Views of Radcliffe – Brown on Social Structure
Radcliffe-Brown has clearly written, “The components of a social structure are human beings and the structure itself is an orderly form or arrangement of individuals within defined and regular relations as founding. You have also written that by direct observation we know that human beings are related to each other by a complex web of social relations. – Brown experiment has been done. But remember that man himself is the creator of this network of relationships and the fabric of relationships is between the same human beings. During social interactions, these relationships become more clear and regular, or rather, That these relations are defined and regulated by social institutions. Thus defined and regular relations organize the members of society in a certain way. This systematic form of individuals or members of society is the social structure. It can also be presented in this way. An institutionally defined and regular relationship unites a person with other people in a certain way. As a result of this union, the members of the society are in a certain way within their social system. They get dressed.
Social structure is the pattern formed by the members of the society in such a decorated manner or systematically. To explain this view more clearly, Brown has given the example of tribal societies of Australia and Africa. The kinship system in these societies is the expression of institutional relations. These relations unite the relatives with each other in a particular way and also provide them with certain fixed status. The model on which these relatives collectively form these positions is called kinship structure. The same pattern or order can be seen in other areas of social life as well.
She is Take, for example, marriage. The Thonga and Bantu tribes of South Africa have a custom of giving a dhor called ‘Labola’ as a bride-price. This custom related to marriage unites many people with each other and it is in such a way that not only the members of a person’s own family, but also his close relatives help in gathering ‘Labola’. The same Labola is given for the marriage of the bride’s brother or any other close relative – in the form of assistance in the marriage of relatives. In this way, through the institution of marriage, the members of two families not only become related to each other, but a kind of financial cooperation also develops in them. In this form, the institutionally defined and regular marriage-relationship becomes that link which connects the members of two families in the socio-economic sphere.
Views of S.F. Nadel on Social Structure
According to Nadel’s view, the term ‘structure’ denotes a defined aggregation of organs, a systematic ordering. Since ‘structure’ is related to articulation or arrangement, it has nothing to do with ‘function’, content, content or qualitative nature. While describing the structure, we exclude from ‘whole’ all those things which are not ‘order’ or order. For example , we can make a wooden or tin box , without mentioning it ( ie without associating ourselves with the contents of S.E. Nadel ) can present a description of its structure . The content or function is not included in the description of the structure.
On the basis of this it can be concluded that without the tangible material expressing the structure, the relocation of the structure can take place. This can be said differently in such a way that even though there is no change in the singularity in the form of a structure, the explanation of a society is also necessary to understand the making of the structure. Society is understood to be such a group of human beings who are related to each other on the basis of some such institutional or general social rules which direct, regulate and control their actions i.e. three interrelated elements are notable in the concept of a society. They are – first, human beings themselves, second, the actions taking place between these human beings and third, the various social relations and their manifestations arising out of these interactions. It is also noteworthy in this regard that there is neither excessive irregularity in the relationships found in human beings nor are the interacting individuals abruptly changeable. The main reason for this is that there are some institutional rules of action which generate regularity in the action. These rules also determine what type of work will be done by which person.
That is why we call the action of the individual in relation to the society as social work. Although functions and relationships organize and regulate human beings that make up society, there must be order and regularity in the collection of existing relationships, if the systematic order found in human beings is really integrated into the society as a whole. Prot is a composite sequence. Therefore, it is clear that a mere collection of existing social relations cannot be formed unless there is a systematic order in it. At the same time, it should also be remembered that only by connecting and arranging human beings on the one hand and arranging and arranging the relations found in them on the other hand, social structure does not form. In fact, it can be possible only by arranging the majority of the people through relationships. ‘
Thus, according to Nadel, social structure can be defined as- “the pattern, network or pattern of relations found between the actors in a situation of working in relation to other persons apart from the concrete population and its behavior”. The system is called the structure of a society.
” S.F. Nadel — The Problems of Role Analysis
Seligman and Malinowski have had a special influence on Nadel’s structural thinking. Nadel considered social structure to be separate from culture. He is of the opinion that all the scholars of social structure agree that the study of structure is essentially the study of the whole object or the interrelationship of the parts within the whole or their orderliness. Nadel has described the social structure as a web of interactions of social forces that lead to the emergence of observation and thought. Nadel has considered the concept of role to be central to the theory of social structure. The role acts as an intermediary between the individual and the society. The meaning of role is taken from behavior. Possible only in the case of interactions in the role. The role is objective. It happens continuously i.e. over and over again. Social structure is a system of roles. Categories of Roles Nadel has given the following categories of roles 1. Assigned Roles 2. Acquired Roles 3. Professional Roles (Service Roles) 4. Overt Roles (Speech, Art etc.) 5. Self
Contribution of Role in Social Structure 10. Leadership Roles Structure) SF Nadel has shown the contribution of roles by analyzing the roles of the individual in the social structure, which is as follows
Social Structure – Concept and Theory 83 The more roles a person performs, the more his relationships expand and his roles also increase accordingly. The more roles he fulfills, the more he gets attached to the society. Where roles are performed under pressure, those roles put unnecessary stress on the performer, both on his personality and on the society. But apart from this disadvantage there are other benefits from roles such as social integration and social control. There is a punishment system for not fulfilling the roles. In answer to the question of why roles are performed, Nadel has told that first they are provided to the individual by the society or else it becomes necessary to do them for the performance of economic activities. Deviant roles are negative variables that infringe on rights. Nadel is of the opinion that role has an important role in terms of organizing human beings. Nevertheless, the collection of existing relations should also be systematic and orderly because the systematic order of human beings is actually a complete sequence which covers the whole society.
In this way, Nadel has defined social structure as the pattern or system of relations existing between actors in a role-playing situation while relating to the concrete population of a society and other individuals fine-tuned by its behaviour.