Social structure of the society

In its narrow meaning the social sphere is designed for the members of the society who are regarded as socially unprotected (pensioners, unemployed, with low incomes or with many children etc) and the establishments that provide their service, namely, the bodies of social security (including social insurance) of both local and national subordination. In this case, the social sphere is designed

for the poorer layers of the population.

There are other approaches as to the number of parts or spheres of the society but they are all united by a view that social subsystems cannot exist as isolated. They are arranged in a pattern of relationships that, together, make the system. The social naturally penetrates into the productive and managerial spheres since people of different nationalities, ages, sexes and confessions can work together at an enterprise, on the one hand. On the other hand, if the country’s economy doesn’t perform its main objective to satisfy the population with the sufficient amount of goods and services, the number of jobs doesn’t increase, there may arise negative consequences in the society. For instance, the money is short to pay wages and pensions, unemployment appears, the living standards of the socially unprotected layers are decreasing, crimes are increasing etc. In other words, success or recession in one sphere has a great influence on prosperity in the other one.

The third type of social structure is best developed by structural functionalists who assert that structure arises out of face-to-face interactions of people. Interactions make up patterns which are independent of the particular individual, because patterns are determined by social norms and values of the given society. For instance, somebody needs money. He can earn it, but if in some society robbery or burglary is not disapproved of, he may rob someone to reach the purpose. So patterns exert a force which shapes behaviour and identity. That’s why T. Parsons and his supporters define social structure as the way in which the society is organized into predictable relationships, or invariable patterns of social interaction called institutions.

Social structure does not concern itself with the people forming the society or their social organizations, neither does it study who are the people or organizations forming it, or what is the ultimate goal of their relations. Social structure deals rather with the very structure of their relations – how they are organized in a pattern of relationships, or institution. So due to structural functionlism, structural elements of the society are social institutions and social groupings; structural units are social norms and values.

Social groupings and communities

Social groupings are social groups, social classes and layers, communities, social organizations, social statuses and roles.

A group is a number of people or things which we class together, so that they form a whole. In our minds we could group any assortment of people together. For instance, you could group together Phillip Kirkorov, your nearest relative, the person who sat opposite you last time you were on a bus, Santa Clause and a shop-assistant from the Hippo market in Serebryanka. But a social group, however, means more than just an assortment of people. There must be something to hold them together as a whole.

To be a social group, people must:

· interact with one another,

· perceive themselves as a group.

Social group is an assortment of people associated by a socially significant distinction, people who interact together in an orderly way and perceive themselves or perceived by others as a group.

Any social group is characterized by a number of attributes:

· interaction within a group is realized on the basis of shared norms, values and expectations about one another’s behaviour;

· groups develop their own internal structure: kernel and periphery, norms, value, statuses and roles; they can be rigid and formal or loose and flexible;

· there is a sense of belonging, individuals identify with the group; outsiders are distinguished from members and treated differently;

· groups are formed for a purpose – specific or diffuse;

· people in a group tend to be similar, and the more they participate, the more similar they become.

There are a lot of classifications of social groups. The first one embraces statistical and real groups. A statistical group is an assortment of people differentiated by a definite characteristic that can be measured. For instance, citizens are people living in formal settlements called cities. A real group possesses a number of characteristics describing its immanent essence. So, citizens are people living in cities, who live an urban way of life with highly diversified labour (mainly industrial and information kinds) and leisure activities, with high professional and social mobility, high frequency of human contacts in formal communication etc. According to this definition, only a part of the statistical group of citizens comply with the criterion of being urbanites, or not everyone who lives in city can belong to the real group of citizens.

Another type is a reference group as any group we use to evaluate ourselves, but it doesn’t necessarily mean we must belong to it. It is like a target group in the market: a target group of black BMW cars is composed of people with high income, of a certain age, males etc. David is a person with such characteristics but he doesn’t like BMWs. He prefers Volvos. The normative function of the reference group is to set and enforce standards of conduct and belief. Its comparison function is viewed as a standard by which people can measure themselves or others. For instance, we compare confessional groups to examine some features, let’s say, Jews and Protestants, and find out that Jews display 20% greater tolerance. So if you are a Jew, you’re perceived by others as a more tolerant person.

Social groups can also be classified according to their size, character of organization, emotional depth, accomplished objective etc.

According to size, groups can be small, middle-sized and large ones. Small social groups, normally small in number, are characterized by human interactions in the form of direct contacts like in families. The smallest groups are stable and more constraining, but offer more intimacy and individuality. As size increases, freedom increases, but intimacy declines and the emerging group structure tends to limit individuality. Contacts are frequent and intensive; members take each other into account as they group together on the basis of shared norms, values and expectations about one another’s behaviour. As more people are added to the group (up to 20), complexity increases, subdivisions appear.

Middle-sized social groups are relatively stable communities of people working at the same enterprise or organization, members of a social association or those sharing one limited but large enough territory, for example, people living in one district, city or region. The first type is called labour-organizational groups, the second one – territorial groups. People are united into labour-organizational groups to accomplish a certain purpose or objective that determines its composition, structure and type of activities, interpersonal interaction and relations.

 Скачать реферат