Towards A Relational Theory Of Society

[Legion]

I am becoming ever more interested in sociology, but I am dissatisfied with what passes for theory among sociologists. This topic is meant to be kind of a brainstorming session with my fellow ex-Christians. It would be helpful if all concerned were familiar with the concept of theory and its attendant notion of model, especially a relational model (Rosen, Life Itself). But lacking familiarity with these concepts is not a disqualification for participating here in my opinion. I think societies are complex. Among the things that “complex” implies is that there are multiple, perhaps infinite, ways of understanding them. As such, I think the more viewpoints that are brought to bear here, the better.

 

I want to present some basic questions, almost childlike questions, that are occurring to me.

 

What is a society? To rephrase, why do we acknowledge that some groups of people are societies and others are not?

 

With an eye towards a relational theory, what might be some of the subsystems or components of a society? (Clearly the individuals of which the society is composed are components. But what else might be? For instance, if we are examining Japanese society, would the electrical power grid of their country be a candidate component?)

 

What kind of analogies exist for a society? (I am familiar with one. A person is to a society as a cell is to a body. I think there are probably deep flaws in this analogy, but I would still like to hear about any analogies of which you can think, because analogy aids understanding.)

 

I know all of that is rather rough and unpolished. But I am looking for raw ideas here. This really is meant to be a brainstorming session where all kinds of wild ideas are thrown out. Later we can sort the wheat from the chaff and be more critical of ourselves. With that said, please share anything that occurred to you during the course of reading this opening post.

[oddbird1963]

What is a society?

 

This is a stab at making a definition off the top of my head:

 

A society is an inter-dependent collection (network) of groups sufficiently demarcated from other such collections so as to define their own rules, laws, mores, economic systems, governmental bodies, cultural works and (shudder) religious systems.

 

I would say the basic "unit" in a society is the household. A household is one or more responsible adults with zero to many children being trained and to become productive, responsible members of the household, extended family groups and surrounding society.

 

Boring. Dry. And verbose. But there it is nonetheless.

 

I used the term "inter-dependent" because all the various groups within a society fulfill needs that others may have and, in turn, have certain needs that other members and groups of that society can fulfill. A society is a cooperative network.

 

Binding a society together is some sort of sense of identity through family tradition, cultural history, a national identity, symbols, and a shared narrative that is inclusive of most of the participants in the society in some way.

 

I said "sufficiently demarcated" because some sort of physical or conceptual boundary is in order to allow a society to be independent enough to forge it's own set of relationships. Otherwise, they are merely a component part of a larger more encompassing society with nothing to allow it to differentiate itself from other societies. Of course boundaries do not have to be rigid. Members can identify with more than one society.

 

I think the best analogies to "mega societies" would be the tribe, the city-state or (get ready to groan) the village. The wolf pack and the troop of chimpanzees might also be good analogies. The cell to organ analogy is probably a good one in many ways.

[Antlerman]

Since it's just a brainstorm exercise at the moment I'll be brief.

 

A society is the supporting structures for interpersonal relationships. This differs from culture which is non-material fabric of those relationships that contains the nuance, subtleties, and flavor that emerges through that, the glue that hold the external rules of society together. One without the other is stilted and incomplete. Society is what creates the external framework for both our personal subjective and our intersubective realities to exist, flourish, and grow. It is driven by that need, supported by that need, created by that need, and dependent on it's cohesiveness and support.

[Legion]

Oddbird and Antlerman, thank you for posting in here with your thoughts. I am somewhat strapped for time at this moment, but I hope to respond in full this afternoon. Thanks again.

[R. S. Martin]

I am becoming ever more interested in sociology, but I am dissatisfied with what passes for theory among sociologists.

 

There are very many sociologists and very many theories. Which ones don't you like?

 

A "society" is any segment of the human population one wishes to discuss for whatever reason.

 

What is a society? To rephrase, why do we acknowledge that some groups of people are societies and others are not?

 

Under what condition would you call a certain group a society and another not?

 

With an eye towards a relational theory, what might be some of the subsystems or components of a society? (Clearly the individuals of which the society is composed are components. But what else might be? For instance, if we are examining Japanese society, would the electrical power grid of their country be a candidate component?)

 

The electrical power grid is part of the infrastructure. "Infrastructure" is a term one learns in Sociology 101. Highways are another part of the infrastructure, as also is the postal system, etc.

 

What kind of analogies exist for a society?

 

Analogies are unlimited. Look at it this way. The word "society" is closely related to the word "social." From "social" we get social ties, social net-works, kinship ties, the list goes on.

 

Look at all the different ways people relate from the families we are born into or raised by to the strangers we meet on the street or at the airport or catch a mere glimpse of in a crowd to a deeply involved love relationship or business partnership. All of this can be looked at from a sociological perspective.

 

Sociology is the scientific study of social trends. Closely related fields of study are social psychology and social anthropology.

 

That's the kind of thing atheist professors taught me sociology is.

[Guest end3]

I was just thinking Legion, that number comparisons might tell some tale? For example, X number of people form a group or an organization that we can recognize as such. And then there is a point in which x number of somethings can be recognized as a something or group, but not understood without defining something produced by that group....the "culture".

[Phanta]

What kind of analogies exist for a society?

 

Colony of ants.

 

Phanta

[Vomit Comet]

but I am dissatisfied with what passes for theory among sociologists.

 

Well excuuuuuuuuse me!

 

What is a society?

 

The standard textbook definition is: "a group of people shaping their lives in aggregated, patterned ways."

 

To rephrase, why do we acknowledge that some groups of people are societies and others are not?

 

Random strangers milling around on a subway platform aren't a society but they're part of the larger society that built the subway and that compels them to commute to work.

 

Any number of subcultures can be called societies in their own right. Cambodian-Americans in Long Beach, California, for example.

 

With an eye towards a relational theory, what might be some of the subsystems or components of a society? (Clearly the individuals of which the society is composed are components. But what else might be?

 

Look up "Talcott Parsons" and "Structural Functionalism."

 

For instance, if we are examining Japanese society, would the electrical power grid of their country be a candidate component?)

 

There is literature out there about how people interact with technology. There's also good old historical materialism, where culture and ideas are reflective of the "mode of production." For example, the culture of mid 19th century England was reflective of how the industrial revolution had come along, shoved aside the old pastoral England, and created a new, urban, rationalized yet terribly chaotic environment in its place. You'll never guess who came up with that theory.

 

What kind of analogies exist for a society? (I am familiar with one. A person is to a society as a cell is to a body. I think there are probably deep flaws in this analogy, but I would still like to hear about any analogies of which you can think, because analogy aids understanding.)

 

That's classic structural functionalism straight out of Parsons. There's a few neo-functionalist theorists today but for the most part it's fallen out of favor.