perpetuate his line and of the both to look after
their procreation, coupled with the desire of economic security for leisure and for pleasure on the
basis of division of labour may have contributed to the origin of the family.

 As a K. Davis defines, “Family is a group of persons whose relations to one another are
based upon consanguinity and who are, therefore, kin to one another”.
 According to Elliot and Meril, “Family is the biological social unit composed of husband,
wife and children.
 Biesanz writes “The family may be described as a woman with a child and a man to look
after them”

CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY:

1. A Mating Relationship:
A family comes into existence when a man and woman establish mating relation between them.

2. A Form of Marriage:
Mating relationship is established through the institution of marriage. The society regulates
sexual behaviour between opposite sexes through the institution of marriage. Through the
institution of marriage, mating relationship is established. Without marriage family is not
possible. Hence, family is a form of marriage.

3. A Common Habitation:
A family requires a home or household for its living. Without a dwelling place the task of child-
bearing and child rearing cannot be adequately performed. The members of a family have a
common habitation or household.

4. A System of Nomenclature:
Every family is known by a particular name. It has own system of reckoning descent. Descent
may be recognized through male line or through the mother’s line. In patrilineal families descent
is recognized through male line. Similarly, in matrilineal families descent is recogned through
mother’s line.
5. An Economic Provision:
Every family needs an economic provision to satisfy the economic needs. The head of the family
carries on certain profession and earns to maintain the family.

6. System of Interaction and Communication:

The family is composed of persons who interact and communicate with each other in their social
roles such as husband and wife, mother and father, son and daughter etc.

It is important to mention that the family is composed of persons united by ties of marriage,
blood or adoption. The family maintains a common but a distinctive culture.

DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF THE FAMILY:

Family is the smallest and the most intimate group of society. It is a universal institution found in
every society. Family as the most important social institution possesses certain distinctive
features which may be discussed below.

1. Universality:

The Family is a universal institutions. It was found in many simpler societies. In advance
societies, the whole social structure is built of family units. According to Maclver, “It is found in
all societies, at all stages of social development and exists far below the human level among
myriad species of animals”. Every human being is a member of some family.

2. Emotional Basis:

Every family is based on human impulses of mating, procreation, motherly devotion and parental
love and care. The members of a family have emotional attachment with each other. Love
between husband and wife, parents and children makes the family an institution of self-sacrifice.
Hence, emotion is the foundation on which every family is built.

3. Limited Size:

The family is very small in size. It is known as the smallest primary group. It is a small social
institution. It includes husband and wife and the persons who are born in it or are adopted. The
relations among the members of family are direct, intimate, close, personal and permanent. This
is possible only due to small size of the family. Further, smallness of the family brings stability
in the family.

4. Nuclear Position:

With regard to all the different types of groupings, the family plays an important role in so far as
it prepares the individual for participation in all these secondary groups, for their demands and
situations. It serves as the nucleus for the growth of other types of groupings which never deal
with the cultureless creatures that a newly born child is.

5. Formative Influence:

Family exerts most profound influence on its members. The personality of the individual is
moulded in the family. The family customs, traditions, mores and norms have great influence in
shaping the personality of its members during childhood. Family is the most effective agency of
the process of socialisation and social control.

6. Responsibility of the Members:

The members of the family have a deep sense of -d. responsibility and obligation for the family.
Due to this sense of responsibility, all the member discharge their duties. All the members of the
family have joint responsibility. In family, the children learn about responsibility and
cooperation.

7. Social Regulation:

Society, that is the collectivity, keep the collective and wider view in mind, has to ensure, by
evolving mores and folkways, that the individual member in a family do perform all those
functions towards each other on the basis of which the wider network of social relationships in
dependent for its success. Thus, for example, there are social restrictions on divorce, in almost
every society.

8. Persistance and Change:

The family may be permanent and temporary by nature. As an institution it is permanent. When a
couple after marriage settle in an independent residence, the family continues to exist with other
member. Hence, family is permanent as an institution. Family on the other hand is temporary and
transitional. Because structure of the family changes over a time in terms of size, composition
and status of persons.

TYPES OF FAMILY:
Though family is a universal institution, its structure or form vary from one society to another.
Sociologists and anthropologists have mentioned about different types of families found in
different cultures.
Classification of families is generally done on the basis of organisation (nuclear and joint), forms
of marriage (monogamous or polygamous), authority (matriarchal or patriarchal) and residence
etc. Classification of families on different basis is given below.

1. On the Basis of Organisation:

In terms of organisation families may be of two broad types; the nuclear family and the
extended/joint family.

(i) Nuclear Family: The nuclear family is a unit composed of husband, wife and their unmarried
children. This is the predominant form in modern industrial societies. This type of family is
based on companionship between parents and children.

While discussing the nature of nuclear family in India, Pauline Kolenda has discussed additions /
modifications in nuclear family structure. She has given the following compositional categories.

(a) Nuclear family refers to a couple with or without children.

(b) Supplemented nuclear family indicated a nuclear family plus one or more unmarried,
separated or widowed relatives of the parents, other than their unmarried children.

(c) Sub-nuclear family is defined as a fragment of a former nuclear family, for instance a widow/
widower with her/his unmarried children or siblings (unmarried or widowed or separated or
divorced) living together.

(d) Single person household.

(e) Supplemented sub-nuclear family refer to a group of relatives, members of a formerly

complete nuclear family along with some other unmarried, divorced or widowed relative who
was not a member of the nuclear family.

The size of the nuclear family is very small. It is free from the control of elders. It is regarded as
the most dominant and ideal form of family in modern society. The nuclear family is based on
conjugal bonds. The children get maximum care, love and affection of the parents in nuclear
family. The nuclear family is independent and economically self-sufficient. The members of
nuclear family also enjoy more freedom than the members of joint family.

(ii) Extended / Joint Family:

The term extended family is used to indicate the combination of two or more nuclear families
based on an extension of the parent-child relationships. According to Murdck, an extended
family consists of two or more nuclear families affiliated through an extension of the parent-
child relationship … i.e. by joining the nuclear family of a married adult to that of his parents.
In an extended family, a man and his wife live with the families of their married sons and with
their unmarried sons and daughters, grand children or great grant children in the paternal or
maternal line. Different types of extended family are still common in Asia, says Bottomore.

The patrilineally extended family is based on an extension of the father-son relationship, while
the matrilineally extended family is based on the mother-daughter relationship. The extended
family may also be extended horizontally to include a group consisting of two or more brothers,
their wives and children. This horizontally extended family is called the fraternal or collateral
family.

2. On the Basis of Authority:

The family may be either patriarchal or matriarchal on the basis of authority.

(i) Patriarchal Family:

Patriarchal family is a type of family in which all authority belongs to the paternal side. In this
family, the eldest male or the father is the head of the family. He exercises his authority over the
members of the family. He presides over the religious rites of the household; he is the guardian
of the family goods. In the developed patriarchal system of the past, the patriarch had unlimited
and undisputed authority over his wife, sons and daughters.

(ii) Matriarchal Family:

It is a form of family in which authority is centred in the wife or mother. The matriarchal family
system implies rule of the family by the mother, not by the father. In this type of family women
are entitled to perform religious rites and husband lives in the house of wife.

3. On the Basis of Residence:

In terms of residence, we find following types of families.

(i) Patrilocal Family:

When the wife goes to live with the husband’s family, it is called the patrilocal family.

(ii) Matrilocal Family:

When the couple after marriage moves to live with the wife’s family, such residence is called
matrilocal. The husband has a secondary position in the wife’s family where his children live.

(iii) Neolocal Residence:

When the couple after marriage moves to settle in an independent residence which is neither
attached to the bride’s family of origin nor bridegroom’s family of origin it is called neolocal
residence.
(iv) Avunculocal Family:

In this type of family the married couple moves to the house of the maternal uncle and live with
his son after marriage. Avonculocal family is found among the Nayars of Kerala.

(v) Matri-Patri Local Family:

In matri-patrilocal family, immediately after marriage the bridegroom moves to the house of the
bride and temporarily settles there till the birth of the first child and then comes back to his
family of orientation, along with wife and child for permanent settlement. The Chenchuas of
Andhra Pradesh live in this type of family.

4. The Basis of Descent:

On the basis of descent, families may be divided into two types such as patrilineal and
matrilineal.

(i) Patrilineal Family:

When descent is traced through the father, it is called patrilineal family. In this type of family
inheritance of property takes place along the male line of descent. The ancestry of such family is
determined on the basis of male line or the father. A patrilineal family is also patriarchal and
patrilocal. This is the common type of family prevalent today.

(ii) Matrilineal Family:

In this type of family descent is traced along the female line and inheritance of property also
takes place along the female line of descent. The Veddas, the North American Indians, some
people of Malabar and the Khasi tribe are matrilineal. Generally, the matrilineal families are
matriarchal and matrilocal.

Besides the above types, there are other two types of family based on descent namely Bilateral
and Ambilineal family. When the ancestiy or descent is traced through both father and mother,
it is called bilateral family. Ambilineal family is one in which one’s ancestry may be traced
through father’s line in one generation, but in the next generation one’s son may trace his descent
or ancestry through his mother’s line.

5. On the Basis of Marriage:

On the basis of marriage, family has been classified into two types such as monogamous and
polygamous.

(i) Monogamous Family

(ii) Polygamous Family:

When one man marries several woman or one woman marries several men and constitute the
family, it is polygamous family. Again polygamous family is divided into two types such as
polygynous family and polyandrous family.

(a) Polygynous Family:

It is a type of family in which one man has more than one wife at a given time and lives with
them and their children together. This kind of family is found among Eskimos, African Negroes
and the Muslims, Naga and other tribes of central India.

(b) Polyandrous Family:

In this types of family one wife has more than one husband at given time and she lives with all of
them together or each of them in turn. Polyandrous families are found among some Australians,
the Sinhalese (Srilankans), the Tibetans, some Eskimos and the Todas of Nilgiri Hills in India.

6. On the basis of In-group and Out-group Affiliation:

On the basis of in-group and out-group affiliation families may be either endogamous or
exogamous.

(i) Endogamous Family:

Endogamy is the practice of marrying someone within a group to which one belongs. An
endogamous family is one which consists of husband and wife who belong to same group such
as caste or tribe. For example, in a caste-ridden society like India a member of a particular caste
has to marry within his own caste. When a person marries within his caste group, it is called
endogamous family.

(ii) Exogamous Family:

Endogamy means marriage within a group, while exogamy means marriage with someone
outside his group. For example a Hindu must marry outside his Kinship group or gotra. When a
family is consisted of husband and wife of different groups such as gotra is called exogamous
family.

7. On the basis of Blood-relationship:

Ralph Linton has classified family into two main types namely, consanguine and conjugal.

(i) Consanguine Family:

The consanguine family is built upon the parent-child relationship (on blood-descent). The
family is a descent group through the male line which is firmly vested with authority. The
consanguine family comprises a nucleus of blood relatives surrounded by a fringe of wives and
others who are incidental to the maintenance of the family unit. Such families can become very
large. The Nayar family is a typical example.

(ii) Conjugal Family:

The conjugal family is a nucleus of the husband, the wife and their offspring, who are
surrounded by a fringe of relatives only incidental to the functioning of the family as a unit. In
this type family, the authority and solidarity of the family group reside solely in the conjugal
(husband and wife) pair. In contrast to consanguine type of family, the conjugal family is much
more isolated from wider kinship relationships.

The consanguine family, which is typical of an agricultural society, is large, stable, secure, self-
sufficient and authoritarian. On the other hand the conjugal family, typical of a modern society,
is small, transient, isolated and relatively insecure but democratic.

FUNCTIONS OF FAMILY:

Different sociologists have classified the functions of the family differently.

 K. Davis has mentioned four main functions of family. These are (i) reproduction (ii)
maintenance, (iii) placement and (iv) socialisation of the young.
 Ogbum and Nimkoff have divided the functions of family into six categories These
include (1) affectional functions, (ii) economic functions, (iii) recreational functions (iv)
protective functions, (v) religious and (vi) educational functions.
 According to Lundberg, the following are the basic functions of family:
1. Regulation of sexual behaviour.
2. Care and training of the children.
3. Cooperation and division of labour.
4. Primary group satisfaction.
 Groves has classified the functions family in the following way.
1. Protection and care of the young.
2. Regulation and control of sex impulses.
3. Conservation and transmission of social heritage and
4. Provision of opportunity for the most intimate contacts.
 Maclver divides the functions of the family into two categories: Essential and
Nonessential functions.

Essential Functions: The essential functions of the family are as follows:

1. Satisfaction of Sex Needs:

2. Reproduction:

3. Sustenance Function:

4. Provision of a Home:

5. Socialisation:

Non-Essential Functions: The nonessential functions of a family can be the following ones:

1. Economic Functions:

2. Property Transformation:

3. Religious Function:

4. Educative Function:

5. Recreational Function:

6. Wish Fulfillment:

Changing Functions of Family:

The emergence of a capitalist economy, particularly after independence, and the spread of
liberalism have challenged the sentiments maintaining the joint family. With the growth of
industries, life undergoes changes. Many of the traditional functions of the family have been
taken away by special agencies in modern times. The changing functions of the family are
discussed below.

1. Change with regard to Satisfaction of Sex Needs:

The family satisfies the sex need of male and female through the institution of marriage. But
change is visible in the function of the family with regard to satisfaction of sex need. This change
can be seen more in Western societies where premarital and extramarital sex relations are on the
increase. A declining trend is noticeable in the regulation of sexual behaviour by the family.

2. Change in the Reproduction Function:

There is also change in the reproduction function of the family. On the one hand, Western couple
do not prefer to have children. On the other hand, in some case women in Western societies
become mother before they are married. Hence, reproduction is possible without marriage and
family.

3. Change in Sustenance Function:

The sustenance function of the family has been taken by other agencies. Hospitals and nursing
homes are now offer medical care. Government and other non-Government organizations
provide protection and care to aged persons. Patients are admitted to hospitals or nursing homes
and they are taken care of by doctors, nurses and midwives.

4. Change in Socialisation Function:

The industrial system has made necessary for women to go to the office, the school or the factory
to work for a wage. As a result they do not get much time to socialise the children. Thus, there is
the decline of the family as an agent of socialisation. The socialisation function of the family has
been taken over by the outside agencies.

5. Changes in Economic Functions:

The earlier agricultural family with its numerous economic functions was a self-supporting ‘
business enterprise’. The home was the centre of production, distribution and consumption.
Today the importance of family as an economic unit has been lessened as most of the goods for
consumption are purchased from the market.

The modern family is a consuming unit. But it is not a self-sufficient producing unit. Some of the
functions have been transferred to outside agencies, for example cooking of launches to
restaurants and canteens, some laundering to outside laundries.

6. Changes in Educational Functions:

The modern family has transferred the educational function to outside agencies such as nursery
schools, Kindergarten and Montessori schools. The responsibility of the family in imparting
education to children has declined considerably. The modern family has delegated the task of
vocational education to technical institutions and colleges.

7. Changes in Religious Function:

Family is a centre for religious training of the children and various religious activities. Now it is
found that the family is losing the religious functions performed in the past. The religious
activities of the family has been materially reduced.

8. Changes in the Recreational Function:

Earlier, the family provided all kinds of recreation and entertainment to its members. Recreation
is now available in clubs or hotels rather than homes. The recreational function of the family
 have been declined to a large extent. Various outside recreational centres such as clubs, cinema
halls, park etc. provide recreational facilities to people. The family is no longer a home for
recreation of its members.

Social Functions of the Family

FUNCTIONALISM:
 The family performs several essential functions for society.
 It socializes children,
 it provides emotional and practical support for its members,
 it helps regulate sexual activity and sexual reproduction, and
 it provides its members with a social identity,
 sudden or far-reaching changes in the family’s structure or processes threaten its stability
and weaken society
 help preserve social stability and otherwise keep a society working.

Family Structures
 Nuclear Family. The nuclear family is the traditional type of family structure. ...
 Single Parent Family. The single parent family consists of one parent raising one or more
children on his own. ...
 Extended Family. ...
 Childless Family. ...
 Step Family. ...
 Grandparent Family
 SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
INTRODUCTION:

The social contract was introduced by early modern thinkers—Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes,
Samuel Pufendorf, and John Locke the most well-known among them—as an account of two
things: the historical origins of sovereign power and the moral origins of the principles that make
sovereign power just and/or legitimate.

 Social contract theory says that people live together in society in accordance with an
agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behavior. Some people
believe that if we live according to a social contract, we can live morally by our own
choice and not because a divine being requires it.
 Over the centuries, philosophers as far back as Socrates have tried to describe the ideal
social contract, and to explain how existing social contracts have evolved. Philosopher
Stuart Rachels suggests that morality is the set of rules governing behavior that
rational people accept, on the condition that others accept them too.
 Social contracts can be explicit, such as laws, or implicit, such as raising one’s hand in
class to speak. The U.S. Constitution is often cited as an explicit example of part of
America’s social contract.  It sets out what the government can and cannot do. People
who choose to live in America agree to be governed by the moral and political
obligations outlined in the Constitution’s social contract.
 Indeed, regardless of whether social contracts are explicit or implicit, they provide a
valuable framework for harmony in society.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT IN HOBBES

According to Hobbes , the state of nature was one in which there were no enforceable criteria of
right and wrong. People took for themselves all that they could, and human life was “solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish and short.” The state of nature was therefore a state of war, which could be
ended only if individuals agreed (in a social contract) to give their liberty into the hands of a
sovereign, on the sole condition that their lives were safeguarded by sovereign power.

For Hobbes the authority of the sovereign is absolute, in the sense that no authority is above the
sovereign, whose will is law. That, however, does not mean that the power of the sovereign is
all-encompassing: subjects remain free to act as they please in cases in which the sovereign is
silent (in other words, when the law does not address the action concerned). The social contract
allows individuals to leave the state of nature and enter civil society, but the former remains a
threat and returns as soon as governmental power collapses. Because the power of Leviathan (the
political state) is uncontested, however, its collapse is very unlikely and occurs only when it is no
longer able to protect its subjects.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT IN LOCKE

Locke (in the second of the Two Treatises of Government, 1690) differed from Hobbes insofar as
he conceived of the state of nature not as a condition of complete license but rather as a state in
which humans, though free, equal, and independent, are obliged under the law of nature to
respect each other’s rights to life, liberty, and property. Individuals nevertheless agree to form a
commonwealth (and thereby to leave the state of nature) in order to institute an impartial power
capable of arbitrating disputes and redressing injuries. Accordingly, Locke held that the
obligation to obey civil government under the social contract was conditional upon the protection
of the natural rights of each person, including the right to private property. Sovereigns who
violated these terms could be justifiably overthrown.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT IN ROUSSEAU

Rousseau, in Discours sur l’origine de l’inegalité (1755; Discourse on the Origin of Inequality),

held that in the state of nature humans were solitary but also healthy, happy, good, and free.
What Rousseau called “nascent societies” were formed when human began to live together as
families and neighbours; that development, however, gave rise to negative and destructive
passions such as jealousy and pride, which in turn fostered social inequality and human vice. The
introduction of private property marked a further step toward inequality, since it made law and
government necessary as a means of protecting it. Rousseau lamented the “fatal” concept of
property and the “horrors” that resulted from the departure from a condition in which the earth
belonged to no one.Civil society, as Rousseau described it in the Discourse, came into being to
serve two purposes: to provide peace for everyone and to ensure the right to property for anyone
lucky enough to have possessions.

Organismic Theory of Society

Introduction:

Man is a social animal. He lives in social groups in communities and in society. Human life and
society almost go together. Man cannot live without society. Man is biologically and
psychologically equipped to live in groups, in society. Society has become an essential
condition for human life to arise and to continue.

The relationship between individual and society is ultimately one of the profound of all the
problems of social philosophy. It is more philosophical rather than sociological because it
involves the question of values.

Man depends on society. It is in the society that an individual is surrounded and

encompassed by culture, a societal force. It is in the society again that he has to conform to
the norms, occupy statuses and become members of groups.

The question of the relationship between the individual and the society is the starting point of
many discussions. It is closely connected with the question of the relationship of man and
society. There is two main theories regarding the relationship of man and society .They are the
social contract theory and the organismic theory.

VIEWS OF HERBERT SPENCER English social philosopher Herbert Spencer has been the
chief exponent of this theory. He said that society is an organism and it does not differ in
essential principle from the other biological organisms. The attributes of an organism and the
society, he maintained, are similar. Both exhibit the same process of development. The animal
and social bodies, Spencer affirmed, begin as germs, all similar and simple in structure. As they
grow and develop, they become unlike and complex in structure. Their process of development is
the same, both moving from similarity and simplicity to dissimilarity and complexity. “As the
lowest type of animal is all stomach, respiratory surface, or limb, so primitive society is all
warriors, all hunter, all builder, or all tool-maker. As society grows in complexity, division of
labour follow\

Spencer gives striking structural analogies between society and organism. He says, society,
too, has three systems corresponding to the

(a) Sustaining System: The sustaining system in an organism consists of mouth, gullet, stomach
and intestines. It is by means of this system that food is digested and the whole organic machine
is sustained. Society has its own sustaining system which refers to the productive system
comprising the manufacturing districts and agricultural areas. The workers, i.e., the men who
farm the soil, work the mines and factories and workshops are the alimentary organs of a society.

(b) The Distributary System: The distributors system in an organism consists of the blood
vessels, heart, arteries and veins and they carry blood to all parts of the body. Means of
communication and transport and along with them the wholesalers, retailers, bankers, railway
and steamship men and others may correspond to the distributor or vascular system of an
organism. Society‟s Cells are individuals only. And what the arteries and veins mean to the
human body, roads, railways, post and telegraph services, institutions and associations, mean to
society.

(c) The Regulating System In An Organism. Finally, the regulating system is the nerve-motor
mechanism which regulates the whole body. Government in society regulates and controls the
activities of the individuals. The professional men-doctors, lawyers, engineers, rulers, priests, the
thinkers, in short, perform the functions of the brain and the nervous system.

Further, as Spencer opined society also passes through the organic processes of birth,
youth, maturity, old age and death.

In a nutshell, Spencer indicates that society resembles an organism in the following important
respects.

(i) Society like organism grows or develops gradually. The human organism goes
through the laws of development, maturation and decline. Similarly society also
passes through some taws such as the laws of birth, growth and change or decay.
(ii) Both society and organism begin germs.
(iii) Society and organism both exhibit differential structure functions.
(iv) Both society and organism are composed of units. Society is composed of the
individuals and thus, individuals are considered as the units of society. Similarly,
organism is also composed of different organs such as eyes, ears, hands, legs, head
etc., and these are regarded as the units of an organism.
(v) In both society and organism there exists close integration or interdependence of
parts. Just as the different parts of the organism are mutually interdependence and on
 the whole, also the individuals in a dependant are mutually interdependent like the
cells in an organism dependent in the whole.

Murray sums up the points of resemblance between a society and an individual organism
as noted by Spencer in the following ways:

(a) Society as well as individual organism grows in size.

(b) They grow from comparatively a simple structure to that of an increasingly complex one.

(c) Increasing differentiation leads to increasing mutual dependence of the component parts. The
life and normal functioning of each becomes dependent on the life of the whole.

(d) The life of the whole becomes independent and lasts longer than the life of the component.
However, Spencer is of the view that society differs from human organism in the following
important respects:

(i) In organic growth, nature plays a dominant and organismic naturally grows. Social growth
may be checked or stimulated by human beings themselves.

(ii) The units of a society are not fixed in their respective positions like those of the individual
organism.

(iii)In an organism, consciousness is concentrated in the small part of the aggregate, that is, in
the nervous system while in a society it is diffused throughout whole aggregate.

THE ORGANISMIC THEORY OF  SOCIETY

Plato compared society or state to a magnified human being. He divided society into three
classes (1) The rulers, (2) The Warriors and (3) The artisans based upon three faculties of the
human soul i.e. Wisdom, Courage and Desire. Bluntschli and Herbert Spencer drew parallelism
between an individual organism and social organism. Bluntschli stated that the state was
masculine in character which the church was feminine. Spencer observes that the state is subject
to the same laws of growth and decay as in the case of human body. Spencer concluded that
society is an organism; it is a social organism. The individuals are the limbs of the society and
behave as the cells of the body. Just as the limbs separated from society have no life similarly
individuals separated from society had no life. The individuals exist in and within society. He
says that the individuals belong to the society as cells belong to the body of an individual.

Criticism:

The analogy used in the organic theory has, no doubt, a useful purpose to serve as it stresses the
unity of society. The society is not a mere aggregation of individuals. It is a social unity. Man
cannot lead a life of isolation. Dependence is his very psychology, and individual depend on one
another and on society as a whole. The welfare of each is involved in the welfare of all. Every
individual has obligations to himself, to his family, to his neighbours, and to the society of which
he is a unit. He cannot be separated from society, just as a hand or a leg, without losing its utility
cannot be separated from the body.

The analogy used here to compare society with an organism, has its own limitations. Even
Spencer was aware of these. He himself noted some of the defects of this analogy such as the
following.

 A society has no specific form comparable to the body of an individual;

 The units of a society, e., individuals are not fixed in their respective positions like those
of an individual organism;
 The units of a society are dispersed persons and are not physically continuous like cells
of the individual;
 Society has no ‘common sensorium’, no central organ of perception and thought as an
individual
 The proposition that society is like an organism is acceptable  with some reservations.
But the assertion that society is an organism, is rather

THEORY OF ANOMIE- DURKHIEM

INTRODUCTION:
Anomie is a social condition in which there is a disintegration or disappearance of the norms and
values that were previously common to the society. The concept, thought of as “normlessness,”
was developed by the founding sociologist, Émile Durkheim. He discovered, through research,
that anomie occurs during and follows periods of drastic and rapid changes to the social,
economic, or political structures of society. It is, per Durkheim's view, a transition phase wherein
the values and norms common during one period are no longer valid, but new ones have not yet
evolved to take their place.

MEANING OF ANOMIE:

“The idea of anomie means the lack of normal ethical or social standards”

o Anomie, also spelled anomy, in societies or individuals, “a condition of instability

resulting from a breakdown of standards and values or from a lack of purpose or ideals”.
o In etymological terms, the word anomie “means the absence of norms, rules or laws”
o In Classical Antiquity, Thucydides referred to anomie, impiety and absence of law, of
humanity without law or rule to characterize the «plague» of Athens: It was not only a
health crisis; it was also a major moral crisis... An epidemic is not only the devastation
and suffering caused by the spread of infection; it is also the brutal chaos that follows
the weakening of the State, the disintegration of authorities, social structures and
mentalities
o Anomie may mean “a lack of integration or mutual adjustment of the functions stemming
from industrial crises, from conflicts between labour and capital, and from specialisation
of science”;“lack of norms or regulation”,5 or a profligacy, normlessness and social
deregulation

ANOMIE ACCORDING TO DURKHEIM

This concept first emerged in 1893, when French sociologist.

 Emile Durkheim published his book entitled, The Division of Labor in Society. In this

book, Durkheim indicated that the rules of how individuals interact with one another
were disintegrating and therefore people were unable to determine how to act with one
another. As a consequence, Durkheim believed that anomie was a state where the
expectations of behavior are unclear, and the system has broken down. This is
known as normlessness.
 Durkheim claimed that this normlessness caused deviant behaviors, and later, as
claimed in his 1897 work, Suicide, depression and suicide.
 In criminology, the idea of anomie is that the person chooses criminal activity
because the individual believes that there is no reason not to.
  In other words, the person is alienated, feels worthless and that their efforts to try and
achieve anything else are fruitless. Therefore, with lack of any foreseeable alternative,
the person falls into criminal activity.
 He believed that one type of suicide (anomic) resulted from the breakdown of the
social standards necessary for regulating behaviour.
 Durkheim saw that this occurred as European societies industrialized and the nature of
work changed along with the development of a more complex division of labor.
 He framed this as a clash between the mechanical solidarity of homogeneous, traditional
societies and the organic solidarity that keeps more complex societies together.
According to Durkheim, anomie could not occur in the context of organic solidarity
because this heterogeneous form of solidarity allows for the division of labor to evolve as
needed, such that none are left out and all play a meaningful role.
 Although Durkheim’s concept of anomie referred to a condition of relative normlessness
of a society or social group, other writers have used the term to refer to conditions of
individuals. In this psychological usage, anomie means the state of mind of a person who
has no standards or sense of continuity or obligation and has rejected all social bonds.
Individuals may feel that community leaders are indifferent to their needs, that society is
basically unpredictable and lacking order, and that goals are not being realized. They may
also have a sense of futility and a conviction that associates are not dependable sources of
support.

ANOMIE AND THE DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY

In The Division of Labour in Society, Durkheim analyses the pathological forms of the division
of labour and the division of anomic labour. He sustains that the social causes for the increase
of the division of labor in complex societies arise from a combination of factors that involve:

1. an increase of the population

2. a higher approximation of the members of society in the physical space
3. greater communication
4. interdependence of the individuals in the social space
 Another form of anomic division of labor results from economic development.
 In The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim sustains that “if anomie is an evil, it is, first
and foremost, because society suffers from that and, in order to live, it cannot deprive itself
of cohesion and regularity”
 For Durkheim, in The Division of Labor in Society (1893), “anomie is one of the
pathological forms of the division of labor, namely: the temporary lack of a social regulation
that is capable of ensuring cooperation between specialized functions. It originates in the
insufficiency of contacts between social roles”.
 Thus, there is anomie in the division of social labor when cooperation is replaced by conflict
and competition, and when the values that are accepted or the goals that are set by
individuals cease to be collective to become increasingly individualized.
 The individualization of goals and values is one of the main sources of conflict. Anomie is a
concept that allows characterizing societies and individuals. When the division of labor is
anomic, it means that individuals do not abide by the rules imposed by society. But it also
means that societies are organized in such a way that they do not have the power to impose
rules on individuals so as to ensure social harmony.
 The individualization of goals and values is a consequence of social organization itself.

ANOMIE: A FEELING OF DISCONNECTION

People who lived during periods of anomie typically feel disconnected from their society
because they no longer see the norms and values that they hold dear reflected in society itself.
This leads to the feeling that one does not belong and is not meaningfully connected to others.
For some, this may mean that the role they play (or played) and their identity is no longer valued
by society. Because of this, anomie can foster the feeling that one lacks purpose, engender
hopelessness, and encourage deviance and crime.

ANOMIC SUICIDE IN DURKHEIM’S

A few years later, Durkheim further elaborated his concept of anomie in his 1897 book, Suicide:
A Study in Sociology. He identified anomic suicide as a form of taking one's life that is motivated
by the experience of anomie. Durkheim found, through a study of suicide rates of Protestants and
Catholics in nineteenth-century. Europe, that the suicide rate was higher among Protestants.
Understanding the different values of the two forms of Christianity, in Catholics and Protestants.
Durkheim theorized that this occurred because,

o Protestant culture placed a higher value on individualism.

o Catholic faith provided greater social control and cohesion to a community, which
would decrease the risk of anomie and anomic suicide.

The sociological implication is that strong social ties help people and groups survive periods of
change and tumult in society.

BREAKDOWN OF TIES THAT BIND PEOPLE TOGETHER

Considering the whole of Durkheim's writing on anomie, one can see that he saw it as a
breakdown of the ties that bind people together to make a functional society, a state of social
derangement. Periods of anomie are unstable, chaotic, and often rife with conflict because the
social force of the norms and values that otherwise providing stability is weakened or missing.
GREATER EMPHASIS ON ENDS RATHER THAN MEANS CREATES A STRESS
THAT LEADS TO A BREAKDOWN IN THE REGULATORY STRUCTURE—i.e.,
anomie. 

MERTON'S THEORY OF ANOMIE AND DEVIANCE

Durkheim's theory of anomie proved influential to American sociologist Robert K. Merton, who

pioneered the sociology of deviance and is considered one of the most influential sociologists in
the United States. Building on Durkheim's theory that anomie is a social condition in which
people's norms and values no longer sync with those of society, Merton created the structural
strain theory, which explains how anomie lead to deviance and crime. For Merton, deviance, and
crime are, in large part, a result of anomie, a state of social disorder

PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF ANOMIE

When a social system is in a state of anomie, common values and common meanings are no
longer understood or accepted, and new values and meanings have not developed.

According to Durkheim, such a society produces, in many of its members, psychological states

characterized by a

 sense of futility
 lack of purpose
 emotional emptiness
 despair
 Striving is considered useless, because there is no accepted definition of what is
desirable.

DURKHEIM’S CONCEPT OF RELEGION:

 Emile Durkheim (1859-1917) explained the existence of religion in terms of the
functions it performs in society. Like Marx, therefore, he argued that it was necessary to
examine religion as a product of society, rather than as a product of a transcendent or
supernatural presence (Durkheim, 1915/1964).
 Unlike Marx, however, he argued that religion fulfills real needs in each society, namely
to reinforce certain mental states, sustain social solidarity, establish basic rules or
norms, and concentrate collective energies.
 These can be seen as the universal social functions of religion that underlie the unique
natures of different religious systems all around the world, past and present.
 He was particularly concerned about the capacity of religion to continue to perform
these functions as societies entered the modern era in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Durkheim hoped to uncover religion’s future in a new world that was breaking away from
the traditional social norms that religion had sustained and supported (Durkheim,
1915/1964).
 The key defining feature of religion for Durkheim was its ability to distinguish sacred things
from profane things. In his last published work, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life,
he defined religion as: “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred
things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite
into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them”.
o Sacred objects are things said to have been touched by divine presence. They are set
apart through ritual practices and viewed as forbidden to ordinary, everyday contact
and use. 
o Profane objects on the other hand are items integrated into ordinary everyday living.
They have no religious significance.
 From Durkheim’s social scientific point of view, it is the act of setting sacred and
profane apart which contributes to their spiritual significance and reverence, rather
than anything that actually inheres in them.
 This basic dichotomy creates two distinct aspects of life, that of the ordinary and that of
the sacred, that exist in mutual exclusion and in opposition to each other. This is the
basis of numerous codes of behavior and spiritual practices. Durkheim argues that all
religions, in any form and of any culture, share this trait. Therefore, a belief system, whether
or not it encourages faith in a supernatural power, is identified as a religion of it outlines this
divide and creates ritual actions and a code of conduct of how to interact with and around
these sacred objects.

DURKHEIM AND TOTEISM:

Durkheim examined the social functions of the division of the world into sacrd and profane by
studying a group of Australian Aboriginals that practiced totemism. He described totemism as
the most basic and ancient forms of religion, and therefore the core of religious practice itself
(Durkheim, 1915/1964).

A totem, such as an animal or plant, is a sacred “symbol, a material expression of something

else” such as a spirit or a god. Totemic societies are divided into clans based on the different
totemic creatures each clan revered. In line with his argument that religious practice needs to
be understood in sociological terms rather than supernatural terms, he noted that totemism
existed to serve some very specific social functions. For example, the sanctity of the objects
venerated as totems infuse the clan with a sense of social solidarity because they bring people
together and focus their attention on the shared practice of ritual worship. They function to
divide the sacred from the profane thereby establishing a ritually reinforced structure of social
rules and norms, they enforce the social cohesion of the clans through the shared belief in a
transcendent power, and they protect members of the society from each other since they all
become sacred as participants in the religion.

In essence, totemism, like any religion, is merely a product of the members of a society
projecting themselves and the real forces of society onto ‘sacred’ objects and powers.

 In Durkheim’s terms, all religious belief and ritual function in the same way. They create
a collective consciousness and a focus for collective effervescence in society.
 Collective consciousness is the shared set of values, thoughts, and ideas that come into
existence when the combined knowledge of a society manifests itself through a shared
religious framework (Mellor & Shilling, 1996). 
 Collective effervescence, on the other hand, is the elevated feeling experienced by
individuals when they come together to express beliefs and perform rituals together as a
group: the experience of an intense and positive feeling of excitement In a religious
context, this feeling is interpreted as a connection with divine presence, as being filled
with the spirit of supernatural forces, but Durkheim argues that in reality it is the
material force of society itself, which emerges whenever people come together and focus
on a single object. As individuals actively engage in communal activities, their belief system
gains plausibility and the cycle intensifies. In worshipping the sacred, people worship society
itself, finding themselves together as a group, reinforcing their ties to one another and
reasserting solidarity of shared beliefs and practices (Mellor & Shilling, 1998).

The fundamental principles that explain the most basic and ancient religions like totemism, also
explain the persistence of religion in society as societies grow in scale and complexity. However,
in modern societies where other institutions often provide the basic for social solidarity, social
norms, collective representations, and collective effervescence, will religious belief and ritual
persist.
 In his structural-functional analysis of religion, Durkheim outlined three functions that
religion still serves in society, which help to explain its ongoing existence in modern
societies.
1. First, religion ensures social cohesion through the creation of a shared consciousness
form participation in rituals and belief systems.
2. Second, it formally enforces social norms and expectations of behavior, which serve
to ensure predictability and control of human action.
3. Third, religion serves to answer the most universal, ‘meaning of life’ questions that
humans have pondered since the dawn of consciousness. As long as the needs remain
unsatisfied by other institutions in modern social systems, religion will exist to fill
that void.
Durkheim and functionalism

Emile Durkheim, the founder of functionalism, spent much of his academic career studying
religions, especially those of small societies. The totetism, or primitive kinship system of Australian
aborigines as an “elementary” form of religion, primarily interested him. This research formed the basis
of Durkheim's 1921 book, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, which is certainly the
best‐known study on the sociology of religion. Durkheim viewed religion within the context of the entire
society and acknowledged its place in influencing the thinking and behavior of the members of society.

 Durkheim's theory of religion exemplifies how functionalists examine sociological

phenomena. According to Durkheim, people see religion as contributing to the health
and continuation of society in general. Thus, religion functions to bind society's
members by prompting them to affirm their common values and beliefs on a regular
basis.

 Durkheim predicted that religion's influence would decrease as society modernizes.

He believed that scientific thinking would likely replace religious thinking, with people
giving only minimal attention to rituals and ceremonies. He also considered the concept of
“God” to be on the verge of extinction. Instead, he envisioned society as
promoting civil religion, in which, for example, civic celebrations, parades, and
patriotism take the place of church services. If traditional religion were to continue,
however, he believed it would do so only as a means to preserve social cohesion and order.

Or in Durkheim’s own words: Religion is a unified system of beliefs and

practices related to sacred things, that is to say things set a apart and
forbidden.

RELIGION IN TERMS OF ITS SOCIETAL IMPACT

 Durkheim is generally considered the first sociologist who analyzed religion in terms of
its societal impact.
 Durkheim believed that religion is about community: it binds people together (social
cohesion), promotes behaviour consistency (social control), and offers strength for
people during life’s transitions and tragedies (meaning and purpose). By applying
the methods of natural science to the study of society, he held that the source of religion
and morality is the collective mind-set of society and that the cohesive bonds of social
order result from common values in a society. He contended that these values need to be
maintained to maintain social stability.
 Religion then provided differing degrees of “social cement” that held societies and
cultures together. Faith provided the justification for society to exist beyond the mundane
and partial explanations of existence as provided in science, even to consider an
 intentional future: “for faith is before all else an impetus to action, while
science, no matter how far it may be pushed, always remains at a distance
from this.” (Durkheim 1915, p. 431).

 Religion performs the key function of providing social solidarity in a society.

The rituals, the worship of icons, and the belief in supernatural beings “excite,
maintain or recreate certain mental states” (Durkheim 1912) that bring
people together, provide a ritual and symbolic focus, and unify
them.  Durkheim saw religion as a source of social stability.

FUNCTIONS OF RELEGION

IT often provide the basic for

 social solidarity,
 social norms,
 collective representations
 Collective effervescence.