Chapter 1 Social Structure, Stratification And Social Processes In Society

Introduction

Building on the previous discussion about the relationship between personal lives and social issues, this chapter explores how individuals are located within various social collectivities (groups, classes, castes, tribes, genders) and occupy specific positions within the social structure and social stratification system. This location influences their access to social resources and life choices.

Relationship With Previous Book And Individual Location

The earlier book introduced the interplay between personal problems and social issues, and how individuals belong to multiple overlapping collectivities (family, peer group, class, gender, country, region). Each person has a specific location in the social structure and stratification system, which impacts their access to resources and opportunities.

Influence Of Structure And Stratification

A central question is the extent to which individuals are constrained by social structure and their position within the stratification system, and conversely, the extent of their freedom. This includes examining how structure and stratification influence how people cooperate, compete, and conflict with each other.

Central Questions And Chapter Outline

This chapter will briefly discuss 'social structure' and 'social stratification'. The main focus will then shift to three key social processes: cooperation, competition, and conflict. For each process, the chapter will explore how social structure and stratification impact the ways in which individuals and groups engage in these processes.

Social Structure And Stratification

Understanding society requires recognising that it is not a random collection of individuals or events but is organised in specific ways. The concept of social structure helps capture this organisation.

Defining Social Structure

The term social structure refers to the underlying regularities, patterns, or arrangements in how people behave and relate to each other. It's about the patterned regularities of social interaction. A helpful metaphor is comparing social structure to the structure of a building (walls, floor, roof giving shape), though this is a simplification. Social structures are made up of human actions and relationships, and their patterning comes from repetition over time and space.

Metaphors And Social Reproduction

The building metaphor highlights how structures (like in a school or family) provide a framework and patterned behaviour (admission procedures, code of conduct, family roles). These patterns are repeated by members, leading to social reproduction – the continuation of the structure even as individuals change. However, humans are not just passive bricks; they also introduce changes while reproducing the structure.

Social Structure As Constraint (Durkheim)

Emile Durkheim viewed social structure as a force that exerts social constraint over individuals' actions. For Durkheim, society is primary and external to the individual, limiting what we can do, similar to how the physical structure of a room limits movement. Social facts, according to Durkheim, have a 'firmness' or 'solidity' like material structures and constrain individuals.

Structure, Agency, And Change (Marx)

Karl Marx also acknowledged the constraints of social structure but emphasised human creativity or agency – the capacity of humans to act both to reproduce and to change social structure. Marx argued that humans make history within the constraints and possibilities of their structural and historical situation. This highlights the dynamic interplay between structure (constraints) and agency (human action and ability to change).

Defining Social Stratification

Social stratification refers to the existence of structured inequalities between groups in society regarding their access to material or symbolic resources (wealth, power, prestige). It implies that society is divided into a patterned hierarchy of unequal groups, and this structure tends to persist across generations. Stratification is not random; it is systematically linked to membership in different social groups (class, caste, race, gender, region, community, tribe).

Patterned Inequality And Group Membership

Inequality in society is patterned and systematic, linked to membership in specific social groups. Superior groups tend to maintain their privileged position and pass it on across generations. Stratification highlights how inequality is structured and persists, rather than being randomly distributed.

Forms Of Advantage

Privileged groups typically enjoy advantages in three main forms:

• Life Chances: Material advantages improving quality of life (wealth, income, health, job security, recreation).
• Social Status: High prestige or standing in the eyes of others.
• Political Influence: Ability to dominate others, influence decision-making, or benefit from decisions.

These forms of advantage are unequally distributed along lines of social stratification (gender, class, caste, etc.), shaping opportunities and resources for individuals and groups in their interactions (cooperation, competition, conflict). However, individuals also act to modify these structures and systems.

(Durkheim's quote highlights how social constraints, defined by law and custom, are external to individuals and shape their behaviour, using examples of social roles, religious beliefs, and economic systems functioning independently of individual use.)

Two Ways Of Understanding Social Processes In Sociology

Sociology seeks to explain social processes like cooperation, competition, and conflict not based on simple common-sense or psychological explanations ('human nature') but in terms of the actual social structure of society. Different sociological perspectives offer contrasting understandings of these processes.

Common Sense Versus Sociological Understanding

Common sense about cooperation, competition, and conflict is often unexamined and taken for granted ('it's just human nature'). Sociology questions these assumptions and seeks explanations based on the social structure. It avoids naturalistic or purely psychological accounts, focusing instead on how societal arrangements shape these processes.

Functionalist Perspective

From a functionalist perspective, cooperation, competition, and conflict are universal features of all societies, arising from inevitable human interactions. The focus is on how these processes contribute to maintaining the social system. Functionalists tend to see competition and conflict as often resolving themselves or even benefiting society by promoting adaptation and equilibrium. They are analysed in terms of their contribution to 'system sustenance'.

Conflict Perspective

From a conflict perspective, cooperation, competition, and conflict are understood in terms of inequality and power differentials arising from social divisions (class, caste, patriarchy). Cooperation, especially in stratified societies, is often seen as potentially involving conflict due to differing interests of dominant and subordinate groups. Conflict is not viewed as an aberration but as inherent in unequal social structures. It is recognised that dominant groups use norms and coercion to maintain their privileged position, which shapes these social processes.

System Requirements (Functionalism)

The functionalist perspective focuses on 'system requirements' or 'functional prerequisites'—the basic conditions necessary for a society's existence (socialisation, communication, role assignment). Cooperation, competition, and conflict are understood in relation to fulfilling these societal needs.

Cooperation And Conflict In Different Societies

Conflict theorists emphasise how cooperation varies across historical societies. In simple societies without surplus production, cooperation might be less marked by class divisions. In feudal or capitalist societies with surplus and dominant classes, cooperation involves potential conflict due to unequal distribution of resources and power. The position of groups within production relations defines their experience of these processes.

Both functionalist and conflict perspectives acknowledge human cooperation for meeting needs. But they differ on the extent of voluntary cooperation in societies marked by inequality. Functionalists may see accommodation as compromise for co-existence; conflict theorists may see it as enforced cooperation concealing deeper conflicts.

(These visuals likely depict different social interactions or scenarios illustrating the three key social processes: people working together (cooperation), individuals or groups striving against each other (competition), and open clashes or disagreements (conflict).)

Cooperation And Division Of Labour

Cooperation, the act of working together for a common purpose, is fundamental to human social life, essential for survival and societal functioning. Different sociological traditions have explored cooperation and its link to the division of labour.

Cooperation As Human Necessity

Human life, unlike perhaps some interpretations of animal life, is seen as inherently social and requiring cooperation for survival and flourishing. Sociological perspectives generally reject the idea that human nature is purely selfish or 'brutish'.

Durkheim: Solidarity And Division Of Labour

Emile Durkheim viewed solidarity (the moral force binding society) as crucial for understanding cooperation. He linked cooperation to the division of labour (specialisation of tasks). Durkheim distinguished between two types of solidarity:

• Mechanical Solidarity: Found in pre-industrial societies with low division of labour. Cohesion based on similarity, shared beliefs, and common conscience.
• Organic Solidarity: Found in complex industrial societies with high division of labour. Cohesion based on interdependence resulting from specialisation. People rely on others in different occupations to meet their needs.

Both are forms of cooperation, but their basis differs with societal complexity and division of labour.

Marx: Consciousness And Production

Karl Marx distinguished humans from animals by consciousness and the ability to produce their means of subsistence. Human cooperation is tied to this process of material production. Humans not only adjust to cooperate but also actively change their world (natural and social) in the process of cooperation.

Cooperation And Change

Human cooperation is dynamic, involving adjustment and accommodation, but also actively changing the environment or social world. Technological innovations, for example, demonstrate how humans cooperate to overcome natural constraints and transform their lives and the world. This process involves constant interaction and change.

Cooperation And Class (Marx)

For Karl Marx, cooperation is not always voluntary in societies divided by class. In class-divided societies (feudal or capitalist), cooperation in production leads to increased collective social power, but this power appears to individuals as an external, alien force because their cooperation is not voluntary but arises from the structure of production relations. The dominant class (owners of means of production) appropriates the surplus produced by cooperative labour.

Alienation

Marx used the term alienation to describe the condition of workers in capitalist societies. Workers lose control over their labour process (how they work) and the products of their labour (what they produce). This loss of control makes cooperation feel enforced rather than voluntary, creating a sense of separation from one's work and its outcome. The repetitive, fragmented tasks in factories, contrasted with the holistic work of traditional artisans, illustrate this alienation, where cooperation serves the interests of the dominant class rather than being a collective expression of human potential.

Competition As An Idea And Practice

Competition, often seen as natural and universal, is sociologically understood as a social entity that emerges and becomes dominant at particular historical points, particularly with the rise of capitalism.

Competition: Not Natural But Social

Sociology challenges the idea that competition is simply a natural human instinct. Instead, it is viewed as a product of specific social and historical conditions. The dominance of competition in the contemporary period is linked to the way modern capitalist society functions.

The Anecdote Of The Children

An anecdote about children in Africa who disliked a competitive race (rewarding a winner while excluding others) illustrates that competition is not universally enjoyed or understood as a natural form of interaction. Their preference for cooperative, collective experiences highlights how social norms and cultural ideas shape attitudes towards competition.

Competition In Modern Capitalism

In the modern world, competition is a dominant norm and practice intrinsic to capitalism. The system stresses efficiency and profit maximisation, fuelled by individuals competing freely in the market to maximise gains. Capitalism relies on assumptions like expansion of trade, division of labour, specialisation, and rising productivity, driven by competitive self-interest.

Ideology Of Competition

The dominant ideology in capitalism is the ideology of competition, which asserts that the market functions most efficiently through free competition. This ideology suggests that competition ensures the survival of the most efficient firms or individuals (e.g., best students getting into prestigious colleges), where "best" is defined in terms of material rewards or outcomes. This ideology is often taken for granted, assuming individuals compete on an equal basis.

Unequal Basis Of Competition

Sociology questions the assumption that individuals compete on an equal footing. Stratification and inequality mean individuals are placed differentially in society, lacking equal access to resources or opportunities (e.g., many children in India dropping out of school are excluded from educational/job competition). The ideology of competition often masks these underlying inequalities.

Views On Competition (J.S. Mill)

Liberals like J.S. Mill held varied views on competition, sometimes seeing harmful effects but also potential benefits (like driving efficiency for maximum output at minimum cost). He also suggested that competition, in a broad individualistic society, might be necessary to activate collective interests that bind the group together.

Conflict And Cooperation

Conflict implies a clash of interests. Conflict theorists view scarcity of resources as producing conflict between groups struggling for access and control. Conflict can be based on various social divisions (class, caste, gender, ethnicity, religion).

Defining Conflict

Conflict is defined as a clash or disagreement of interests between individuals or groups. It is an inherent aspect of social life, particularly in societies marked by inequality and competition over resources.

Conflict Is Not New

Contrary to the common perception that conflict is a new phenomenon, sociology highlights that conflicts have always been part of societies, though their nature and form change with social development. Social change and democratic assertions by disadvantaged groups can make existing conflicts more visible, not create them anew. Conflicts in developing countries between old and new orders, though sometimes violent, are part of the process of social transformation.

(M.N. Srinivas' quote emphasises that conflict is not abnormal or unique to developing societies, and the 'old order' often involved significant cruelties despite appearing 'peaceful' on the surface. It cautions against romanticising the past or viewing conflict as pathological.)

Overt Versus Covert Conflict

Conflict is not always openly expressed as a clash or movement (overt conflict). It can exist in a concealed form (covert conflict). The absence of overt conflict does not mean the absence of its underlying causes. Sociology explores the relationship between conflict, involuntary cooperation, and resistance, recognising that deep conflicts can exist even when behaviour appears cooperative.

Conflict In Family And Household

While traditionally seen as harmonious units based on cooperation and altruism, feminist analysis reveals that families can also be sites of conflict, often unexpressed or 'enforced cooperation'. Amartya Sen notes that even when serious conflicts of interest exist within families, the structure may require them to be presented as cooperation, with conflicts treated as deviations. This is particularly relevant for subordinate members like women.

Enforced Cooperation (Amartya Sen)

Sen uses the term 'enforced cooperation' to describe situations where individuals, despite having conflicting interests, engage in overtly cooperative behaviour due to systemic pressures or lack of alternatives. This is common where subordinate groups (like women in patriarchal households) have limited access to resources or options outside the existing structure. They may appear to comply with discriminatory practices to ensure their own long-term security or avoid negative consequences from challenging the dominant norms. This highlights how cooperation can conceal underlying conflicts.

Coping Strategies And Covert Conflict

When conflict is not openly expressed, subordinate sections (women, peasants) develop various strategies to cope and ensure cooperation, which may include appearing to conform while engaging in covert resistance. Sociological studies reveal how covert conflict and overt cooperation often coexist. Women's strategies may include appearing to subscribe to discriminatory norms (like son preference) for security, or using clandestine tactics (secret business, alliances) to resist male power within the household, reflecting limited options for open conflict.

Land Conflicts

Land conflicts, as illustrated by the Harbaksh-Nathu Ahir anecdote, reveal how conflict over resources is shaped by social structure (caste, land ownership) and power dynamics (police influence). Such conflicts may involve resorting to violence when legal/formal means are unavailable due to lack of official records, highlighting the intersection of social structure, power, and conflict over material resources.

Technology And Cooperation

The level of technology can influence the need for cooperation. Traditional technologies (like Charas for irrigation) requiring significant manual labour and multiple participants necessitate cooperation between households (borrowing bullocks, manpower). Replacing these with modern technologies (like Rehat) requiring less labour and capital can reduce the necessity for such cooperation between individuals or groups, demonstrating how technology can impact social processes like cooperation within an economic context.