Organizational Patterns

Organizational Patterns

Organizational Patterns

Permalink: ‎

Throughout human history, cultural continuity has been maintained by symbolic communication among members of a particular society. The pattern of that com-munication is determined by how society is organized. The social organization of a society consists of (1) the various groups that form the society; (2) the statuses that individuals may hold; (3) the division of labor, or the way in which the tasks of society are distributed among individuals and groups; and (4) the rank accorded to each group and status.

Groups Every human society is a group whose members perceive themselves as having a com- mon identity because of the culture that binds them together. All human societies that have been studied subdivide into smaller groups that coalesce from time to time for specialized activities. Basketball fans scattered across the country are not a group, for example, but spectators at a specific game are. Groups tend to have geographical bound- aries, specifiable members, a common activity engaged in by members, and a division of labor. When a group is formally organized, it may have an explicitly formulated ideol- ogy and a goal-oriented “game plan” or set of procedures for carrying out the activity that brings its members together.

The members of social groups generally identify themselves symbolically with a name or some other emblem of their group identity. Commonly, the identifying emblem indicates the activity that draws the members together or represents some other important aspect of the group’s characteristics. Thus, the group identity of the United States of America is symbolized by a flag that portrays the political unity of that society’s 50 states by a group of 50 stars. The Great Seal of the United States of America contains the image of an eagle clutching an olive branch and arrows, symbols of peace and war, which suggest that the major purpose of the nation as a political entity is to maintain internal order and to defend the group. A smaller, more face-to-face group, such as a basketball team, may identify itself as a unified body by naming itself and by representing its athletic purpose with a symbol of its prowess, such as a charging bull or a buzzing hornet.

cra80793_06_c06_145-180.indd 146 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Organizational Patterns

Statuses and Roles Besides groups, each pattern of social organization also includes several kinds of relation- ships. All relationships that a person may have with others are called statuses and exist in pairs, such as doctor and patient, husband and wife, parent and child, or friend and friend. The status pairs of a society are of two types: those in which the holders of the statuses are expected to behave in different but mutually compatible ways, and those in which the holders of the statuses are expected to behave in a similar way toward one another.

Status pairs in which both parties are expected to behave in different but compatible ways are called complementary statuses. The status of doctor, for example, requires the exis- tence of the complementary status of patient, that of parent implies that of offspring, and without the status of student there could be no teacher. In each of these cases, the holder of one status of the pair is expected to behave differently from the holder of the second status, and one of the statuses may have access to a greater amount of honor, social power, and/or wealth. Thus, parents have the power to train and control their children rather than the other way around, and it is the teacher who tests and assigns grades to the stu- dent, not vice versa.

Statuses such as friend, neighbor, enemy, colleague, or ally, on the other hand, imply the existence of two or more holders of the same status who are expected to act toward one another in similar ways. Statuses paired in this way are called symmetrical statuses. One cannot be an enemy unless there is someone who will respond in kind as an enemy (Wat- zlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967).

In every society, each person may be involved in many different kinds of relationships and therefore have many different statuses. The same person may be a wife, a mother, a student, an employee, a friend, and a political activist. Some statuses are ones that we have little or no choice about; these are known as ascribed statuses, and often include characteristics such as sex, family membership, or in some societies, racial identity.

Some statuses, such as those based on sex, race, or physical disability, may be mistakenly thought of as natural results of physical characteristics, rather than recognized as some- thing that is ascribed to individuals by society. Nevertheless, playing the social roles asso- ciated with such statuses involves learning to conform to the expectations that people have about those statuses. It is people’s beliefs about biology, not biology itself, that controls the content of social roles. Of course, when people who share some biological characteristic are socialized into playing roles that their culture claims are a natural result of those bio- logical traits, their learned role-playing is then treated as evidence that the original beliefs were correct. The result is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a situation in which a group’s shared beliefs cause people to behave so that an expected outcome occurs. In this case playing the learned role seems to prove the culture’s association of the behaviors with biology. For instance, an active female child may be subject to intensive social training that leads her to conform to a more passive and nonaggressive role because her society considers these traits attributes of the female status. Similarly, Scott (1969) has described an interesting process by which those with poor vision may acquire the status of blind persons. Having been labeled blind by legal criteria, such persons may begin to interact with various care- giving agencies. In the process of providing their services, these agencies may unwittingly

cra80793_06_c06_145-180.indd 147 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Organizational Patterns

encourage their poorly sighted clients to learn to perceive themselves as helpless. Learn- ing to play the blind role inhibits the use of whatever vision the clients actually possess.

When statuses are assigned to people based on the belief that certain roles arise naturally from biological characteristics, those beliefs (e.g., beliefs about the “natural” roles of one sex or race) may function as a powerful justification for role differences between groups. For instance, in societies where men hold powerful statuses, the culture may contain beliefs that men are somehow naturally more dominant than women. Or where, one racial group dominates another in the same society, the members who hold the more highly ranked statuses tend to be described as inherent leaders, while those of the subordinate race tend to be portrayed as naturally lazy, less intelligent, and in need of guidance. Such sexist and racist beliefs (discussed in Chapters 3 and 5) function to keep the existing sys- tem of status differences stable and difficult to change. Violations of the predominant role expectations are likely to be viewed not just as the breaking of social conventions but as attempts to go against the “natural” characteristics of biology. Thus, the belief that social roles are determined by biology functions as a powerful force against change in those social roles.

Other statuses must be acquired during our lifetimes and may change as our position in life changes. These statuses, such as team captain, college student, or club member, are known as achieved statuses.

The ways in which the holder of a status is expected to behave are called the roles of that status. Every status has several different roles, each of which is considered appro- priate for certain times and places. For instance, in a classroom, students take notes, ask and respond to questions, and occasionally take tests. At home they are expected to read and study assignments and compose term papers. Their written assignments may require them to carry out library research or demonstrate other information-gathering skills. Peo- ple in these situations behave in the role of student. However, when these same people go to a party on Saturday night, they assume a role other than student and behave differently.

By conforming their behavior to the role expectations of others, holders of a particular sta- tus symbolically communicate that they wish to be responded to in a manner appropriate to that specific status rather than to another status that they also hold. The team captain is expected to direct action on the field; off the field, the same person may be expected to lis- ten to and respect the opinion of another with whom he or she shares the status of friend. The various status pairs of a society form a pattern of predictable expectations that guide their interactions and simplify social relationships. When team members accept another’s status as team captain, they know that during a game their appropriate relationship to the leader is that of followers. Without such role agreements, ball games—and social life— would be somewhat chaotic.

Master Statuses The usual pattern in which the setting determines which roles a person may play is altered when he or she holds a master status. A master status is one that is so strongly imbued with importance in the minds of people that it cannot be ignored. For instance, if the chief

cra80793_06_c06_145-180.indd 148 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Organizational Patterns

justice of the United States or a well-known actor were to appear in a college classroom on parents’ visiting day, this visitor would not be treated as just another parent. More likely, instead of the situation defining the status of the visitor, the situation itself would be redefined to fit the visitor’s master status. Unlike an ordinary parent, such a visitor would likely be introduced to the class, and the regular lecture might even be preempted by remarks from the guest.

Master statuses may have low rank as well as high. Having a low-ranked master status can overshadow the other statuses a person may hold, even those usually held in high esteem by others. For instance, an alcoholic physician may find it difficult to acquire patients or to obtain referrals from other doctors. Further, having a low-ranked master status at one time in one’s life can bar one from attaining more respected statuses later.

Master statuses of low social rank are sometimes given the special designation of minori- ties. Minorities in North America include many groups defined by similar characteristics such as ethnic background, religion, race, and gender. Religious minorities, such as Mus- lims, Buddhists, Rastafari, Amish, Hutterites, and Mormons, also exemplify groups that have not received total acceptance as members of the U.S. or Canadian mainstream.

The definition of minorities is not necessarily a matter of numbers. In the United States, for instance, females make up slightly more than 50% of the population, and Blacks con- stitute large numerical majorities in many cities and counties. Yet birth into either of these statuses may impede acquisition and successful use of highly ranked social statuses. Thus, U.S. women currently hold only about 15% of elective offices in a society in which they comprise over half of the total population, and adult Black males in the United States suf- fer from an unemployment rate that is twice that of the adult male workforce as a whole.

A recent example, which captured the attention of the U.S. news media and President Obama, illustrates how one’s minority status can overshadow one’s other statuses, such as professional status. In 2009, Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., who is African American, returned home from a research trip to China to find his front door stuck shut. As he and his driver struggled to pry the door open, a neighbor, believing that the men were burglars, called the police. When the police arrived, they questioned Gates, who grew angry with what he interpreted as racial profiling. Eventually, Gates was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. Although the charges were dropped, a national discussion ensued about racial profiling and police responses. For supporters of Gates, the incident illustrated how, in the United States, one’s racial status continues to be prioritized over other statuses of an individual, such that a distinguished professor who works at a prestigious university may be arrested for “misconduct.”

Division of Labor The day-to-day work that must be done in any society is allocated to people through their statuses. This makes it possible for the members of society to be organized efficiently into a clear-cut, well-known, and effective division of labor by which all the tasks of life are accomplished.

cra80793_06_c06_145-180.indd 149 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Organizational Patterns

Even in those human social systems where few specialists exist, there is some division of labor. In foraging societies, for example, age and gender are the primary bases for assign- ing jobs. Even though tasks may overlap and distinctions may not be strictly enforced, males and females in all societies are generally expected to specialize in somewhat differ- ent economic activities, as are the members of different age groups. Typically, in the forag- ing societies men are assigned the status of hunters, while women specialize as gatherers of wild plants. Children may provide some help around the campsite, fetching water or gathering branches for the fire. Older members of the group may be relied on for their experience in interpersonal and intergroup relations to mediate disputes, negotiate with strangers, or arrange marriages. In societies in which people grow their own food, other forms of specialization develop, and the division of labor may become much more intri- cate. For instance, individuals or entire villages may specialize in the growing of a particu- lar crop or the manufacture of woven goods or pottery. These are traded to other people or villages in return for their specialties. In industrialized societies, there are many spe- cialized occupations in which money is exchanged for labor such that labor itself is trans- formed from a service into a commodity, like any other good that can be bought and sold.

Rank Some kinds of work are valued more highly valued than others. Rank is a measure of the relative importance accorded to groups and statuses and the work that they do. Holders of highly ranked statuses and members of highly ranked groups generally have more ready access to whatever is valued in their culture than do other members of their society.

Rank has more than one component. According to Kemper (1978), the two characteristics of a status that determine its social rank are the amount of social power and honor associ- ated with it. Power and honor are measures of one’s ability to influence others success- fully. Power is the ability to exercise coercion in obtaining what is sought and to punish the failure of others to comply. Honor is the esteem that some statuses confer on those who hold them. The respect that comes to persons such as Supreme Court justices, min- isters, or movie stars whose statuses are honored makes it easier for them to accomplish goals and influence others without coercion.

Importantly, rank has both material and emotional effects: Higher-ranking individuals (or those that gain in rank) generally have access to more material resources and experi- ence more positive affect (e.g., satisfaction, confidence, etc.) compared to lower-ranking individuals (or those who lose in rank) who have less access to resources and experience negative affect (e.g., fear or anxiety) (Kemper, 2006).

Groups, too, may be ranked differently in terms of their degrees of power versus of honor. For instance, secret societies and vigilante groups are often characterized by high access to power, but their level of honor may be judged low by others. Service associations such as the Kiwanis Club or a charity fundraising group may have little power to coerce others to contribute to their cause, but they may be highly respected enough to receive volun- tary contributions. Likewise, individual statuses may be ranked. In the United States, the occupational statuses of doctor and senator are prestigious and are each given more social power and a greater income than the lower-ranked occupations such as sales clerk, mail carrier, and carpenter.

cra80793_06_c06_145-180.indd 150 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Types of Social Organization

Societies differ in which statuses are most highly ranked. For instance, in industrialized nations, where many important relationships are based on jobs, occupational status is a major determinant of the rank most people hold. In these societies, the loss of income that comes with retirement is often accompanied by a loss of rank. In societies where kinship relationships determine the most important roles, it is common for rank to increase with age and experience.

6.2 Types of Social Organization

The oldest and simplest of human societies are sometimes referred to as egalitarian societies because their social organizations make little use of rank beyond rank-ing based on age and gender. In these societies, individual differences in achieve- ment may result in different amounts of respect being given to one person over another, but there is no large-scale social distinction between groups that command more or less amounts of authority or honor based simply on group membership.

Egalitarian Societies Egalitarian societies have economies based on foraging, the gathering wild foods and plant foods, hunting wild animals, and fishing. Their com- munities tend to be small, uniting only a small number of different fam- ilies in ties of mutual support. The economic life of egalitarian commu- nities is based on individuals shar- ing surplus resources, such as food, which is in everyone’s long-term interest, as even the most efficient, skilled, or hard-working food collec- tor experiences nonproductive days, and those who share when they are able are likely to be shared with dur- ing those lean periods by those they have helped previously. Thus shar- ing and gift giving is not limited to one’s own relatives in the community; it cross-cuts family ties. The effect, in the long run, is that families tend not to differ from one another in wealth. Characteristically, egalitarian societies also tend to be rather mobile within the territory they consider their homeland, which makes it more difficult (and less desirable) to amass goods. Since local groups can remain in one location only so long as they can find sufficient wild foods to sustain them- selves, foragers tend to break camp and move to new foraging sites within their territories quite regularly throughout the year. Although there may be common patterns of move- ment with the seasons because of the shifting locales where different food resources are found, the pattern of wandering may vary from year to year.

George Steinmetz/National Geographic Stock Foraging societies, comprised of small, nomadic populations, depend on nature for survival. These Pygmy hunters are preparing to hunt duikers.

cra80793_06_c06_145-180.indd 151 5/23/13 2:28 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Types of Social Organization

Ranked Societies Some environments are lush enough that some societies based on foraging develop sed- entary communities that are relatively large and produce sufficient surpluses to develop permanent differences in wealth, social power, and public honor. The origin of food domestication, both simple gardening (which began almost 12,000 years ago) and animal husbandry (which began during the ensuing millennium), had the effect of producing nonegalitarian social organizations in many environments. These societies, called ranked societies, are ones in which ranking of individuals is not simply based on age, gender, and individual differences. Rather, ranked societies also have statuses that differ in power and influence as well as differences in the wealth and power of families. In fact, in these societies, one’s position (or title) is often inherited based on the status of one’s family. Posi- tions of importance such as the chiefs (see Chapter 8) who exercise political authority in communities tend to be passed down from father to son. The result is that the most pres- tigious and powerful positions are held by members of the most important and powerful kin groups.

Stratified Societies Societies that produce food using highly productive techniques, such as agriculture, tend to have the largest communities and the most inequalities of wealth, honor, and power within communities. Such stratified societies typically have a great deal of specialization within the division of labor and in which ranking of individuals and families arise from different access to needed resources, such as ownership of productive land. The large populations of these societies are typically divided into social classes or castes in which inheritance of wealth, power, and honor keeps the same families within the same classes or castes over generations.

Class Ranking of diverse statuses is more common in societies that have large populations and many differentiated, highly specialized statuses or jobs. These societies are organized into a hierarchical structure that sometimes is subdivided formally into ranked classes. A class is a broad stratum that cuts across society and is made up of different families that have more or less equal access to income and prestige. Social classes need not be a named category in a culture for them to exist and function. British Victorians were very class conscious and had formal rules of etiquette that governed the interaction of members of different social classes. But classes are no less real in societies such as the United States in which class boundaries seem rather vaguely defined with no broadly shared consensus about how many social classes exist or what distinguishes one from the other. Even when they are not formally recognized as a cultural category, social classes are an important influence on how society functions because of the shared goals, opportunities, and inter- ests, as well as different access to social influence that exists among the members of each class. For instance in industrialized societies, although they may never come together as a single group, physicians, college professors, and other professional people may share many of the same political and economic values because they are affected in similar ways

cra80793_06_c06_145-180.indd 152 5/23/13 2:28 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Types of Social Organization

by political and economic changes. Even though they may think of their stances on issues of politics or economics as personal choices, there is enough agreement in values among those with similar professional occupations that the combined effect plays a distinctive role within the political process. Similarly, corporate executive officers of large corpora- tions, major stockholders, “old money” families, and U.S. Senators share class values that are influenced by their positions of wealth and high social standing—values that function to coordinate many of their decisions as members of an elite social class.

Social class is a powerful conditioner of many social processes. Members of the same social class tend to share a set of similar attitudes and values as well as similarities in lifestyle. For instance, members of the different social classes tend to live in different areas within the same community in homes of different costs and sizes. They often differ in the religious denominations with which they are most likely affiliated, participate in different forms of recreation and entertainment, and express different aesthetic tastes. There are no formal rules in the United States about who may participate in what form of recreation, yet informal influences such as income differences still make it likely that members of working-class families or upper-class elites spend time with others of their own set watch- ing Saturday night football on television or power boating on the lake. People spend more time with members of their own class and may interact with members of other social classes primarily when members of one class perform economic services for members of another.

Etiquette as Customary Respect for Rank Etiquette has a great deal to do with class differences, since rules of etiquette tend to reflect the values and preferences of the higher social classes. Some rules of etiquette are specifically intended to show deference to the higher rank of others. For instance, in the United States, high-status persons such as physicians are likely to be addressed by the title “Dr.” and their last names, while they, in turn, may be permitted to address their patients, even patients who are older than they are, by their first names. In countries where people use languages that include pronouns for “you” that distinguish between formal versus familiar forms (e.g., Sie versus du in German or usted versus tú in Spanish), younger per- sons may be expected to use the formal, more respectful, form when addressing older persons, while the latter may be permitted to adopt the familiar form when speaking to younger persons.

Donald Brown (1991) recounts an experience during his fieldwork in Brunei that illus- trates how etiquette may require respect for the rank of others. He had been sitting on a bench for a while, when he was joined by three young men. Two of the new arrivals joined him on the bench and the third took a seat nearby at the same height on a ladder. When he became tired of sitting there, Brown moved down to sit on the walkway. Immediately the three young men did the same. Because Brown had been seated for some time before the young men had joined him, he recognized that they had not moved themselves to the lower position simply because they too had tired of sitting there, but because in Brunei it was considered to be impolite to seat oneself higher than another person unless one had

cra80793_06_c06_145-180.indd 153 5/23/13 2:28 PM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Types of Social Organization

a considerably higher social rank. When Brown tried to get them to remain seated where they had been, all three refused to do so. They explained that it simply would not look nice for them to do so. When Brown suggested that there was no one else around to see, they pointed out that there were people a quarter mile away across the river from them. Custom took precedence over the fact that Brown had said he would not be offended personally (Brown, 1991).

Caste Sometimes group membership is determined by birth, and the statuses that individuals may hold during their lifetimes are limited to those of the group into which they are born. In such a case, when people are not permitted to move from one formally demarcated group to another by acquir- ing a new status, the groups are called castes. iStockphoto/Thinkstock

The caste system in India, though economic in nature, is supported by a religious ideology.

Caste in India

Caste in India, where castes are called varnas, has been described by many anthropologists, as in classic studies by Beals (1974, 1980), Dumont (1970), Kolanda (1978), and Mandelbaum (1972); and more recent studies by Bayly (2001), Dirks (2001), and Gupta (2000). The system of organizing people socially by grouping them into castes is an ancient practice that is couched in religious concepts and differs somewhat in various parts of India. At the same time, this practice is not simply “ancient”: Under British colonial rule, the caste system changed, becoming a political tool for organizing and controlling India’s many different social groups in ways that benefited the British (Dirks, 2001).

In simplified terms, there are four major kinds of castes. The first of these, the Brahmin, is ranked highest in ritual purity and closeness to God. Members of this caste are priests in theory, although most practice other high-status occupations. Socially, members of the Brahmin caste are accorded greater honor than are those of the lower castes even though they may have less power and wealth than members of other castes. The Kshatriya—warrior-rulers, nobles, and landowners—are next in honor. They are thought to be less ritually pure than the Brahmins and are subject to fewer dietary and ritual restrictions than the priestly class. Next come the Vaisya, the commoners, and, finally, the Sudra, who are the farm artisans, servants, farmers, and laborers. Below all these are the people of no caste, the so-called Untouchables, who perform the polluted tasks of life such as removing dead cattle from the village, tanning hides, working leather, and removing human waste.