Social Structure Defined

Social structure is the organized set of social institutions and patterns of

institutionalized relationships that together compose society. Social structure is both
a product of social interaction, and directly determines it. Social structures are not
immediately visible to the untrained observer, however they are always present and
affect all dimensions of human experience in society.

It is helpful to think about social structure as operating on three levels within a

given society: the macro, meso, and micro levels.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE: THE MACRO LEVEL OF SOCIETY

When sociologists use the term "social structure" they are typically referring to
macro level social forces including social institutions and patterns of
institutionalized relationships. The major social institutions recognized by
sociologists include family, religion, education, media, law, politics, and economy.
We see these as distinct institutions that are interrelated and interdependent, and
together help compose the overarching social structure of a society.

These institutions organize our social relationships to others, and create patterns of
social relations when viewed on a large scale. For example, the institution of family
organizes people into distinct social relationships and roles, including mother,
father, son, daughter, husband, wife, etc., and there is typically a hierarchy to these
relationships, which results in a power differential.

The same goes for religion, education, law, and politics.

These social facts may be less obvious within the institutions of media and
economy, but they are present there too. Within these there are organizations and
people who hold greater amounts of power than others to determine what happens
within them, and as such, they hold more power in society.

What these people and their organizations do act as structuring forces in the lives of
all of us. The organization and operation of these social institutions in a given
society results in other aspects of social structure, including socio-economic
stratification.

The way we create relationships with others is based on certain patterns we use
daily. This lesson takes you through the definition and theory of social structure in
society and offers a quiz to test your knowledge.

Overview of Social Structure

Have you ever visited a large city and stopped at an outdoor cart to order a hot
dog? If so, the person who sold you that hot dog was a vendor. Vendors live day to
day based on the location of where they move their product each day. Most vendors
are viewed as being poor immigrants who can't make it in society. This is not the
case. Although it's easy to look at vendors as just people selling products on the
street, in actuality they are pursuing the same life goals as you and I.

This example of social structure demonstrates how people in society develop a code
of conduct in regards to living in society. There are specific elements and
frameworks that we use to fit into mainstream society and to develop the concept
of social structure.

Types of Social Structure

To best help us understand the social structure and elements of society, sociologist
Talcott Parsons produced one of the best-known theoretical foundations for studying
society. Parsons believed that society best functions in four ways, and these four
elements are necessary in forming the social structure of society.

1. Adaptation: The way we adapt to our environments is one of the ways we

function through survival in society. For example, jobs, economy, family.
2. Goal attainment: The need to set goals and achieve them in society.
3. Integration: The need to relate to other human beings who share similar
interests.
4. Latency: The need to have people motivate us toward our goals of
achievement.

Developing Social Structure & Role in Society

What kinds of social groups do you belong to? Do you ever stop to think that your
role within your social groups determines how you take part in the structure and
organization of society? Most times we don't, but we, the individuals, are society.
Status is our social position within a group (for example, leader, organizer, founder)
whereas role is the part we are expected to play in our lives (for example, mother,
father, sister, brother). Therefore, in the formation of the social structure in society,
we develop our roles and status through our social interactions, relationships, and
patterns of behavior.

There are two types of statuses that help us understand our status in society.

Achieved status is when someone does something that may define his or her role.
For example, a person becomes a musician by studying music, or a woman
becomes a mother by giving birth.

Ascribed statuses are assigned roles given to us in life. For example, we do not
pick the family we are born into.

Social stratification refers to a system by which a society ranks categories of people

in a hierarchy. Let's examine some of the theories surrounding this concept.

Definition of Social Stratification

Social stratification refers to a system by which a society ranks categories of

people in a hierarchy. In the United States, it is perfectly clear that some groups
have greater status, power, and wealth than other groups. These differences are
what led to social stratification. Social stratification is based on four major
principles:

1. Social stratification is a trait of society, not simply a reflection of individual

differences.
2. Social stratification persists over generations.
3. Social stratification is universal (it happens everywhere) but variable (it takes
different forms across different societies).
4. Social stratification involves not just inequality but beliefs as well (inequality
is rooted in a society's philosophy).

Why does social stratification exist, and why are some countries more stratified
than others? To analyze this question, we can look at social stratification through
three major perspectives: structural functionalism, social conflict, and symbolic
interaction.

The Functions of Social Stratification

Structural functionalists argue that social inequality plays a vital role in the
smooth operation of a society. The Davis-Moore thesis states that social
stratification has beneficial consequences for the operation of society. Davis and
Moore argue that the most difficult jobs in any society are the most necessary and
require the highest rewards and compensation to sufficiently motivate individuals to
fill them. Certain jobs, like mowing grass or cleaning toilets, can be performed by
almost anyone, while other jobs, such as performing brain surgery, are difficult and
require the most talented people to perform them.

In order to lure the most talented people away from less important work, a society
must offer those people rewards and incentives. Davis and Moore further claim that
any society can be equal, but only to the extent that people are willing to let anyone
perform any job. This would also require that even those who do their job poorly are
rewarded equally. What would be the incentive for people to do their best if
everyone was rewarded equally?

Stratification and Conflict

Social conflict theorists disagree that social stratification is functional for a

society. Instead, they argue that social stratification benefits some at the expense of
others. Two theorists, Karl Marx and Max Weber, are the primary contributors to this
perspective.

Karl Marx was a German philosopher, sociologist, economist, and revolutionary

socialist. He based his theory on the idea that society has two classes of people: the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of
production, such as factories and other businesses, while the proletariat are the
workers. Marx argued that the bourgeoisie (owners) give proletariats (workers) just
enough to survive, but ultimately the workers are exploited.

As a result of this exploitation, Marx foresaw a workers' revolution. He believed that

oppression and misery would eventually drive the working majority to come
together and overthrow capitalism. The result would be a socialist utopia where
such extreme class differences would cease to exist. Despite Marx's prediction,
capitalism is still thriving.

Max Weber, also a conflict theorist, agreed with Marx that social stratification
causes social conflict. Unlike Marx, he portrays social stratification as a
multidimensional ranking rather than a hierarchy of two clearly-defined classes.
Weber saw three dimensions of social stratification in terms of a continuum. Social
class for Weber included power and prestige in addition to property or wealth.
Today, sociologists use the term socioeconomic status (SES) to refer to this
ranking based on various dimensions of social inequality.

William Lloyd Warner

An early example of a stratum class model was developed by the sociologist William
Lloyd Warner in his 1949 book, Social Class in America. For many decades, the
Warnerian theory was dominant in U.S. sociology.

Based on social anthropology, Warner divided Americans into three classes (upper,
middle, and lower), then further subdivided each of these into an "upper" and
"lower" segment, with the following postulates:

1. Upper-upper class.
"Old money." People who have been born into and raised with wealth; mostly
consists of old, noble, or prestigious families (e.g., Vanderbilt, Rockefeller,
Hilton).

2. Lower-upper class.
"New money." Individuals who have become rich within their own lifetimes
(entrepreneurs, movie stars, as well as some prominent professionals).

3. Upper-middle class.
High-salaried professionals (doctors, lawyers, higher rung (were in the
corporate market, yet left for a reason such as family time) professors,
corporate executives).

4. Lower-middle class.
Lower-paid professionals, but not manual laborers (police officers, non-
management office workers, small business owners).

5. Upper-lower class.
Blue-collar workers and manual laborers. Also known as the "working class."

6. Lower-lower class.
The homeless and permanently unemployed, as well as the "working poor."

To Warner, American social class was based more on attitudes than on the actual
amount of money an individual made. For example, the richest people in America
would belong to the "lower-upper class" since many of them created their own
fortunes; one can only be born into the highest class. Nonetheless, members of the
wealthy upper-upper class tend to be more powerful, as a simple survey of U.S.
presidents demonstrates (the Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushes).

Another observation: Members of the upper-lower class might make more money
than members of the lower-middle class (a well-salaried factory worker vs. a
secretarial worker), but the class difference is based on the type of work they
perform.

In his research findings, Warner observed that American social class was largely
based on these shared attitudes. For example, he noted that the lower-middle class
tended to be the most conservative group of all, since very little separated them
from the working class. The upper-middle class, while a relatively small section of
the population, usually "set the standard" for proper American behavior, as
reflected in the mass media.

Professionals with salaries and educational attainment higher than those found in
the middle of the income strata (bottom rung professors, managerial office workers,
architects) may also be considered as being true middle class.
Mike Savage from London School of Economics and Fiona Devine from the University
of Manchester, examined class in a brand new way. Their survey results identified a
new model of class with seven classes ranging from the Elite at the top to a
'Precariat' at the bottom. Suggesting that defining class must not only be based by
the job that you do, but by the different kinds of economic, cultural and social
resources or 'capitals' that people possess.