Various Models of Social Organization - Coursework Example

 The Extent to which Class and Kinship have Provided Models of Social Organization for Anthropologists and Sociologists Part 1: The extent to which class and kinship have provided models of social organization for anthropologists Class and kinship have provided models of social organization for anthropologists as they relate these structures to culture. Whether metaphorical or not, kinship remains a core concern in anthropology. Holy (1996) reminds us that not all anthropologists agree about the ubiquity and universal character of kinship. But looking at the days of Morgan and Maine, very many practitioners of the discipline have seen it as a human universal. This view was viewed by Holy has three assumptions: that “kinship constitutes one of the institutional domains which are conceived to be universal components or building blocks of every society” (Holy 1996, p. 151). The others, he adds, are an economic system, a political system and a system of belief. (2) The second assumption is the notion that “kinship has to do with the reproduction of human beings and the relations between human beings that are the concomitants of reproduction” (p. 152). (3) Finally, there is the view that “every society utilizes for various social purposes the genealogical relations which it assumes to exist among people” (p. 153). The three assumptions were discredited further by Holy; the degree and form of institutional differentiation varies from society to society; reproduction and biological relatedness carry varying meanings and social implications; and the ways and extents to which genealogical connections are traced, also vary considerably (Carol, 2004). Important variation between concepts of personhood and of relatedness may be glossed over by an over-insistence on the primacy of kinship, whether it is seen as chiefly biological or not. Although there are some studies which suggest that kinship in many cultures is defined not only by genealogy but also by a code of conduct, particularly conduct that expresses the sharing of food, land and service may seem to challenge the anthropological conceptualization of kinship as a system of ties established through procreation, they are in fact, parasitic upon it (Howell, 2003). If people who do not share substance mutually acknowledge each other as kin, how do we know in the first place that that they acknowledge each other as kin and not something else altogether different? Anthropologists are able to apply the classify relationships established through particular performance and code of conduct as kinship relationships simply because the natives apply relational terms in these relationships which we know are kinship terms because they are also applied in relationships established through sexual production. The argument is that in various societies people do not differentiate between those who share substance and those who share land, food, labor, residence or support thus does not challenge the challenge of kinship as a system of genealogical relations and social ties that are tied modeled among them Delaney (Carol, 2004). For this the anthropologists are able to say that in this or in that society the differentiation between those who share substance and those who share other things are blurred precisely because they operate with the model of kinship as a system of genealogical relations in the first place. A more essential attempt to get away from the meaning of kinship to which reproduction is central is made by those anthropologists who openly emphasize the point that kinship, as it is culturally hypothesized in different societies, need not necessary be built on the acknowledgement of genealogical connections. As this maybe the practical difference of kinship in most societies- notwithstanding important variations – ensures its place as a main focus of anthropological research today, not least in studies of complex, modern societies, where it’s significant has probably been underestimated in social theory. When studying kinship, there is a great disparity between the biological determinists and culturists (Howell, 2003). Whatever complementarities may exist between biological or evolutionary perspectives on humanity and perspectives that posit the primacy of social constructions, kinship remains and has proven resilience in attempts of integrating these views. The concept of social class is different, and not only because classes exist in many different kinds of society. ‘caste’ is usually associated with Hinduism and India (Holy, 1996). Majority of the scientists have demonstrated that most people in a class society resemble their parents’ class membership (Holy 1996). There is a great deal of mobility between the social classes, both in theory and in practice. In many societies, class membership is epically considered an achieved and not an ascribed status. The function of gender and age are so much used in social differentiation and the classification of people. The term “social class” is often a term that is coined by the ideologies of capitalists. It is though indubitable to note that social classes exist in all societies (Howell, 2003). The most influential theory of social class was developed by Karl Marx in the mid-nineteenth century. In his very wide-ranging studies of historical societies, especially capitalists ones, according to Marx, were decisive in historical change. According to Marx the classes are related to property . The ruling class in any society is the one whose members control the means of production (land, tools, machinery, factories and the like) and those who buy other people’s labor power (that is, employ people). Below this class, one would usually find classes of farmers and independent craftsmen, as well as wageworkers who have to sell their labor power to survive (Howell, 2003). These present times what is usually spoken about regarding the social class are three important social classes. The first one is the bourgeoisie, or the capitalists, who own the means of production; then there is the petty bourgeoisie, whose members own means of production but do not employ others; and the working class, whose members sell their labor power. In addition, there are lumpenproletariats of unemployed, criminals, vagrant, etc., as well as an aristocracy whose members live off the interest from property (Eriksen, 1995). There are doubtless great systematic rank differences between people even in societies where equality is emphasized. In practice, class differences tend to be produced over the generations, so that children take on their parents’ class membership, although there is always a certain social mobility (Holy 1996). Whether or not such differences are necessarily connected with ownership of means of production, they are very important from a systematic as well as an actor-centered perspective. It should nevertheless be noted that the majority of social scientists support a way of thinking about inequality which, contrary to Marxism, does not give priority to economic property as explanatory variable (Eriksen, 1995). This is what is sometimes referred to as the theory of social stratification, and is associated with max weber. The thought of weber, which he put into writing after Karl Marx, he said that there were several, partly independent criteria which together gave a person a specific rank that property was not necessarily the most important one. An important difference between perspective on classes or strata concerns the significance places on conflict. Class theory is closely related conflict theory, viewing the conflicts between different classes as essential. Marx saw class struggle as the most central factor in social change, since successful class struggles eventually led to changes in the relations of production (property relations) and qualitative changes in the social order (Holy, 1996). Both Marxists thought about social class and other theories of social strata or classes have been criticized for been ethnocentric. Dumont’s criticism of the wide-ranging analytical uses of the term ‘caste’ is representative of this kind of argument. Whereas some would hold that all societies are stratified and that concepts of classes or strata are therefore universally useful, others would stress that the concepts themselves are European and relate intrinsically to modern state societies. From this cultural anthropological thoughts and arguments reveal that class is a basic principle of social differentiation and classification (Howell, 2003). There is indeed and very important interrelationship between economic change and culture change. PART 2: The extent to which class and kinship have provided models of social organization for sociologists Sociologists and anthropologists depend on the understanding of the social phenomena like class structures and kinship systems in order to comprehend different models of social organizations. The understanding of the modern social organizations requires the understanding of the traditional social structures, kinship systems and also the modes of social organizations. This study will discuss the different perspectives of sociologists like Marx, Durkheim and Weber. Sociologists rely on the social structure sand organization of the society through their classification and division of family kinship structures and division in terms of class. The kinship is structured by different families which share the same cultural origin. Different families come together under the same link of decent according to the biological or cultural affiliation. It is the view of many sociologists that the kinship structures of many societies are different and are highly dependent on the methods of parentage, marriage and how the family structures are culturally and kinship relations are defined. Sociologists evaluate the universal ways of coding kingship on the family ties which exist between different relations. Sociologists hold that the methods of coding kinship are universal and can be identified through the parenting and marriage ties demonstrated in different communities and cultures. Kinship may be more reliant on concept of descent based on the biological makeup of the than on culture. However, there are other kinship classifications which are based on culture as opposed to biological attribution (Schneider, 1980). The kinship system in the traditional society was based on the structures of the families and the household and the key features of the basic family units of the society. The major feature of the historical family unit is the patriarchal system. The patriarchal system is a very important feature of the contemporary sociology in the analysis of the kinship system. This concept is inclined to the leadership of the family units which is headed by the ‘rule of the father’. The father was viewed as the head of the family with a family authority which is linked to the ownership of the family property which is passed to families through the generation through the male line. Sociologists such as Max Weber describe the sociological aspects of the family as the fundamental model of the social power using the concept of 'patriarchalism'. According to Weber, 'patriarchalism' represents the system of family powers which was typical of the traditional societies. Sociologists recognize the role of power in kinship systems. In this case, power is exercised within the kinship system through the leadership of the male members of the family especially the father of the household (Gieben & Hall, 1992). Leadership in the kinship system is exercised both at the soil and economic level. The family head id designated to exercise authority over the people he is designated to lead by status derived from the rule of the inheritance (Weber, 1964, p.346). This leadership system is especially used by the sociologists to understand the traditional kinship structures and the power relations between men and men and over women. Weber compares this kinship system power with the feudal system which gave the king the power to exercise authority over his subjects. The same way, in the kinship system, the male head is given the power to exercise authority over his household. This means that they not only excise their powers to the female persons in the household but also to the male persons as well. The compassion of these two systems allows the sociologists to realize that the patriarchy system of leadership in the early societies was not just for gender segregation and discriminations as the power was exercised to the other men as well. The kinship system recognized the role of women in heading the family in both social and economic activities only when she is a widow and up to a time when she gets remarried to another man who takes the leadership role. To understand the current social systems, the kinship system is very crucial is providing the background for sociologists to draw relevant models. Currently, sociologists use the concept of leadership and kinship at the family level to analyze the level of relatedness and the extent of consolidation the families have achieved through the kinship system. In the 1960s and ‘70s, most sociologists used the concept of the kinship systems which had already been neglected in order to understand the social networks, economic networks and the political networks into the communities and specifically in relation to the kinship system. The sociologists use the kinship ties for their studies since is the closest and the most committed ties which unit the society and thus is effective in providing insightful social model for evaluating the social organizations of a particular community (Hall & Mc Grew, 1992). The kinship system recognized the bond of marriages and the generation of family bonds based on biology in tying family ties. However, there are other kin members who are culturally tied to a kinship system without necessarily belong to the society through decent of by birth. This is seen in those married couples who adopt children because they are unable to have children of their won. Also, parents who are not able to take care of their own children get them adopted by parents who may already have children but have the capacity to take care of them all. In this case, the kingship system takes care of including the adopted children as a family kin. Analysis of the class system can also be used by sociologists to provide models of social organization. The economic and the social structures of the societies are mostly divided on lines of economic competitiveness of members of the society and their value in the society. The social class of the traditional societies was based more on the economic activities engaged in by different people and its relationship to the broader society. This can be demonstrated by the hierarchy of class structures which although have changed due to effects of capitalism, has maintained the structures intact (Morrison, 1996). Traditionally, people were grouped in different social classes depending on their occupation. Most of the wealthy people were the kings who had the exclusive rights to own property everywhere and to own land. Land was the most coveted possession as it gave people more class. The king would then give some land to his noble men who would cultivate the land for him. The noble men controlled the planting, caring and harvesting of the land’s produce and were valued for being close to the king. Other notable wealthy people in the social stratification in the traditional society were the merchants, shopkeepers and artisans. The social status of such people was higher than the common people because they had the money which they used to run different economic activities in the community and thus they were viewed as people with a highs social standing (Hall & Mc Grew, 1992). After revolution and industrialization, most of the young people moved in the city for search of employment where they would be paid wages for their services in the factories. This created more division in lines of economic status which was gained in the factories. According to Carl Marx, in his concept of "fetishism of commodities,” he implies that men were fascinated by the money given from their labour which impaired their vision to the amount of division going on. According to Marx, money and commodities in the industries were “fetishes” which constrained them from realizing that they were already divided and were being exploited by another class (Morrison, 1996). Other sociologists have looked into the concept of class especially after the transformation of the society after the industrial revolution. In his approach to sociological studies, Durkheim was concerned about the issue of social order and how the concept of individualism and autonomy of individuals would be manifested in the modern society. He devised the concept of “division of labour” which refers to the stratification of the society where different members of the society performed diverse functions and therefore attract different social classes (Emile, 1983). Weber formulated a multidimensional theory which has stratification of the society into social classes, economic status and race. The class of the people determined their economic situation and the chances they got in the social contexts. The rich and wealthy industrial owners had the social honor as they were prestigiously wealthy. The stratification in the society is based on one party wishing to gain domination over others. Power and money are used as tools by the ruling class in this society to influence on the poor. The traditional authority was related to gerontocracy, feudalism, patriarchalism and patrimonialism while the Legal authority is related to bureaucracy. Weber held that rationalization was responsible for the transformation that had taken place in the world. People are transforming to the modern world in all spheres of the economy. He proposed the forms of rationality which are theoretical, formal, practical and substantive rationality. Formal and substantive rationalizations were propelled more by bureaucracy and capitalism. This type of rationalization had already taken shape in many spheres such as; religion, politics, law, the city and the economy. Weber illustrated rationalization mostly in religion and capitalism. Weber held that stratification and capitalism were the reason for division of societies in social classes (Weber 1983). This study has served to provide insightful evaluation of how class and kinship have provided models of social organization for sociologists. The validity of this study has been achieved by providing evidenced thoughts and opinions of classical sociologists who trace the social structures of the society and on division and stratification of society through the traditional pre-industrial period to post- industrial period. Bibliography Delaney, C., 2004, investigating culture: an experiential introduction to anthropology. Evans-Pitchard, E. E.1940 The Nuer. Wiley-Blackwell; 2 edition Eriksen, T. H., 1995. small places, Large issues. London. Gieben, B. and Hall,s. 1992. Formations of modernity. Blackwell Publishers Ltd Howell, S., 2003. Kinning: the creation of life trajectiories in transnational adoptive families. Anthropological Perspectives On Kinship pluto press Hall, S and Mc Grew, T. 1992. Modernity and its Futures. Cambridge Morrison,K. 1996. "marx, Durkhiem, Weber: foundation of modern social thought" Marx. 2009. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. I. The Process of Capitalist Production. Frederick Engels, Ernest Untermann, eds. Samuel Moore, Edward Aveling, trans. Library of Economics and Liberty. Marx. 2002. The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Nineteenth- C entury Philosophy, 3rd ed. Ed. Forrest E. Baird and Walter Kaufmann. Upper Saddle River: PrenticeHall. Weber. 1968. Economy and Society: “Bureaucracy”.Edited Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. New York: Bedminister Press, vol. 1, Conceptual Exposition, pgs. 956-1005, Weber. 1983. Max Weber on capitalism, bureaucracy, and religion: a selection of texts, Allen & Unwin. Read More