1

Course: Introduction to Sociology: Culture & Society (9410)

Level: BS
Semester: Autumn, 2019
ASSIGNMENT No. 1

Q.1 Discuss the scope of studies of sociology as a discipline?

Answer:
The term Sociology was coined by Auguste Comte, a French philosopher, in 1839. The
teaching of sociology as a separate discipline started in 1876 in the United States, in 1889 in
France, in 1907 in Great Britain, after World War I in Poland and India, in 1925 in Egypt and
Mexico, and in 1947 in Sweden.
I. What is Sociology?
Sociology is the youngest of all the Social Sciences. The word Sociology is derived from the
Latin word ‘societies’ meaning ‘society’ and the Greek word ‘logos’ are meaning ‘study or
science’. The etymological meaning of ‘sociology’ is thus the ‘science of society’.
Prof. Ginsberg accordingly defines it “as the study of society, which is of the web or tissue of
human inter-actions and inter-relations.” In other words, Sociology is the study of man’s
behaviour in groups or of the inter-action among human beings, of social relationships and
the processes by which human group activity takes place.
Need for a Science of Sociology:
The most distinctive feature of human life is its social character. All human beings have to
interact with other human beings in order to survive. Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher,
remarked that ‘Man is a social animal.’ Both nature and necessity impel man to live in
society.
Man’s behaviour in society is determined mainly by two forces—physical and social which
he has been trying to understand and control from time immemorial. It was quite natural
that his attempts to comprehend and control the natural phenomena had started earlier
and met with greater success than his attempts to understand the social phenomena
because it was easier for him to understand the physical phenomena by virtue of the fact
that they were more concrete and hence more observable with a greater degree of
detachment.
Nevertheless man has been trying since ancient times to take stock of his social
environment and to attempt to understand the problems created by it. But in these early
stages man carried on the study not of society but of the different aspects of society and
that gave rise to different social sciences, like History, Economics, and Political Science.
Anthropology, Psychology, etc.
While, broadly speaking, all these social sciences deal with social phenomena and are,
therefore, interrelated and inter-dependent, each concentrates upon a particular phase of
human conduct and specialises in studying it.
 2

Thus, History is the record of unique events relating to man; Economics is concerned with
his activities relating to production and consumption of wealth; Political Science deals with
his political activities and institutions; Anthropology studies his activities and institutions as
they existed in times long past; Psychology is interested in the springs of human action, the
impulses and motives that sustain mental and bodily activity and regulate human conduct.
These social sciences do not give us a complete picture of society. They may give a
snapshot view of society from various angles of vision but never a view of society in its
comprehensive totality and utility. The need was, therefore, felt for a general science which
should purview the society as a whole and ‘sociology’ was designed to achieve this end.
Thus Sociology appeared when it was felt that other fields of human knowledge do not fully
explain man’s social behaviour. Sociology is, on the one hand, a synthetic discipline, trying
to unify from a central point of view the results of separate disciplines; and on the other, an
analytic and specialised science with its own field of research.
Sociology essentially and fundamentally deals with that network of social relationships we
call society. No other science takes that subject for its central concern.
As sociologists, we are interested in social relationships not because they are economic,
political, or religious, but because they are social. The focus of Sociology is on Socialness.
We should at the same time, recognise that in studying society we are not attempting to
study everything that happens ‘in society’ or under social conditions, for that includes all
human activity and human learning. We shall not, for example, study religion as religion, art
as art, or government as government, but as the forces that maintain and control social
relations.
Sociology may thus be interested in all these problems but not primarily. It is primarily
interested in man’s behaviour in relation to other men, I.e., it focuses its attention on
relationships which are definitely ‘social’ and that is what makes it a distinctive field,
however, closely allied to others it may be. The study of social relationship themselves is the
main interest of Sociology.
Sociology—a distinct science:
Sociology has by now been able to establish itself as a distinct science concerned with the
scientific study of social phenomena. It has accumulated around itself an impressive array of
positive knowledge about social life. The ultimate purpose of Sociology is the deliberate
modification of social life.
It is hoped that men armed with knowledge of underlying principles and processes of social
life would be better able I о mould their societies more nearly to their own desires. Such
knowledge would be useful in shaping human affairs. Sociology is sure to progress and
develop like other social sciences in due course.
Sociology in India:
The study of Sociology in India started in 1919 at the University of Bombay, but it was in
1930 that its study as a separate discipline was started. Now it is being taught at a number
of universities and it is getting popular among the students.
 3

Some Indian writers like G. S. Ghurye, R. K. Mukerjee, H. T. Mazumdar have also made
original contribution to sociological studies. These studies pertain to Indian villages, caste
system, marriage, kinship, family and social disorganisation.
III. Sociology—a Science with Its Own Subject Matter:
Sociology is not only a science with its own subject-matter but the mother of all social
sciences. It has been said surprisingly enough by some critics that Sociology does not have
a subject-matter of its own and that it is hotchpotch of different social sciences. It is argued
that social sciences like Economics, History, Political Science etc. are specialisations and that
Sociology is a mere collection of the observation and hypothesis which are to be found in
the work of the specialists in these fields.
It may be stated that this view is totally incorrect and today Sociology is not only a separate
science with subject-matter of its own but it has also acquired that high status which
entitles it to be called the mother of all social sciences. While discussing the position of
Sociology among other social sciences, MacIver has rightly remarked that the social
sciences have the sphere within Sociology just as associations have the spheres within
community.
The specific social sciences are sciences of associational forms of life and therefore can
never ascend the throne reserved for Sociology, a throne tenantless until she enters into her
kingdom.
Criticism against Sociology Having Subject Matter of Its Own:
(i) Sociology is merely an assemblage of miscellaneous studies having social content:
The place of Sociology as a science with its own subject-matter has been criticised on three
grounds. Firstly, it is said that Sociology is merely an assemblage of miscellaneous studies
having a social content.
The answer to this criticism is that if the miscellaneous studies Sociology is supposed to
comprise have not been considered or treated by any other social science, Sociology is
certainly performing a useful function in sailing unchartered seas.
It is impossible to deny that Sociology has produced a great deal of valuable information
about social institutions such as the family, property, church and state, about social
traditions, about social processes, about social classes and national and racial groups, about
migration and population changes, about changes in social habits, customs and fashions,
about factors of social control, about poverty, crime and suicide.
None of these topics is adequately treated elsewhere. The claims of sociology to be a
science with its own subject-matter is further strengthened from the fact that it studies
man’s history and attainments as well as his biology, not themselves but only as these
phenomena affect human inter- relations or are affected by human inter-actions.
(ii) The subject of Sociology parceled out to a number of social sciences:
The second criticism against Sociology having no subject-matter of its own is that there is
no special field of Sociology since its subject-matter has been parceled out to a number of
 4

social sciences like Economics, Political Science, Psychology, Anthropology, History,

Jurisprudence etc.
This criticism is not quite justified, as far as the above-mentioned subjects are concerned.
But even if it were, the existence of such separate sciences does not preclude the existence
of a more general science whose task it would be to relate their separate conclusions and
deal with the more general conditions of social life.
Just as the existence of Botany, Physiology, and Bio Chemistry has not nullified the utility of
Biology, similarly the existence of separate social sciences does not preclude the existence
of Sociology which aims to develop a body of knowledge about human relationship or
social life as a whole. As a matter of fact, social sciences are so numerous and detailed
today that the need for a general science is not superficial, it is increasingly urgent.
(iii) Sociology borrows from other social sciences:
The third criticism against Sociology being not a subject with its own matter is that it
borrows from other sciences and that it is a labour-saving device for knowing everything
without learning anything. But this criticism is also not valid.
The essential nature of science is that it can grow only by borrowing. Biology develops by
utilising the conclusions of chemistry and physics, so does Sociology. But in borrowing
Biology and Sociology return far more by enriching the science from which they’ borrow
with concepts and ideas which make the accumulation of facts meaningful.
Sociology, no doubt, does borrow its subject-matter from other social sciences, but it does
not add to it; instead, it gives this subject-matter a completely new form. To construct a
building we collect materials like cement, bricks, lime, iron, steel, sand, wood etc. at a
particular place, but the mere collection of material does not make a building.
A technique is applied and the material is given a definite and fixed form. After the
application of the technique, it is called a building and it is no longer a heap of wood,
bricks, cement etc. Similarly, Sociology borrows raw materials, applies a technique and
creates what is called ‘Society’, and a separate discipline to study its structure and
processes.
In the words of Motwani, “Sociology like an edifice is both the principle of coordination of
facts of social life into an organic whole and also an independent science the end result of
such integration.” The departmentalisation of knowledge is only made for our convenience.
There are no watertight compartments of knowledge in reality.
Again, the reason why Sociology is so much more dependent than any other science on
other sciences lies in its magnitude and complexity. The field of study of Sociology, the
totality of human relations, is so vast that no single person could cultivate all of it by
himself. He must draw help from others.
For example, to understand a particular society, a sociologist must know something of its
people and their innate and acquired characters, its geographical environment, social
institutions, language, religion, moral law, its economic structure and finally its relations to
other peoples and its inter-action with the rest of the world.
 5

To do this satisfactorily Sociology must co-operate with a number of other sciences, which
are as dependent upon the data and conclusions of sociology as sociology is upon them. As
remarked by Earners and Backer, “Sociology is regarded neither as the mistress nor as the
handmaid of the social sciences, but, as their sister.”
The subject-matter of Sociology is social life as a whole. It is thus proved beyond any
shadow of doubt that Sociology is a science with its own subject-matter, social life as a
whole; and it deals with the more general principles underlying all social phenomena.
In studying social life it studies inter-actions, not just as psychological behaviour but as
social organisation. Social life is so complex that division of labour is needed to study it. So
we have Economics, Political Science, Law, etc. which study social life from different points
of view. Sociology studies the same phenomena from sociological point of view.
It studies every phenomenon with reference to its sociables. The sociological point of view is
empirical and objective. Even at the risk of repetition it may be stressed again that
Sociology is not a mere synthesis of the studies undertaken by Economics, History, Political
Science, etc. but as remarked by Sprott.
(i) It is the very discipline which attempts to consider societies as organic unities and to
understand the relation between the various institutional complexes (economic, political
and ideological) which pervade them.
(ii) It is the very science which deals with human social groups as such, classifying them and
analysing the nature of their structure.
(iii) There are topics such as social stratification (class, caste, etc.), changes in population
rates, and changes in the functions of the family which are not the subject-matter of any
other science. Sociology is a general science and studies many widely different social
institutions.
As a general science it is especially fitted to deal with characteristics that are common to all
groups, all societies. Its object is not so much to describe as to search for causes and
explanations. Why do men behave in such and such a way, is & common question in
Sociology.
{==============}
Q.2 Discuss the concept of interaction in space and time. Give examples to support
your answer?
Answer:
The concept of space and time. All material bodies have a certain extension: length, breadth,
height. They are variously placed in relation to each other and constitute parts of one or
another system. Space is a form of coordination of coexisting objects and states of matter. It
consists in the fact that objects are extraposed to one another (alongside, beside, beneath,
above, within, behind, in front, etc.) and have certain quantitative relationships. The order of
coexistence of these objects and their states forms the structure of space.
Material phenomena are characterised by their duration, the sequence of the stages of their
motion, their development. Processes may take place either simultaneously, or precede or
 6

succeed one another. Such, for example, is the interrelation between day and night. The
dimension of time can be measured only with the help of certain standards (in seconds.
minutes, hours, days, years, centuries, etc.), that is to say, motions that are accepted as
being even. The perception of time also allows us to assess the sequence and duration of
events. Depending on our subjective sensations such as merriment or grief, pleasure or
boredom, time seems either short or long. Time is a form of coordination of objects and
states of matter in their succession. It consists in the fact that every state is a consecutive
link in a process and has certain quantitative relations with other states. The order of
succession of these objects and states forms the structure of time.
Space and time are universal forms of the existence of matter, the coordination of objects.
The universality of these forms lies in the fact that they are forms of existence of all the
objects and processes that have ever existed or will exist in the infinite universe. Not only
the events of the external world, but also all feelings and thoughts take place in space and
time. In the material world everything has extension and duration. Space and time have
their peculiarities. Space has three dimensions: length, breadth and height, but time has
only one—from the past through the present to the future. It is inevitable, unrepeatable and
irreversible.
Correct understanding of the essence of space and time is closely connected with the
scientific picture of the world. Everything is differentiated, broken down into relatively stable
extraposed material formations. The processes that occur in them and condition their
conservation (reproduction) and at the same time their transformation, are also
differentiated: they constitute the consecutive change of the states of an object.
Space and time exist objectively. Although we may feel how time in its inexorable passage is
carrying us away, we can neither halt nor prolong it. We cannot recover a single moment of
existence. The flow of time is beyond our control. We are as helpless in it as a chip of wood
in a river.
Dialectics proceeds from acknowledgement of the unity of motion, space, time and matter,
which is expressed in the principle that various forms of the structural organisation of
matter and the levels of this organisation are characterised by their specific motion, space
and time. Thus the spatial organisation of a crystal differs from that of a blossoming rose.
The time of historical events occurs, is experienced by their participants and is preserved in
the memory of mankind and this kind of time differs from the purely physical time of, say,
the motion of the celestial bodies. However, metaphysical thought separates matter from
motion, and both of them, from space and time. Newton, for example, assumed that space
was the empty container of things, that it was incorporeal, absolutely penetrable, never
influenced anything and was never affected by any influence.
Universal space was considered to be filled with absolutely motionless ether, and moving
bodies were thought to encounter an "ethereal wind" like the wind that resists a running
person. Space was allegedly immutable and motionless, its attributes did not depend on
anything, even time; nor did they depend on material bodies or their motion. One could
remove all bodies from space and space would still exist and retain its attributes. Newton
held the same views about time. He believed that time flowed by in the same way
 7

throughout the universe and this flow did not depend on anything; time was therefore
absolute. Like a river, it flowed on of its own accord, heedless of the existence of material
processes.
The idea of absolute space and time corresponded to the physical picture of the world,
namely the system of views of matter as a set of atoms separated from each other,
possessing immutable volume and inertia (mass), and influencing each other
instantaneously either at a distance or through contact. Revision of the physical picture of
the world changed the view of space and time. The discovery of the electromagnetic field
and the realisation that field could not be reduced to a state of mechanical environment
revealed the flaws in the classical picture of the world. It turned out that matter could not
be represented as a set of separate, strictly dissociated elements. The particles of matter are
indeed connected with one another in integral systems by fields whose action is transmitted
at a finite speed that is equal for any closed system (the speed of light in a vacuum).
It was held previously that if all matter disappeared from the universe, space and time
would remain. The theory of relativity, however, maintains that with the disappearance of
matter space and time would also disappear.
To sum up, everything in the world is spatial and temporal. Space and time are absolute. But
since these are forms of matter in motion, they are not indifferent to their content. When it
moves, an object does not leave an empty form behind it, space is not an apartment that
can be let out to such a tenant as matter, and time cannot be compared to some monster
that gnaws at things and leaves its tooth marks on them. Space and time are conditioned by
matter, as a form is conditioned by its content, and every level of the motion of matter
possesses its space-time structure. Thus living cells and organisms, in which geometry
becomes more complex and the rhythm of time changes, possess special space-time
properties. This is biological time. There is also historical time, whose unit may be the
replacement of one generation by another, which corresponds to a century. Depending on
our practical needs, historical time is counted in centuries and millennia. The reference point
may be certain cultural-historical events or even legends.
The finite and the infinite. Whose imagination has not been stirred by a mysterious sense of
the vastness of the universe? What man has looked up at the dark sky glittering with its
myriads of stars and not been awed by the glamour of outer space? Whose heart has not
been moved by the majestic splendour of the nocturnal heavens?
In our everyday lives, our dealings with everything around us, we encounter finite objects,
processes. The finite means something that has an end, that is limited in space. In everyday
practice we may mean by infinity anything very big or very small, depending on the
circumstances. For example, one billion raised to the power of one hundred is in practice an
infinite quantity. Our experience is too limited for us to be able to define infinity. Scientists
like to joke that they begin to understand infinity only when they think of human folly. One
may throw a spear from a certain point in space and from the place where it lands one may
repeat the throw. And one may go on doing this again and again, never reaching any
boundary. No matter how distant a star may be from us we may still go further than that
star. The universe is never "boarded up". Infinity cannot be traversed to its end. Such infinity
 8

would be a "false" infinity. True infinity means constant going beyond the limits of the finite.
The universe is not given in any cut-and-dried form, it is constantly reproducing itself; it is a
reality that is constantly recreated. The infinite manifests itself in the finite and through the
finite. Through the finite we come to an understanding, a knowledge of the infinite. The
finite is a constantly appearing and disappearing moment of an infinite process of change.
Change in general is associated with an object's going beyond its spatial, temporal,
quantitative and qualitative limits. The very fact of the interaction of things is constant
going beyond the limits of finite, individual existence. In this constant "going beyond
oneself" into outer being, lies the infinite nature of the finite. An object has innumerable
relations with other objects. Thereby it acquires an infinite number of properties. And in this
sense infinity implies qualitative diversity, realised in space and time.
We have advanced from the scale of the Earth to the expanses of outer space, to time that
has no beginning and no end. This is extensive infinity. We ourselves appear to be standing
midway between the infinite expanses of the universe with its worlds that are known or
unknown to us and the equally infinite depths of the world of the smallest particles of
matter, which is intensive infinity. We are the junction, as it were, of roads that lead away
into the infinitely large and the infinitely small. We are mere specks of dust in comparison
with the stars and at the same time we are giants compared to the tiny microorganisms that
swarm in every drop of water.
Thought has penetrated from regions describable only in terms of millions of light years to
regions that may be measured in trillionths of a centimetre! And there, too, we find the
properties of the finite and the infinite. Thus, many physicists assume the existence of a
certain basic length—the spatial quantum. It would, they say, be as pointless to consider
any smaller length as it would be to consider, for example, a quantity of gold less than one
atom, because such a quantity would not even constitute the given chemical element. So
scientists assume the existence of "atoms" of space. From this follows the recognition of
minimal time, beyond whose limits the concept of phase, that is to say, changes of state in
time, loses all meaning.
At attempt to refute the theory of the infinity of the universe is to be found in the concept
of the "expanding" universe. James Jeans, for example, assumed that not only was the
quantity of matter in the universe diminishing, but also that any matter that remained was
constantly receding into space at colossal and ominously increasing speed. And yet there
are no valid grounds for such conclusions. The metagalaxy in which we observe this
centrifugal movement of the galaxies, despite its enormous size as it appears to us, is only a
tiny particle in the infinite universe, so it cannot be assumed that the whole universe is
"expanding".
To sum up, all objects and processes in the world are finite. But the totality of finite things
and processes is infinite. The universe had no beginning, has no end and is inexhaustible.
Beyond the most distant stellar systems that modern science and technology have
permitted us to observe there are still other gigantic celestial bodies. And so on ad
infinitum. There are no limits beyond which there might be something that cannot be
embraced by the concept of objective reality and there is nothing above it or outside it.
Objective reality is in everything. It is everything. The concept of limit has meaning only
 9

when applied to the finite. Neither our distance-bound imagination nor the spacemen of
the future can ever encounter some supernatural obstacle such as non-existence. They will
never run into something that differs from matter. No matter how much time passes prior
to some event, time will go on after it. No matter how long ago a certain event took place, it
was preceded by countless other events. The chain of events has never been broken. Its
links are numberless. In the universe as a whole there is no initial or culminating point; the
universe is equally open at both ends. If time were finite, the world must have had a
beginning. To acknowledge the beginning of the world's existence in time would be to
acknowledge creation and, consequently, a creator.
The concept of beginning is meaningful when applied not to the universe as a whole but
only to separate, specific things and processes, that is to say, to the finite. We can set no
limits to the universe as a whole. It categorically forbids us to do so. It is ageless. It is
infinitely old and eternally young. Someone once wittily remarked that he could not imagine
the universe having lived its life and sadly vegetating for the rest of eternity.
{==============}
Q.3 What is social group? Write down the types o f social groups with examples
from Pakistani society?
Answer:
Man’s life is a group life to a large extent. If a person lives in society, he typically is also a
member of a number of groups which may themselves be considered as existing in a
society. A group is a number of people involved in a pattern of association with one
another. Typical groups are a clique of friends, a political party, and a sports club.
The key to the nature of human grouping is the notion of association. Groups are created
and maintained because they enable individual members to attain certain goals or interests
which they hold in common. Our social behaviour and personalities are shaped by the
groups to which we belong. Throughout his life, individual is a member of various groups,
some are chosen by him, others are assigned to him at birth.
Groups constitute the complex pattern of the ‘social structure’. Groups are a part of society.
Meaning of Social Groups:
Two or more persons in interaction constitute a social group. It has common aim. In its strict
sense, group is a collection of people interacting together in an orderly way on the basis of
shared expectations about each other’s behaviour. As a result of this interaction, the
members of a group, feel a common sense of belonging.
A group is a collection of individuals but all collectivities do not constitute a social group. A
group is distinct from an aggregate (people waiting at railway station or bus stand) member
of which do not interact with one another. The essence of the social group is not physical
closeness or contact between the individuals but a consciousness of joint interaction.
This consciousness of interaction may be present even there is no personal contact between
individuals. For example, we are members of a national group and think ourselves as
nationals even though we are acquainted with only few people. “A social group, remarks
 10

Williams, “is a given aggregate of people playing interrelated roles and recognized by
themselves or others as a unit of interaction.
The Sociological conception of group has come to mean as indicated by Mckee, ” a plurality
of people as actors involved in a pattern of social interaction, conscious of sharing common
understanding and of accepting some rights and obligations that accrue only to members.
According to Green, “A group is an aggregate of individuals which persist in time, which has
one or more interests and activities in common and which is organised.”
According to Maclver and Page “Any collection of human beings who are brought into
social relationship with one another”. Social relationships involve some degree of reciprocity
and mutual awareness among the members of the group.
Thus, a social group consists of such members as have reciprocal relations. The members
are bound by a sense of unity. Their interest is common, behaviour is similar. They are
bound by the common consciousness of interaction. Viewed in this way, a family, a village, a
nation, a political party or a trade union is a social group.
In short, a group means a group of associated members, reciprocally interacting on one
another. Viewed in this way, all old men between fifty and sixty or men belonging to a
particular income level are regarded as ‘ aggregates’ or ‘quasi-groups’. They may become
groups when they are in interaction with one another and have a common purpose. People
belonging to a particular income level may constitute a social group when they consider
themselves to be a distinct unit with special interest.
There are large numbers of groups such as primary and secondary, voluntary and
involuntary groups and so on. Sociologists have classified social groups on the basis of size,
local distribution, permanence, degree of intimacy, type of organisation and quality of social
interaction etc.
Classification of Groups:
Different sociologists have classified groups in different ways. Social groups are not only
innumerable but also diverse. It is not possible to study all the groups. A systematic study of
groups needs a classification. Various thinkers have chosen many criteria or bases for the
classification of social groups such as size, kind of contact, nature of interests, degree of
organisation and degree of permanence etc. Some of these bases have received more
attention than others.
1. Dwight Sanderson has classified groups into three types on the bases of structure such as
involuntary, voluntary and delegate groups. An involuntary group is that to which man has
no choice, which is based on kinship such as the family, tribe or clan. A voluntary group is
one which a man joins of his volition or wishes.
At any time he is free to withdraw his membership from this group. A delegate group is one
to which a man joins as a representative of a number of people either elected or nominated
by them. Parliament or Assembly is a delegate group.
2. P.A. Sorokin, an American sociologist, has divided groups into two major types – the
vertical and the horizontal. The vertical group includes persons of different strata or
 11

statuses. But the horizontal group includes persons of the same status. A nation, for
instance, is a vertical group, while a class represents horizontal grouping.
3. F.H. Giddings classifies groups into genetic and congregate. The genetic group is the
family in which a man is born involuntarily. The congregate group is the voluntary group to
which he joins voluntarily.
4. George Hasen has classified groups into four types on the basis of their relations to other
groups. They are unsocial, pseudo-social, antisocial and pro-social groups. An unsocial
group is one which largely lives to itself and for itself and does not participate in the larger
society of which it is a part. It does not mix-up with other groups and remains aloof from
them.
But it never goes against the interests of the larger group. A pseudo-social group
participates in the larger group of which it is a part but mainly for its own gain and not for
the greater good. An antisocial group is one, which acts against the interest of the larger
group of which it is a part. A pro-social group is the reverse of the antisocial group. It works
for the larger interest of the society of which it is a part.
5. C.H. Cooley classified groups on the basis of kind of contact into primary and secondary
groups. In primary group, there is face-to-face, close and intimate relationship among the
members such as in the family. But in a secondary group the relationship among the
members are indirect, impersonal and superficial such a the political party, a city and trade
union etc.
6. W.G. Sumner made a division of groups into in-group and out-group. The groups with
which the individual identifies himself are his in-groups such as his family, tribe, college,
occupation etc. All other groups to which he does not belong are his out-groups.
{==============}
Q.4 Explain in brief the structure of culture with respect to its basic elements?
Answer:
Culture was defined earlier as the symbols, language, beliefs, values, and artifacts that are
part of any society. As this definition suggests, there are two basic components of culture:
ideas and symbols on the one hand and artifacts (material objects) on the other. The first
type, called nonmaterial culture, includes the values, beliefs, symbols, and language that
define a society. The second type, called material culture, includes all the society’s physical
objects, such as its tools and technology, clothing, eating utensils, and means of
transportation. These elements of culture are discussed next.
Symbols
Every culture is filled with symbols, or things that stand for something else and that often
evoke various reactions and emotions. Some symbols are actually types of nonverbal
communication, while other symbols are in fact material objects. As the symbolic
interactionist perspective discussed in Chapter 1 “Sociology and the Sociological
Perspective” emphasizes, shared symbols make social interaction possible.
 12

Let’s look at nonverbal symbols first. A common one is shaking hands, which is done in
some societies but not in others. It commonly conveys friendship and is used as a sign of
both greeting and departure. Probably all societies have nonverbal symbols we
call gestures, movements of the hands, arms, or other parts of the body that are meant to
convey certain ideas or emotions. However, the same gesture can mean one thing in one
society and something quite different in another society (Axtell, 1998). In the United States,
for example, if we nod our head up and down, we mean yes, and if we shake it back and
forth, we mean no. In Bulgaria, however, nodding means no, while shaking our head back
and forth means yes! In the United States, if we make an “O” by putting our thumb and
forefinger together, we mean “OK,” but the same gesture in certain parts of Europe signifies
an obscenity. “Thumbs up” in the United States means “great” or “wonderful,” but in
Australia it means the same thing as extending the middle finger in the United States.
Certain parts of the Middle East and Asia would be offended if they saw you using your left
hand to eat, because they use their left hand for bathroom hygiene.
Some of our most important symbols are objects. Here the U.S. flag is a prime example. For
most Americans, the flag is not just a piece of cloth with red and white stripes and white
stars against a field of blue. Instead, it is a symbol of freedom, democracy, and other
American values and, accordingly, inspires pride and patriotism. During the Vietnam War,
however, the flag became to many Americans a symbol of war and imperialism. Some
burned the flag in protest, prompting angry attacks by bystanders and negative coverage
by the news media.
Other objects have symbolic value for religious reasons. Three of the most familiar religious
symbols in many nations are the cross, the Star of David, and the crescent moon, which are
widely understood to represent Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, respectively. Whereas many
cultures attach no religious significance to these shapes, for many people across the world
they evoke very strong feelings of religious faith. Recognizing this, hate groups have often
desecrated these symbols.
As these examples indicate, shared symbols, both nonverbal communication and tangible
objects, are an important part of any culture but also can lead to misunderstandings and
even hostility. These problems underscore the significance of symbols for social interaction
and meaning.
Language
Perhaps our most important set of symbols is language. In English, the word chair means
something we sit on. In Spanish, the word silla means the same thing. As long as we agree
how to interpret these words, a shared language and thus society are possible. By the same
token, differences in languages can make it quite difficult to communicate. For example,
imagine you are in a foreign country where you do not know the language and the
country’s citizens do not know yours. Worse yet, you forgot to bring your dictionary that
translates their language into yours, and vice versa, and your iPhone battery has died. You
become lost. How will you get help? What will you do? Is there any way to communicate
your plight?
 13

As this scenario suggests, language is crucial to communication and thus to any society’s
culture. Children learn language from their culture just as they learn about shaking hands,
about gestures, and about the significance of the flag and other symbols. Humans have a
capacity for language that no other animal species possesses. Our capacity for language in
turn helps make our complex culture possible.
Norms
Cultures differ widely in their norms, or standards and expectations for behaving. We
already saw that the nature of drunken behavior depends on society’s expectations of how
people should behave when drunk. Norms of drunken behavior influence how we behave
when we drink too much.
Norms are often divided into two types, formal norms and informal norms. Formal norms,
also called mores (MOOR-ayz) and laws, refer to the standards of behavior considered the
most important in any society. Examples in the United States include traffic laws, criminal
codes, and, in a college context, student behavior codes addressing such things as cheating
and hate speech. Informal norms, also called folkways and customs, refer to standards of
behavior that are considered less important but still influence how we behave. Table
manners are a common example of informal norms, as are such everyday behaviors as how
we interact with a cashier and how we ride in an elevator.
Many norms differ dramatically from one culture to the next. Some of the best evidence for
cultural variation in norms comes from the study of sexual behavior (Edgerton, 1976).
Among the Pokot of East Africa, for example, women are expected to enjoy sex, while
among the Gusii a few hundred miles away, women who enjoy sex are considered deviant.
In Inis Beag, a small island off the coast of Ireland, sex is considered embarrassing and even
disgusting; men feel that intercourse drains their strength, while women consider it a
burden. Even nudity is considered terrible, and people on Inis Beag keep their clothes on
while they bathe. The situation is quite different in Mangaia, a small island in the South
Pacific. Here sex is considered very enjoyable, and it is the major subject of songs and
stories.
While many societies frown on homosexuality, others accept it. Among the Azande of East
Africa, for example, young warriors live with each other and are not allowed to marry.
During this time, they often have sex with younger boys, and this homosexuality is
approved by their culture. Among the Sambia of New Guinea, young males live separately
from females and engage in homosexual behavior for at least a decade. It is felt that the
boys would be less masculine if they continued to live with their mothers and that the
semen of older males helps young boys become strong and fierce (Edgerton, 1976).
Rituals
Different cultures also have different rituals, or established procedures and ceremonies that
often mark transitions in the life course. As such, rituals both reflect and transmit a culture’s
norms and other elements from one generation to the next. Graduation ceremonies in
colleges and universities are familiar examples of time-honored rituals. In many societies,
rituals help signify one’s gender identity. For example, girls around the world undergo
various types of initiation ceremonies to mark their transition to adulthood. Among the
 14

Bemba of Zambia, girls undergo a month-long initiation ceremony called the chisungu, in
which girls learn songs, dances, and secret terms that only women know (Maybury-Lewis,
1998). In some cultures, special ceremonies also mark a girl’s first menstrual period. Such
ceremonies are largely absent in the United States, where a girl’s first period is a private
matter. But in other cultures the first period is a cause for celebration involving gifts, music,
and food (Hathaway, 1997).
Boys have their own initiation ceremonies, some of them involving circumcision. That said,
the ways in which circumcisions are done and the ceremonies accompanying them differ
widely. In the United States, boys who are circumcised usually undergo a quick procedure in
the hospital. If their parents are observant Jews, circumcision will be part of a religious
ceremony, and a religious figure called a moyel will perform the circumcision. In contrast,
circumcision among the Maasai of East Africa is used as a test of manhood. If a boy being
circumcised shows signs of fear, he might well be ridiculed (Maybury-Lewis, 1998).
{==============}
Q.5 Discuss in detail the structure and characteristics of industrial and post-
industrial societies?
Answer:
An Industrial society is one in which technologies of mass production are used to make vast
amounts of goods in factories, and in which this is the dominant mode of production and
organizer of social life. This means that a true industrial society not only features mass
factory production but also has a particular social structure designed to support such
operations. Such a society is typically organized hierarchically by class and features a rigid
division of labor among workers and factory owners.
Beginnings
Historically speaking, many societies in the West, including the United States, became
industrial societies following the Industrial Revolution that swept through Europe and then
the United States from the late 1700s on.
The transition from what were agrarian or trade-based pre-Industrial societies to industrial
societies, and its many political, economic, and social implications, became the focus of
early social science and motivated the research of the founding thinkers of sociology,
including Karl Marx, Émiel Durkheim, and Max Weber, among others.
People moved from farms to urban centers where the factory jobs were, as farms
themselves needed fewer laborers. Farms, too, eventually became more industrialized, using
mechanical planters and combine harvesters to do the work of multiple people.
Marx was especially interested in understanding how a capitalist economy organized
industrial production, and how the transition from early capitalism to industrial capitalism
reshaped the social and political structure of society.
Studying industrial societies of Europe and Britain, Marx found they featured hierarchies of
power that correlated with what role a person played in the process of production, or class
 15

status, (worker versus owner) and that political decisions were made by the ruling class to
preserve their economic interests within this system.
Durkheim was interested in how people play different roles and fulfill different purposes in a
complex, industrial society, which he and others referred to as a division of labor. Durkheim
believed that such a society functioned much like an organism and that the various parts of
it adapted to changes in others to maintain stability.
Among other things, Weber's theory and research focused on how the combination of
technology and economic order that characterized industrial societies ultimately became
the key organizers of society and social life, and that this limited free and creative thinking,
and the individual's choices and actions. He referred to this phenomenon as "the iron cage."
Taking all of these theories into account, sociologists believe that in industrial societies, all
other aspects of society, like education, politics, media, and law, among others, work to
support the production goals of that society. In a capitalist context, they also work to
support profit goals of the industries of that society.
A post-industrial society is a stage in a society's evolution when the economy shifts from
producing and providing goods and products to one that mainly offers services. A
manufacturing society is comprised of people working in construction, textiles, mills and
production workers whereas, in the service sector, people work as teachers, doctors,
lawyers, and retail workers. In a post-industrial society, technology, information, and
services are more important than manufacturing actual goods.
Post-Industrial Society: Timeline
A post-industrial society is born on the heels of an industrialized society during which time
goods were mass-produced utilizing machinery. Post-industrialization exists in Europe,
Japan, and the United States, and the U.S. was the first country with more than 50 percent
of its workers employed in service sector jobs. A post-industrial society not only transforms
the economy; it alters society as a whole.
Characteristics of Post-Industrial Societies
Sociologist Daniel Bell made the term "post-industrial" popular in 1973 after discussing the
concept in his book "The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social
Forecasting." He described the following shifts associated with post-industrial societies:
• Production of goods (like clothing) declines and the production of services (like
restaurants) goes up.
• Manual labor jobs and blue collar jobs are replaced with technical and professional
jobs.
• Society experiences a shift from focusing on practical knowledge to theoretical
knowledge. The latter involves the creation of new, invention solutions.
• There is a focus on new technologies, how to create and utilize them as well as
harness them.
 16

• New technologies foster the need for new scientific approaches like IT and cyber
security.
• Society needs more college graduates with advanced knowledge who can help
develop and advance technological change.
Post-Industrial Societal Shifts in the U.S.
1. About 15 percent of the labor force (only 18.8 million Americans out of a workforce
of 126 million) now works in manufacturing compared to 26 percent 25 years ago.
2. Traditionally, people earned status and gained and privilege in their society through
inheritance which could be a family farm or business. Today education is the currency
for social mobility, particularly with the proliferation of professional and technical
jobs. Entrepreneurship, which is highly valued, generally requires a more advanced
education.
3. The concept of capital was, until fairly recently, considered mainly to be financial
capital gained through money or land. Human capital is now the more important
element in determining the strength of a society. Today, that's evolved into the
concept of social capital -- the extent to which people have access to social networks
and subsequent opportunities.
4. Intellectual technology (based on math and linguistics) is at the forefront, utilizing
algorithms, software programming, simulations and models to run new "high
technology."
5. The infrastructure of a post-industrial society is based on communication whereas
the infrastructure of industrial society was transportation.
6. An industrial society features a labor theory based on value, and industry develops
proceeds with the creation of labor-saving devices which substitute capital for labor.
In a post-industrial society, knowledge is the basis for invention and innovation. It
creates added value, increases returns and saves capital.
{==============}