( Originally Published 1915 )
Meaning of Social Organization. Social organization is represented by the various parts of society in so far as they function with one another. When any group organized for a specific purpose becomes essential to social life or social order in the normal state of society, it becomes a part of the social organization. Thus, for instance, the church as an institution makes itself essential as an instructing and controlling body. So do all trades and businesses, such as the banking business, which perform an essential economic service to the community. Above and over all private social organizations is the state and the various subdivisions which, as a sort of a framework, hold the great social body together in a definite form. Just how this structure has been built up has been suggested in the chapters on social evolution. Each activity, beginning faintly at first, grows stronger and stronger until it builds about itself a definite organic group of people continuing its function in a systematic way.
The explanation just made applies more especially to societies which are somewhat developed. The term "social organization," however, must also be applied to the social relationships to be found in groups much less developed than civilized societies. It must also cover the crude beginnings of social organization. Any fixity of social relations whether the outgrowth of instinct, feeling of likeness, or of conscious social purpose must be characterized as a social organization. The essential idea in a social organization is permanency of social relationships. Sometimes such relations are produced by instinct, sometimes by the pleasurable feelings excited by being in the company of those whom we like, and at other times by the conscious appreciation of certain advantages of such relationships. They may grow out of fear and patronage, congeniality, or even force. Or, they may develop from a contract entered into by superiors and inferiors or between equals. Social organization includes all sorts of permanent relationships upon any basis whatsoever.
Development of Groups out of Social Aggregations. Granting that the primal condition of society is a loosely constructed horde, brought together through accident, from following the same desires, or from responding to the same stimuli, how did it happen that this loosely knit group finally became organized? Within this horde, smaller groups must have formed, clustering about a central interest or activity. Sometimes these social bonds centered about the sex interests, some-times about a strong personality who established bonds of authority and obedience, such as may be seen in tribal and historic feudalism, and in the primitive religious or secret society, and sometimes about economic interests. When it was sexual attraction which brought more definite social relations, gradually the family and home life was built up, with their taboos, customs, and traditions. Likewise, the religious motive causing a repetition of ceremonies finally produced an organized group of people attending to religious services. In various industrial occupations individuals began to work together to secure means of subsistence, they combined in building homes, in games, and in other social activities. All this had a tendency to diversify the life of society.
Necessity of Social Integration. Each of these small social groups, however, arising about various social interests, came into existence independently of other groups, and integration became necessary. They were often found working at cross purposes socially ; the interests of one small group clashed with those of another. In this struggle the paramount interests of the whole body of people, which might be called an aggregation, were often placed in jeopardy, especially in the presence of a hostile aggregation. This made necessary the subordinating of small circles within the group to those interests which meant survival for the whole body of people closely allied. Hence, little by little independent social groups became merged or subordinated into a central organization. This integration brought many of the scattered elements of society into compact union well illustrated by that very highly centralized organization, the patriarchal family, in which almost complete control centered in one head, who represented the controlling power of the whole. Another example is to be found in the tribe which is formed by many clan groups united for the common purposes of religion, war, and association. The confederating of various tribes into still larger groups also is a continuation of the process of integration that went on through the centuries of development of human society. Nor is this integration, though it may have logically preceded other phases of social development, ever eliminated from the social process. It is a constant factor in society building, recurring in ever larger and larger ways as society becomes more extended. It represents the progress of race unity and solidarity.
Social Composition. By the term " social composition " sociologists mean those natural divisions of society comprising all ages, sexes, marital conditions, and ethnic relationships which are each self-sufficient for their perpetuation. The term signifies the natural groups of people occupying a common territory, as contrasted with those groupings which are the results of conscious planning and for definite purposes. Examples of social composition are the family groups in modern societies, the kinship groups in primitive societies, the village -- or community groups which have grown up largely on the basis of blood relationship in both primitive and modern societies, the town, the neighborhood, and the state. Social composition predominates in the social organization of the primitive societies; the family, the horde, the tribe, and the village are the characteristic social organizations. On the other hand, in the modern civilized society the constituent society, or a group based upon likeness of interest, and formed for a definite purpose, such as partnerships, and industrial, cultural, and civil corporations, is in the ascendancy. The chief mark of a component society is that it is practically complete in itself, so that it could carry on an independent existence., In a constituent society the groups are interdependent. Under the old rιgime society was composed of a blood kindred, a development from the family group with the family relationships repeated in different forms and combinations. These various relationships held society together. Gradually the blood ties were supplanted by other social bonds, and society was composed of individuals, each of whom was connected with the whole group regardless of family relationship. As Giddings has pointed out, this change took place when for blood relationship there was substituted propinquity in the same political area.' In both tribal and civil society the social composition may be observed.
It is easy to see that the so-called structure of society is represented by a body of people working for a definite purpose, bound together in psychological and social union with other bodies of people working for different purposes no less definite. The basis of their organization may be custom or tradition on the one hand, or, on the other, a written constitution. A social organization may be a playground group drawn together by a common play interest, a primitive tribe bound together by a common blood, or a highly organized state united together by a written convenant. A group organized consciously into smaller groups on the basis of common social likenesses and interests and these smaller groups in turn integrated by common social purposes into a larger social group like the city or the state represent a much more highly developed organization because the social bonds are purposive and deliberative as compared with the sometimes accidental bonds of the blood group. Both types, however, are included under the term " social organization."
Federated Groups. All federated groups in primitive societies as well as those which spring up by the coalescence of family groups into hordes come under the category of the social composition rather than that of the social constitution. These various groups do not come together to supplement the work of each other and thus gain social advantages, but they are merely two groups of the same sort with similar purposes and near enough in race to make their union bearable in days when the blood bond was the important social tie. The union of the various Indian tribes about the lakes of central New York was such a federation? Composition refers to the grouping and character of the population. Magnitude of population, however, is a question that becomes more interesting from the sociological point of view when it concerns a society that has grown out of the primitive state. There may be a conscious effort in component societies for social integration which has for its purpose the increase of the aggregation of individuals, and the amalgamation of these individuals into a mass through matrimonial alliances or general social union. Sometimes through alliances of a general economic or social nature several tribes or nations have been united into one society. Efforts have thus been consciously made for the union of elements, which have finally yielded to complete social unity through the processes of socialization. The new group remains largely a component society. The variety of differentiated small social groups within the society work for different aims, but each of these aims is complementary to the aims of the other groups. In this way society develops to the point where the social constitution becomes pre-dominant over the social composition.
Conscious Integration. The combination of smaller groups into larger ones and the consequent development of an integral society went on during an extended period. Early in the development such growth by the combination of groups was instinctive or at most the result of the recognition of an affinity between the groups. Usually this was based on racial relation-ships. A time came, however, in the development of every society when it began to become conscious of itself. It then acted as a unit and strove to build itself into a greater society by its own conscious efforts.
Illustration of this change from unconscious, non-purposive to conscious, purposive integration is afforded by the growth of the Hebrew people by the sympathetic coalescence of the various tribes which had settled in Caanan, at first all more or less closely related by blood, and then a little later by their becoming possessed of a conscious desire to form a stronger union and select a king.' Similar examples might be multiplied. In fact the history of every important nation in existence to-day as well as of those nations whose history is all that remains supplies illustrations of this process. In different ways each sought to enlarge its territorial boundaries, to defend itself against foreign foes, and to regulate its internal affairs. It enlarged its population by absorbing other families and tribes. This was accomplished usually through conquest or treaty, or perchance by the accidental union of groups.
The So-called Social Organism. By slow degrees there was developed what in the early history of sociology was known as the social organism, a social group made up of subgroups closely related, serving each its own purpose for which it was organized, but articulating with all others in cooperation for the accomplishment of common ends, and therefore forming a social whole. The term " social organism " is only an analogy to help the student to visualize this complex and invisible social reality called a society. It implies members or parts articulating with each other and forming a whole. But this articulation is psychological rather than physical in its nature. Its bonds of organization are common feelings, purposes, aims, and hopes. The articulate body is made up of men and women inspired and held by these purposes, feelings, and hopes. Individuals moving freely by their own volition are nevertheless formed into permanent groups that are perpetuated by a succession of individuals. Thus the group of people performing the banking service are essential to the continuation of the life of a modern society, just as are those who perform the service of exchanging or transporting goods. Those who are engaged in legislative halls, the police force, or the great body of religious teachers, are distinct groups that are working to carry out the activities of society as a whole. Individuals and groups are caught and molded to social purposes and ends by the complex of community interests much as the chemical elements composing the two cells which form the beginning of a new life are caught and built up into a new unity.
Social Organization. But society is something more than a mere organism ; it is an organization. It develops a social activity and exercises a social will in giving individuals their proper place and establishing the rights and privileges of groups, as well as of individuals. The individual man may be said to be a bio-psychic organism, but he is more, for he can organize his own mental and physical forces for a special purpose. The conscious mental effort of society exercised in organizing itself makes it a super-organism, an organization.
Differentiation of Organs or Parts. After society has achieved a degree of unity it begins to differentiate or separate into new groups. This is noticed especially in the economic world, where it is marked by a division of labor. At first each individual tries to do everything for himself, then he does only a part, allowing others to do the rest in exchange for what he does for them. Soon there are the hunters, the house builders, the housekeepers, and later the manufacturers and traders. Agriculturists, bankers, transporters, etc., appear and per-form separate services. So, too, the medicine man is at first priest and doctor combined; later these services become differentiated and a group of physicians and a group of priests appear. The same differentiation is observed in government, until the legislative, executive, and judicial systems are clearly marked off with all their subdivisions. Thus the interrelated functions are developed.
The Social Constitution. By this term is meant the organization of a society as made up of interdependent groups of people, each of which groups has a different purpose and each of which therefore serves a different social need. Examples are the economic, educational, religious, and aesthetic groups of a population. Usually these groups are artificial in their origin. Each serves but one social need, while a component society serves all the fundamental social needs necessary to the existence of the group. The constituent elements of society might be called social organs. If we observe society as it is and try to enumerate all the parts of society, we shall see what is meant by these interdependent groups called organs. Here, again, we must hold clearly in mind that the term. " organs " is but a figure of speech to aid us in comprehending functions and relationships. According to Spencer, these constituent classes of society are as follows :
First, there is a large economic group which is called the sustaining group because it ministers directly to the physical sustenance of society.' It includes those branches of society engaged in producing all forms of goods for the satisfaction of human wants ; those that are engaged in the exchanging and transporting of goods, as well as in the transforming industries.
In the second category we have the perpetuating groups, such as the family, whose primary service is to perpetuate the species, and all medical and sanitary societies which seek to preserve life. Then there is the communicating system, so essential in these days to the sustaining organs, including as it does all the methods of conveying knowledge, such as the telegraph, the telephone, and the printing press. Books, newspapers, and magazines are primarily means of communicating knowledge.
Very important are those groups which may be recognized as cultural, such as the church, educational institutions, scientific, literary, aesthetic, and ethical societies.
In the making of such classification a group is classified according to its most important action, although it might be classified under several other headings.
Finally, we must mention the highly interesting and essential group known as the regulating and protecting system.' Its chief value is found in the creation and maintenance of social order. If we take the United States as an example, its systems would include the international system which establishes the relationship between our nation and others, and maintains an independent national life; the legislative, judicial, and executive institutions of the national government and of the various state governments, the municipal government, the standing army, and the police system. In addition to these we have state education, of which the primary service is not culture, but state protection or social order.
In this connection should be mentioned voluntary association, which has played an important part in establishing social order and protecting groups of people. Among these are labor organizations, insurance companies, fraternal societies, benefit societies, and charity organizations.
Constituent Parts of Society. The following diagram of the constituent parts of society may be of suggestive value if we remember that the classification is based on the most important function or special service of each organ, although a single organ may have other widely distributed functions.
I. The sustaining organs economic.
II The perpetuating groups. The family.
III. The communicating systems (essential to economic groups).
(a) The printing press and its auxiliaries, books, newspapers, magazines, etc.
IV. The cultural groups.
V. The regulating and protective system.
International institutions. The state.
This analysis might be carried much further by the student, but it serves the present purpose in the form here presented.
Differentiation an Evidence of Progress. This perpetual process of differentiation and multiplication of constituent groups is a mode of progress. Society grows by the development of a new activity and consequently of a new part. It shows its development in several ways ; first, in the specialization of the regulating system in which there is a development of new groups which have for their purpose the establishment of social order and the protection of citizens. This is followed by the specialization of industries in which each group performs a particular service. There is a wider division of labor which continually separates workers into groups. New industries are rapidly developed which add to the number of groups. As culture increases there is a continually growing number of individuals engaged in social activities, who extend their operations in many directions. Thus society the social body, the social complex grows by adding new forms and new functions, and also by the development of each special organ. Take, for instance, the service of exchange. How weak and imperfect it was at first, but now in its developed state it represents a large and powerful machine. Or consider, as an example of regulation, that the popular assembly was once a very weak body with few advisory powers, having rather a right of sanction to what had been done without power to change. Its power increased until in such countries as England and the United States the popular assembly is the most important legislative body.
Changes from Homogeneity to Heterogeneity. This social differentiation gradually changes society from a homogeneous body to a heterogeneous body, from a simple to a complex state, from an indefinite to a definite relationship. These are the essential characteristics of social evolution. The more care-fully the functions of the various constituent groups are defined, and the more exact are their operations, the more perfect is the cooperation between these groups and the unity of society. Hence, as there is apparently no limit to this differentiation, society may be said never to be completed. It is enough to determine whether a society has a healthy growth and whether, as compared with other societies, it is making progress along the lines mentioned, viz., perfecting its functions and increasing their number. The test of completeness of social organization is the degree to which it promotes the welfare of the individual.
Each individual may fill many offices and may be a part of many organs, owing to the psychological nature of society. Thus, a very common citizen may be a member of the legislature (regulating), a member of the church (cultural), president of a bank (exchange), a member of a gas company (producing), a member of the board of regents of a state university (regulative), a member of an insurance company (protective), and a member of a lodge (protective), and thus he may be organized many times over because of the power to adapt the body and the mind to different services in the social organization.
The individual occupies a peculiar position in relation to the social body.' He is a part of the organism, but as soon as he dies another takes his place, or, to speak more definitely, per-forms the service to society which he has given up. Thus society represents a stream of individuals passing through life and out of it, pushing and crowding, cooperating with others for common ends, then departing and being replaced by others.
The Relation of the Individual to the Group. This serves to explain the peculiar nature of society. In the biological organism each separate bioplast working in the cell builds up one part of the structure in its own locality, but does no more. The particles of the body may die, and be eliminated, and so may the bioplasts, but others take their places and the body is kept in form. But the individual in society is not thus circumscribed as to his activity, hence he may form a part of many social groups. The analysis of society, then, shows that the individuals that compose it may pass from one organ to another on account of the numerous distinct services they may per-form. Likewise, the social organization composed of a group of individuals may perform various distinct social services. Such facts as these make it evident that the organic conception of society is but an analogy, albeit a helpful one, especially for beginners in sociology. One must never forget, however, that the analogy between a biological organism and a social group is very imperfect and that society is primarily a psychical organization.
The Primary Group. The first permanent group that existed and perpetuated itself was the sex, or kindred, group. One can call it the primitive family, though it was very different from our modern family. Durkheim has called this primitive group the " social protoplasm." 2 It was built primarily on the natural attractions of male and female, and secondarily upon the security insured by the solidarity of a kinship group, whether that was metronymic or patronymic. When society had developed to the point where the father or oldest male was looked to as the dominant factor in the group there was the added security guaranteed by the property right of the husband and father in the wife and children. It also gave a permanent protection to the young and united all of the same " blood relationship." In the formal organization of the family the consanguineal attraction was perhaps the greatest force, while religion began, at latest, with the rise of the patriarchal family, to attract and hold the family together around a common altar.
Other Social Organs. Although the family, understood as the kinship group, is well-nigh universal and brings into relationship nearly all the members of an expanded society, there are other groups representing the reorganization of the individual into separate occupations. In early societies one sees the beginnings of our later differentiation in secret societies, in religious and play groups, in military groups, and even in the small groups based upon sex so well described by Jenks in his The Bantoc Igorot and by Webster in his book on Primitive Secret Societies.' In more developed societies the same thing is seen in the combination of men according to social, business, and political ties. Around all these and many other interests grow up a long line of other special social groups.
Social Relationships. Neither individuals nor groups make up a society, however, if they are in isolation. To have society social relationships are necessary. Individuals must be bound to each other in some sort of relations both mutual and friendly. Two people gripping each other in a death struggle for each other's life could not be described as a social group; nor could the mere fact that any number of people are grouped together give a basis for the assertion that here we have a society. How-ever much internal dissension there may be, the predominant relations between the individuals and the small groups and cliques gathered together must be cooperative, in short, they must be social relations. The ties by which the various organs of an individual, or even the various parts of his brain, are connected are physical nerve cells. In social relationships, however, in those attenuated, spiritual, but none the less real bonds by which individuals are held together in " the social body," there is almost no physical basis of interrelation at least, the physical is reduced to a minimum. Language, glances of the eye, worked up into the complex products called traditions, customs, codes, institutions, fashions, ceremonies, play, and constitutions, are the means by which this interchange of mental stimulation takes place and by which individuals are bound together into a living whole. True, there are physical means of communication. By touch, by the glance of the eye, by gesture, and by language transmitted by word of mouth, by writing or by electrical means, the feelings, thoughts, and wishes of the one are conveyed to others. However, the inter-communication and the consequent forming of relationships are no less real than if the means of intercommunication were more material in their nature. Moreover, the existence of a social body, that is, of a number of people held together in relations of coordination and direct or indirect cooperation for certain definite ends, is just as real as the existence of a man's physical body. The main point to be held in mind to pre-vent confusion of thought is that the relationships which hold the individuals of a social group together are predominantly psychic in nature rather than physical or chemical or biological.' On the other hand, in a study of social organization it must be remembered that we are concerned both with the relationships which bind men together and the forms which the social organization may take.
Social Forms. Social relationships express themselves in what we call social forms. The term " form " is but a name for certain ways in which social relationships bind men together. Did any one ever see a social form? We see men acting in certain ways and from certain motives under the influence of definite forces. They are connected with each other in various relations. We say when they associate together in a certain way that we have one kind of social structure, and when they unite together in another way and from different motives, we call their social relationships by another name. What we really see is human beings associating together in various ways, acting under common influences, moved by similar motives.
Only in our thought do we see a social form. It is a concept of relationships.
These social structures assume various shapes. Again we use a term to express an immaterial relationship. They are forms only in our thought. We could call them " kinds " or " types " of structures, and that term might be less liable to misunderstanding. However, sociology has used the term " form " so long that its use will do no harm with this explanation.
There have been several classifications of types of social organization. Spencer in his Principles of Sociology, after devoting a considerable part of the first volume to the Data of Sociology and the Inductions of Sociology, treats the remainder of the subject under the head of Institutions. In other words, his work is largely a study of social structure.' He treats all social forms as institutions. He has a classification of what he calls social types and constitutions. It is a double classification. He classifies societies as simple, compound, doubly compound, and trebly compound. Secondarily, he classifies societies as militant or industrial, etc., according to their pre-dominant activity'
Another classification which has been proposed is that between sanctioned and unsanctioned forms of societies. The former would correspond with these institutions, or forms of social organization which have obtained the conscious approval of the group. Examples would be the monogamous family in Western Civilization, the state, and such voluntary organizations as have been recognized by the formal action of state authorities. The latter are exemplified by such forms of relationship as the polygamous family in the United States, mobs, gangs, and spontaneous groups. The drawback to this classification is that it is not complete and that it is not clear cut. One cannot easily place in their proper category such groups as the primitive horde and family, or the brothel and saloon of to-day. It is incomplete because there is a distinct difference between an unsanctioned society whose purposes and activities promote the social welfare, and those which are anti-social in their genius.
Professor Giddings has suggested a number of classifications. One of these is that according to component and constituent societies which we have already noticed. This classification is simple and has the advantage that the forms of societies fit into it in their genetic order of development.' Professor Giddings has also developed a psychological classification of methods of association under the categories " of presence " and " in activity." The former is based on common feeling, the latter on similar actions? However, in his last work he supplemented these simple classifications by another. He divides societies into animal and human, the latter being subdivided into ethnic and civil groups. He prefers, however, a classification on a psychological basis, according to instinctive and rational societies, the former being characteristic of animal, and the latter to a preeminent degree of human societies. Rational societies he further divides into eight groups. See Part. I, Chap. I.
He has also a classification of forms of social organization : (1) The Private and the Public, (2) the Unauthorized and the Authorized (institutions), (3) the Unincorporated and the Incorporated, (4) the Component, and (5) the Constituent. The term " social organization " as thus used connotes much the same as the term " social structure," although it is more definitely limited to those structures in which human relationships have be-come habitual.' It is evident that these cross classifications are based upon formal social action by a group or the lack of it. The Public, the Authorized, the Incorporated, and the Constituent are artificial creations by the conscious, associated actions of individuals. On the other hand, the Private, the Unauthorized, the Unincorporated, and the Component are spontaneous organizations on which deliberative and formal action by the group has not yet been taken.
Crowds are more prone to undeliberative action, to fits of passion, to domination by the less thoughtful minds than other forms of organization. The crowd provides many conditions for the generation of intense feelings, but the minimum of conditions for the generation of deliberative wisdom. The mass meeting is more self-controlled, and much less liable to be dominated solely by feeling. Deliberative assemblies are supposed to have their machinery so adjusted by rules of order which are designed to inhibit the dominance of feeling and give thought the right of way in order that in them emotion may dominate still less and reason may hold sway a theory not always realized in actual practice. In the representative assembly the calm deliberative thought of each person present is expressed by the vote, that feeling may be held in more complete subordination to reason.'
In like manner those organizations which are without presence differ not only in their characteristic mental reaction, but also in the efficiency of their respective forms of organization. The public, sect, and corporation correspond closely in their mental characteristics with crowds, deliberative assemblies, and representative assemblies respectively. They differ from each other in the increasing definiteness and efficiency of their organization. The sect is less amorphous than the public and the corporation less than the sect. Likewise the efficiency of each varies directly with the increased definiteness of organization.
This classification has the advantage of being psychological and sociological in its basic principles. It is psychological in that the serial arrangement is in the order of genetic development of mental characteristics. It is sociological by reason of its classification according to increasing social efficiency of organization. It is doubtful, however, whether the classification of societies " with presence " and " without presence " is valid. Is the sect, for example, one which can be placed in the second category? Both in their inception and for their continuance frequent personal contact between the members and usually in masses is necessary. Where in such a scheme, moreover, would be classified such a group as a " husking bee," a barn raising, or a regiment of soldiers? The classification, however, is suggestive, although incomplete.
The classification of social forms " with presence " or " with-out presence " is at the basis of Professor Cooley's division of social groups into primary and secondary. By primary groups he designates those characterized by intimate face-to-face association and cooperation. They are primary in the sense that they are the means by which the individual is given his earliest and completest experience of social unity and in the sense that they are more unchanging than others.1 He cites as examples the family, the play groups of children, and the neighborhood or community group of elders. By the secondary he seems to indicate more elaborate groups resulting from more complex relations and springing out of the primary groups .2
Any one is privileged to propose any classification which seems to him to serve best the purpose of making clear the particular principle which he thinks it most important to have recognized in his presentation of the subject. To the writers the genetic point of view seems the most important. We under-stand things when we know how they came to be what they are. Therefore, it would seem best to have a classification of societies based upon the order of their development, supplemented by a cross classification making clear the transition from the stage when social groupings were predominately either instinctive or sympathetic, and therefore spontaneous, to that in which the groupings were consciously purposeful. From this point of view, that of Giddings, which divides 'human societies into instinctive and rational categories and the latter into eight types, offers a distinct advantage. It has the drawback, however, that it places the psychological bond which characterizes each form in the forefront of attention rather than genetic order and form. The following classification presents in the probable genetic order of development a double classificatory scheme based upon Giddings's types in which the chief emphasis is laid upon the striking difference between tribal and civil society as structurally organized.
Ethnic - instinctive Civil despotic
Without doubt there are forms of social structure, using that term to designate groupings of human beings in social relationships, in which the arrangements are instinctive, such as the family in the Andaman Islands among the Mincopis, where it is doubtful whether the reason of the native has much part in the temporary stay which the male makes with the female until after the child is weaned. There are other forms which have more of the rational element in their formation, yet the predominating element is sympathy based upon a sense of close kinship, supplemented by the instinctive reactions of association. Other ethnic societies take a transitory form based on approbation by leaders, as, for instance, the social structure formed when kin-wrecked men gather about some leader of more ability than the rest, and they and he bind themselves together by bonds of feudal vassalage and lordship. Their wealth is not in land, but in cattle. Examples may be found among the early Irish and the Kaffirs.
Still another form of social structure to be found among those tribally organized is the authoritative. It is based upon fear of authority hallowed by divine sanctions. Such authority is either that of medicine man, priest, or priest-chieftain.
Those in civil society need no further explanation beyond that given when naming Giddings's types.
COOLEY, C. H. Social Organization, Chap. III.
DEGREEF, GUILLAUME. Introduction a la Sociologie, Part II.
ELLWOOD, C. A. Sociology in its Psychological Aspects, pp. 341351. GIDDINGS, F. H. Principles of Sociology, pp. 153196; Descriptive and Historical Sociology, pp. 433-518.
Ross, E. A. Foundations of Sociology, Chap. I.
SMALL and VINCENT. Introduction to the Study of Sociology, pp. 169214. SPENCER, HERBERT. Principles of Sociology, pp. 485519.
QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES
1. How does a social structure differ from a biological structure? Give an example of each.
2. What is the difference between an aggregation of human beings and a society? Give examples.
3. Supposing that the people settled along the Atlantic Coast before the American Revolution could be described as an aggregation and the same people fifty years later an integrated society, what was the essential difference?
4. Trace the development of social structures in your own community from the days when a people was settled there with a tribal organization to the present, naming all the changes which have taken place both in number and kinds of structure.
5. Illustrate what is meant by the process of integration in social matters.
6. Describe the social composition of the people in your town.
7. Describe the social constitution of the population in your village, block,
8. Take the following groups and carefully analyze the social interests and influences which cause the individual members of them to enter into social relationships : a picnic party, a debating society, a church, a bank corporation.
9. Make a list of the names of the social structures represented in your own community and classify according to a suitable and, if necessary, an original scheme.
Outlines Of Sociology:
Social Life In General
Definition And Scope Of Sociology
Purpose And Method Of Sociology
Land And Its People
Organization And Life Of The Family
Disorganization Of The Modern Family
Origin And Development Of The State
Read More Articles About: Outlines Of Sociology