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.