Reciprocal relationship between social structure and interaction

Relation between Individual and Society

reciprocal relationship between social structure and interaction

It is the real foundation of all social processes, structure, social groups and functions. It means interaction is social relationship among the individuals. Two or more than two persons; Reciprocal relationship among them. The relationship between individual and society is ultimately one of the mutual interaction and inter relation of individuals and of the structure formed by their. But social categorization of people into groups and categories also facilitates behavior and . Drawing heavily on insights from Symbolic Interaction and Structural and/or shift the ongoing reciprocal relationship between self and society.

Many of his needs and necessities will remain unfulfilled without the co-operation of his fellow beings. His psychological safety, social recognition, loves and self-actualization needs only fulfilled only within the course of living in society. He is totally dependent for his survival upon the existence of society.

Human baby is brought up under the care of his parents and family members. He would not survive even a day without the support of society. All his basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, health and education are fulfilled only within the framework of society.

He also needs society for his social and mental developments. His need for self-preservation compels him to live in society. Individual also satisfy his sex needs in a socially accepted way in a society. To fulfill his security concern at the old age individual lives in society.

Similarly helplessness at the time of birth compels him to live in society. A nutrition, shelter, warmth and affection need compels him to live in society.

Thus for the satisfaction of human wants man lives in society. Hence it is also true that not only for nature but also for the fulfillment of his needs and necessities man lives in society. Society not only fulfils his physical needs and determines his social nature but also determines his personality and guides the course of development of human mind.

Development of human mind and self is possible only living in society. Society moulds our attitudes, beliefs, morals, ideals and thereby moulds individual personality. Man acquires a self or personality only living in a society. From birth to death individual acquires different social qualities by social interaction with his fellow beings which moulds his personality.

Individual mind without society remains undeveloped at infant stage. Thus, from the above discussion we conclude that Man is a social animal. His nature and necessities makes him a social being. He also depends on society to be a human being. He acquires personality within society. There exists a very close relationship between individual and society like that of cells and body. Relation between Individual and Society Human cannot survive without society and societies cannot exist without members.

Likewise can competition with other societies strengthen the social system, while wearing out its constituent members? This idea was voiced by Rousseau who believed that we lived better in the original state of nature than under civilization, and who was for that reason less positive about classic Greek civilization than his contemporaries.

The relation between individual and society has been an interesting and a complex problem at the same time.

reciprocal relationship between social structure and interaction

It can be stated more or less that it has defied all solutions so far. No sociologist has been able to give a solution of the relation between the two that will be fully satisfactory and convincing by reducing the conflict between the two to the minimum and by showing a way in which both will tend to bring about a healthy growth of each other. Aristotle has treated of the individual only from the point of view of the state and he wants the individual to fit in the mechanism of the state and the society.

It is very clear that relation between individual and society are very close. So we will discuss here Rawls three models of the relation between the individual and society: His most telling argument against the utilitarian position is that it conflates the system of desires of all individuals and arrives at the good for a society by treating it as one large individual choice.

It is a summing up over the field of individual desires. Utilitarianism has often been described as individualistic, but Rawls argues convincingly that the classical utilitarian position does not take seriously the plurality and distinctness of individuals [15].

It applies to society the principle of choice for one man. Rawls also observes that the notion of the ideal observer or the impartial sympathetic spectator is closely bound up with this classical utilitarian position. It is only from the perspective of some such hypothetical sympathetic ideal person that the various individual interests can be summed over an entire society [16]. The paradigm presented here, and rejected by Rawls, is one in which the interests of society are considered as the interests of one person.

Plurality is ignored, and the desires of individuals are conflated. The tension between individual and society is resolved by subordinating the individual to the social sum. The social order is conceived as a unity. The principles of individual choice, derived from the experience of the self as a unity, are applied to society as a whole. Rawls rightly rejects this position as being unable to account for justice, except perhaps by some administrative decision that it is desirable for the whole to give individuals some minimum level of liberty and happiness.

But individual persons do not enter into the theoretical position. They are merely sources or directions from which desires are drawn. Justice as Fairness The second paradigm is that which characterizes the original position. It has already been suggested that this is a picture of an aggregate of individuals, mutually disinterested, and conceived primarily as will. While not necessarily egoistic, their interests are each of their own choosing.

Modelling the Evolution of Social Structure

They have their own life plans. They coexist on the same geographical territory and they have roughly similar needs and interests so that mutually advantageous cooperation among them is possible. Thus, one can say, in brief, that the circumstances of justice obtain whenever mutually disinterested persons put forward conflicting claims to the division of social advantages under conditions of moderate scarcity [17]. Here the tension between individual and society is resolved in favor of plurality, of an aggregate of mutually disinterested individuals occupying the same space at the same time.

It is resolved in favor of the plural, while giving up any social unity which might obtain. The classical utilitarian model and the original position as sketched by Rawls provide paradigms for two polar ways in which the tension between the plurality of individuals and the unity of social structure might be resolved.

One resolution favors unity and the other favors plurality.

Introduction to Sociology/Groups - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

It is described as a good, as an end in itself which is a shared end. This paradigm is distinct both from the conflated application to the entire society of the principle of choice for one person and from the conception of society as an aggregate of mutually disinterested individuals. The idea of a social union is described in contrast to the idea of a private society. A private society is essentially the second model as realized in the actual world. It stems from a consideration of the conditions of the original position as descriptive of a social order.

Over against this notion of private society, Rawls proposes his idea of a social union [18]. It is one in which final ends are shared and communal institutes are valued.

Marx and Engels on Relationship between Individuals and Society The direct elaborations of Marx and Engels on relationships between individual action and social process can be divided into three categories for purposes of discussion: Besides, the relationship between individual and society can be viewed from another three angles: Functionalist, Inter-actionist, and Culture and personality.

How Society Affects the Individual? What is the relation between individual and society?

Social Structure & Social System (Sr. Sec)

Functionalists regard the individual as formed by society through the influence of such institutions as the family, school and workplace. Early sociologists such as Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim and even Karl Marx were functionalists, examined society as existing apart from the individual. For Durkheim, society is reality; it is first in origin and importance to the individual. In contrast to Auguste Comte known as father of sociologywho regarded the individual as a mere abstraction, a somewhat more substantial position by Durkheim held that the individual was the recipient of group influence and social heritage.

How Is Society Constructed? How an individual helps in building society? For inter-actionists, it is through the interaction of the people that the society is formed.

The main champion of this approach was Max Weber social action theoristwho said that society is built up out of the interpretations of individuals. The structuralists or functionalists tend to approach the relationship of self individual and society from the point of the influence of society on the individual.

A prominent theorist of the last century, Talcott Parsons developed a general theory for the study of society called action theory, based on the methodological principle of voluntarism and the epistemological principle of analytical realism.

The theory attempted to establish a balance between two major methodological traditions: For Parsons, voluntarism established a third alternative between these two.

He added that, the structure of society which determines roles and norms, and the cultural system which determines the ultimate values of ends.

His theory was severely criticized by George Homans. A recent well-known theorist Anthony Giddens has not accepted the idea of some sociologists that society has an existence over and above individuals. Culture and Personality View: Or How Individual and Society Interacts? Both the above views are incomplete. In reality, it is not society or individual but it is society and individual which helps in understanding the total reality.

The extreme view of individual or society has long been abandoned. Sociologists from Cooley to the present have recognized that neither society nor the individual can exist without each other. These anthropologists have studied how society shapes or controls individuals and how, in turn, individuals create and change society. Thus, to conclude, it can be stated that the relationship between society and individual is not one-sided. Both are essential for the comprehension of either.

Both go hand in hand, each is essentially dependent on the other. Both are interdependent on each, other. The individual should be subordinated to society and the individual should sacrifice their welfare at the cost of society. Both these views are extreme which see the relationship between individual and society from merely the one or the other side.

But surely all is not harmonious between individual and society. The individual and society interact on one another and depend on one another. Social integration is never complete and harmonious.

Conclusion The wellbeing of nations can occur at the cost of the well-being of their citizens, and this seems to have happened in the past. Yet in present day conditions, there is no such conflict. Society and individual are made mutually dependent and responsible and mutually complementary. The result is that society progresses well with the minimum possible restrictions on the individual. A very wide scope is given to the natural development of the energies of the individual in such a manner that in the end.

Society will benefit the best by it. While society reaps the best advantage of the properly utilized and developed energies of the individuals, an attempt is made to see that the normal and sometimes even the abnormal weaknesses of the individuals have the least possible effect on the society.

Spirit of service and duty to the society is the ideal of the individual and spirit of tolerance, broadmindedness and security of the individual is the worry of the society. There is no rigid rule to develop the individual in a particular pattern suitable to the rules of the society. Society demands greater sacrifices from its greater individuals while the fruits of the works of all are meant equally for all.

Social interaction, Definition, Elements, Types & Forms

The general rule is: A sincere attempt is made by the sociologists to bring to the minimum the clash between the individual and the society, so that there will be few psychological problems for the individual and the society both.

Our model focuses on the evolutionary trade-offs between foraging and social interaction, and explores the impact of alternative strategies for distributing social interaction, with fitness criteria for wellbeing, alliance formation, risk, stress and access to food resources that reward social strategies differentially.

The results suggest that multi-level social structures characterised by a few strong relationships, more medium ties and large numbers of weak ties emerge only in a small part of the overall fitness landscape, namely where there are significant fitness benefits from wellbeing and alliance formation and there are high levels of social interaction.

These conditions are characteristic of only a few mammalian taxa. Introduction It has become increasingly clear that some but by no means all social species live in complex, hierarchically-organised, multi-layer social systems [ 1 — 4 ].

reciprocal relationship between social structure and interaction

Bonded relationships of this kind commonly depend on the investment of considerable time in servicing relationships, and the long term stability of such relationships is invariably fragile in the absence of such investment [ 310 — 16 ].

Perhaps not surprisingly, these kinds of multi-level social systems are relatively rare: While the evolutionary origins of simple societies are well understood [ 18 ], there is no general theory aside from kin selection to explain the evolution of multi-level social systems, and even then none provides a principled explanation as to why these societies should be multi-layered.

Why do these taxa not simply form loosely organised but flexible herds like many deer and bovids, especially given the costs that bonded relationships seem to incur in terms of time investment?

One plausible explanation is that the various layers provide different benefits [ 19 ], imposing trade-offs that create sufficient viscosity to prevent individuals or sub-groups drifting completely apart.

Introduction to Sociology/Groups

The benefits derived from close social support [ 20 — 24 ], for example, might promote the formation of small foraging groups or grooming cliques, while group-level benefits that derive from cooperative hunting or information exchange [ 18 ], reducing predation risk [ 25 — 28 ] or minimising the risks of raiding by conspecifics [ 42930 ] might motivate the formation of higher-level communities.

In this paper, we use computational modelling to ask what conditions lead to the emergence of multi-level social structures in group-living species. We use humans as our test case because they provide the most explicit and best understood as well as by far the most complex example of a multi-level social system. Human societies are characterised by four hierarchically inclusive grouping layers that have quite specific sizes see [ 31 — 34 ]and this provides us with a quantitative benchmark for the model to match.

reciprocal relationship between social structure and interaction

In fact, these same layers occur in other mammal taxa, such as primates and delphinids, that have complex multi-level societies, with essentially the same numerical sizes [ 3 ]. Thus, in studying the more complex human case, not only do we maximise the complexity we have to explain in a strong test of the model, but at the same time we cover the less complex cases found in other mammalian taxa.

Human social networks and communities have been shown to consist of four separate layers of relationship [ 313235 ]. The innermost two layers have been identified as the support clique with circa 5 members [ 3637 ] and the sympathy group with 15 members [ 3738 ], followed by an affinity group of 50 and an active network of individuals [ 19 ], with each layer being inclusive of those within it.

These layers represent natural disjunctions in both the level of intimacy between individuals and the frequency with which they interact, and are well established in the human literature [ 911193539 — 44 ]. It seems that these layers reflect constraints imposed by the fact that available social time is limited and so must be apportioned among relationships of different quality in such a way as to optimise the benefits they yield relative to the costs of maintaining relationships of the appropriate quality to provide those benefits [ 14 — 1619 ].

We will focus on the two innermost 5 and 15 and the outermost layers. Note that these layers are conventionally counted cumulatively [ 19 ]: For present purposes, we will overlook the intermediate 50 layer, since this would require us to add a further layer-specific functional benefit, and so add significantly to computational complexity on what is already an unavoidably complex model.

We ask three questions. First, given that multi-level structuring is rare in the natural world, are such social systems also rare in the model, with unstructured or small group patterns being more common i. Second, what kinds of relationship strategies yield the layered distribution of exactly these sizes? Our third question is: Modelling the Emergence of Social Structure The central assumption of our model is that different kinds of relationship provide different kinds of benefits [ 19 ], and that it is the balance of the trade-offs between these different benefits and the costs of servicing the relationships underpinning them that gives rise to structured social groups, with these benefits being maximised by living in groupings of different size [ 19 ].

In effect, multi-level social systems allow individuals to live simultaneously in the several different groupings that they need to maximise their fitness, whereas unstructured societies with a single optimal grouping size are likely to emerge when one fitness function overrides all others.

For present purposes and for computational convenience, we will focus on just two kinds of benefit: However, we should emphasise that the specific benefits we use as our exemplars are less important than their functional characteristics: So long as there are at least two benefits that differ in the way we define below, our model is general.

Among humans, there are striking effects of close friendships on wellbeing. Similarly, among baboons, females who are better embedded within their social networks live longer and have more surviving offspring [ 22 — 24 ]. Even though large support groups will always be more effective than smaller ones, size may be constrained for three reasons. First, only so many individuals may be able to provide the benefit at any one time a too-many-cooks-spoil-the-broth effect.

Research in the social psychology of group work confirms that benefits are asymptotic: Second, close relationships are usually reciprocal [ 44 ], so while each relationship accumulates potential benefit to an individual, it does so at the cost of exposing that individual to the risk of being called upon to reciprocate commitments to all of those from whom it receives the benefit.

Third, the underlying basis of the trade-off is that, if the quality of a relationship and hence its reliability is a function of the time invested in it [ 1119 ], there will be investment costs to creating and, in particular, maintaining such relationships.