Social Structure

By M. N. Srinivas

I

During the last twentyfive years, the concept of social structure has come to occupy a central place in social anthropology. This concept is to be found in Montesquieu (Evans-Pritchard, 1951, 22F) and in later times, in Herbert Spencer and E. Durkheim, Radcliffe- Brown used it consistently in his lectures since about 1911 and, as the years went by, he gave an increasingly important place to it in his teaching. Modern British social anthropology is not intelligible without it. "All British social anthropologists are structuralists in their use of the analytical principles developed by this method." (Firth, 1955).

Although sociologists such as Durkheim had pointed to the importance of social morphology or structure, a new departure was marked in the thirties of the present century by the works of a number of British social anthropologists. Field studies by these anthropologists, mainly in Africa, produced a succession of monographs in which the concept of social structure was used as the central theoretical frame of reference. These studies, mainly by reason of the small size of the communities investigated, were able to present successful accounts of the total social structure by delineating the principal enduring groups and categories in a tribe and their interrelations.

In a way it could be said that social anthropology had been grouping for some time for a well-defined field of its own, and a criterion of relevance, and found both in the concept of social structure. The delineation of social structure is a primary task, and even when such delineation does not actually take place, the social anthropologist views institutions or institutional complexes against the structural matrix. In a word, he regards institutions as part of the social structure, being both influenced by the total structure as well as influencing it. The concept of social structure and the bringing to bear of a structural point of view into the study of social phenomena are the specific contributions of social anthropologists.

It is well-known that while there are several brilliant studies of the social structure of primitive and peasant communities, there are no 13 comparable studies of the social structure of a big, modern country. This is due, in the first place, to the difficulty and complexity of undertaking such a study. Secondly, in the last twenty years or so, British social anthropologists have been preoccupied with problems of social structure to the exclusion of almost everything else. This has resulted in several good structural studies of primitive and peasant societies. It must be mentioned here, however, that there are available studies of sections of modern societies such as village communities and towns in India, Japan, China, U.K., U.S.A., and Canada. Studies have also been made of national institutions and problems such as race relations in the U.S.A. and caste in India.

II

There are different views regarding what is social structure.According to Radcliffe-Brown (1952, 191-192) "There are some anthropologists who use the term social structure to refer only to persistent social groups, such as nations, tribes and clans, which retain their continuity, their identity as individual groups, in spite of changes in their membership. Dr. Evans-Pritchard, in his recent admirable book on the Nuer, prefers to use the term social structure in this sense. Certainly the existence of such persistent social groups in an exceedingly important aspect of structure. But I find it more useful to include under the term social structure a good deal more than this.

"In the first place, I regard as a part of the social structure all social relations of person to person. For example, the kinship structure of any society consists of a number of such dyadic relations, as between a father and son, or a mother's brother and his sister's son. In an Australian tribe the whole social structure is based on a network of such relations of person to person, established through genealogical connections.

"Secondly, I include under social structure the differentiation of individuals and of classes by their social role. The differential social positions of men and women, of chiefs and commoners, of employers and employees, are just as much determinants of social relations as belonging to different clans or different nations."

In my opinion, the two views mentioned above are not as divergent as they seem at first sight. Dyadic relations can be usually referred to classes or categories which are a part of the structure. The relationships of master and servant, patron and client, and priest and worshipper, provide examples of such categories while rich and poor 14 belong to different classes. Dyadic relationships between relatives are not fully understandable except as part of the wider kinship structure. The mutual rights, duties and privileges of mother's brother and sister's son vary from society to society and must be looked at as part of the kinship structure which is in turn a part of the total social structure. The relation between priest and worshipper is part of the religious structure while the relation between master and servant, and patron and client are part of the economic structure and the status system. Dyadic relationships are by and large referable to enduring classes or categories which are as much a part of the social structure as lineages and village communities. Any restriction of social structure to enduring groups only and to the exclusion of enduring categories and classes would seem to be arbitrary and unjustified. (But on the other hand dyadic relationships are referable to deeper elements of the social structure).

III

A social structure may be looked upon as consisting of innumerable corporations, aggregate as well as sole. "English lawyers classify corporations as Corporations aggregate and Corporations sole. A Corporation aggregate is a true corporation, but a Corporation sole is an individual, being a series of individuals, who is invested by a fiction with the qualities of a corporation. I need hardly cite the King or the Parson of a Parish as instances of Corporation sole. The capacity or office is here considered apart from the particular person who from time to time may occupy it, and this capacity being perpetual, the series of individuals who fill it are clothed with the leading attribute of Corporations—Perpetuity. Now in the older theory of Roman Law the individual bore to the family precisely the same relation which in the rationale of English jurisprudence a Corporation sole bears to a Corporation aggregate". (H. S. Maine, 1871, 155. Italics mine.) The traditional Indian village community is a good example of a corporation aggregate while the village headman, accountant and priest are examples of corporations sole.

The legal mechanism which assures perpetuity to corporations is "universal succession". "A universal succession is a succession to a universitatis juris. It occurs when one man is invested with the legal clothing of another, becoming at the same moment subject to all his liabilities and entitled to all his rights ... In order that there may be a true universal succession the transmission must be such as to pass the whole aggregate of rights and duties at the same moment and in virtue of the same legal capacity in the recipient". 15 The corporations aggregate and sole which go to make up a social structure are perpetuated by means of universal succession. Duties and rights are attached to every office or role. The concept of office or role is the link between the individual and the social structure. Every holder of an office, whether it be that of a village headman, priest or manager (karta) of a joint family, is expected to behave in a particular way. There are norms to be observed, and failure to observe them will result in sanctions being brought to bear on the defaulter. Sanctions are of many kinds, and of varying degrees of severity and severity itself is culturally defined. Public opinion and reciprocity are two of the most important sanctions. Conscience, it needs hardly be said, is the subjective aspect of the normative system, the result of persistent training and indoctrination, especially in the first few years of life.

Corresponding to every role or office in the structure, there are norms of conduct. Two or three decades ago, among the upper castes in India, looking after her husband was regarded as the moral and religious duty of the wife. He was to be regarded as her god and serving him as her highest duty. It was! a woman's ambition to be a pativrathu. This does not necessarily mean that every upper caste wife or even a majority of them did actually behave in the way they were expected to behave. In no society is there a perfect overlap between the norms and actual conduct, and divergence between the two is an important field for investigation. Again, within the same society, norms may be obeyed in different degrees in different sectors of social life. It is somewhat facile to think that such conflicts are always due to the clash of self-interest with those of duty. There is no doubt that this occurs frequently but norms may not be obeyed because, often one norm clashes with another. A woman's role as wife may clash with her role as mother, daughter and daughter-in-law. In a situation of social change, there will be clash between traditional and new norms. An educated girl in an underdeveloped country often experiences such conflicts. A norm imposed by the government might clash with the traditional norms of the people. For instance, in modern India, a Hindu is required to give a share of ancestral property, including land, to a daughter. This conflicts with the traditional norms of the people, which require that land be passed on only to agnatic heirs.

IV

A distinction has to be made between formal and informal or 'operative', structure. As Firth (1955, 3) observes , "it is one of the 16 discoveries of modern industrial analysis that such informal structures are often the most effective in regulating working behaviour. In the 'primitive' field the informal structure and the formal structure may merge easily, if only because of the lack of any means such as charts or other written records by reference to which the formal structure can be maintained and established". Any analysis of social structure which wishes to proceed beyond the delineation of the formal groups and categories into the actual functioning of it, must take note of informal structure. The formal structure is concerned only with the various roles and offices each, whereas the informal structure deals with the actual alignment of forces and their relation to the formal social structure. The informal structure usually operates within the framework of the formal structure. But individual members try to manipulate the offices and rules to further their self-interest. The scope for manipulation is greater when the rules are not clear. If the formal structure alone was considered individuals would appear to have very little freedom and initiative, while if the concept of informal structure were also considered, it would not only give them power, but also bring the concepts closer to social action and reality. When we consider the way a structure actually works, individuals have choice between alternative courses of action, and also, rules and offices become subject to manipulation by members of society. The informal structure does not have the stability of the formal structure but it is there and it influences the flow of social life.

Firth is aware of this aspect of social life and his concept of social organisation meets it to some extent. "In the concept of social structure, the qualities recognised are primarily those of consistence, continuity, form and pervasiveness through the social field. But the continuity is essentially one of repetition. There is an expectation of sameness or an obligation to sameness, depending upon how the concept is phrased. A structural principle is one which provides a fixed line of social behaviour and represents the order which it manifests. The concept of social organisation has complementary emphasis. It recognizes adaptation of behaviour in respect of given ends, control of means in varying circumstances, which are set by changes in the external environment or by the necessity to resolve conflict between structural principles. If structure implies order, organisation implies a working towards order—though not necessarily the same order. There is an arrangement of activity in reference to the possible reciprocal movements of the factors involved in the situation." (Firth, 1955, 2. Italics mine.) 17

V

Does the concept of 'social structure' necessarily imply that every society is a unified whole? Such a presumption is probably strengthened by the frequent reference in literature to the 'structure-function' school or approach. It is true that in the recent history of British social anthropology the two most important concepts have been 'Function' and 'structure', and by and large, the 'functionalists' of the twenties and thirties are the 'structuralists' of today. So it would seem that historically at least the structuralists are committed to the view that every society is a whole and that its various parts are interrelated. More, the very concept of social structure would imply that the various groups and categories which are part of a society are related to each other. (Terms like 'web' and 'network' have been used in describing social structure.) The economic, kinship, political, legal and religious structures are not unrelated entities existing by themselves. As a matter of empirical observation it is known that changes in any one sector of the structure are followed by changes in the other sectors. But a question that needs to be asked is whether the existence of inter-relation between the parts implies that the parts so inter-related constitute a unified whole? If by a unified whole is meant that the various parts dovetail with each other to produce a state of equilibrium, then the assumption is unjustified. Tensions and conflicts do exist in all societies and they exert pulls in different and opposite directions. This view is not only in accord with experience, but it is also free from the teleological implications of the first view, viz., that in every society each part makes a contribution to the equilibrium of the whole. Every society may be looked at as striving towards equilibrium, but rarely actually achieving it. "But in the 'organic' metaphysics of liberal practicability, whatever tends to harmonious balance is likely to be stressed. In viewing everything as a 'continuous process', sudden changes of pace and revolutionary dislocations—so characteristic of our times—are missed, or, if not missed, merely taken as signs of the 'pathological', the 'maladjusted'. The formality of the assumed unity implied by such innocent phrases as 'the mores' or 'the society' decrease the possibility of seeing what a modern social structure may be all about". (C. Wright Mills: The Sociological Imagination, New York, 1959, p. 86). Conflict between different parts of the social structure should be treated as an essential attribute of it, as the aims and activities of different groups do not dovetail. Conflict between an individual's self- interest and the groups of which he is a member is frequent. It may be added here that it is only in recent years that the subject or 18 conflict within the social structure has received some attention from structural anthropologists. (See Prof. M. Gluckman's stimulating booklet Custom and Conflict in Africa, Oxford, 1955). In fact, under the leitmotif of function and structure, the dominant emphasis has been on the analysis of stability and equilibrium conditions. According to Prof. Evans-Pritchard, ". . . modern social anthropology is conservative in its theoretical approach. Its interests are more in what makes for integration and equilibrium in society than in plotting scales and stages of progress". (Evans-pritchard, 1951, 41). What Prof. Evans-Pritchard says is specially true of research conducted before World War II, but it should be added here that not everyone is happy with an exclusive preoccupation with problems of stability and equilibrium. Dr. Leach, for instance, writes, "English social anthropologists have tended to borrow their primary concepts from Durkheim rather than from either Pareto or Max Weber. Consequently they are strongly prejudiced in favour of societies which show symptoms of 'functional integration', 'social solidarity', 'cultural uniformity', 'structural equilibrium'. Such societies, which might well be regarded as moribund by historians or political scientists, are commonly looked upon by social anthropologists as healthy and ideally fortunate. Societies which display symptoms of faction and internal conflict leading to rapid change are on the other hand suspected of 'anomie' and pathological decay." (1954, 7). This criticism does not, however, apply to Evans- Pritchard who is one of the few anthropologists to have undertaken a historical study. (See his The Sanusi Order in Cyrenaica, Oxford, 1949). Social anthropologists doing field-research subsequent to 1945 have had to reckon with change. Isolated and stationary communities are not to be found anywhere in the modern world. But the more or less exclusive preoccupation of anthropologists with synchronic problems meant that social anthropologists were utterly unprepared to undertake studies of changing social conditions. That is why the writings of many social anthropologists have an air of unreality, and not closely related to what is actually happening. The comparative ignoring of conflict by social anthropologists is Surprising as the idea of conflict has been prominent in the intellectual heritage of anthropology. Conflict has been emphasised by Darwin, Marx and Freud. Malinowski, applying the idea of Freud to the matrilineal Trobrianders, discovered an "avuncular complex" existing among them. Such application has been fruitful to both anthropology and psychology. It may be taken as axiomatic that in any social structure both 19 conflict and co-operation are prevalent, and that at any given moment there are pulls in diverse directions. The concept of perfect equilibrium has only a heuristic value, societies being actually in a state of disequilibrium, the only question being the extent or degree of disequilibrium. The concept of disequilibrium postulates that the various parts of a society are inter-related, for disequilibrium is either the result of external forces acting on the society or due to internal stresses. In the latter case there is the implication that one part of the society is influenced or being influenced by the others. Interrelation only means that any part of the structure issues as well as receives forces from other parts. Thus a 'stable' kinship system might be adversely affected by the changing economic or religious system, or a changing kinship system might influence the economic system. This is putting the issue at its simplest. The existence of inter-relation should not be taken to mean that every small movement in a part of a social structure will be followed by movements in other parts. It is more likely that a movement has to acquire a certain amount of force before it influences other parts. Even then some parts may be more easily influenced than others. Again the parts may be more closely linked in some societies than in others and this would result in easier interflow between the parts in the former. Speaking generally, the different parts are more closely linked in a primitive society than in a big, highly differentiated, industrial society. One reason for such close linkage is that relationships are multiplex in a primitive society, the same people being involved in several relationships with each other whereas relationships are uniplex in an industrial society. The entire problem of the mutual discreteness of the various parts of a society has not been investigated mainly because of the dogma of the functional unity of a social system. A social structure can be looked at from different points of view. So far I have regarded it as a network of groups, categories and classes. From the point of view of individual members, however, it consists, on the one hand, of a set of rules which are to be obeyed and to the violation of which sanctions are attached, and on the other, of a configuration of sentiments and values. In a complex society with a highly differentiated structure, members of different sections have different sentiments and values though all share certain common values. Thus the different castes in a village have different sentiments and values though all have a common attachment to the village and to Hinduism. It is only in a plural society that the different segments are bound together, if that is indeed the phrase to use, by nothing more than administrative and political bonds. 20 In describing a social structure, the ideas or images which the members have of the social structure are very relevant though rarely taken into consideration. Every people conceptualize their social structure though the way in which they do it and the degree of clarity with which they do it varies from group to group and individual to individual. Educated Hindus conceive of the caste system as consisting of five orders viz., Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras and Harijans. This is a crude, over-simplified, and inaccurate, picture of the caste system as it actually exists in any small region of India. For instance, it may be found that the local caste-group which claim to be Kshatriyas do not really have the status which Kshatriyas have in the varna hierarchy. The customs and rituals of this group may be different from the customs of groups which are generally recognized to be Kshatriyas. More important, the picture of a five- tiered hierarchy which varna envisages is inapplicable to a situation which involves a few hundred groups many of which claim superiority to those with whom they are usually classed. The hierarchy is clear only at the extremes, and is vague and disputable in the middle regions. It is also vague between groups which are structural neighbours. Vagueness permits arguability which in turn makes possible mobility,

I have said that there are sentiments and values in the minds of members which are the subjective side of the objective structure. This, however, is only true of a stable society. In a situation of change the sentiments of at least some people should be antagonistic to the existing structure. In India today there are some people who believe that untouchability should be done away with, and some others who believe that the entire institution of caste should go.

When the old structure has been replaced by a new one, there will be a lag between the sentiments which the new structure requires and the sentiments of a good many people. It is the task of the new rulers to generate new values and sentiments. Such discordance is a feature of changing societies. This is quite different, however, from the discordance which exists when different segments of a society pull in different directions. The latter situation might obtain even in stationary societies.

Social change means change in the structural pattern. In modern society the dissemination of social knowledge among members is itself a factor making for change. In democratic countries such knowledge is in fact used to support as well as oppose the programmes of political parties. The fact that there are professional social scient- 21 ists whose findings reach the public, is itself an element of the social structure, and their support becomes a critical factor in "social engineering", to use an inelegant phrase. The power of propaganda in modern society is well-known, and in propaganda the persons using it are aware that they are selecting particular facts and arguments which support their views in order to achieve a particular end.

The concept of social structure enables us to mark off the special area of social anthropology and sociology from the other social sciences. When the sociologist is studying economic, political, legal, moral or religious behaviour of a group, he views such behaviour in relation to the total social structure. This is peculiar to the social anthropologist and sociologist and this is what differentiates their approach from that of the other social scientists. Social structure may be viewed as being made up of kinship structure, economic structure, political structure, etc.

As every community lives in a particular part of the world, the attributes of the latter influence the former and vice-versa. "Neither the world distributions of the various economies, nor their development and relative importance among particular peoples, can be regarded as simple functions of physical conditions and natural resources. Between the physical environment and human activity there is always a middle term, a collection of specific objectives and values, a body of knowledge and belief: in others words, a cultural pattern." (G. D. Forde, 1934, 463) The relation between social structure and ecology is beginning to be systematically investigated, (See Evans-Pritchard, 1940). Certain areas have yet to be investigated, however: the relation between social structure and population, and between it and heredity-environment.

REFERENCES 1. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1940): The Nuer, Oxford. 2. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1949): The Sanusi Order in Cyrenaica, Oxford. 3. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1951): Social Anthropology, London. 4. Firth, R. (1955): "Some Principles of Social Organisation", Jrai, 85 III, 1-18. 5. Forde, C. D. (1934): Habitat, Economy & Society, London. 6. Gluckman, M. (1955): Custom And Conflict in Africa, Oxford. 7. Leach, E. R. (1954): The Political Systems of Highland Burma, London. 8. Maine, H. S. (1871): Ancient Law, Oxford, 1946 (World Classics) 9. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1950): Structure And Function in Primitive Society, London. 10. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R, (1958): Method In Social Anthropology, Chicago,