SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND CHANGE

The term structure has been used with reference to human societies since the 19th century. Before that time, it had been already applied to other fields, particularly construction and biology. Its biological connotations are evident in the work of several social theorists of the 19th and early 20th centuries, such as Herbert Spencer in England. He and others conceived of society as an organism, the parts of which are interdependent and thereby form a structure that is similar to the anatomy of a living body.

The metaphor of construction is clear in the work of Karl Marx, where he speaks of "the economic structure [Struktur] of society, the real basis on which is erected a legal and political superstructure [Überbau] and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond." This phrase expresses the Marxian view that the basic structure of society is economic, or material, and determines, at least to a large extent, the rest of social life, which is defined as spiritual or ideological. Although social scientists since Spencer and Marx have disagreed on the concept of social structure, their definitions have certain elements in common. In the most general way, social structure may be defined as those

features of a social entity (a society or group within a society) that have a certain permanence over time, are interrelated, and determine or condition to a large extent both the functioning of the entity as a whole and the activities of its individual members. As may be inferred from this definition, several ideas are implicit in the notion of social structure. The concept expresses the idea that human beings form social relations that are not arbitrary and coincidental, but exhibit some regularity and persistence. The concept also refers to the observation that social life is not amorphous but is differentiated into groups, positions, and institutions that are interdependent, or functionally interrelated. These differentiated and interrelated characteristics of human groupings, although constituted by the social activities of individuals, are not a direct corollary of the wishes and intentions of these individuals; instead, individual choices are shaped and circumscribed by the social environment. The notion of social structure implies, in other words, that human beings are not completely free and autonomous in choosing their activities, but rather they are constrained by the social world they live in and the social relations they form with one another.

The social structure is sometimes simply defined as patterned social relations--those regular and repetitive aspects of the interactions between the members of a given social entity. Even on this descriptive level, the concept is highly abstract: it selects only certain elements from ongoing social activities. The larger the social entity considered, the more abstract the concept tends to be. What is considered as the social structure of a small group is generally much nearer to the daily activities of its individual members than that which is regarded as the social structure of a larger society. In the latter case the problem of selection is acute: what to include or not include as components of the

social structure. The solution to the problem varies with the different theoretical views according to which characteristics of the society are regarded as particularly important. Apart from these different theoretical views, some preliminary remarks on general aspects of the social structure of any society may be made. Most generally, social life is structured along the dimensions of time and space. Specific social activities take place at specific times, and time is divided into periods that are connected with the rhythms of social life--the routines of the day, the month, and the year. Specific social activities are also organized at specific places; particular places, for instance, are designated for such activities as working, worshiping, eating, or sleeping. Territorial boundaries delineate these

places. These boundaries are defined by rules of property, which in any society structure the use and possession of scarce goods. In any society, moreover, there is a more or less regular division of labour. Yet another universal structural characteristic of human societies is the regulation of violence. The use of violence is everywhere a potentially disruptive force; at the same time, it is a means of coercion and coordination of activities. Human beings have formed political units, such as nations, within which the use of violence is strictly regulated and which, at the same time, are organized for the use of violence against outside groups. In any society, furthermore, there are arrangements within the structure for sexual reproduction and the care and education of the young. These arrangements partly take the form of kinship and marriage relations. Finally, systems of symbolic communication, particularly language, everywhere structure the interactions between the members of a society. Within the broad framework of these and other general features of human society, there is an enormous variety of social forms between and even within societies. Several theories have been developed to account for both the similarities and the varieties. In these theories certain aspects of social life are regarded as basic and, therefore, central components of the social structure. Some social scientists use the concept of social structure as a device for creating an order for the various aspects of social life. Thus, the U.S. anthropologist George P. Murdock, in his Social Structure (1949), a comparative study of kinship systems, used the concept as a taxonomic scheme for classifying, comparing, and correlating aspects of kinship systems of different societies. In other studies, the concept is of greater theoretical importance; it is regarded as an explanatory concept, a key to the understanding of human social life. Some of the more prominent of these theories are reviewed here.