See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/379996711

Social Structure and Social Organization

Preprint · April 2024

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13690.50886

CITATION READS

1 3,696

1 author:

Samitha Udayanga
Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences
79 PUBLICATIONS 99 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Samitha Udayanga on 22 April 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 3
Social Structure and Social
Organization
Samitha Udayanga

Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences, Bremen, Germany

[email protected]

Social structure refers to the recurring patterns and evolving rules that govern human
behavior in a society. This chapter provides a comprehensive examination of the
fundamental concepts related to social structure and its relationship to social
organization. The chapter begins by defining social structure as the principles and
norms that predominantly influence human behavior, distinguishing it from the
concept of social organization, which focuses on the alignment of actions with
structural principles. It outlines the essential elements that constitute a social
structure, including statuses, roles, social networks, groups, organizations, and
institutions. The theoretical development of the concept is traced, highlighting
contributions from pioneers like Spencer, Comte, Durkheim, and Radcliffe-Brown.
Contrasting perspectives are explored, such as functionalism, which emphasizes the
role of social institutions, and structuralism, pioneered by Levi-Strauss, which views
behavior as shaped by underlying, unconscious rules. The chapter delves into the
influence of social structure on various aspects of society, such as kinship systems,
marriage rules, and cultural rituals. It examines how hidden structural principles
embedded in culture can restrict individual agency, as evident in practices like incest
taboos, bride price traditions, and restrictions on homosexuality across cultures.
Recent theoretical advancements like structuration theory by Giddens and Bourdieu
are also discussed, proposing a synthesis between structure and human agency,
where structures are continuously shaped through human practice. Overall, the
chapter aims to equip readers with a nuanced understanding of how social structures
manifest in patterned human interactions and the theoretical debates surrounding
structure versus agency in shaping societal norms.

Key words: Social Structure, Social Organization, Structuralism, Cultural Norms,

Agency and Structure
 50

Introduction

Society forms the very foundation of human life, even though each individual strives to
maintain a lifestyle distinct from others. While individual behavior can encompass
unique qualities and characteristics, it often aligns with societal principles (Giddens,
1984). Society is composed of numerous individuals, but it is more than just a collection
of individuals. It is not merely the sum of its parts, as it possesses unique qualities that
arise from the gathering of individuals (Durkheim, 1895). Sociologists are particularly
interested in understanding these unique societal qualities that influence human
behavior. By nature, individuals are social beings. This means that biological humans
become social beings through a process called socialization, which subjects them to
behavioral modifications through the rules imposed by society (Ember & Ember, 2015).
Unlike animals, humans undergo socialization, a process through which social norms
are ingrained in their personalities while they learn about existing cultures (Dillon,
2014). Throughout the history of human evolution, numerous rules essential for the
continuation of society and civilization have developed. These societal rules sometimes
unconsciously influence human behavior, leading to variations in social behavior rules
over time and space. For instance, the rules of Sri Lankan society may differ from those
of American society. However, societal rules do influence human behavior within a
given social context. This chapter describes how societal rules influence human
behavior, the basic concepts of social structure and organization, and the debates
between social structure theories and social interaction theories.

Social structure can be defined as the evolving rules and principles of a society that
predominantly influence human behavior (Dillon, 2014). Some define social structure
as patterns of relations (Whyte, 1943). It refers to patterns in social relations that exhibit
a certain degree of persistence, implying that individuals are likely to adhere to the
principles imposed upon them. On one hand, 'structure' is used to understand the
macro-organization of society. On the other hand, it is used to identify micro-level social
relationships among people. Both dimensions are equally important for understanding
how society operates and persists. At the macro level, we understand how different
social institutions are systematically organized. At the micro level, we understand how
social relationships among people are governed in accordance with principles imposed
by society. For instance, the economic institution of a society can be influenced by
religion and vice versa. The kinship system is another example of how social
relationships are organized in society in line with socially imposed principles and rules
(Ember & Ember, 2015). It may seem that individual behavior entirely depends on social
structure. However, this belief has been contested several times, as individual behavior
can also influence the way society is structured. Consequently, the rules and principles
of society can change along with individual behavior, as explained by Giddens in his
structuration theory (Gibbs, 2017; Giddens, 1984).
 51

Social Structure and Essential elements of social structure

The term 'structure' refers to any recurring patterns of social behavior, or more
specifically, to the ordered relationships between different elements of a social system
or society (Giddens, 1991a). This is one of the most important and elusive concepts in
sociology. The concept first emerged in Spencer's arguments, although early
philosophical accounts also discuss structural influences on human behavior (Dillon,
2014). Social structure presumably includes historically constructed and commonly
agreed-upon rules or principles believed to be essential for the continuation of society
(Levi-Strauss, 1963). As Durkheim(1895) previously described, 'society is not just a sum
total of individuals' because it contains qualities that cannot be seen in a mere
collection of individuals. For instance, individual employees of an organization might be
reluctant to take union action against employers unless they are empowered by their
fellow employees. A union of employees, as a small society, consists of a solidarity that
cannot be seen in a simple gathering of employees. This philosophical stance needs to
be understood very carefully, as theories of social structure and organization
supposedly depend on this belief in 'sui generis' or self-existence without any support.

Social structure is relative to time and space, meaning it is organized in

accordance with these dimensions (Dillon, 2014). Since humans are cultured beings,
culture often contains principles and rules that influence people, and culture often
evolves in response to the environment (Hofstee, 1968). Despite various arguments,
some anthropologists agree that the influence of nature on culture is vital, as nature
often shapes the way culture is structured (Ember & Ember, 2015). For example,
Sinhalese New Year customs and cultural practices are based on tropical weather
conditions and related economic activities. Agriculture, being the main mode of
production in tropical regions including Sri Lanka, influences how cultural practices are
determined. Culture thus closely responds to nature. The Sri Lankan kinship system is
also structured in accordance with agriculture-based cultural practices (Pieris, 1957).
Therefore, when cultural practices and norms change, it is likely to alter the very core of
the social structure. Over the past few years, the family structure has dramatically
shifted from an extended structure to a nuclear system due to changing traditional
cultural norms and the acculturation of global values. Even though social structure is
believed to be relatively stable, it can change in line with adopting changing cultural
norms and practices (Ember & Ember, 2015; Geertz, 1973).

Human behavior in society is often governed and patterned according to

socially accepted rules and principles, rather than individual beliefs (Geertz, 1973).
While individual beliefs do play a significant role, social structure supersedes individual
regulations and beliefs through norms, laws, ethics, and other accepted social
principles (Giddens, 1984; Levi-Strauss, 1949). One such principle is the 'incest taboo',
which prohibits sexual relationships among parallel cousins. The prevention of sexual
relations between kin is an important rule for the continuation of society, as it could
 52

otherwise lead to biological issues such as genetically transmitted diseases. 'Incest'

has thus been defined as a 'taboo' that prevents sexual relations between parallel
cousins. This prohibition is a principle of social structure that governs human behavior,
often without explicit consent. When such a principle is violated, a social punishment
can be imposed on the individual, further compelling adherence to societal principles,
sometimes unconsciously.

Sometimes, what people do in a society can be understood as being governed

by the structure of that society, often unconsciously. People tend to adhere to the
principles imposed by society because these principles have been instilled in them
through socialization and long-term societal living. Thus, people's experiences play a
significant role in the social structure. Experiences embedded in cultural practices
transmit structural principles to the next generation (Bourdieu, 1977, 2002). Through
this process, some principles can change, be replaced, or become obsolete. Some old
social rules may persist while others become obsolete, contributing to cultural lag. This
means that some old rules continue to influence people while competing with newly
emerged societal rules. For example, homosexuality has not been accepted in Sri Lanka
for a long time, and heterosexuality has been accepted in Sri Lankan culture for various
reasons. However, this old principle is now being questioned with the introduction of
human rights. Therefore, patterns of human behavior can be reinterpreted and changed,
but this can also give rise to a new social order, as described in Giddens' theory of
structuration (Dillon, 2014; Gibbs, 2017; Giddens, 1991b).

Theoretical development of the concept

The concept of 'social structure' was first introduced by Herbert Spencer (1896), a
pioneer of sociology who predominantly focused on the 'organismic metaphor'
(Spencer, 1896). Spencer argued that society had 'social structures' that performed
social functions (Spencer, 1915). The idea of structural functionalism first appeared in
his writings, although Radcliffe-Brown was the first to explain and understand this
through empirical-theoretical investigations (Brown, 1933). The roots of the idea of
social structure come from the organic metaphor applied to society. This metaphor,
which is purportedly an old one in Western philosophy, was used by Plato to describe
the interdependence of different social organizations, thereby deriving the need for
specific occupations and specializations - the very core of Durkheimian sociology.
Later, with the rise of a materialistic view of human existence, Rene Descartes and
Thomas Hobbes extended the organismic metaphor to understand the processes of
society (Russell, 1945). Just as a body has different organs and systems, society
contains different systems and structures, each specialized for a particular function,
such as education for socialization and economy for maintaining economic activities.
Although these explanations remained unpopular for a period of time, Spencer, a British
social scientist, presented the idea with great detail to the academic community.
 53

Comte(1875) also contributed to the development of this theoretical position

by applying the organismic metaphor to understand the division of labor. He examined
the laws according to which society as a whole develops and how it regulates its
constituent parts. Although early classical social scientists like Comte and Spencer
focused on 'social structure', they did not fully recognize the importance of 'structure'
itself in the social process (Dillon, 2014). They primarily argued about the functions
embedded in the institutions of the structure and did not concentrate on the micro-level
structural influence on human behavior. This aspect was later extensively explained and
described by Levi Strauss (Levi-Strauss, 1963).

The organismic analogy evolved in ways outlined by Kaufmann (1908) and Levin
(1995). What was crucial for sociology and anthropology was the duality of structure and
function, a concept detailed by Durkheim and further elaborated by Radcliffe Brown
(Ember & Ember, 2015). The identification of this duality was a significant development
in sociological theory, as later theoretical foundations often relied on philosophical
stances regarding this duality. The duality of structure and function has been
represented in various ways across different sociological theories. Levi Strauss held a
purely structural position, positing that an individual's social behavior is subject to the
hidden rules of society (Levi-Strauss, 1949). In contrast, Malinowski focused solely on
functionalism, explaining human behavior in terms of the functions of macro social
institutions (Malinowski, 1912, 1948).

Durkheim (1895, 1997) proposed that society is structured according to the

functions that social groups fulfill in the division of labor. This perspective appeared in
his monumental work, "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life," in which he described
the basic forms and functions of religion (1964). This perspective significantly
influenced anthropology, a field that scientifically studies human behavior, and was
largely shaped by the work of Radcliffe-Brown in the Andaman Islands. He emphasized
that a structure is a set of relations among entities. In this sense, society is a system
that consists of interrelated subsystems, each with specialized tasks or functions.

Structuralism, a perspective that views human social behavior as governed by

underlying, often unconscious, rules, first emerged in linguistics. Pioneered by
Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist and philosopher, it later found application in
anthropology, particularly through the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss. In linguistics,
structuralism posits that language is shaped by a system of hidden rules, or grammar.
These rules, internalized unconsciously, govern how we construct sentences. The
meaning of a sentence arises not from individual words alone, but from their
arrangement according to these grammatical rules. To communicate effectively, we
must express our intended meaning using commonly accepted symbols and adhere to
grammatical rules. Deviation from these rules can lead to miscommunication.
Structuralism finds an analogy in social behavior. Beyond the specific functions of
different institutions, the core of any society is defined by its underlying, often implicit,
rules. These rules shape how a society is structured and unconsciously influence
 54

individual actions. Every action falls within the context of the social structure, ensuring
that the functions of social entities, from families and temples to the state, operate in
accordance with these rules. This perspective has been explored by various
anthropologists.

Imagine your position within your kin network. This place, predetermined even
before your birth, extends beyond mere structure. It shapes nearly every aspect of a
person's life. However, the influence of kin networks varies significantly across cultures.
In Sinhalese culture, for example, patriarchal principles position girls as secondary to
boys. Conversely, societies built on matriarchal principles often exhibit female-
dominant social behavior. The place you occupy within your kin network dictates how
you live, your educational path, who you marry, and countless other individual
experiences. Therefore, understanding the structure and hidden rules of kin networks is
crucial for studying how social systems influence human behavior.

American sociologist Ralph Linton (1936) introduced another key concept: the
duality of status and role . He argued that these concepts are fundamental to
understanding social processes at the micro level (interactions between individuals).
According to Linton, a status is a position within a social system, not just its structure.
It carries associated rights and duties. Fulfilling these duties is considered role
performance. In other words, your role is the set of behaviors expected of someone
occupying your status within the social system. This theory emphasizes the importance
of micro-level interactions between people. Several later sociologists built upon this
concept. Pitirim Sorokin (2017) used a structural perspective to examine the
connections between personality, society, and culture. This work influenced the
development of structural functionalism by Talcott Parsons (1971)and Robert K. Merton
(1968). More recently, Pierre Bourdieu (1977, 2002) and Anthony Giddens (2007) have
offered further theoretical explanations of social structure and organization, which we
will explore later in this chapter.

Elements of social structure

Status and Role

Status refers to a person’s assigned position or place within society. This position is
often a job title, but it can also be a socially assigned role such as a student, parent,
sibling, relative, father, mother, teacher, brother, and so on. In this context, status does
not refer to prestige, but rather to the position assigned to a person within the social
system. An individual can occupy several different positions at any given time. For
example, a person can simultaneously be a mother, a school teacher, and a housewife.
The collection of all these positions occupied by an individual is referred to as that
person’s ‘Status Set’.
 55

Sociologists have identified three types of statuses.

1. Achieved Status: This refers to the position or place that a person has attained
through their own efforts, and sometimes due to good or bad luck, as some
anthropologists suggest. Examples include roles such as Bank Manager, Teacher,
or Principal. To become a teacher, for instance, one must acquire the necessary
knowledge and meet certain qualifications, rather than simply being assigned the
role by society.
2. Ascribed Status: This refers to the status that a person is born with and over which
they have no control. Often, several ascribed statuses are attached to a person.
These are not achieved through personal effort but are ascribed or imposed on the
individual by society. Examples include Caste, Ethnicity, and Race. For instance, a
person’s caste status is certainly ascribed by society and is beyond their control.
3. Master Status: This is the key or the core status of a person that overrides other
status that one might occupy.

As explained by sociologists and anthropologists, the objects and practices that

signify and help us understand the status occupied by individuals are known as ‘Status
Symbols’. These symbols are of great importance to sociologists as they aid in
understanding class status among people, thereby facilitating the comprehension of
social stratification. Social Stratification refers to the organization of various groups
within society. Often, stratification is determined and signified through these status
symbols.

Role

Every status is accompanied by a ‘Role’, which refers to the expected behavior or

function associated with a certain status. For instance, the role of a Father is distinct
from that of a Principal. When an individual occupies multiple statuses, they are
required to perform different roles. While a person can manage multiple statuses,
sometimes with difficulty, a major issue that can arise is ‘Role Conflict’. Role conflict
refers to the conflict among the different behaviors one might need to exhibit when
occupying a set of statuses. For example, if a Teacher shows favoritism towards their
own child in school, it might violate the expected behavior of a teacher. However, not
doing so could potentially devalue the role of a parent.

Social Network, Group and Organizations

As previously mentioned, a social structure is composed of various rules and principles
that govern human behavior, thereby creating a consistent pattern that persists in
society over time. Elements such as social networks, status, and roles are embedded
in the fundamental principles of society. Societal rules are imposed on individuals
through their participation in specific work arrangements. Various types of such
 56

network systems exist in every society, for example, the kinship system. A social
network encompasses the totality of relationships that link individuals to other
individuals and groups, and through them, to further individuals and groups. The
traditional process of network building has evolved due to the influence of global values,
although the core principles of network building remain intact. Social institutions, which
consist of social networks, are specialized to achieve specific objectives while
performing tasks known as functions. Social networks can be considered a key building
block of social structure.

Social Networks, which are visible in society through group and organizational
behavior, are essential components of the social structure (Castells, 2010). A social
group is defined as two or more people who regularly interact based on mutual
expectations and share a common identity. Group behavior, one of the fundamental
behavioral patterns among people, is where individual actions align with social
consensus. Humans are intrinsically social beings, and the formation of social groups
with common characteristics is of vital importance. Furthermore, an organization is a
large group that adheres to defined and explicit rules and procedures to achieve a
specific goal. There are two types of social organizations: formal and informal. A formal
organization follows an explicit code of conduct, while an informal organization is
structured informally and does not adhere to a specific set of rules, although its impact
on formal organizations can be significant.

Social structure is composed of a specific set of principles that influence

human behavior. On the other hand, social organization is often described as the
manner in which human behavior aligns with these structural principles, leading to
potential contestation between social structure and organization. The term
‘organization’ has two interpretations: one focuses on formal arrangements among
individuals, and the other on how people behave in accordance with structural
principles. For instance, societal rules based on caste and the corresponding human
behavior can be discussed. Even though individuals are expected to adhere to
principles associated with their caste, these principles can be violated, as behavioral
sovereignty is believed to coincide with an individual’s decision-making capability.

Social Institutions

Another crucial component of the social structure is the ‘Social Institution’. This can be
defined as the patterns of beliefs and behaviors that assist a society in fulfilling its basic
needs. Contemporary complex societies are replete with various social institutions that
aid in meeting these needs. A social institution is a complex structure encompassing a
system in which different subsystems operate. For instance, religion is a macro social
institution that comprises a set of principles and subsystems that assist individuals in
fulfilling their religious needs.
 57

Theoretical Perspectives of Social Structure

Different theoretical perspectives describe ‘social structure’ from various standpoints.
As the core rules of human interaction depend on social structure, some sociologists
and anthropologists have theorized the ‘influence of social structure on social behavior’
and the ‘influence of social behavior on social structure’ in distinct ways. For instance,
August Comte (1875) examined the surface-level function of social structure, asserting
that it resembles an organism. This is the crux of Spencer’s societal argument. Max
Weber, on the other hand, posited that individual action and ‘verstehen’ (the subjective
interpretation given by the actor) are more important than the social structure (Weber &
Parsons, 1947). In this view, the focus is predominantly on ‘individual action’ over the
‘impact of social structure on human action’. Bronisław Malinowski (1928) was the first
to introduce ‘functionalism’ to socio-cultural anthropology, where he discussed the
importance of functional arrangements among different parts of a whole social system.

Functionalists, including Durkheim, Comte, and Spencer, strongly believe that

society is a comprehensive system composed of subsystems, each with unique
functions. Additionally, these subsystems or institutions within society are interrelated,
creating a functional interdependence where the function of one system can impact
others. According to their studies, the function or task performed by each individual
institution is more important than the rules governing these functions. This concept was
further developed by Radcliffe-Brown, who integrated structure with function, a theory
more commonly known as ‘Structural Functionalism’. He emphasized the importance
of understanding the hidden rules behind human action and the function of each
institution. However, it was Levi-Strauss (1969) who first introduced and extensively
described ‘Structuralism’, asserting the importance of the ‘structural influence on
human behavior’.

In his seminal work, ‘The Elementary Structure of Kinship’ (1969), Levi-Strauss

examined the structural logic that organizes complex patterns of kin relationships,
interpreting them as formal laws of transfer. These laws reveal how hidden rules behind
social networks are processed and influenced, providing an intriguing argument that
explains the hidden rules unconsciously influencing human interactions. For instance,
while marriage is typically understood as a social institution with various functions,
Strauss viewed it as a pattern of human behavior governed by structural rules. This
perspective always depends on formal laws of transfer. Marriage can be seen as the
transfer of a daughter or a son from one lineage to another, establishing a foundational
cognitive structure in this transfer. Because one person is transferred to another group,
the receiving group becomes indebted to the sending group. As a result, the receiving
group must compensate the sending group through gifts, bride price, bride work, bride
service, or dowry. These transfers also stabilize the coexistence among lineages. Due
to the complex rules of marriage, individual intentions are often not tolerated. For
 58

example, love marriages within the same group can be restricted. These rules are
evident in different societies and cultures. Practices such as incest, restricting sexual
intercourse between parallel cousins, bride price, bride exchange, restricting
homosexuality, polyandry, and polygyny are some of these rules that prevent individual
intentions and compel individuals to comply with social rules.

Structuration Theory is a recent theoretical development contributed by

Giddens (2007) and Bourdieu (2000). This theory describes human behavior based on
the synthesis of structure and agency, with ‘Human Practice’ being a central concept.
Structuration Theory posits that ‘structure’ is not a rigid or stable element, but rather a
continuously changing one due to the close relationship between structure and human
agency.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of social structure is fundamental to understanding the
intricate patterns and underlying rules that shape human behavior in society. While
theoretical perspectives diverge on the relative influence of structure versus individual
agency, the recursive relationship between the two is undeniable. Social structures
guide our actions through ingrained norms and principles, yet human practice
simultaneously reinforces and reshapes these very structures over time. As societies
evolve, exploring this dynamic interplay between enduring structural forces and the
transformative potential of human agency will remain a vital area of inquiry for
sociologists and anthropologists alike.

The study of social structure illuminates the complex tapestry of rules, roles,
and relationships that give rise to organized social life. Though often operating at an
unconscious level, these structural elements exert profound influence over individual
behavior, belief systems, and cultural practices across societies. As globalization and
technological advancements reshape human interactions, understanding the
structural underpinnings of our social world grows ever more crucial. By continuing to
unravel the intricacies of social structure through interdisciplinary research, we can
gain deeper insight into the underlying forces that bind humanity together in the shared
experience of social existence.

Social structure represents the enduring yet malleable framework within which
the drama of human social life unfolds. Its principles and patterns, though deeply
rooted, are not immutable; rather, they are continuously negotiated and reinterpreted
through the lived experiences and actions of individuals. As our collective knowledge of
social structures expands, so does our ability to navigate the complexities of the social
realm with greater awareness and intention. Embracing the duality of structure and
agency, we can strive to create societies that harmonize longstanding traditions with
the ever-evolving needs and aspirations of their members.
 59

References
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of Practice. Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (2002). Distinction: A Social Critque of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard

University Press.

Brown, R. (1933). The Andaman Islanders. Cambridge University Press.

Castells, M. (2010). The Power of Identity. In The Power of Identity: Second edition With
a new preface (Vol. 2). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318234

Comte, A. (1875). System of Positive Polity: Vol. II. Longmans, Green and Co.

Dillon, M. (2014). Introduction to Social Theory. Wiley Blackwell.

Durkheim, E. (1895). The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press.

Durkheim, E. (1964). The Elementary Form of Religious Life. George Allen and Unwin.

Durkheim, E. (1997). The Divison of Labour in Society. The Free Press.

Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (2015). Cultural Anthropology. Pearson.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretaion of Cultures. Basic Books.

Gibbs, B. J. (2017). Structuration Theory. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia

Britannica, inc. https://www.britannica.com/topic/structuration-theory

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1991a). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern
Age. Stanford University Press.

Giddens, A. (1991b). The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press.

Hofstee, E. W. (1968). Development and Rural Social Structure. Sociologia Ruralis,

8(3), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.1968.tb00586.x

Levi-Strauss, C. (1949). The Elementary Structures of Kinship (R. Needham (ed.)).

Beacon Press.

Levi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural Anthropology. Basic Books.

Linton, R. (1936). The Study of Man. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Malinowski, B. (1912). Argonauts Of The Western Pacific. George Routledge.

https://archive.org/details/argonautsofthewe032976mbp

Malinowski, B. (1948). Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays. Beacon Press.
 60

Merton, R. K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. A Division of Macmillan

Publishing Co., Inc.

Parsons, T. (1971). The System of Modern Societies. Prentice Hall.

Pieris, R. (1957). Sinhalese social organization: the Kandyan period. The Ceylon
University Press Board.

Russell, B. (1945). The Histroy of Western Philosophy. Simon and Schuster.

Sorokin, P. (2017). Social and cultural dynamics: A study of change in major systems of
art, truth, ethics, law and social relationships. Routledge.

Spencer, H. (1896). The Study of Sociology. Appleton.

Spencer, H. (1915). First Principles. Williams and Norgate.

Weber, M., & Parsons, A. M. H. T. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic
Organization (1st Americ). Oxford University Press.

Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. The
University of Chicago Press. 1943

View publication stats