Understanding Society Sociology

CONTENTS

1. Social Structure, Stratification and Social Processes in Society 1

2. Social Change and Social Order in Rural and Urban Society 22

3. Environment and Society 50

4. Introducing Western Sociologists 66

5. Indian Sociologists 83

leisure opportunities s/he avails, thehealth access s/he has, i.e. her/hislifestyle in general. As in the case ofsocial structure, social stratificationconstrains individual action.

One of the central concerns of thesociological perspective has been tounderstand the dialectical relationshipbetween the individual and society. Youwill recall C.Wright Mills elaboration ofthe sociological imagination that seeksto unfold the interplay between anindividuals biography and societyshistory. It is towards understandingthis dialectical relationship between thesociety and individual that we need todiscuss the three central concepts ofstructure, stratification and socialprocesses in this chapter. In the nextfew chapters we then move on to howsocial structure in rural and urbansocieties are different, to broaderrelationships between environment andsociety. In the last two chapters we lookat western social thinkers and Indiansociologists and their writings thatwould help us further understand theideas of social structure, stratificationas well as social processes.

CHAPTER 1

SOCIAL STRUCTURE, STRATIFICATION AND SOCIALPROCESSES IN SOCIETY

INTRODUCTION

You will recall that the earlier bookIntroducing Sociology (NCERT, 2006)had begun with a discussion on therelationship between personalproblems and social issues. We alsosaw how individuals are located withincollectivities such as groups, classes,gender, castes and tribes. Indeed eachof you, is a member of not just onekind of collectivity, but manyoverlapping ones. For instance, you area member of your own peer group, yourfamily and kin, your class and gender,your country and region. Eachindividual thus has a specific locationin the social structure and socialstratification system (see pages 28-35in Introducing Sociology). This alsoimplies that they have different levelsand types of access to social resources.In other words the choices anindividual has in life in terms of theschool s/he goes to or if s/he goesto school at all would depend onthe social stratum that s/he belongsto. Likewise with the clothes s/he getsto wear, the food s/he consumes, the

2 UNDERSTANDING SOCIETY

regularities that the concept of socialstructure refers. Upto a point, it ishelpful to think of the structuralcharacteristics of societies asresembling the structure of a building.A building has walls, a floor and a roof,which together give it a particularshape or form (Giddens 2004: 667).

But the metaphor can be a verymisleading one if applied too strictly.Social structures are made up ofhuman actions and relationships.What gives these their patterning istheir repetition across periods of timeand distances of space. Thus, the ideasof social reproduction and socialstructure are very closely related to oneanother in sociological analysis. Forexample, consider a school and afamily structure. In a school certainways of behaving are repeated over theyears and become institutions. Forinstance admission procedures, codesof conduct, annual functions, dailyassemblies and in some cases evenschool anthems. Likewise in familiescertain ways of behaving, marriagepractices, notions of relationships,duties and expectations are set. Evenas old members of the family or schoolmay pass away and new membersenter, the institution goes on. Yet wealso know that changes do take placewithin the family and in schools.

The above discussion and activityshould help us understand humansocieties as buildings that are at everymoment being reconstructed by thevery bricks that compose them. For aswe saw for ourselves human beings inschools or families do bring changes

The central question that thischapter seeks to discuss is to whatextent the individual constrained by,and to what extent s/he is free of, thesocial structure? To what extent doesones position in society or location inthe stratification system governindividual choice? Do social structureand social stratification influence themanner people act? Do they shape theway individuals cooperate, competeand conflict with each other?

In this chapter we deal briefly withthe terms social structure and socialstratification. You have alreadydiscussed social stratification in somedetail in Chapter 2 of the earlier bookIntroducing Sociology (NCERT, 2006).We then move on to focus on threesocial processes namely; cooperation,competition and conflict. In dealingwith each of these processes we shalltry and see how social structure andstratification impinge themselves onthe social processes. In other wordshow individuals and groups cooperate,compete and conflict depending upontheir position within the socialstructure and stratification system.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND STRATIFICATION

The term social structure points to thefact that society is structured i.e.,organised or arranged in particularways. The social environments inwhich we exist do not just consist ofrandom assortments of events oractions. There are underlyingregularities, or patterns, in how peoplebehave and in the relationships theyhave with one another. It is to these

3SOCIAL STRUCTURE, STRATIFICATION AND SOCIAL PROCESSES IN SOCIETY

Different types of buildings in rural and urban areas


to reproduce the structure even whileintroducing changes. They cooperateat various levels in their everyday livestowards this reproduction. No less trueis the fact that they also compete witheach other, often viciously andruthlessly. The fact remains that alongwith cooperative behaviour we alsowitness serious conflict. And as weshall find later in this chapter,cooperation can be enforced andthereby serve to conceal conflict.

A major theme pursued by EmileDurkheim (and by many othersociological authors since) is that thesocieties exert social constraint overthe actions of their members.Durkheim argued that society hasprimacy over the individual person.Society is far more than the sum ofindividual acts; it has a firmness orsolidity comparable to structures inthe material environment.

Think of a person standing in aroom with several doors. The structureof the room constrains the range of his

or her possible activities. The placingof the walls and doors, for exampledefines the routes of exit and entry.Social structure, according toDurkheim, constrains our activities ina parallel way, setting limits to whatwe can do as individuals. It is externalto us just as the walls of the room are.

Other social thinkers like KarlMarx would emphasise the constraintsof social structure but would at thesame time stress human creativity oragency to both reproduce and changesocial structure. Marx argued thathuman beings make history, but notas they wish to or in conditions of theirchoice, but within the constraints andpossibilities of the historical andstructural situation that they are in.

To recall the concept of social strati-fication in Chapter 2 of IntroducingSociology (NCERT, 2006). Socialstratification refers to the existence ofstructured inequalities betweengroups in society, in terms of theiraccess to material or symbolic

Activity 1

Discuss with your grandparents and others of that generation to find out about theways in which families/schools have changed and the ways in which they haveremained the same.Compare descriptions of families in old films/television serials/novels withcontemporary depictions.Can you observe patterns and regularities of social behaviour in your family? Inother words can you describe the structure of your family?Discuss with your teachers how they understand the school as a structure. Dostudents, teachers and the staff have to act in certain ways to maintain or reproducethe structure? Can you think of any changes in either your school or family? Werethese changes resisted? Who resisted them and why?


rewards. While all societies involvesome forms of social stratification,modern societies are often marked bywide differences in wealth and power.While the most evident forms ofstratification in modern societiesinvolve class divisions, others likerace and caste, region andcommunity, tribe and gender alsocontinue to matter as bases of socialstratification.

You will recall that social structureimplied a certain patterning of socialbehaviour. Social stratification as partof the broader social structure is

likewise characterised by a certainpattern of inequality. Inequality is notsomething which is randomlydistributed between individuals insociety. It is systematically linked tomembership in different kinds of socialgroups. Members of a given group willhave features in common, and if theyare in a superior position they willusually see to it that their privilegedposition is passed on to their children.The concept of stratification, then,refers to the idea that society is dividedinto a patterned structure of unequalgroups, and usually implies that thisstructure tends to persist acrossgenerations (Jayaram 1987:22).

It is necessary to distinguishbetween different advantages whichcan be distributed unequally. Thereare three basic forms of advantagewhich privileged groups may enjoy:

(i) Life Chances: All those materialadvantages which improve thequality of life of the recipient this

This point of view is expressed by Durkheim in his famous statement: When Iperform my duties as a brother, a husband or a citizen and carry out thecommitments I have entered into, I fulfil my obligations which are defined in lawand custom and which are external to myself and my actionsSimilarly, the believerhas discovered from birth, ready fashioned, the beliefs and practices of his religiouslife; if they existed before he did, it follows that they exist outside him. The systemsof signs that I employ to express my thoughts, the monetary system I use to paymy debts, the credit instruments I utilise in my commercial relationships, thepractices I follow in my profession, etc. all function independently of the use Imake of them. Considering in turn each member of society, the following remarkscould be made for every single one of them.Source: Durkheim Emile, 1933, The Division of Labour in Society, pp.50-1, A FreePress Paperback, The MacMillan Company, New York).

Activity 2

Think of examples that reveal bothhow human beings are constrained bysocial structure and also of exampleswhere individuals defy social structureand transform it. Recall ourdiscussion on socialisation inIntroducing Sociology (pages 78-79 ).


may include not only economicadvantages of wealth and income,but also benefits such as health,job security and recreation.

(ii) Social Status: Prestige or highstanding in the eyes of othermembers of the society.

(iii) Political Influence: The ability of onegroup to dominate others, or tohave preponderant influence overdecision-making, or to benefitadvantageously from decisions.

The above discussion on the threesocial processes will repeatedly drawattention to the manner that differentbases of social stratification likegender or class constrain socialprocesses. The opportunities andresources available to individuals andgroups to engage in competition,cooperation or conflict are shaped bysocial structure and socialstratification. At the same time,humans do act to modify the structureand system of stratification that exists.

TWO WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING SOCIALPROCESSES IN SOCIOLOGY

In the earlier book IntroducingSociology (NCERT, 2006) you haveseen the limitations of common senseknowledge. The problem is not thatcommonsense knowledge isnecessarily false, but that it isunexamined and taken for granted. Bycontrast, the sociological perspectivequestions everything and acceptsnothing as a given. It would thereforenot rest content with an explanationwhich suggests that humans compete

or cooperate or conflict as the case maybe because it is human nature to doso. The assumption behind suchexplanations is that there is somethingintrinsic and universal in humannature that accounts for theseprocesses. However, as we have seenearlier, sociology is not satisfied witheither psychological or naturalistexplanations (see pages 7-8 ofIntroducing Sociology. Sociology seeksto explain these processes ofcooperation, competition and conflictin terms of the actual social structureof society.

Activity 3

Think of examples of cooperation,competition and conflict in youreveryday life

In Introducing Sociology wediscussed how there are differences andplural understandings of society (pages24-25, 36). We saw how functionalistand conflict perspectives varied in theirunderstanding of different institutions,be it the family, the economy or socialstratification and social control. Notsurprisingly therefore, these twoperspectives seek to understand theseprocesses a bit differently. But both KarlMarx (usually associated with a conflictperspective) and Emile Durkheim(usually identified with a functionalistperspective) presume that humanbeings have to cooperate to meet theirbasic needs, and to produce andreproduce themselves and their world.

The conflict perspective emphasiseshow these forms of cooperation


Different types of processes


refer to the fulfilment of the broadestconditions which are necessary for asystems existence (and whichtherefore keep it alive and prevent itsdestruction) such as:

(i) The socialisation of new members;

(ii) A shared system of communication;

(iii) Methods of assigning individualsto roles.

You are well aware how thefunctionalist perspective rests upon theassumption that different parts ororgans of society have a function or roleto play for the broader maintenanceand functioning of the whole society.Seen from this perspective, cooperation,competition and conflict can be seenas universal features of all societies,explained as the result of the inevitableinteractions among humans living insociety and pursuing their ends. Sincethe focus is on system sustenance,

changed from one historical society toanother. For instance, it wouldrecognise that in simple societieswhere no surplus was produced, therewas cooperation between individualsand groups who were not divided onclass or caste or race lines. But insocieties where surplus is produced whether feudal or capitalist thedominant class appropriates thesurplus and cooperation wouldnecessarily involve potential conflictand competition. The conflict view thusemphasises that groups andindividuals are placed differentiallyand unequally within the system ofproduction relations. Thus, the factoryowner and the factory worker docooperate in their everyday work. Buta certain conflict of interests woulddefine their relationship.

The understanding that informs theconflict perspective is that in societiesdivided by caste, or class or patriarchy,some groups are disadvantaged anddiscriminated against. Furthermore thedominant groups sustain this unequalorder by a series of cultural norms, andoften coercion or even violence. As youwill see in the next paragraphs, it isnot that the functionalist perspectivefails to appreciate the role of suchnorms or sanctions. But it understandstheir function in terms of the societyas a whole, and not in terms of thedominant sections who control society.

The functionalist perspective ismainly concerned with the systemrequirements of society certainfunctional imperatives, functionalrequisites and prerequisites. These

Babul Mora. Naihar Chuto hi jaiFears of the Natal home is left behind

Babul ki dua-ein leti jaJa tujhko sukhi sansar mileMaike ki kabhi na yaad aayeSasural me itna pyar mileTake your fathers blessings/prayeras you go;Go, and (may you) get a happyhousehold;May you never be reminded of yourmothers home;(Because of) all the love you receiveAt your in-laws place. (Basu 2001: 128)


Activity 4

Discuss whether women are cooperating, or refusing to engage in conflict orcompetition because of a range of normative compulsions. Are they cooperatingwith the given norm of male inheritance because of the fear of losing the affectionof their brothers if they behave otherwise? The song in the box below is specific toa region, but evokes the more general fears of natal abandonment for women in apatrilineal society.

Bride leaving for grooms house in a Doli

competition and conflict is looked atwith the understanding that in mostcases they tend to get resolved withouttoo much distress, and that they mayeven help society in various ways.

Sociological studies have alsoshown how norms and patterns ofsocialisation often ensure that aparticular social order persists, eventhough it is skewed in the interests ofone section. In other words therelationship between cooperation,competition and conflict is often complexand not easily separable.

In order to understand howcooperation may entail conflict, and thedifference between enforced andvoluntary cooperation, let us look at

the very contentious issue of womensright to property in their natal family.A study was conducted among differentsections of society to understand theattitude towards taking natal property(see pages 41- 46 of IntroducingSociology). A significant number ofwomen (41.7 per cent) evoked thetheme of a daughters love and love fora daughter when speaking about theirrights to property. But they emphasisedapprehension rather than affection bysaying they would not claim full or anyshare of natal property because theywere afraid this would sour relationswith their brothers or cause theirbrothers wives to hate them, and thatas a result they would no longer be


welcome in their natal homes. Thisattitude represents one of the dominantmetaphors mediating womens refusalof property A woman demanding hershare is the greedy shrew or hak lenewali. There was also a close connectionbetween these feelings and theapparently obverse ones of the desireto continue to be part of the natal familyby actively contributing to its prosperityor being available to deal with its crises.

Activity 2 would enable you toappreciate how apparently cooperativebehaviour can also be seen as aproduct of deep conflicts in society. Butwhen these conflicts are not expressedopenly or challenged, the impressionremains that there is no conflict, butonly cooperation. A functionalist viewoften uses the term accommodation toexplain situations such as the onedescribed above, where women wouldprefer not to claim property rights intheir natal home. It would be seen asan effort to compromise and co-existdespite conflict.

Activity 5

Think of other kinds of socialbehaviour which may appear as co-operative but may conceal deeperconflicts of society.

COOPERATION AND DIVISION OF LABOUR

The idea of cooperation rests on certainassumptions about human behaviour.It is argued that without humancooperation it would be difficult forhuman life to survive. Further it isargued that even in the animal world

we witness cooperation, whether theybe ants or bees or mammals.Comparison with the animal worldshould however be done carefully. Welook at two very different theoreticaltraditions in sociology to illustrate thepoint, those represented by EmileDurkheim and Karl Marx.

Sociology for the most part did notagree with the assumption that humannature is necessarily nasty andbrutish. Emile Durkheim arguesagainst a vision of primitive humanitywhose hunger and thirst, always badlysatisfied, were their only passions.Instead he argued:

They overlook the essential elementof moral life, that is, the moderatinginfluence that society exercises overits members, which tempers andneutralises the brutal action of thestruggle for existence and selection.Wherever there are societies, thereis altruism, because there issolidarity. Thus, we find altruismfrom the beginning of humanity andeven in truly intemperate form.(Durkheim 1933)

For Durkheim solidarity, the moralforce of society, is fundamental for ourunderstanding of cooperation andthereby the functioning of society. Therole of division of labour whichimplies cooperation is precisely tofulfill certain needs of society. Thedivision of labour is at the same timea law of nature and also a moral ruleof human conduct.

Durkheim distinguished betweenmechanical and organic solidarity that


characterised pre-industrial andcomplex industrial societies respectively.Both are forms of cooperation insociety. Mechanical solidarity is theform of cohesion that is basedfundamentally on sameness. Most ofthe members of such societies live verysimilar lives, with little specialisationor division of labour beyond thatassociated with age and sex. Membersfeel bonded together essentially bytheir shared beliefs and sentiments,their common conscience andconsciousness. Organic solidarity isthat form of social cohesion that isbased on division of labour and theresulting interdependence of membersof society. As people become morespecialised, they also become moredependent upon each other. A familyengaged in subsistence farming maysurvive with little or no help fromsimilar homesteaders. But specialisedworkers in a garment or a carmanufacturing factory cannot survivewithout a host of other specialisedworkers supplying their basic needs.

Karl Marx too distinguishes humanlife from animal life. While Durkheimemphasised altruism and solidarity asdistinctive of the human world, Marxemphasised consciousness. He writes:

Men can be distinguished fromanimals by consciousness, by religionor anything else you like. Theythemselves begin to distinguishthemselves from animals as soon asthey begin to produce their means ofsubsistence, a step which isconditioned by their physicalorganisation. By producing their

means of subsistence men areindirectly producing their material life(Marx 1972:37).

The above quote from Marx mayappear difficult but will help usunderstand how cooperation inhuman life is dif ferent fromcooperation in animal life. For humansnot only adjust and accommodate tocooperate but also alter society in thatprocess. For example, men and womenover the ages had to adjust to naturalconstraints. Various technologicalinnovations over time not onlytransformed human life but in somesense nature too. Humans incooperating thus do not passivelyadjust and accommodate but alsochange the natural or social world towhich they adjust. We had discussedin the Chapter on Culture andSocialisation in earlier book,Introducing Sociology how Indians hadto adjust and accommodate and co-operate with the English languagebecause of our experience with Britishcolonialism. But also how in thatprocess Hinglish has emerged as aliving social entity (page 72).

While both Durkheim from afunctionalist view and Marx from aconflict perspective emphasisecooperation, they also differ. For Marxcooperation is not voluntary in asociety where class exists. He argues,The social power, i.e., the multipliedproductive force, which arises throughthe cooperation of different individualsas it is caused by the division of labour,appears to these individuals, sincetheir cooperation is not voluntary but


has come about naturally, not as theirown united power, but as an alien forceexisting outside them (Marx 1972:53). Marx used the term alienation torefer to the loss of control on the partof workers over the concrete contentof labour, and over the products oftheir labour. In other words, workerslose control over how to organise theirown work; and they lose control overthe fruits of their labour. Contrast, forexample, the feeling of fulfillment andcreativity of a weaver or potter orironsmith with that of a workerinvolved in a factory whose sole taskmay be to pull a lever or press a buttonthroughout the day. Cooperation insuch a situation would be enforced.

COMPETITION AS AN IDEA AND PRACTICE

As in the case of cooperation,discussions on the concept ofcompetition often proceed with the ideathat competition is universal andnatural. But going back to ourdiscussion on how sociologicalexplanation is dif ferent fromnaturalistic ones, it is important tounderstand competition as a socialentity that emerges and becomesdominant in society at a particularhistorical point of time. In thecontemporary period it is apredominant idea and often we find itdifficult to think that there can be anysociety where competition is not aguiding force.

An anecdote of a school teacher whorecounted her experience with childrenin a remote area in Africa draws

attention to the fact that competitionitself has to be explained sociologicallyand not as a natural phenomena. Theanecdote refers to the teachersassumption that the children willnaturally rejoice at the idea of acompetitive race where the winnerwould get a chocolate as a prize. To hersurprise, her suggestion not only didnot evoke any enthusiasm but insteadseemed to cause considerable anxietyand distress. On probing further theyexpresses their distaste for a gamewhere there would be winners andlosers. This went against their idea offun, which meant for them a necessarilycooperative and collective experience,and not a competitive one where therewards necessarily exclude some andreward one or few.

In the contemporary worldhowever competition is the dominantnorm and practice. Classicalsociological thinkers such as EmileDurkheim and Karl Marx have notedthe growth of individualism andcompetition respectively in modernsocieties. Both developments areintrinsic to the way modern capitalistsociety functions. The stress is ongreater efficiency and greater profitmaximisation. The underlyingassumptions of capitalism are:

(i) expansion of trade;(ii) division of labour;(iii) specialisation; and(iv) hence rising productivity.

And these processes of self-sustaining growth are fuelled by the


central theme of capitalism: rationalindividuals in free competition in themarketplace, each striving tomaximise profits.

The ideology of competition is thedominant ideology in capitalism. Thelogic of this ideology is that the marketoperates in a manner that ensuresgreatest efficiency. For examplecompetition ensures that the mostefficient firm survives. Competitionensures that the students with highermarks or best studies get admissioninto prestigious colleges. And then getthe best jobs. In all cases the bestrefers to that which ensures thegreatest material rewards.

Activity 6

India has recently witnessed intensedebates on the governments decisionto ensure 27 per cent reservation forOBCs. Collect the dif ferentarguments for and against thisproposal that have been put forwardin newspapers, magazines andtelevision programmes.

Collect information about thedrop-out rate in schools, and primaryschools in particular (see pages 57-59 in the earlier book)

Given that mostly lower castestudents drop-out of school, andmost higher educational institutionsare dominated by the upper castes,discuss the concepts of cooperation,competition and conflict in theabove context.

Views that humans naturally liketo compete has to be understood

critically like all other naturalistexplanations (see page 8 of earlierbook). Competition as a desirable valueflourished with the onset of capitalism.Read the extracts in the box anddiscuss.

Competition, and the whole laissez-faire economy of 19th centurycapitalism, may have been importantin promoting economic growth. Theexceptionally rapid development of theAmerican economy may beattributable to the greater scope ofcompetition in the United States. Butstill we cannot produce any exactcorrelations between the extent ofcompetition, or the intensity of thecompetitive spirit, and the rate ofeconomic growth in different societies.And on the other hand, there aregrounds for supposing thatcompetition has other less welcomeeffects (Bottomore 1975: 174-5).

Liberals like J.S. Mill felt that theeffects of competition were generallyharmful. However, he felt that thoughmodern competition is described asthe fight of all against all, but at thesame time it is the fight for all; this inthe sense that economic competitionis directed toward maximum outputat minimum cost. Furthermore, giventhe breadth and individualism ofsociety, many kinds of interest, whicheventually hold the group togetherthroughout its members, seem tocome alive and stay alive only whenthe urgency and requirements of thecompetitive struggle force them uponthe individual.


Activity 7

Organise a debate for and against theidea that competition is a necessarygood in society and is a must fordevelopment. Draw upon schoolexperience to write an essay on themanner that competition impacts ondifferent students.

This ideology assumes thatindividuals compete on an equal basis,i.e. that all individuals are positionedequally in the competition foreducation, jobs, or resources. But asthe earlier discussions on stratificationor inequality showed, individuals areplaced differentially in society. If thegreater number of children in India donot go to school or drop-out soonerrather than later, then they remain outof the competition entirely.

Activity 8

Identify different occasions whenindividuals have to compete in oursociety. Begin with admission toschool onwards through the differentstages of life.

CONFLICT AND COOPERATION

The term conflict implies clash ofinterests. We have already seen howconflict theorists believe that scarcityof resources in society producesconflict as groups struggle to gainaccess to and control over thoseresources. The bases of conflict vary.It could be class or caste, tribe orgender, ethnicity or religiouscommunity. As young students you

are well aware of the range of conflictsthat exist in society. The scale andnature of different conflicts that occurare however different.

Activity 9

Think of the dif ferent kinds ofconflicts that exist in the world today.At the widest level there are conflictsbetween nations and blocs of nations.Many kinds of conflicts also existwithin nations. Make a list of themand then discuss in what ways theyare similar and in what waysdifferent.

A widely held commonsenseperception is that conflicts in societyare new. Sociologists have drawnattention to the fact that conflictschange in nature and form at differentstages of social development. Butconflicts have always been part of anysociety. Social change and greaterassertion of democratic rights bydisadvantaged and discriminatedgroups make the conflict more visible.But this does not mean that the causesfor conflict did not exist earlier. Thequote in the box emphasises this.

Developing countries are todayarenas for conflict between the oldand the new. The old order is nolonger able to meet the new forces,nor the new wants and aspirationsof the people, but neither is itmoribund in fact, it is still verymuch alive. The conflict producesmuch unseemly argument, discord,confusion, and on occasion, even


bloodshed. Under the circumstances,it is tempting for the sociologist tolook to the good old peaceful days insheer nostalgia. But a momentsreflection should convince him thatthe old order was not conflict-free andthat it perpetrated inhuman crueltieson vast sections of the population. Atheoretical approach that regardsconflict as abnormal, or that investsequilibrium with a special value in thename of science, can be a handicapin studying developing societies.

Source: Srinivas, M.N., 1972, SocialChange in Modern India, pp.159-160Orient Longman, New Delhi.

It is also important to understandthat conflict appears as a discord orovert clash only when it is openly ex-pressed. For example, the existence ofa peasant movement is an overt ex-pression of a deep rooted conflict overland resources. But the absence of amovement does not imply the absenceof a conflict. Hence, this chapter hasemphasised the relationship betweenconflict, involuntary cooperation andalso resistance.

Let us examine some of theconflicts that exist in society, and alsothe close relationship that existsbetween competition, cooperation andconflict. We just take two instanceshere. The first is the family andhousehold. The second, is that of landbased conflict.

Traditionally the family andhousehold were often seen asharmonious units where cooperationwas the dominant process andaltruism the driving principle of

human behaviour. The last threedecades have seen a great deal ofquestioning of this assumption byfeminist analysis. Scholars such asAmartya Sen have noted the possibilityof enforced cooperation.

Not only do the different parties havemuch to gain from cooperation; theirindividual activities have to take theform of being overtly cooperative, evenwhen substantial conflicts existAlthough serious conflicts of interestsmay be involved in the choice of socialtechnology, the nature of the familyorganisation requires that theseconflicts be moulded in a generalformat of cooperation, with conflictstreated as aberrations or deviantbehaviour (Sen 1990:147).

Since, conflict is often not overtlyexpressed, it has been found thatsubaltern or subordinate sections,whether women in households orpeasants in agrarian societies, developdifferent strategies to cope with conflictand ensure cooperation. Findings ofmany sociological studies seem tosuggest that covert conflict and overtcooperation is common. The extractbelow draws from many studies onwomens behaviour and interactionwithin households.

Material pressures and incentives tocooperate extend to distributionand there is little evidence of overtconflict over distributional processes.Instead there is a hierarchy ofdecision-making, needs and priorities(associated with age, gender andlifecycle), a hierarchy to which bothmen and women appear to subscribe.


Thus, women appear to acquiesce to and indeed actively perpetuate discriminatory practices in intra-household distribution in order toassure their own longer -termsecurity. Denied access to extra-household relationships andresources, it is in their materialinterests to subscribe to the generalson-preference which characterisesthis culture, and they invest in a greatdeal of selfless devotion in order towin their sons as allies and insuranceagainst an uncertain future.Maternal altruism in the northernIndian plain is likely to be biasedtowards sons and can be seen aswomens response to patriarchal risk.Women are not entirely powerless, ofcourse, but their subversion of maledecision-making power tends to becovert. The use of trusted allies(relatives or neighbours) to conductsmall businesses on their behalf, thesecret lending and borrowing ofmoney, and negotiations around themeaning of gender ideologies ofpurdah and motherhood, are some of

Land Conflicts

Harbaksh, a Rajput had borrowed Rs100 from Nathu Ahir (Patel) in the year 1956,by mortaging (informally) 2 acres of land. In the same year Harbaksh died andGanpat, his successor, claimed the land back in 1958 and he offered Rs 200.Nathu refused to return the land to Ganpat. Ganpat could not take to legalproceedings as this exchange was not codified in the revenue records. Under thecircumstances Ganpat had resorted to violence and forcefully cultivated the landin 1959 (one year after Gramdan). Ganpat, being a police constable, could influencethe police officials. When the Patel went to Phulera (the police thana headquarters)he was taken to the police station and was forced to agree that he will give the landback to Ganpat. Later a meeting of the villagers was convened when the moneywas given to Patel and Ganpat received the land back.Source: Oommen, T.K., 1972: Charisma, Stability and Change; An Analysis ofBhoodan-Gramdan Movement in India, p.84. Thompson Press, New Delhi.

the strategies by which women haveresisted male power (Abdullah andZeidenstein, 1982; White, 1992). Thattheir resistance takes thisclandestine form reflects their lack ofoptions outside householdcooperation and the concomitanthigh risks associated with openconflict (Kabeer 1996:129).

In keeping with the sociologicaltradition of questioning taken forgranted commonsense assumptions,this chapter has critically examined theprocesses of cooperation, competitionand conflict. The sociological approachdoes not see these processes asnatural. It further relates them to othersocial developments. In the followingparagraphs you will read from asociological study done on landrelations and the Bhoodan-Gramdanmovement in India. Read box and seehow cooperation in society can besociologically related to technology andthe economic arrangements ofproduction.


Activity 10

Read the following account of landconflict. Identify the different socialgroups within it and notice the roleof power and access to resources.

Conclusion

The ef fort in this chapter is tounderstand the relationship betweenstructure and stratification on theone hand and the social processes ofcooperation, competition and conflicton the other. You would have noticed

that the three social processes aredifferent, yet they often co-exist,overlap and sometimes exist in aconcealed fashion, as evident in theabove discussion about forcedcooperation. We end with twoactivities that report real life eventsthat help you to use your sociologicalunderstanding to explore the mannerin which the three processes operatefor social groups that aredifferentially located in the socialstructure and the stratificationsystem.

Activity 11

Read the report carefully and discuss the relationship between social structure,stratification and social processes. Describe how the characters Santosh and Pushpaare constrained by the social structure and stratification system. Is it possible toidentify the three social processes of cooperation, competition and conflict in theirlives? Can these marriages be seen as processes of cooperation? Can these marriagesbe seen as actions that people consciously adopt in order to survive in the competitivejob market since married couples are preferred? Is there any sign of conflict?

Outlook 8 May 2006

Meet the Parents: Teen marriages, migrant labour and cane factories in crisis.A vicious cycle.

The advent of technology had also reduced the necessity for cooperation. Forinstance, for the operation of a Charas, an indigenous device of well irrigation, onerequires 2 pairs of bullocks and four men. An ordinary peasant cannot afford thecost of four bullocks or an average household may not have the required manpower.In such situations they resort to borrowing bullocks and men from other households(kin, neighbours, friends, etc.) assuring similar services in return. But if a Charasis replaced by a Rehat (persian wheel) for irrigation which calls for a heavier capitalinvestment, one needs only one pair of bullocks and one person for its operation.The necessity of cooperation in the context of irrigation is reduced by a heavier capitalinvestment and an efficient technology. Thus, the level of technology in a systemmay determine the need for cooperation between men and groups.Source: Oommen, T.K., 1972, Charisma, Stability and Change; An Analysis ofBhoodan-Gramdan Movement in India, p.88. Thompson Press, New Delhi.


It is the same old story, only with a few twists. Santosh Shinde, 14, son of landlesslabourers who take a loan of Rs 8,000 to educate him. Now the moneylender wantsthe loan to be repaid, so the cash strapped Shindes take a salary advance from theonly man offering jobs around town, a sugarcane factory contractor. Problem isthat they are just a husband, a wife and gawky boy. So the Shindes hurriedly finda bride for Santosh: another 14 year old, Pushpa, who accompanies them fromtheir village in Maharashtras Osmanabad district to Karnataka. They stop en routefor a no-frills marriage at a temple.Theres even a name for it, gatekin. It probably comes from the makeshift campsthese migrant labourers set up outside the factory gates in the cane-cutting season.Contractors prefer married couples to single boys as they are more likely to stay onat the factories for months.With western Maharashtras cane factories which once produced nearly a thirdof Indias sugar output in a state of crisis, jobs for migrant labourers have dried up.Some estimates say the factories have accumulated losses of over Rs 1,900 crore, andthis year 120 of the 177 sugar factories were forced to avail of the Centres Rs. 1,650crore bailout package. But the trickle down has been harsher on the migrant labour,out in the fields cutting cane feverishly during the six-month-long season. Their chancesof landing jobs have become harder, and wages have plummeted. Gangly Santosh, now 16 and sporting a straggly moustache, has just finished hisX exams while wife Pushpa took her XII exams. Pushpa, a good student, balancesher academic ambitions with caring for a one-and-a-half-year-old son. Then thereshome and labour in the fields. As she says, My marriage was so quick, I wondersometimes when did I get married when did all this happen? Asked if herhealth has suffered, the young mother says I try not to think about things I cantcontrol. Instead I focus on what I can do now. Her in-laws have said she can studyfurther only if she gets a scholarship. Otherwise, the young couple will migrate toMumbai to work at a construction site.

Activity 12

Read the report carefully and contrast the competition that Vikram and Nitin facewith that of Santosh and Pushpa in Activity 11.

The Week (7 May 2006) carried a special feature titled The New Workaholics:Their Goals, Money, Risks Health.

As the Indian economy gallops at 8 per cent, firing on all cylinders, thousandsof jobs are being created in every sphere of business resulting in changing attitudesand work styles. Young professionals want rewards instantly. Promotions must comefast and quick. And money exceptional salaries, perks and big increments theprime motivator, makes the world go round. Vikram Samant, 27, who recently joineda BPO, makes no bones about quitting his last job for a better salary. Money isimportant but my new employers are fully aware that Im worth every rupee paid tome, he reasons.


What is also driving young workaholics is the need to sprint up the corporate ladderrather than climb each rung at a measured pace. Yes, I want the next designationquickly, not when I am starting to go bald, says Nitin, who refused to wait aroundfor the next big jump and hopped from ICICI to Standard Chartered with a promotionand then to Optimix as zonal manager (emphasis original).

GLOSSARY

Altruism: The principle of acting to benefit others without any selfishness orself-interest.

Alienation: Marx used the term to refer to the loss of control on the part of workersover the nature of the labour task, and over the products of their labour.

Anomie: For Durkheim, a social condition where the norms guiding conduct breakdown, leaving individuals without social restraint or guidance.

Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production are privatelyowned and organised to accumulate profits within a market framework, in whichlabour is provided by waged workers.

Division of Labour: The specialisation of work tasks, by means of which differentoccupations are combined within a production system. All societies have atleast some rudimentary form of division of labour especially between the tasksallocated to men and those performed by women. With the development ofindustrialism, however, the division of labour became more complex than inany prior type of production system. In the modern world, the division of labouris international in scope.

Dominant Ideology: Shared ideas or beliefs which serve to justify the interests ofdominant groups. Such ideologies are found in all societies in which they aresystematic and engrained inequalities between groups. The concept of ideologyconnects closely with that of power, since ideological systems serve to legitimisethe differential power which groups hold.

Individualism: Doctrines or ways of thinking that focus on the autonomousindividual, rather than on the group.

Laissez-faire Liberalism: A political and economic approach based on the generalprinciple of non-interference in the economy by government and freedom for marketsand property owners.

Mechanical Solidarity: According to Durkheim, traditional cultures with a lowdivision of labour are characterised by mechanical solidarity. Because most membersof the society are involved in similar occupations, they are bound together bycommon experience and shared beliefs.


Modernity: A term designed to encapsulate the distinctiveness, complexity anddynamism of social processes unleashed during the 18th and 19th centuries whichmark a distinct break from traditional ways of living.

Organic Solidarity: According to Durkheim, societies characterised by organicsolidarity are held together by peoples economic interdependence and a recognitionof the importance of others contributions. As the division of labour becomes morecomplex, people become more and more dependent on one another, because eachperson needs goods and services that those in other occupations supply.Relationships of economic reciprocity and mutual dependency come to replaceshared beliefs in creating social consensus.

Social Constraint: A term referring to the fact that the groups and societies ofwhich we are a part exert a conditioning influence on our behaviour. Social constraintwas regarded by Durkheim as one of the distinctive properties of social facts.

Structures: Refers generally to constructed frameworks and patterns oforganisation, which in some way constrain or direct human behaviour.

EXERCISES

1. Discuss the different tasks that demand cooperation with reference toagricultural or industrial operations.

2. Is cooperation always voluntary or is it enforced? If enforced, is it sanctions oris the strength of norms that ensure cooperation? Discuss with examples.

3. Can you find illustrative examples of conflict drawn from Indian society?Discuss the causes that led to conflict in each instance.

4. Write an essay based on examples to show how conflicts get resolved.

5. Imagine a society where there is no competition. Is it possible? If not,why not?

6. Talk to your parents and elders, grandparents and their contemporaries anddiscuss whether modern society is really more competitive or conflict riddenthan it used to be before. And if you think it is, how would you explain thissociologically?

REFERENCES

ABDULLAH, T. and S. ZEIDENSTEIN. 1982. Village Men of Bangladesh: Prospects forChange. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

BASU SRIMATI. 2001. She Comes to Take Her Rights: Indian Women, Property andPropriety. Kali for Women, New Delhi.


BOTTOMORE, T.B. 1975. Sociology as Social Criticism. George Allen and UnwinLtd., London

DURKHEIM EMILE. 1933. The Division of Labour in Society. A Free Press (Paperback),The MacMillan Company, New York.

JAYARAM, N. 1987. Introductory Sociology. MacMillan India Ltd, Delhi.

HALE SYLVIA, M. 1990. Controversies in Sociology: A Canadian Introduction. LongmanGroups, London.

MARX KARL and FREDERICK ENGELS. 1974. The German Ideology. Selected Works,Vol. 1. Peoples Publishing House, Moscow.

SEN AMARTYA. 1990. Gender and Cooperative Conflicts in Persistent Inequalities(ed) II.Tinker, pp.123-49. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

SINGH YOGENDRA. 1973. Modernization of Indian Tradition. Thomson Press, Delhi.

SRINIVAS, M.N. 1972. Social Change in Modern India. Orient Longman, New Delhi.

OOMMEN, T.K. 1972. Charisma, Stability and Change; An Analysis of Bhoodan-Gramdan Movement in India. Thomson Press, New Delhi.

WHITE, S.C. 1992. Arguing With the Crocodile, Gender and Class in Bangladesh,Zed Books, London.

CHAPTER 2

SOCIAL CHANGE AND SOCIAL ORDER IN RURAL ANDURBAN SOCIETY

It is often said that change is theonly unchanging aspect of society.Anyone living in modern society doesnot need to be reminded that constantchange is among the most permanentfeatures of our society. In fact, thediscipline of sociology itself emergedas an effort to make sense of the rapidchanges that Western Europeansociety had experienced between theseventeenth and nineteenth centuries.

But though social changeseems such a common and obviousfact about modern life, it is comparatively speaking a very newand recent fact. It is estimated thathuman beings have existed on planet

earth for approximately 500,000 (fivelakh) years, but they have had acivilized existence for only about 6,000years. Of these civilized years, it is onlyin the last 400 years that we have seenconstant and rapid change; evenwithin these years of change, the pacehas accelerated only in the last 100years. Because the speed with whichchange happens has been increasingsteadily, it is probably true that in thelast hundred years, change has beenfaster in the last fifty years than inthe first fifty. And within the last fiftyyears, the world may have changedmore in the last twenty years than inthe first thirty

The Clock of Human History

Human beings have existed on earth for about half a million years. Agriculture,the necessary basis of fixed settlements, is only about twelve thousand years old.Civilisations date back no more than six thousand years or so. If we were to thinkof the entire span of human existence thus far as a day (stretching from midnightto midnight), agriculture would have come into existence at 11:56 pm andcivilisations at 11:57. The development of modern societies would get underwayonly at 11:59 and 30 seconds! Yet perhaps as much change has taken place inthe last thirty seconds of this human day as in all the time leading up to it.From: Anthony Giddens,2004 Sociology, 4th edition, p.40.

23SOCIAL CHANGE AND SOCIAL ORDER IN RURAL AND URBAN SOCIETY

Activity 1

Talk to your elders and make a listof the things in your life that: (a) didnot exist when your parents wereyour age; and (b) did not exist whenyour grandparents were your age.

Eg: Black & white/colour TV;milk in plastic bags; zip fasteners onclothes; plastic buckets; etc. did itexist in your parents/grandparentschildhood?

Can you also make a list of thingsthat existed in your parents/grandparents time but dont exist inyour time?

SOCIAL CHANGE

Social change is such a general termthat it can be, and often is, used torefer to almost any kind of change notqualified by some other term, such aseconomic or political change.Sociologists have had to work hard tolimit this broad meaning in order tomake the term more specific andhence useful for social theory. At themost basic level, social change refersto changes that are significant thatis, changes which alter the underlyingstructure of an object or situation overa period of time (Giddens 2005:42).Thus social change does not includeany and all changes, but only big ones,changes which transform thingsfundamentally. The bigness ofchange is measured not only by howmuch change it brings about, but alsoby the scale of the change, that is, byhow large a section of society it affects.In other words, changes have to beboth intensive and extensive have a

big impact spread over a large sectorof society in order to qualify as socialchange.

Even after this kind ofspecification, social change stillremains a very broad term. Attemptsto further qualify it usually try toclassify it by its sources or causes; byits nature, or the kind of impact it hason society; and by its pace or speed.

For example, evolution is the namegiven to a kind of change that takesplace slowly over a long period of time.This term was made famous by thenatural scientist Charles Darwin, whoproposed a theory of how livingorganisms evolve or change slowlyover several centuries or even millenia,by adapting themselves to naturalcircumstances. Darwins theoryemphasized the idea of the survival ofthe fittest only those life formsmanage to survive who are bestadapted to their environment; thosethat are unable to adapt or are too slowto do so die out in the long run. Darwinsuggested that human beings evolvedfrom sea-borne life forms (or varietiesof fish) to land-based mammals,passing through various stages thehighest of which were the variousvarieties of monkeys and chimpanzeesuntil finally the homo sapiens orhuman form was evolved. AlthoughDarwins theory refered to naturalprocesses, it was soon adapted to thesocial world and was termed socialDarwinism, a theory that emphasisedthe importance of adaptive change. Incontrast to evolutionary change,change that occurs comparatively


quickly, even suddenly, is sometimescalled revolutionary change. It is usedmainly in the political context, whenthe power structure of society changesvery rapidly through the overthrow ofa former ruling class or group by itschallengers. Examples include theFrench revolution (1789-93) and theSoviet or Russian revolution of 1917.But the term has also been used moregenerally to refer to sharp, sudden andtotal transformations of other kinds aswell, such as in the phrase industrialrevolution or telecommunicationsrevolution, and so on.

Activity 2

Refer to the discussions about theFrench Revolution and the IndustrialRevolution which you have comeacross before in your textbooks.What were the major kinds of changethat each brought about? Wouldthese changes qualify to be calledsocial change? Were these changesfast enough and far reaching enoughto qualify as revolutionary change?What other kinds of social changehave you come across in your bookswhich might not qualify asrevolutionary change? Why wouldthey not qualify?

Types of change that are identifiedby their nature or impact includestructural change and changes inideas, values and beliefs. Structuralchange refers to transformations inthe structure of society, to itsinstitutions or the rules by whichthese institutions are run. (Recall thediscussion of social structure from the

previous chapter.) For example, theemergence of paper money ascurrency marked a major change inthe organisation of financial marketsand transactions. Until this changecame about, most forms of currencyinvolved precious metals like gold andsilver. The value of the coin wasdirectly linked to the value of the goldor silver it contained. By contrast, thevalue of a paper currency note has norelationship to the value of the paperit is printed on, or the cost of itsprinting. The idea behind papermoney was that a medium or meansfor facilitating the exchange of goodsand services need not itself beintrinsically valuable. As long as itrepresents values convincingly i.e.,as long as it inspires trust almostanything can function as money. Thisidea was the foundation for the creditmarket and helped change thestructure of banking and finance.These changes in turn producedfurther changes in the organisation ofeconomic life.

Changes in values and beliefs canalso lead to social change. Forexample, changes in the ideas andbeliefs about children and childhoodhave brought about very importantkinds of social change, there was atime when children were simplyconsidered small adults there wasno special concept of childhood assuch, with its associated notions ofwhat was right or wrong for childrento do. As late as the 19th century forexample, it was considered good andproper that children start to work as


soon as they were able to. Childrenwere often helping their families atwork from the age of five or six; theearly factory system depended on thelabour of children. It was during the19th and early 20th centuries thatideas about childhood as a specialstage of life gained influence. It thenbecame unthinkable for smallchildren to be at work, and manycountries passed laws banning childlabour. At the same time, thereemerged ideas about compulsoryeducation, and children weresupposed to be in school rather thanat work, and many laws were passedfor this as well. Although there are

some industries in our country thateven today depend on child labour atleast partially (such as carpet weaving,small tea shops or restaurants, match-stick making, and so on), child labouris illegal and employers can bepunished as criminals.

But by far the most common wayof classifying social change is by itscauses or sources. Sometimes thecauses are pre-classif ied intointernal (or endogenous) andexternal (or exogenous) causes.There are five broad types of sourcesor causes of social change:environmental, technological,economic, political and cultural.

Students in a classroom


Environment

Nature, ecology and the physicalenvironment have always had asignificant influence on the structureand shape of society. This wasparticularly true in the past whenhuman beings were unable to controlor overcome the effects of nature. Forexample, people living in a desertenvironment were unable to practisesettled agriculture of the sort that waspossible in the plains, near rivers andso on. So the kind of food they ate orthe clothes they wore, the way theyearned their livelyhood, and theirpatterns of social interaction were alldetermined to a large extent by thephysical and climatic conditions of

their environment. The same was truefor people living in very cold climates,or in port towns, along major traderoutes or mountain passes, or in fertileriver valleys. But the extent to whichthe environment influences societyhas been decreasing over time with theincrease in technological resources.Technology allows us to overcome oradapt to the problems posed bynature, thus reducing the differencesbetween societies living in differentsorts of environments. On the otherhand, technology also alters natureand our relationship to it in new ways(see the chapter on environment inthis book). So it is perhaps moreaccurate to say that the effect of

A child doing skilled work


may have shaped societies, but how didit play any role in social change? Theeasiest and most powerful answer tothis question can be found in naturaldisasters. Sudden and catastrophicevents such as earthquakes, volcaniceruptions, floods, or tidal waves (likethe tsunami that hit Indonesia, SriLanka, the Andaman Islands and partsof Tamil Nadu in December 2004) canchange societies quite drastically.These changes are often irreversible,that is, they are permanent and dontallow a return to the way things were.For example, it is quite possible thatmany of those whose livelihoods weredestroyed by the tsunami will never beable to return to them again, and thatmany of the coastal villages will havetheir social structure completelyaltered. There are numerous instancesof natural disasters leading to a totaltransformation and sometimes totaldestruction of societies in history.Environmental or ecological factorsneed not only be destructive to causechange, they can be constructive aswell. A good example is the discoveryof oil in the desert regions of West Asia(also called the Middle East). Like thediscovery of gold in California in the19th century, oil reserves in the MiddleEast have completely transformed thesocieties in which they were found.Countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait orthe United Arab Emirates would be verydifferent today without their oil wealth.

Technology and Economy

The combination of technological andeconomic change has been responsible

The earth caves in after heavy floods

nature on society is changing ratherthan simply declining.

But how, you might ask, does thisaffect social change? The environment


for immense social changes, speciallyin the modern period. Technologyaffects society in a wide variety ofways. As seen above, it can help us toresist, control, adapt to or harnessnature in dif ferent ways. Incombination with the very powerfulinstitution of the market, technologicalchange can be as impressive in itssocial impact as natural factors like atsunami or the discovery of oil. Themost famous instance of massive andimmediately visible social changebrought about by technological changeis the Industrial Revolution itself,which you have already read about.

You will surely have heard of themassive social impact made by thesteam engine. The discovery of steampower allowed emerging forms of largescale industry to use of a source ofenergy that was not only far strongerthan animals or human beings, butwas also capable of continuousoperation without the need for rest.When harnessed to modes of transportlike the steam ship and the railway, ittransformed the economy and socialgeography of the world. The railroadenabled the westward expansion ofindustry and trade on the Americancontinent and in Asia. In India too,the railways have played a veryimportant role in shaping theeconomy, specially in the first centuryafter their introduction in 1853.Steamships made ocean voyagesmuch faster and much more reliable,thereby changing the dynamics of

international trade and migration.Both these developments createdgigantic ripples of change whichaffected not only the economy but alsothe social, cultural and demographicdimensions of world society.

The importance and impact ofsteam power became visible relativelyquickly; however, sometimes, thesocial impact of technological changesbecomes visible only retrospectively.A technological invention or discoverymay produce limited immediateef fects, as though it were lyingdormant. Some later change in theeconomic context may suddenlychange the social significance of thesame invention and give it recognitionas a historic event. Examples of thisare the discovery of gunpowder andwriting paper in China, which hadonly limited impact for centuries untilthey were inserted into the context ofmodernising Western Europe. Fromthat vantage point, given theadvantage of enabling circumstances,gunpowder helped to transform thetechnology of warfare and the paper-print revolution changed societyforever. Another example closer homeis the case of technological innovationsin the textile industry in Britain. Incombination with market forces andimperial power, the new spinning andweaving machines destroyed thehandloom industry of the Indiansubcontinent which was, until then,the largest and most advanced in theworld.


Activity 3

Have you noticed other suchtechnological changes which havesocial consequences in your own life?Think of the photo-copying machineand its impact. Have you everthought of what things were likebefore photo-copying became socheap and freely available? Anotherexample could be the STD telephonebooths. Try to find out how peoplecommunicated before thesetelephone boths had appeared andvery few homes had telephoneconnections. Make a list of othersuch examples.

Sometimes changes in economicorganisation that are not directlytechnological can also change society.In a well-known historical example,plantation agriculture that is, thegrowing of single cash crops likesugarcane, tea or cotton on a largescale created a heavy demand forlabour. This demand helped toestablish the institution of slavery andthe slave trade between Africa, Europeand the Americas between the 17thand 19th centuries. In India, too, thetea plantations of Assam involved theforced migration of labour fromEastern India (specially the Adivasiareas of Jharkhand and Chattisgarh).Today, in many parts of the world,changes in customs duties or tariffsbrought about by internationalagreements and institutions like theWorld Trade Organisation, can lead toentire industries and occupationsbeing wiped out or (less often) suddenbooms or periods of prosperity forother industries or occupations.

Politics

In the old ways of writing andrecounting history, the actions ofkings and queens seemed to be themost important forces of socialchange. But as we know now, kingsand queens were the representativesof larger political, social and economictrends. Individuals may indeed havehad roles to play, but they were partof a larger context. In this sense,political forces have surely beenamong the most important causes ofsocial change. The clearest examplesare found in the history of warfare.When one society waged war onanother and conquered or wasconquered, social change was usuallyan immediate consequence.Sometimes, conquerors brought theseeds of change and planted themwherever they went. At other times,the conquered were actuallysuccessful in planting seeds of changeamong the conquerors andtransformed their societies. Althoughthere are many such examples inhistory, it is interesting to consider amodern instance that of the UnitedStates and Japan.

The United States won a famousvictory over Japan in the Second WorldWar, partly through the use of aweapon of mass destruction neverseen before in human history, thenuclear bomb. After the Japanesesurrender, the United States occupiedand ruled over Japan for several years,bringing about lots of changes,including land reform in Japan.Japanese industry, at that time, was


trying very hard to copy Americanindustry and learn from it. By the1970s, however, Japanese industrialtechniques, specially in fields like carmanufacturing, had gone far ahead ofthe Americans. Between the 1970sand 1990s, Japanese industrydominated the world and forcedchanges in the industrial organisationof Europe and specially the UnitedStates. The industrial landscape ofthe United States in particular wasdecisively altered by the impact ofJapanese industrial technology andproduction organisation. Large,traditionally dominant industries likesteel, automobiles and heavyengineering suffered major setbacksand had to restructure themselvesaccording to Japanese technologicaland management principles.Emerging fields like electronics werealso pioneered by the Japanese. Inshort, within the space of fourdecades, Japan had turned the tableson the United States, but througheconomic and technological meansrather than warfare.

Political changes need not only beinternational they can haveenormous social impact even at home.Although you may not have thoughtof it this way, the Indian independencemovement did not only bring aboutpolitical change in the form of the endof British rule, it also decisivelychanged Indian society. A more recentinstance is to be found in the Nepalipeoples rejection of monarchy in2006. More generally, politicalchanges bring about social change

through the redistribution of poweracross different social groups andclasses.

Considered from this viewpoint,universal adult franchise or the oneperson, one vote principle isprobably the single biggest politicalchange in history. Until moderndemocracies formally empowered thepeople with the vote, and untilelections became mandatory forexercising legitimate power, societywas structured very differently. Kingsand queens claimed to rule by divineright, and they were not reallyanswerable to the common people.Even when democratic principles ofvoting were first introduced, they didnot include the whole population in fact only a small minority couldvote, or had any say in the formationof the government. In the beginning,the vote was restricted to those whowere born into high status socialgroups of a particular race or ethincity,or to wealthy men who ownedproperty. All women, men of lowerclasses or subordinated ethnicities,and the poor and working people ingeneral were not allowed to vote.

It is only through long strugglesthat universal adult franchise came tobe established as a norm. Of course,this did not abolish all the inequalitiesof previous eras. Even today, not allcountries follow democratic forms ofrule; even where elections are held,they can be manipulated; and peoplecan continue to be powerless toinfluence the decisions of theirgovernment. But despite all this, it


cannot be denied that universal adultfranchise serves as a powerful normthat exerts pressure on every societyand every government. Governmentsmust now at least appear to seek theapproval of the people in order to beconsidered legitimate. This hasbrought massive social changes inits wake.

Culture

Culture is used here as a short labelfor a very wide field of ideas, values,beliefs, that are important to peopleand help shape their lives. Changesin such ideas and beliefs lead naturallyto changes in social life. Thecommonest example of a socio-cultural institution that has hadenormous social impact is religion.Religious beliefs and norms havehelped organise society and it is hardlysurprising that changes in thesebeliefs have helped transform society.So important has religion been, thatsome scholars have tended to definecivilisations in religious terms and tosee history as the process ofinteraction between religions.However, as with other importantfactors of social change, religion toois contextual it is able to produceeffects in some contexts but not inothers. Max Webers study theProtestant Ethic and the Spirit ofCapitalism showed how the religiousbeliefs of some Christian Protestantsects helped to establish the capitalistsocial system. It remains one of themost famous examples of the impactof cultural values on economic and

social change. In India too we findmany examples of religion bringingabout social change. Among the bestknown are the impact of Buddhism onsocial and political life in ancient India,and the widespread influence of theBhakti Movement on medieval socialstructure including the caste system.

A different example of culturalchange leading to social change canbe seen in the evolution of ideas aboutthe place of women in society. In themodern era, as women have struggledfor equality, they have helped changesociety in many ways. Womensstruggles have also been helped orhindered by other historicalcircumstances. For example, duringthe Second World War, women inwestern countries started to work infactories doing jobs that they hadnever done before, jobs which hadalways been done by men. The factthat women were able to build ships,operate heavy machinery, manufacturearmaments and so on, helpedestablish their claims to equality. Butit is equally true that, had it not beenfor the war, they would have had tostruggle for much longer. A verydifferent instance of change producedby the position of women can be seenin consumer advertising. In mosturban societies, it is women who takemost of the everyday decisions aboutwhat to buy for their households. Thishas made advertisers very sensitive tothe views and perspectives of womenas consumers. Significant proportionsof advertising expenditure are nowdirected at women, and this in turn


has effects on the media. In short,the economic role of women starts achain of changes which can have alarger social impact. For example,advertisements may tend to showwomen as decision-makers and asimportant people in ways that wouldnot have been considered orencouraged before. More generally,most advertisements used to beaddressed to men; now they areaddressed as much to women, or, insome sectors like householdappliances and consumer goods,mainly to women. So it is noweconomically important for advertisersand manufacturers to pay attentionto what women think and feel.

Yet another instance of culturalchange bringing about social changecan be found in the history of sports.Games and sports have always beenexpressions of popular culture thatsometimes acquire a lot ofimportance. The game of cricketbegan as a British aristocraticpastime, spread to the middle andworking classes of Britain, and fromthere to British colonies across theworld. As the game acquired rootsoutside Britain, it often turned into asymbol of national or racial pride.The very different history of intenserivalry in cricket shows the socialimportance of sport in a very tellingmanner. The England-Australiarivalry expressed the resentment ofthe socially subordinated colony(Australia) against the dominant

upper class centre of authority(England). Similarly, the completeworld dominance of the West Indiescricket team during the 1970s and1980s, was also an expression ofracial pride on the part of a colonisedpeople. In India, too, beating Englandat cricket was always seen assomething special, particularly beforeindependence. At another level, theimmense popularity of cricket in theIndian sub-continent has altered thecommercial profile of the game whichis now driven by the interests of SouthAsian fans, specially Indians.

As will be clear from the abovediscussion, no single factor or theorycan account for social change. Thecauses of social change may beinternal or external, the result ofdeliberate actions or accidentalevents. Moreover, the causes of socialchange are often interrelated.Economic and technological causesmay also have a cultural component,politics may be influenced byenvironment It is important to beaware of the many dimensions ofsocial change and its varied forms.Change is an important subject forus because the pace of change inmodern and specially contemporarytimes is much faster than what itused to be before. Although socialchange is better understoodretrospectively after it has alreadyoccurred we also need to be awareof it as it happens, and to prepare forit in whatever ways we can.


SOCIAL ORDER

The meaning of social events orprocesses often becomes clearthrough contrasts, just as the letterson the page that you are readingbecome legible because they contrastagainst the background. In the sameway, social change as a processacquires meaning against thebackdrop of continuity or lack ofchange. It may sound odd, butchange makes sense as a conceptonly if there are also some things thatare not changing, so that they offerthe possibility of comparison orcontrast. In other words, socialchange has to be understood togetherwith social order, which is thetendency within established socialsystems that resists and regulateschange.

Another way of looking at therelationship between social changeand social order is to think about thepossible reasons why society needs toprevent, discourage, or at least controlchange. In order to establish itself asa strong and viable social system,every society must be able toreproduce itself over time andmaintain its stability. Stabilityrequires that things continue more orless as they are that people continueto follow the same rules, that similaractions produce similar results, andmore generally, that individuals andinstitutions behave in a fairlypredictable manner.

Activity 4

We are used to thinking of samenessas boring and change as exciting; thisis also true, of course change canbe fun and lack of change can bereally dull. But think of what lifewould be like if you were forced tochange all the time What if younever, ever got the same food forlunch every day somethingdifferent, and never the same thingtwice, regardless of whether youliked it or not? Here is a scarierthought what if every time youcame back from school there weredifferent people at home, differentparents, different brothers andsisters? What if whenever youplayed your favourite game football, cricket, volleyball, hockeyand so on the rules were differenteach time? Think of other areas ofyour life where you would like thingsto not change too quickly. Are thereareas of your life where you wantthings to change quickly? Try tothink about the reasons why youwant or dont want change inparticular instances.

The above argument was anabstract and general one about thepossible reasons why societies mayneed to resist change. But there areusually more concrete and specificreasons why societies do in fact resistchange. Remember what you readabout social structure and socialstratification in Chapter 1. Mostsocieties most of the time are stratifiedin unequal ways, that is, the different


strata are differently positioned withrespect to command over economicresources, social status and politicalpower. It is not surprising that thosewho are favourably placed wish forthings to continue as they are, whilethose who are suffering disadvantagesare anxious for change. So the rulingor dominant groups in societygenerally resist any social changesthat may alter their status, becausethey have a vested interest in stability.On the other hand, the subordinatedor oppressed groups have a vestedinterest in change. Normal conditionsusually favour the rich and powerful,and they are able to resist change.This is another broad reason whysocieties are generally stable.

However, the notion of social orderis not restricted to the idea ofresistance to change, it also has amore positive meaning. It refers to theactive maintenance and reproductionof particular pattern of social relationsand of values and norms. Broadlyspeaking, social order can be achievedin one of two ways when peoplespontaneously wish to abide by a setof rules and norms; or when peopleare compelled in various ways to obeysuch norms. Every society employs acombination of these methods tosustain social order.

Spontaneous consent to socialorder derives ultimately from sharedvalues and norms which areinternalised by people through theprocess of socialisation. (Revisit thediscussion of socialisation inIntroducing Sociology). Socialisation

may be more or less efficient indif ferent contexts, but howeverefficient it is, it can never completelyerase the will of the individual. Inother words, socialisation cannot turnpeople into programmed robots itcannot produce complete andpermanent consent for all norms atall times. You may have experiencedthis in your own lives: rules or beliefswhich seem very natural and right atone point of time, dont seem soobviously correct at other times. Wequestion things we believed in thepast, and change our minds aboutwhat we regard as right or wrong.Sometimes, we may even return tobeliefs we once held and thenabandoned, only to rediscover themafresh at some later stage of life or indifferent circumstances. So, whilesocialisation does take on much of theburden of producing social order, it isnever enough by itself.

Thus, most modern societies mustalso depend on some form of power orcoercion to ensure that institutionsand individuals conform to establishedsocial norms. Power is usually definedas the ability to make others do whatyou want regardless of what theythemselves want. When a relationshipof power is stable and settled, and theparties involved have becomeaccustomed to their relative positions,we have a situation of domination. Ifa social entity (a person, institutionor group) is routinely or habitually ina position of power, it is said to bedominant. In normal times, dominantinstitutions, groups or individuals


exercise a decisive influence onsociety. It is not as though they arenever challenged, but this happensonly in abnormal or extraordinarytimes. Even though it implies thatpeople are being forced to do thingsthey dont necessarily want to do,domination in normal times can bequite smooth, in the sense ofappearing to be without friction ortension. (Revisit the discussion offorced cooperation from Chapter 1.Why, for example, did women not wantto claim their rights in their familiesof birth? Why did they consent tothe patriarchal norm).

Domination, Authority and LawHow is it that domination can be non-confrontational even when it clearlyinvolves unequal relationships wherecosts and benefits are unevenlydistributed? Part of the answer wehave already got from the discussionof the previous chapter dominantgroups extract cooperation in unequalrelationships because of their power.But why does this power work? Doesit work purely because of the threat ofthe use of force? This is where wecome to an important concept insociology, that of legitimation.

In social terms, legitimacy refersto the degree of acceptance that isinvolved in power relations.Something that is legitimate isaccepted as proper, just and fitting.In the broadest sense, it isacknowledged to be part of the socialcontract that is currently prevailing.In short, legitimacy implies conformityto existing norms of right, propriety

and justice. We have already seen howpower is defined in society; power initself is simply a fact it can be eitherlegitimate or not. Authority is definedby Max Weber as legitimate power that is, power considered to bejustified or proper. For example, apolice officer, a judge, or a schoolteacher all exercise different kinds ofauthority as part of their jobs. Thisauthority is explicitly provided to themby their official job description thereare written documents specifying theirauthority, and what they may and maynot do.

The fact that they have authorityautomatically implies that othermembers of society who have agreedto abide by its rules and regulations must obey this authority within itsproper domain. The domain of thejudge is the court room, and whencitizens are in the court, they aresupposed to obey the judge or defer toher/his authority. Outside thecourtroom, the judge is supposed tobe like any other citizen. So, on thestreet, S/he must obey the lawfulauthority of the police officer. Whenon duty, the policeman or woman hasauthority over the public actions of allcitizens except her/his superiorofficers. But police officers do not havejurisdiction over the private activitiesof citizens as long as they are notsuspected of being unlawful. Indifferent way different because thenature of the authority involved is lessstrictly or explicitly defined theteacher has authority over her/hispupils in the classroom. The authority


as an individual agree with aparticular law, it has binding force onme as a citizen, and on all othercitizens similarly regardless of theirbeliefs.

So, domination works throughpower, but much of this power isactually legitimate power or authority,a large part of which is codified in law.Consent and cooperation are obtainedon a regular and reliable basis becauseof the backing of this structure oflegitimation and formal institutionalsupport. This does not exhaust thedomain of power or domination there are many kinds power that areeffective in society even though theyare illegitimate, or if legitimate are notcodified in law. It is the mix oflegitimate, lawful authority and otherkinds of power that determines thenature of a social system and also itsdynamics.

Contestation, Crime and Violence

The existence of domination, power,legitimate authority and law does notimply that they always meet withobedience and conformity. You havealready read about the presence ofconflict and competition in society. Ina similar way, we need to recognisemore general forms of contestation insociety. Contestation is used here assimply a word for broad forms ofinsistent disagreement. Competitionand conflict are more specific thanthis, and leave out other forms ofdissent that may not be well describedby such terms.

of the teacher does not extend into thehome of the pupil where parents orguardians have primary responsibilityand authority over their children.

There may be other forms ofauthority that are not so strictlydefined, but are nevertheless effectivein eliciting consent and cooperation.A good example is the authoritywielded by a religious leader. Althoughsome institutionalised religions mayhave partly formalised this authority,but the leader of a sect or other less-institutionalised minor religious groupmay wield enormous authoritywithout it being formalised. Similarlyreputed scholars, artists, writers andother intellectuals may wield a lot ofauthority in their respective fieldswithout it being formalised. The sameis true of a criminal gang leader heor she may exercise absolute authoritybut without any formal specifications.

The difference between explicitlycodified and more informal authorityis relevant to the notion of the law. Alaw is an explicitly codified norm orrule. It is usually written down, andthere are laws that specify how lawsare to be made or changed, or what isto be done if someone violates them.A modern democratic society has agiven body of laws created through itslegislature, which consist of electedrepresentatives. The laws of the landare enacted in the name of the peopleof that land by the peoplesrepresentatives. This law forms theformal body of rules according towhich society will be governed. Lawsapply to all citizens. Whether or not I


One example is that of countercultures among youth or youthrebellion. These are protests againstor refusal to conform to prevalentsocial norms. The content of theseprotests may involve anything fromhairstyles and clothing fashions tolanguage or lifestyle. More standardor conventional forms of contestationinclude elections which are a formof political competition. Contestationsalso include dissent or protest againstlaws or lawful authorities. Open anddemocratic societies allow this kind ofdissent to different degrees. There areboth explicit and implicit boundariesdefined for such dissent; crossingthese boundaries invites some form ofreaction from society, usually from thelaw enforcement authorities.

As you know very well, beingunited as Indians does not prevent usfrom disagreeing with each other.Different political parties may havevery different agendas even thoughthey may respect the sameConstitution. Belief in or knowledgeof the same set of traffic rules doesnot prevent heated arguments on theroad. In other words, social order neednot mean sameness or unanimity. Onthe other hand, how much differenceor dissent is tolerated in society is animportant question. The answer tothis question depends on social andhistorical circumstances but it alwaysmarks an important boundary insociety, the boundary between thelegitimate and the illegitimate, thelegal and the illegal, and theacceptable and the unacceptable.

Although it generally carries astrong moral charge, the notion ofcrime is strictly derived from the law.A crime is an act that violates anexisting law, nothing more, nothingless. The moral worth of the act is notdetermined solely by the fact that itviolates existing law. If the existing lawis believed to be unjust, for example,a person may claim to be breaking itfor the highest moral reasons. This isexactly what the leaders of theFreedom Movement in India weredoing as part of their CivilDisobedience campaign. WhenMahatma Gandhi broke the salt lawof the British government at Dandi,he was committing a crime, and hewas arrested for it. But he committedthis crime deliberately and proudly,and the Indian people were also proudof him and what he stood for. Ofcourse, these are not the only kindsof crime that are committed! There aremany other kinds of crime that cannotclaim any great moral virtue. But theimportant point is that a crime is thebreaking of the law going beyondthe boundary of legitimate dissent asdefined by the law.

The

Understanding Society Sociology

Documents

Transcript of Understanding Society Sociology