..
| The
social, interaction, or institutional dimension of community is composed
of the ways people act, interact between each other, react, and expect
each other to act and interact. |
.
| It
includes such institutions as marriage or friendship, roles such as mother
or police officer, status or class, and other patterns of human behaviour.
See Community. |
.
| Whenever
a pattern is identified, and recognized by those in it, it can be called
a social institution. |
.
| Following
Weber,
we say it must have meaning to those in it. |
.
| At
the micro level, the institutional dimension is composed of recognizable
patterns of interaction within small groups. |
.
| Interaction
means action or behaviour in which we engage while being conscious of other
people. |
.
| Social
stratification, and thus social class is an institution or set of social
institutions. See Inequality. |
.
| Kinship
arrangements are institutional, and belong to this dimension. |
.
| We
can speculate that the origin of the family, unique among primates to humans,
goes way back to the origin of culture, and to the incest
taboo. |
.
| We
must be careful, however, to note that the family, as we know it, is not
universal to all cultures, although its kinship elements, marriage, the
regulation of sex, birth, and the tracing of descent, are. |
.
| Bureaucracies,
and other formal organisations, or non kin organisations, are institutions. |
.
.
| A
century later Bartle identified sixteen elements
that could be used to measure strength of, not only bureaucracies but,
all formal organizations, families and communities. |
.
| As
with other dimensions, we can gain a better insight into the social organisation
of our current society by looking at some of the ways it was built up over
the millennia. |
.
| Social
change tends to be cumulative, and many elements of today’s social organisation
includes residuals from much earlier phases of our development. |
.
.
| In
the earliest, and even today in the simplest gathering and hunting, communities,
almost all social organisation is based on kinship. |
.
| We
see this as the arrangements we make involving (1) birth, and its extension,
descent, (2) marriage and related regulations and control of sex, and its
extensions, affines, and (3) pseudo kin arrangements, such as adoption. |
.
| We
say “kinship” instead of the “family” because the family is not
universal, derives from the Latin word for domestic slaves, and there are
many ways to construct social organisation out of affinity, descent and
adoption. |
.
| As
societies become more complex, up to a threshold, kinship can become increasingly
complex to satisfy increasing needs. |
.
| The
invention of agriculture was the most revolutionary change that our society
experienced. |
.
| It
produced an agricultural surplus which allowed some members of society
to do other things than obtain their food. |
.
| This
gave rise to the earliest division of labour that led to cities
and then states. |
.
| The
simplest division of labour was that of aristocracy (headed by a monarch),
serfs (food producers), traders and artisans, scribes (record keepers)
and enforcers (military and police). |
.
| This
was the origin of the first non kin social institutions. |
.
| Recruitment
to the recorders and enforcers was through other than birth, and it was
soon observed that it was best based on merit (skills and motivation). |
.
| Durkheim,
one of the “Fathers of Sociology” asked about the “glue” which
holds communities and societies together. |
.
| He
suggested that simple, homogeneous societies (as with our gathering and
hunting ancestors) were held together by “sameness.” |
.
| The
similarity of language, values, social organisation, all contributed to
a felling of unity. |
.
| He
called this “mechanical solidarity.” |
.
| In
contrast, for modern complex societies as we have today, it is differences
which contribute to holding people together. |
.
| Division
of labour, so long as it contributed to the functioning of the whole, resulted
in inter dependency. |
.
| This
he called “organic solidarity" after the word “organ” as the specialized
cells of a living animal, whose organs each contributed to the whole animal.
See Durkheim. |
.
| Tönnies
introduced the words gemeinschaft (community) and gesellschaft
(society) from t he german language. |
.
| In
strict translation, they mean only community and society, but now in sociology,
in any language, they are used almost like adjectives, referring to the
degree of warm, fuzzy, face to face groups where everyone knows each other
(gemeinschaft) versus cold, formal, structured groups, where people
have different roles, and know each other by their roles, rather than as
whole persons (gesellschaft). See Characteristics
of Communities. |
.
| In
the discussion of the Political Dimension,
political parties and parliament were not seen themselves to belong to
that dimension. |
.
| They
belong here in the Institutional dimension, because they are institutions.
Of course, all institutions have a dimension of power in them. |
.
.
| They,
too, belong in this Institutional Dimension because they are institutions.
All institutions also have a world view dimension to them. |
.
... |