Definitions of Society

August Comte the father of sociology saw society as a social organism possessing a harmony of structure and function.Emile Durkheim the founding father of the modern sociology treated society as a reality in its own right. According to Talcott Parsons Society is a total complex of human relationships in so far as they grow out of the action in terms of means-end relationship intrinsic or sym olic.!." #ead concei$ed society as an exchange of gestures which in$ol$es the use of sym ols. #orris !ins erg defines society as a collection of indi$iduals united y certain relations or mode of eha$ior which mark them off from others who do not enter into these relations or who differ from them in eha$ior. Cole sees Society as the complex of organi%ed associations and institutions with a community. According to #acl$er and Page society is a system of usages and procedures of authority and mutual aid of many groupings and di$isions& of controls of human eha$ior and li erties. This e$er changing complex system which is called society is a we of social relationship

Community
The term community is one of the most elusi$e and $ague in sociology and is y now largely without specific meaning. At the minimum it refers to a collection of people in a geographical area. Three other elements may also e present in any usage. '() Communities may e thought of as collections of people with a particular social structure* there are& therefore& collections which are not communities. Such a notion often e+uates community with rural or pre-industrial society and may& in addition& treat ur an or industrial society as positi$ely destructi$e. ',) A sense of elonging or community spirit. '-) All the daily acti$ities of a community& work and non work& take place within the geographical area& which is self contained. Different accounts of community will contain any or all of these additional elements.

.e can list out the characteristics of a community as follows/ (. ,. -. 0. 1. 3. 4. Territory Close and informal relationships #utuality Common $alues and eliefs 2rgani%ed interaction Strong group feeling Cultural similarity

Talcott Parsons defined community as collecti$ity the mem ers of which share a common territorial area as their ase of operation for daily acti$ities. According to Tonnies community is defined as an organic natural kind of social group whose mem ers are ound together y the sense of elonging& created out of e$eryday contacts co$ering the whole range of human acti$ities. "e has presented ideal-typical pictures of the forms of social associations contrasting the solidarity nature of the social relations in the community with the large scale and impersonal relations thought to characteri%e industriali%ing societies.

5ingsley Da$is defined it as the smallest territorial group that can em race all aspects of social life. 6or 5arl #annheim community is any circle of people who li$e together and elong together in such a way that they do not share this or that particular interest only ut a whole set of interests.

Cultural Relativism
This is a method where y different societies or cultures are analy%ed o 7ecti$ely without using the $alues of one culture to 7udge the worth of another. .e cannot possi ly understand the actions of other groups if we analy%e them in terms of our moti$es and $alues. .e must interpret their eha$ior in the light of their moti$es& ha its and $alues if we are to understand them. Cultural relati$ism means that the function and meaning of a trait are relati$e to its cultural setting. A trait is neither good nor ad in itself. 8t is good or ad only with reference to the culture in which it is to function. 6ur clothing is good in the Arctic ut not in the tropics. 8n some hunting societies which occasionally face long periods of hunger to e fat is good* it has real sur$i$al $alue and fat people are admired. 8n our society to e fat is not only unnecessary ut is known to e unhealthful and fat people are not admired. The concept of cultural relati$ism does not mean that all customs are e+ually $alua le& nor does it imply that no customs are harmful. Some patterns of eha$ior may e in7urious e$erywhere& ut e$en such patterns ser$e some purpose in the culture and the society will suffer unless a su stitute is pro$ided. The central point in cultural relati$ism is that in a particular cultural setting certain traits are right ecause they work well in that setting while other traits are wrong ecause they would clash painfully with parts of that culture.

Culture
As "omo sapiens& e$ol$ed& se$eral iological characteristics particularly fa$ora le to the de$elopment of culture appeared in the species. These included erect posture* a fa$ora le rain structure* stereoscopic $ision* the structure of the hand& a flexi le shoulder* and year round sexual recepti$ity on the part of the female. 9one of these iological characteristics alone& of course& accounts for the de$elopment of culture. E$en in com ination& all they guarantee is that human eings would e the most gifted mem ers of the animal kingdom. The distincti$e human way of life that we call culture did not ha$e a single definite eginning in time any more than human eings suddenly appearing on earth. Culture e$ol$ed slowly 7ust as some anthropoids gradually took on more human form. :nmistaka ly& tools existed half a million years ago and might e considera ly older. 8f& for con$enience& we say that culture is 1;;&;;; years old& it is still difficult day has appeared $ery recently. The concept of culture was rigorously defined y E.<. Taylor in (=3;s. According to him culture is the sum total of ideas& eliefs& $alues& material cultural e+uipments and non-material aspects which man makes as a mem er of society. Taylor>s theme that culture is a result of human collecti$ity has een accepted y most anthropologists. Tylarian idea can e discerned in a modern definition of culture culture is the man-made part of en$ironment '#.?. "ersko$its). 6rom this& it follows that culture and society are separa le only at the analytical le$el/ at the actual existential le$el& they can e understood as the two sides of the same coin.

Culture& on one hand& is an outcome of society and& on the other hand& society is a le to sur$i$e and perpetuate itself ecause of the existence of culture. Culture is an ally of man in the sense that it enhances man>s adapta ility to nature. 8t is ecause of the adapti$e $alue of culture that "ersko$its states that culture is a screen etween man and nature. Culture is an instrument y which man exploits the en$ironment and shapes it accordingly. 8n showing affection& the #aori ru noses* the Australians ru faces* the Chinese place nose to cheeks* the .esterners kiss* some groups practice spitting on the elo$ed. 2r& consider this* American men are permitted to laugh in pu lic ut not to cry* 8ro+uois men are permitted to do neither in pu lic* 8talian men are permitted to do oth. Since this is true& physiological factors ha$e little to do with when men laugh and cry and when they do not do either. The $aria ility of the human experience simply cannot e explained y making reference to human iology& or to the climate and geography. 8nstead& we must consider culture as the fa ric of human society. Culture can e concei$ed as a continuous& cumulati$e reser$oir containing oth material and nonmaterial elements that are socially transmitted from generation to generation. Culture is continuous ecause cultural patterns transcend years& reappearing in successi$e generations. Culture is cumulati$e ecause each generation contri utes to the reser$oir. An inherent paradox exists within the social heritage where culture tends to e oth static and dynamic. "umans& once ha$ing internali%ed culture& attach positi$e $alue 7udgments to it and are more or less reluctant to change their esta lished ways of life. Through most of recorded history men ha$e apparently considered that change per say is undesira le and that the ideal condition is sta ility. The prospect of change can seem threatening& yet e$ery human culture is su 7ect to and does experience change. Those who speak of a generation gap portray two generations at odds with each other. According to this $iew& the parent generation em odied the dynamic dimension. .e contend that if& in fact& a generation gap does exist in modern societies& and the differences are of degree and not of su stance. Part of the social heritage of almost e$ery modern society is the high $alue placed on progress. Parents encourage young people to seek progress& and progress is a form of social change. De ates etween generations in modern societies are seldom a out whether any change should occur. The de ates are usually a out how such change should occur& how fast it should occur& and which methods should e used for ringing a out change.

Development of Culture
The distincti$e human way of life that we call culture did not ha$e a single definite eginning. This is to say that human eings did not suddenly appear on earth. Culture e$ol$ed slowly 7ust as anthropoids gradually took on more human form. The earliest tools cannot e dated precisely. Australopithecus may ha$e used stones as weapons as long as fi$e million years ago. Stones that ha$e een used as weapon do not differ systematically from other stones& howe$er& and there is no way to tell for sure. The first stones that show relia le e$idence of ha$ing een shaped as tools trace ack some 1;;&;;; to 3;;&;;; years. The use of fire can e dated from ,;;&;;; to -;;&;;; years ago. Tools of one had come into existence y (;;&;;; <.C. the age of 9eanderthals. The 9eanderthals also apparently had some form of languages and uried their deal with an ela orateness that indicates the possi ility of religious ceremonies. Cro#agnon& dating from -1&;;; years ago& was a superior iological specimen and had a correspondingly more ela orate culture. Their ca$e paintings ha$e een found.

They also made 7ewellery of shells and teeth& and car$ed statuettes of women that emphasi%ed pregnancy and fertility. They made weapons of one& horn& and i$ory& and used needle in the fa rication of garments. Thus& a striking parallel appears etween the e$olution of "omo sapiens and the de$elopment of culture. The parallel cannot e drawn in detail ecause all inferences to the period efore the dawn of history must e made from material artifacts& and these tell little a out the total way of life of the people who used them. #oreo$er& the parallel etween iological and cultural e$olution should not e o$erdrawn. Cro-#agnon>s rain capacity& for example& was large& ut factors ha$ing to do with the growth of culture itself were sufficient to pre$ent any +uantum leap in the de$elopment of learned eha$iour.

Diffusion
8n spite of the fact that in$ention occupied a dominant place in culture growth o$er such a long period of time& most of the content of modern cultures appears to ha$e een gained through diffusion. The term diffusion refers to the orrowing of cultural elements from other societies in contrast to their independent in$ention within a host society. 8n order for diffusion to operate on a su stantial scale& there must e separate societies that ha$e existed long enough to ha$e ela orated distincti$e ways of life. #oreo$er& those societies must e in contact with one another so that su stantial orrowing is possi le. These conditions pro a ly de$eloped late in the e$olutionary process. 2nce egun& howe$er& culture orrowing ecame so per$asi$e that most of the elements of most modern cultures& including our own& originated with other people. Culture has grown& then& through a com ination of in$ention and diffusion. 8t grew slowly at first& mostly as the result of in$ention. As the culture ase expanded and societies ecame differentiated& the large -scale diffusion of traits ecome possi le and the rate of growth speeded up. 8n modern times& and particularly in the .estern world& the rate of culture growth has ecome o$erwhelming.

Cultural Lag
The role played y material in$entions& that is& y technology& in social change pro a ly recei$ed most emphasis in the work of .illiam 6. 2g urn. 8t was 2g urn& also& who was chiefly responsi le for the idea that the rate of in$ention within society is a function of the si%e of the existing culture ase. "e saw the rate of material in$ention as increasing with the passage of time.2g urn elie$ed that material and non-material cultures change in different ways. Change in material culture is elie$ed to ha$e a marked directional or progressi$e character. This is ecause there are agreed-upon standards of efficiency that are used to e$aluate material in$entions. To use air-planes& as an example& we keep working to de$elop planes that will fly& higher and faster& and carry more payloads on a lower unit cost. <ecause airplanes can e measured against these standards& in$entions in this area appear rapidly and predicta ly. 8n the area of non-material culture& on the other hand there often are no such generally accepted standards. .hether one prefers a "ussain& a Picasso& or a !ains orough& for example& is a matter of taste& and styles of painting fluctuate une$enly. Similarly& in institutions such as go$ernment and the economic system there are competing forms of styles& !o$ernments may e dictatorships& oligarchies& repu lics or democracies.

Cultural Relativism
This is a method where y different societies or cultures are analy%ed o 7ecti$ely without using the $alues of one culture to 7udge the worth of another. .e cannot possi ly understand the actions of other groups if we analy%e them in terms of our moti$es and $alues. .e must interpret their eha$ior in the light of their moti$es& ha its and $alues if we are to understand them. Cultural relati$ism means that the function and meaning of a trait are relati$e to its cultural setting. A trait is neither good nor ad in itself. 8t is good or ad only with reference to the culture in which it is to function. 6ur clothing is good in the Arctic ut not in the tropics. 8n some hunting societies which occasionally face long periods of hunger to e fat is good* it has real sur$i$al $alue and fat people are admired. 8n our society to e fat is not only unnecessary ut is known to e unhealthful and fat people are not admired. The concept of cultural relati$ism does not mean that all customs are e+ually $alua le& nor does it imply that no customs are harmful. Some patterns of eha$ior may e in7urious e$erywhere& ut e$en such patterns ser$e some purpose in the culture and the society will suffer unless a su stitute is pro$ided. The central point in cultural relati$ism is that in a particular cultural setting certain traits are right ecause they work well in that setting while other traits are wrong ecause they would clash painfully with parts of that culture.