What is sociology?

 Sociology is one of the members of family of social sciences.

 Sociology is the systematic study of social behavior and human groups.

 It focuses primarily on:

 The influence of social relationships upon people’s attitudes and behavior.

 How societies are established and change.

 It deals with families, gangs, business firms, computer networks, political parties,
schools, religions and labor unions.

 It is also concerned with love, poverty, conformity, technology, discrimination,

illness, alienation, overpopulation and community.

 Definition of Sociology:

 Sociology is composed of two words:

 Latin word “Socius” meaning companion or associate.

 Greek word “Logos” meaning science or study.

 The etymological meaning of “sociology” is the science of society.

 Kingsley Davis says, “Sociology is a general science of society”.

 Emile Durkheim defines sociology as the “Science of social institutions”.

 Small defines sociology as the “Science of social relations”.

Practical Utility of sociology:

• Sociology helps us in assessing available human resources and extent of human

resources needed for solving social problems. Thus, sociology helps us in human
planning process, which contributes significantly in solving economic problems.

• It provides us basic and fundamental knowledge about human society, which includes
weak points of society, including human relationships. In this way, it saves us from
duping in the dark.

• Each society is faced with social problem, which in turn create economic and social
problems. Some of the social evils are deep rooted and it is essential that these should
be rooted out. Sociology helps us in both identifying those problems and finding out
their solution. Without proper understanding magnitude of the problems, these cannot
be properly tackled.
• It helps us in conciliation and adjustment. Each society has diverse elements. These if
not properly reconciled can result in disorganization and destabilization of the society.
It is sociology, which helps us in understanding the extent of diversity and the way in
which this diversity can be converted into homogeneity.

• Sociology helps us in bringing family stability. It helps us in identifying the causes of

family stability and family disorganization. It tells us how emerging destabilizing
trend in the family should be checked so that strong family system continues.

• Sociology makes us tolerant by telling us good points and healthy customs, traditions,
norms and values of other societies. It enables us to appreciate what is best in them,
which needs to be adjusted in our life style.
Sociology of Architecture

Sociology of architecture is the sociological study of the built environment and the
role and occupation of architects in modern societies.

Society provides the cultural basis for design and interpretation. The practice of
architectural design captures the cultural and societal influences relative to the
specific design problem. The sociological position of architectural design deals not
only with society as a whole but also with society at the level of individual that
people will seek out housing to suit their needs and will choose to work in location
which reflect their ideals of social position.

Safety and security are related to personal feelings that can be affected by the
space in which individual inhabits. The feeling of security or the perception of
danger will be affected by the built environment and thus will affect the individual
in that location. These feelings carry a great deal of influence in how an
architectural design solution is viewed relative to its surrounding society. True
works of architecture are not fully understood without the inclusion of knowledge
of the culture that surrounded these designs.

Architecture is the product of all sorts of factors social, political, economic,

scientific, technical and religious beliefs.

These factors clearly indicate a sociological view of architectural design since four
of the six listed (social, political, economic and religious beliefs) relate directly to
the society and cultural institutions they foster. These factors stemming from the
society’s cultural traits create the design language of the architecture.
The Emergence of Sociology

You will learn about two major historical events that triggered the birth of
sociology.

a) Industrial Revolution

b) The Enlightenment

Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution is the name given to the changes in manufacturing,

agriculture, transportation, and mining that transformed virtually every aspect of
society from the 1300s on. The defining feature of the Industrial Revolution was
mechanization, the process of replacing human and animal muscle as a source of
power with external sources of power derived from burning wood, coal, oil, and
natural gas. The new energy sources eventually replaced hand tools with power
tools, sailboats with freighters, and horse-drawn carriages with trains.
Mechanization changed how goods were produced and how people worked. It
turned workshops into factories, skilled workers into machine operators, and
handmade goods into machine-made products.

Example: Consider the effort required to make bread before mechanization. Bakers
plunged fists into gluey dough and massaged it with their fingers until their
muscles hurt (Zuboff 1988). People took their dough to small local bakeries, where
it was shaped and baked in wood- or coal-heated brick ovens. This baker and his
apprentice used long-handled wooden shovels to move bread in and out of the oven
(Advameg, Inc. 2007).

With mechanization, bakers no longer had to spend seven or more years as

apprentices learning to make bread. Machines rendered such time-consuming skills
obsolete. Now people with little or no skill could do the baker’s work, and at a
faster pace. Before mechanization, customers knew the person who baked their
bread. With mechanization, they came to depend on “strangers” to sustain them.
Bread baking eventually moved out of the home and small bakery shops, and by
the 1940s, commercial bakeries were stocking grocery shelves. While this may
seem unimportant, it is just one example of the way the Industrial Revolution
weakened people’s ties to their community, their workplace, and their home along
with a series of other related innovations—the railroad, the steamship, running
water, central heating, electricity, and the telegraph.

In sum, the Industrial Revolution changed everything––the ways in which goods

were produced, the ways in which people negotiated time and space, the
relationships between what were once geographically separated peoples, the ways
in which people made their livings, the density of human populations (e.g.,
urbanization), the relative importance and influence of the home in people’s lives,
access to formal education (the rise of compulsory and mass education), and the
emergence of a consumption-oriented economy and culture. The accumulation of
wealth became a valued and necessary pursuit. These unprecedented changes
caught the attention of the early sociologists who wrote in the 19th and early 20th
centuries. In fact, sociology emerged out of their efforts to document and to
explain the effects of the Industrial Revolution on society.

The Enlightenment

The emergence of sociology was also part of a larger intellectual and social
revolution known as the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was a 100-year-plus
revolutionary intellectual and social movement that took place in Europe and the
United States between 1680 and 1789. The social critics of the day argued that
science and human reason could be used to undermine the weight of tradition,
ignorance, superstition, and tyranny. These social critics openly challenged the
oppressive powers of the church and the hereditary aristocracy. It was also a time
when the masses rose up to confront these powers through a series of conflicts that
included the American and French Revolutions (Brians 2000). At the time of the
Enlightenment, a great division existed between peasants who worked the land and
the aristocratic landowners who monopolized food sources—flour mills,
community ovens that baked the bread, and oil and wine presses. Although the
peasants’ situation varied by region, we know that they paid tithes to the church
and taxes to the aristocracy, often as much as one-third or more the value of their
crops. The peasants, who were poor and desperate, despised the aristocracy, who
they saw as overbearing and excessively wealthy (Spielvogel 2006).
Industrialization and the rise of a global trading system helped create a new class
of people––the merchant class. This class had not inherited their situation in life, as
had the aristocracy and peasant classes. In fact, the merchant class believed that
they had earned their newfound wealth. The facts of individual merit and
achievement challenged the longstanding belief that people inherited their lot in
life and could do nothing to change it. People questioned the wisdom of paying
taxes to support the lavish lifestyle of the aristocracy, which produced nothing of
real value for the society. These various challenges to the existing order gave rise
to a new and liberating belief—society did not have to be organized as it was. In
fact, people and the societies in which they lived were things that could be studied
scientifically and changed (Hooker 1996). Then a field of study named sociology,
devoted to the scientific study of society, emerged. Among other things, it
emphasized the need to understand and solve the many social problems generated
by the Industrial Revolution.
Social Groups

The term group has a specific definition in sociology that differs from everyday
usage. In everyday language, almost any collection of people might be called a
group. However, two or more people being in close physical proximity do not
constitute a group in the sociological meaning of the word. Sociologically
speaking, a group is a collection of people who interact regularly based on some
shared interest and who develop some sense of belonging that sets them apart from
other gatherings of people. They form a social relationship. This is sometimes
referred to as developing a sense of “we-ness.” All groups share this factor of
interdependence (Lewin 1948).

People who just happen to be in the same place at the same time are not a group.
Rather, they are an aggregate. Individuals riding the bus or walking their dogs in a
park are examples of aggregates. If these people interact and develop some sort of
shared interests or sense of themselves as a group, then they become a group by
definition. For example, the individual dog walkers might begin to talk with each
other about their pets, start to walk their dogs on the same schedule, and even plan
events together, such as an obedience class. Through these shared interests and
interactions, the dog walkers may begin to identify themselves as members of a
group. They might even adopt some sort of name to identify themselves. Another,
albeit tragic, example of an aggregate developing very quickly into a group was on
September 11, 2001, when hijackers flew airplanes into the World Trade Center
and Pentagon. The passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed in
Pennsylvania started as an aggregate and became a group when they joined
together to fight the hijackers.
Classification of Groups

Primary and Secondary Groups

Charles Horton Cooley (1902) coined the term primary group to refer to a small
group characterized by intimate, face-to-face association and cooperation. The
members of a street gang constitute a primary group; so do members of a family
living in the same household, as do a group of “sisters” in a college sorority.
Primary groups play a pivotal role both in the socialization process (see Chapter 4)
and in the development of roles and statuses. Indeed, primary groups can be
instrumental in a person’s day-to-day existence. When we find ourselves
identifying closely with a group, it is probably a primary group. We also
participate in many groups that are not characterized by close bonds of friendship,
such as large college classes and business associations. The term secondary group
refers to a formal, impersonal group in which there is little social intimacy or
mutual understanding. Secondary groups often emerge in the workplace among
those who share special understandings about their occupation. The distinction
between primary and secondary groups is not always clear-cut, however. Some
social clubs may become so large and impersonal that they no longer function as
primary groups.

In-Groups and Out-Groups

People in one group sometimes feel antagonistic toward or threatened by another

group, especially if that group is perceived as being different, either culturally or
racially. To identify these “we” and “they” feelings, sociologists use two terms
first employed by William Graham Sumner (1906): in-group and out-group. An in-
group can be defined as any group or category to which people feel they belong.
Simply put, it comprises everyone who is regarded as “we” or “us.” The very
existence of an in-group implies that there is an out-group that is viewed as “they”
or “them.” An out-group is a group or category to which people feel they do not
belong.

In-group members typically feel distinct and superior, seeing themselves as better
than people in the out-group. Proper behavior for the in-group is simultaneously
viewed as unacceptable behavior for the out-group. We can see this differential
standard operating in worldwide discussions of terrorism. When a group or a
nation takes aggressive actions, it usually justifies them as necessary, even if
civilians are hurt or killed. Opponents are quick to label such actions with the
emotion-laden term of terrorist and appeal to the world community for
condemnation. Yet these same people may themselves retaliate with actions that
hurt civilians, which the first group will then condemn.

Reference Groups

Sociologists call any group that individuals use as a standard for evaluating
themselves and their own behavior a reference group. For example, a high school
student who aspires to join a social circle of hip-hop music devotees will pattern
his or her behavior after that of the group. The student will begin dressing like
these peers, listening to the same downloads and DVDs, and hanging out at the
same stores and clubs.

Coalitions

As groups grow larger, coalitions begin to develop. A coalition is a temporary or

permanent alliance geared toward a common goal. Coalitions can be broad-based
or narrow and can take on many different objectives. Sociologist William Julius
Wilson (1999) has described community-based organizations in Texas that include
Whites and Latinos, working class and affluent, who have banded together to work
for improved sidewalks, better drainage systems, and comprehensive street paving.
Importance of Group:

Improve Mutual understanding: group improve mutual understanding of the

employees because when they work together it helps them to understand the
process and goal of the organization.

Improve performance: it improves the performance of the group member. When

all group members’ works together, they learn from each other.

Brings new ideas: creating new groups bring new ideas and innovation in the
organization.

Developing Future Executives: informal groups recognize talented workers.

Which helps the company to identify the future leader.

THE BASICS OF SOCIOLOGY Kathy S. Stolley

Group Dynamics

An entire field of study known as group dynamics has developed around the
scientific study of groups and group processes. Drawing from both sociology and
psychology, group dynamics includes studying the influences groups have on our
behavior (Johnson and Johnson 2000, 37–44; Forsyth 1990). Areas of interest
include how groups form and develop, the socialization that takes place within
groups, power structures, conformity to group ideas, conflict, leadership, and
decision-making.

Group Formation

Many groups are formed to accomplish some task. This requires that the members
work together somewhat as a team. Groups coming together to design a military
action, plan a golf tournament, or decide on annual fund-raising activities for the
local school Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) all go through some group-
formation process. Researchers have identified over 100 various models of group
development (Forsyth 1990, 77). Following on the work of Bruce Tuckman
(1965), perhaps the bestknown model depicts four stages of group development
that are often termed forming, storming, norming, and performing. Some models of
team development also add a fifth stage, called adjourning or mourning, during
which the group disbands. These stages of team building apply to all types of
groups.

Stage I

When individuals are first together as a group, they enter the forming (or
orientation) stage. They learn about the other members, explore the group goal,
and share their backgrounds and expertise.

Stage II

As issues become contentious, the group moves into the storming (or conflict)
stage. Members may express dissatisfaction, criticism, hostility, or even drop out
of the group. Most groups do experience conflict at some point. Although it may at
first appear destructive, this storming stage can actually be constructive if
differences are presented and resolved openly.

Stage III

When members start to resolve their issues and work together, they are norming
(or building cohesion). They begin to form a cohesive unit, establish rules and
roles to get their job done, and start to think of the group as “we.”

Stage IV
Then the group performs by “getting down to business” and working toward their
goals.

Stage V

There may also be a dissolution stage, in which the group wraps up their tasks and
terminates their roles. This stage can be planned, such as when the group
accomplishes its goal (e.g., completing a fund-raising event), or spontaneous (e.g.,
a budget cut ends a project before its completion).
 Culture and Society

Culture is an extremely broad concept. To sociologists, culture is made up of all of

the ideas, beliefs, behaviors, and products common to, and defining, a group’s way
of life. Culture encompasses everything humans create and have as they interact
together.

Culture shapes the way we see the world. It impacts how we think, how we act,
what we value, how we talk, the organizations we create, the rituals we hold, the
laws we make, how and what we worship, what we eat, what we wear, and what
we think of as beautiful or ugly. Even our emotions (Hochschild 1983; McCarthy
1989) and our choices of many of the foods we eat (Belasco and Scranton 2002)
are “cultural acquisitions.”

Cultures vary widely around the world. Some people are familiar with Western
industrialized cultures. Such ways of life often seem “normal” and often “better” to
them. However, other vastly different cultures exist around the world that also
seem “normal” or “better” to their inhabitants. Encountering these different
cultures can result in culture shock, confusion that occurs when encountering
unfamiliar situations and ways of life. Often-cited re-search conducted by
anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon (1997), provides a good example of this
concept. Starting in the early 1960s, Chagnon studied the Yanomamo people, who
live in the rain forests of Brazil and Venezuela. When Chagnon first traveled to
meet them, he encountered people who had been virtually isolated from other
cultures. They were almost naked, had little privacy, did not have electricity,
hunted with bows and arrows, and engaged in inter village warfare. Many had
wads of green tobacco stuck in their teeth and strands of green slime hanging from
their nostrils from commonly using an inhaled hallucinogenic. Chagnon was
initially horrified. He found them hideous and the odor of the area sickening. The
Yanomamo found the clothing, look, and smell of Chagnon just as curious as he
found them. Chagnon’s work is also informative for sociologists interested in
globalization and the changes that occur as a result of evolving cultural contact.
When he returned several decades later, Chagnon found that contact with the
outside world in the form of missionaries and corporations seeking the rain forest’s
resources had vastly and tragically changed the Yanomamo’s lives. Much of their
traditional land had been taken and their people exploited.

Types of Culture

It is important to sociologists to look at the various facets of culture. Every culture

is composed of both material and nonmaterial components.

Material culture includes all the tangible products created by human interaction.
Any physical objects created by humans are part of the material culture. This
includes clothing, books, art, buildings, computer software, inventions, food,
vehicles, tools, and so on.

Nonmaterial culture consists of the intangible creations of human interaction.

These exist as our ideas, languages, values, beliefs, behaviors, and social
institutions.

Material culture, such as technology, may change faster than nonmaterial culture.
The result may by a cultural lag, in which a gap occurs as different aspects of
culture change at different rates (Ogburn 1964; Volti 2001). Cloning provides an
example of this situation. Scientific advances make animal, and perhaps human,
cloning a reality. However, the procedure is extremely controversial morally and
ethically. Similarly, science has investigated ways to transplant human genes into
animals or animal organs into humans. These procedures erode traditional
boundaries and definitions between human and other animals and challenge
traditional values of life (Birke and Michael 1998; Woods 1998).

Sociologists also emphasize the importance of not confusing the sociological use
of the word culture with the popular usage of the term. In everyday usage,
someone might be referred to as “having culture” or as being “cultured” or
“uncultured.” Sociologically speaking, however, everyone has a culture. The
popular usage of the term culture typically refers to what sociologists call high
culture.

High culture consists of things that are generally associated with the social elite.
The opera, cotillions, classical music and literature, wine tastings, and the fine arts
are all examples of high culture. These activities may not be available to everyone,
for several reasons. They may be too expensive, or they may be located in
exclusive locations that are largely inaccessible without special membership or
hefty financial resources. Additionally, special preparation or knowledge may be
important in understanding or fully appreciating these activities.

Unlike high culture, popular culture consists of activities that are widespread in a
culture, with mass accessibility and appeal, and pursued by large numbers of
people across all social classes. Examples of popular culture include fast-food
restaurants, rock concerts, television situation comedies, and best-selling novels.
Sociologists have devoted considerable attention to studying many facets of our
popular culture. Works that examine the business of selling cars (Lawson 2000),
high-school proms (Best 2000), formal weddings (Ingraham 1999), and John
Wayne movies (Shivley 1992) illustrate some of the range of sociological research
in this area to which many people can readily relate. To sociologists, high culture
is not evaluated as being “better” than popular culture. They are simply different
aspects of the larger culture that sociologists find so interesting.

Aspects of Culture

Sociologists studying culture and society focus on several aspects of nonmaterial

culture: cultural values, norms, symbols, and language. A look at each of these
aspects contributes to our overall understanding of what culture is, how it is
created and passed between generations, and how important culture is in
everything we do.

Values

Values, culturally defined ideas about what is important, are central to culture.
Values delineate how a culture should be. In the United States, sociologists have
identified cultural values including success, hard work, freedom, equality,
democracy, individualism, and progress (Bellah et al. 1985; Inkeles 1979; Williams
1970). Of course, not everyone in a culture shares identical values. They also do
not share them equally. Some people or groups hold more tightly to certain
values while rejecting others.

There may also be a mismatch between ideal culture, the values and norms
claimed by a society, and real culture, the values and norms that are actually
practiced. For example, in the United States, equality is a core value.
Encompassed within this value is the ideal that all workers regardless of gender
and race should have equal opportunity in the workplace. In reality, however,
even women in high-status positions continue to earn less than men (Figart and
Lapidus 1998) and experience discrimination in career promotions (Glass Ceiling
Commission 1995; Rhode 2001), as do black males seeking high-level positions
(Elliott and Smith 2004). These problems are even more pronounced for women
of color (Collins 2000; St. Jean and Feagin 1998).

Norms

Norms are derived from our societal values. Norms constitute the shared rules or
expectations specifying appropriate behaviors in various situations. We need
norms to maintain a stable social order. They both direct and prohibit behavior
(Hechter and Opp 2001). Norms tell us what we should do (wait our turn, pay bills
on time, show respect for our elders, etc.); they also tell us what we should not
do (hit our spouse, curse aloud at a church service, run red lights, etc.). Norms are
enforced through a process of internalization. They become part of who we are as
individuals and as a culture. However, external social enforcement in the form of
both positive and negative sanctions is also critical (Horne 2001). Norms vary over
time. Women wearing trousers, especially in public areas or to work, is a relatively
recent occurrence. Similarly, recent bans on smoking in many public places
signifies shifting norms regarding smoking. Norms, and the social reaction to
breaches, vary in strength and intensity (Sumner 1906). Folkways are weak norms
that are often informally passed down from previous generations. They often deal
with everyday behaviors and manners. Most folkways are not written down and
enumerated. They are the type of things that most of us learn from others to do
or not to do. We learn from direct guidance and reinforcement. Parents teach
children to share their toys and reward them with hugs and smiles. We also learn
folkways through encountering others’ reactions. People react perhaps with
stares or avoidance when we act “inappropriately” by singing aloud on a bus or
wearing a swimsuit while shopping in an expensive downtown boutique.
Violations of folkways are not considered severe breaches of great moral
significance. Generally, no serious negative social sanctions (e.g., arrest) result
when a folkway is broken. The reaction to a person who violates a folkway may be
as minor as ignoring the behavior. Failing to say “thank you” may be considered
rude, but will not result in some harsh penalty for norm violation. We find
folkways governing our behavior throughout our lives. They govern situations that
are familiar to large segments of the population and smaller groups. For example,
folkways govern Christmas gift-giving behavior, an event familiar to many. These
norms are not written down anywhere, but they are “thoroughly familiar” to
participants in the gift-exchange process. Among the folkways observed by
Theodore Caplow (1984), gifts should be wrapped before they are given,
distributed at gatherings involving reciprocal gift giving, and surprise the
recipient. Additionally, gifts are scaled in economic value to the emotional value
of the relationship. For example, a casual date would likely receive, and expect, a
less expensive gift than a long-term date, fiancé, or spouse. Folkways also provide
guidance in less widespread activities such as gathering mushrooms. Gary Alan
Fine (2001) studied the Minnesota Mycological Society, the second-oldest
continuously active mushroom society in the United States. He found that
members are expected not to brag about the number of mushrooms they find,
downplay big finds, offer to share, and not hoard a big find for themselves. They
transfer these norms to new members through socialization (as discussed in
chapter 4), talking, warnings of negative sanctions, and even moral messages
indicating appropriate behaviors (Fine 2001, 157). Mores (pronounced more-ays)
are strongly held norms. They represent deeply held standards of what is right
and wrong. Prohibitions on murder, robbery, and assault are all examples of
mores across many cultures. Mores are considered morally significant breaches
and are often formalized as laws. For this reason, punishment for violations of
mores can be severe, involving sanctions such as arrest or imprisonment. Some
mores are so strongly held they have been termed taboos, norms that are so
objectionable that they are strictly forbidden. Taboos are often things considered
unthinkable in a culture. Common examples include incest and cannibalism.
Chapter 6 discusses violations of norms in much more detail.

Symbols Symbols are central to our understanding and sharing of culture. A

symbol is something that stands for, represents, or signifies something else in a
particular culture. It can represent, for example, ideas, emotions, values, beliefs,
attitudes, or events. A symbol can be anything. It can be a gesture, word, object,
or even an event. Sharing symbols can help build a sense of unity and
commitment among people. A crucifix, cross, or Star of David are all symbols that
have deep, shared meanings regarding Christianity or Judaism. National flags
become rallying symbols for citizens and troops. The rush to buy American flags in
the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States is a good
example of this effect in action. The meaning of symbols derives from the way
they are interpreted within a culture. The American flag may be interpreted as
standing for individual freedom. However, some (e.g., American militia groups
that think the federal government is too involved in their personal business) may
see the flag as a symbol of a lack of freedom. People from other cultures see the
flag as having various meanings filtered through their own cultural lenses (e.g., as
a symbol of democracy, as a symbol of repression). To someone unfamiliar with
the United States, the American flag is not a symbol at all. It is simply a red, white,
and blue pattern devoid of any such meanings. Symbols may take on different
meanings in different times or circumstances. White wedding gowns, originally
intended to symbolize virginity, are now traditional in the United States even
though many brides are not virgins. However, until Anne of Brittany wore white
when she wed Louis XII of France in 1499, brides wore yellow or red. In China and
Japan, brides wear white because that color symbolizes mourning and the
symbolic death of the woman leaving her birth family to join her husband’s
family. Blue symbolized purity in biblical times, with both bride and groom
wearing a blue band around the bottom of their wedding clothing. This old
symbol is the origin of modern brides having “something blue” as part of their
current wedding attire (Ackerman 1994, 271). Some symbols are purposely given
new meanings over time. During World War II, a pink triangle with the point
facing downward was used by the Nazis to identify homosexual prisoners in
concentration camps. Every group singled out for persecution in the camps was
identified by similar symbols. Perhaps the best-known symbol was the yellow Star
of David, composed of two triangles, one inverted on top of the other. In the
1980s, gay rights activists adopted the pink triangle as a symbol of pride and
solidarity, a symbol of overcoming a history of oppression. Some groups, such as
the activist group AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP), have turned the
triangle point up to further communicate activism and empowerment over
oppression and passivity. (See chapter 9 for more discussion of people in action.)

Languages

Another major component of culture, and a special kind of symbol, is language.

Language is a system of symbols that allows communication among members of a
culture. These symbols can be verbal or written. Language is central to the way
we understand our world. According to the linguistic-relativity hypothesis,
languages reflect cultural perceptions. This hypothesis is also known as the Sapir-
Whorf hypothesis or the Whorf hypothesis. It is named after the anthropological
linguists Edward Sapir (1884–1936) and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897–
1941), profiled below, who largely developed it. For example, because snow is so
central to their lives, Eskimos have different words for falling snow, snow on the
ground, drifting snow, and a snow drift (Boas 1911). The Canadian Aleuts have
over 30 words for snow (Hiller 1933). Some other cultures in tropical climates
have no word for snow, because they have no need for such a term. Yet, the
Philippine Hanunoo people have almost 100 terms for rice (Thomson 2000).
Language also defines, at least to some extent, how we think about the world and
how we act. Research has demonstrated that when people hear the pronoun he
they think of a male, even if the pronoun was intended to encompass both males
and females (Gastil 1990; Switzer 1990). Such findings are part of the impetus
behind changing the grammatical convention away from use of male pronouns to
represent everyone. Political spin doctors make careers of choosing words to
influence the way we perceive issues. Additionally, the military carefully chooses
euphemisms such as collateral damage, friendly fire, shock and awe, and incident
to address such unpleasant realities as civilian deaths and troops mistakenly killed
by allies (Deva 2003; Page 2003).

DIVERSITY

Sociologists are quite interested in the large amount of diversity that occurs even
within particular cultures. Observers of culture in the United States would easily
find many differences if they studied Hollywood’s celebrity community, a
neighborhood in Chicago largely populated by descendants of Eastern European
immigrants, a Florida town that is home to many retirees, and a coalmining town
in southwestern Virginia. Although some sociologists have tried to find a common
American culture and have often discussed middle-class culture as if that lifestyle
applied to everyone, sociologists are increasingly recognizing the importance of
studying, or even promoting, cultural differences. As part of their interest in
cultural diversity, sociologists study subcultures. A subculture is a smaller culture
within a dominant culture that has a way of life distinguished in some important
way from that dominant culture. Subcultures form around any number of
distinguishing factors. They may form, for example, around hobbies (as with ham-
radio operators, custom-car enthusiasts, bingo players, online-game players,
hunters, stamp collectors, recreational-vehicle owners), shared interests such as
music styles (jazz, hiphop, rap), other behaviors or interests (cheerleaders, Bible
study participants, skydivers, drug users, gamblers, outlaw bikers), occupations
(car racing, pilots, police officers), or racial and ethnic backgrounds. Subcultures
can also consist of even smaller divisions. For example, although the “teen
subculture” may be discussed as if there is little diversity, teens are actually very
diverse. They include jocks, hippies, preppies, ravers, skaters, and more. Each of
these smaller subcultures has their own beliefs, interests, and means of
interaction (Finnegan 1998). Yet members of a subculture share most of the
values of the dominant culture. They earn money by having a job, pay bills, and
see that their children get an education. Not all smaller cultures within a
dominant culture largely share the dominant culture’s values. A culture that
opposes patterns of the dominant culture is known as a counterculture.
Countercultures are often youth-oriented (Spates 1976). In the 1960s, hippies
advocated dropping out of the mainstream culture into a communal, peaceful,
self-exploration lifestyle. Many hippies have today become, at least largely, part
of the dominant culture. Militias and white supremacists are examples of
modern-day countercultures. A major issue in the United States, as well as in
other cultures, is how much conformity to dominant cultural patterns will be
required. America has long been called a melting pot into which others cultures
meld into one new cul ture. The process of a cultural group losing its identity and
being absorbed into the dominant culture is known as assimilation. Many groups
do claim shared cultural patterns. However, there is an increasing recognition and
interest across the United States in multiculturalism— a recognition of and
respect for cultural differences. Multiculturalism allows much of the dominant
culture to be shared while valuing some traditions of various subgroups. Events
such as Black History Month and courses such as Women’s Studies acknowledge
and embrace multiculturalism. When studying cultures and cultural variations,
sociologists must be aware of ethnocentrism, judging other cultures by the
standards of one’s own culture. Because we all live within a culture, we tend to
see the way our culture does things as “normal” or “natural” and the ways that
other cultures do things as “abnormal” or “unnatural.” We also tend to judge our
own familiar culture’s ways of doing things as “better.” This is the situation
Napoleon Chagnon encountered with his study of the Yanomamo, discussed
above. Restaurant service provides a familiar and simple example. Americans
often consider attentive restaurant waitstaff who check with diners several times
during a meal as providing good service. Europeans visiting the United States
might consider such service annoying. Good service in many places in Europe is
defined by an almost invisible waitstaff that provides service without “hovering”
around tables. Conversely, Americans visiting Europe might find such service
lacking. Things that are greatly different than our own cultures may evoke
ethnocentric feelings. For example, learning that some cultures make meals of
bugs or cats may seem especially unappealing to someone raised in the United
States. Yet, these are seen as natural and readily accessible fare in the cultures
where they are regularly eaten. Rather than being ethnocentric, sociologists need
to develop cultural relativism. This means they should be careful to judge other
cultures by those cultures’ own standards. In other words, sociologists try to
understand other cultures and why they behave and believe as they do rather
than judging them “unnatural” or “wrong.” A classic study by Marvin Harris
(1974), who is profiled below, shows how ethnocentric views can result in major
misunderstanding of other cultures. If these misguided views were used to enact
social change, the consequences could be severe. Harris examined the Indian
Hindu culture, in which cows are venerated as the mother of life. Thus,
slaughtering cows for food is not an option. To someone from a wealthy Western
country, an ethnocentric perspective on this reverence for cows would likely posit
that cow worship is one factor in India’s massive problems of poverty and hunger.
Why not eat the cattle, they might ask? Harris, examined the Indian ecosystem
and studied the interplay between humans, culture, and their environment. His
findings show how cultural relativism can give a new perspective to this issue. In
India, cattle supply fertilizer, tractor power, and milk. Cattle dung provides fuel
for cooking and flooring material. Children help their families and earn money by
gathering and selling. cow dung. Owning a cow provides one final hedge against
creditors. The lower castes, that segment of society considered “untouchable” by
the rest of society, are allowed to dispose of dead cattle. They are allowed to eat
the meat and benefit from a huge leather-craft industry. Overall, Harris concludes
that Indians would surely starve if they did eat cows.
Aspects of Culture

Sociologists studying culture and society focus on several aspects of nonmaterial

culture: cultural values, norms, symbols, and language. A look at each of these
aspects contributes to our overall understanding of what culture is, how it is
created and passed between generations, and how important culture is in
everything we do.

Values

Values, culturally defined ideas about what is important, are central to culture.
Values delineate how a culture should be. In the United States, sociologists have
identified cultural values including success, hard work, freedom, equality,
democracy, individualism, and progress (Bellah et al. 1985; Inkeles 1979;
Williams 1970). Of course, not everyone in a culture shares identical values. They
also do not share them equally. Some people or groups hold more tightly to certain
values while rejecting others.

There may also be a mismatch between ideal culture - the values and norms
claimed by a society, and real culture - the values and norms that are actually
practiced. For example, in the United States, equality is a core value. Encompassed
within this value is the ideal that all workers regardless of gender and race should
have equal opportunity in the workplace. In reality, however, even women in high-
status positions continue to earn less than men (Figart and Lapidus 1998) and
experience discrimination in career promotions (Glass Ceiling Commission 1995;
Rhode 2001), as do black males seeking high-level positions (Elliott and Smith
2004). These problems are even more pronounced for women of color (Collins
2000; St. Jean and Feagin 1998).
Norms

Norms are derived from our societal values. Established standard of behavior
maintained by a society. We need norms to maintain a stable social order. They
both direct and prohibit behavior (Hechter and Opp 2001). Norms tell us what we
should do (wait our turn, pay bills on time, show respect for our elders, etc.); they
also tell us what we should not do (hit our spouse, curse aloud at a church service,
run red lights, etc.). Norms vary over time. Women wearing trousers, especially in
public areas or to work, is a relatively recent occurrence. Similarly, recent bans on
smoking in many public places signify shifting norms regarding smoking. Norms,
and the social reaction to breaches, vary in strength and intensity (Sumner 1906).
Folkways are weak norms that are often informally passed down from previous
generations. They often deal with everyday behaviors and manners. Most folkways
are not written down and enumerated. They are the type of things that most of us
learn from others to do or not to do. We learn from direct guidance and
reinforcement. Parents teach children to share their toys and reward them with
hugs and smiles. We also learn folkways through encountering others’ reactions.
People react perhaps with stares or avoidance when we act “inappropriately” by
singing aloud on a bus or wearing a swimsuit while shopping in an expensive
downtown boutique. Violations of folkways are not considered severe breaches of
great moral significance. Generally, no serious negative social sanctions (e.g.,
arrest) result when a folkway is broken. The reaction to a person who violates a
folkway may be as minor as ignoring the behavior. Failing to say “thank you” may
be considered rude, but will not result in some harsh penalty for norm violation.
We find folkways governing our behavior throughout our lives. They govern
situations that are familiar to large segments of the population and smaller groups.
For example, folkways govern Christmas gift-giving behavior, an event familiar to
many. These norms are not written down anywhere, but they are “thoroughly
familiar” to participants in the gift-exchange process. Mores (pronounced more-
ays) are strongly held norms. They represent deeply held standards of what is right
and wrong. Prohibitions on murder, robbery, and assault are all examples of mores
across many cultures. Mores are considered morally significant breaches and are
often formalized as laws. For this reason, punishment for violations of mores can
be severe, involving sanctions such as arrest or imprisonment. Some mores are so
strongly held they have been termed taboos, norms that are so objectionable that
they are strictly forbidden. Taboos are often things considered unthinkable in a
culture. Common examples include incest and cannibalism.

Symbols

Symbols are central to our understanding and sharing of culture. A symbol is

something that stands for, represents, or signifies something else in a particular
culture. It can represent, for example, ideas, emotions, values, beliefs, attitudes, or
events. A symbol can be anything. It can be a gesture, word, object, or even an
event. Sharing symbols can help build a sense of unity and commitment among
people. A crucifix, cross, or Star of David are all symbols that have deep, shared
meanings regarding Christianity or Judaism. National flags become rallying
symbols for citizens and troops. The rush to buy American flags in the aftermath of
the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States is a good example of this
effect in action. The meaning of symbols derives from the way they are interpreted
within a culture. The American flag may be interpreted as standing for individual
freedom. However, some (e.g., American militia groups that think the federal
government is too involved in their personal business) may see the flag as a
symbol of a lack of freedom. People from other cultures see the flag as having
various meanings filtered through their own cultural lenses (e.g., as a symbol of
democracy, as a symbol of repression). To someone unfamiliar with the United
States, the American flag is not a symbol at all. It is simply a red, white, and blue
pattern devoid of any such meanings. Symbols may take on different meanings in
different times or circumstances. White wedding gowns, originally intended to
symbolize virginity, are now traditional in the United States even though many
brides are not virgins. In China and Japan, brides wear white because that color
symbolizes mourning and the symbolic death of the woman leaving her birth
family to join her husband’s family. Some symbols are purposely given new
meanings over time.

Languages

Another major component of culture, and a special kind of symbol, is language.

Language is a system of symbols that allows communication among members of a
culture. These symbols can be verbal or written. Language is central to the way we
understand our world. For example, snow is so central to their lives, Eskimos have
different words for falling snow, snow on the ground, drifting snow, and a snow
drift (Boas 1911). The Canadian Aleuts have over 30 words for snow (Hiller
1933). Some other cultures in tropical climates have no word for snow, because
they have no need for such a term. Yet, the Philippine Hanunoo people have
almost 100 terms for rice (Thomson 2000). Language also defines, at least to some
extent, how we think about the world and how we act.
Cultural Diversity

Sociologists are quite interested in the large amount of diversity that occurs even
within particular cultures. Sociologists are increasingly recognizing the importance
of studying, or even promoting, cultural differences.

Sub Culture:

A subculture is a smaller culture within a dominant culture that has a way of life
distinguished in some important way from that dominant culture. Subcultures form
around any number of distinguishing factors. They may form, for example, around
hobbies (as with ham-radio operators, custom-car enthusiasts, bingo players,
online-game players, hunters, stamp collectors, recreational-vehicle owners),
shared interests such as music styles (jazz, hip hop, rap), other behaviors or
interests (cheerleaders, Bible study participants, drug users, gamblers, outlaw
bikers), occupations (car racing, pilots, police officers), or racial and ethnic
backgrounds. Each of these smaller subcultures has their own beliefs, interests, and
means of interaction (Finnegan 1998). Yet members of a subculture share most of
the values of the dominant culture. They earn money by having a job, pay bills,
and see that their children get an education. Not all smaller cultures within a
dominant culture largely share the dominant culture’s values.

Counterculture

A culture that opposes patterns of the dominant culture is known as a

counterculture. Countercultures are often youth-oriented (Spates 1976). In the
1960s, hippies advocated dropping out of the mainstream culture into a communal,
peaceful, self-exploration lifestyle. Many hippies have today become, at least
largely, part of the dominant culture. Militias and white supremacists are examples
of modern-day countercultures.
Assimilation:

A major issue in the United States, as well as in other cultures, is how much
conformity to dominant cultural patterns will be required. America has long been
called a melting pot into which others cultures meld into one new culture. The
process of a cultural group losing its identity and being absorbed into the dominant
culture is known as assimilation.

Multiculturalism:

Many groups do claim shared cultural patterns. However, there is an increasing

recognition and interest across the United States in multiculturalism— a
recognition of and respect for cultural differences. Multiculturalism allows much
of the dominant culture to be shared while valuing some traditions of various
subgroups. Events such as Black History Month and courses such as Women’s
Studies acknowledge and embrace multiculturalism.

Ethnocentrism:

When studying cultures and cultural variations, sociologists must be aware of

ethnocentrism, judging other cultures by the standards of one’s own culture.
Because we all live within a culture, we tend to see the way our culture does things
as “normal” or “natural” and the ways that other cultures do things as “abnormal”
or “unnatural.” We also tend to judge our own familiar culture’s ways of doing
things as “better.” Restaurant service provides a familiar and simple example.
Americans often consider attentive restaurant wait staff that check with diners
several times during a meal as providing good service. Europeans visiting the
United States might consider such service annoying. Good service in many places
in Europe is defined by an almost invisible wait staff that provides service without
“hovering” around tables. Conversely, Americans visiting Europe might find such
service lacking. Things that are greatly different than our own cultures may evoke
ethnocentric feelings. For example, learning that some cultures make meals of bugs
or cats may seem especially unappealing to someone raised in the United States.
Yet, these are seen as natural and readily accessible fare in the cultures where they
are regularly eaten.

Cultural relativism:

Rather than being ethnocentric, sociologists need to develop cultural relativism.

This means they should be careful to judge other cultures by those cultures’ own
standards. In other words, sociologists try to understand other cultures and why
they behave and believe as they do rather than judging them “unnatural” or
“wrong.” Marvin Harris (1974), shows how ethnocentric views can result in major
misunderstanding of other cultures. If these misguided views were used to enact
social change, the consequences could be severe. Harris examined the Indian
Hindu culture, in which cows are venerated as the mother of life. Thus,
slaughtering cows for food is not an option. To someone from a wealthy Western
country, an ethnocentric perspective on this reverence for cows would likely posit
that cow worship is one factor in India’s massive problems of poverty and hunger.
Why not eat the cattle, they might ask? Harris examined the Indian ecosystem and
studied the interplay between humans, culture, and their environment. His findings
show how cultural relativism can give a new perspective to this issue. In India,
cattle supply fertilizer, tractor power, and milk. Cattle dung provides fuel for
cooking and flooring material. Children help their families and earn money by
gathering and selling cow dung. Owning a cow provides one final hedge against
creditors. The lower castes, that segment of society considered “untouchable” by
the rest of society, are allowed to dispose of dead cattle. Overall, Harris concludes
that Indians would surely starve if they did eat cows.
 Social Institution - Family
A family can be defined as a set of people related by blood, marriage or some other agreed-on
relationship, or adoption, who share the primary responsibility for reproduction and caring for
members of society. There are many variations in the family from culture to culture. Yet the
family as a social institution exists in all cultures. Moreover, certain general principles
concerning its composition, kinship patterns, and authority patterns are universal.

Types of Family

Composition: What Is the Family?

Nuclear family

Many people still think of the family in very narrow terms—as a married couple and their
unmarried children living together is refer to as a nuclear family. The term nuclear family is well
chosen, since this type of family serves as the nucleus, or core, on which larger family groups are
built.

Extended family

A family in which relatives—such as grandparents, aunts, or uncles—live in the same home as

parents and their children is known as an extended family. The structure of the extended family
offers certain advantages over that of the nuclear family. Crises such as death, divorce, and
illness put less strain on family members, since more people can provide assistance and
emotional support. In addition, the extended family constitutes a larger economic unit than the
nuclear family

According to marriage family can be divided into two types

Monogamy

The term monogamy describes a form of marriage in which one woman and one man are married
only to each other. Some observers, noting the high rate of divorce in the United States, have
suggested that “serial monogamy” is a more accurate description of the form marriage takes in
this country. In serial monogamy, a person may have several spouses in his or her lifetime, but
only one spouse at a time.

Polygamy

Some cultures allow an individual to have several husbands or wives simultaneously. This form
of marriage is known as polygamy. In fact, most societies throughout the world, past and present,
have preferred polygamy to monogamy. Anthropologist George Murdock (1949, 1957) sampled
565 societies and found that in more than 80 percent, some type of polygamy was the preferred
form. While polygamy declined steadily through most of the 20th century, in at least five
countries in Africa 20 percent of men still have polygamous marriages (Population Reference
Bureau 1996).

There are two basic types of polygamy. According to Murdock, the most common—endorsed by
the majority of cultures he sampled—is polygyny. Polygyny refers to the marriage of a man to
more than one woman at the same time. The wives are often sisters, who are expected to hold
similar values and have already had experience sharing a household. In polygynous societies,
relatively few men actually have multiple spouses. Most individuals live in monogamous
families; having multiple wives is viewed as a mark of status.

The other principal variation of polygamy is polyandry, in which a woman may have more than
one husband at the same time. Polyandry is exceedingly rare today, though it is accepted in some
extremely poor societies.

According to Kinship Patterns: To Whom Are We Related?

In every culture, children encounter relatives to whom they are expected to show an emotional
attachment. The state of being related to others is called kinship. Kinship is culturally learned,
however, and is not totally determined by biological or marital ties. For example, adoption
creates a kinship tie that is legally acknowledged and socially accepted. The family and the kin
group are not necessarily the same. Whereas the family is a household unit, kin do not always
live together or function as a collective body on a daily basis. Kin groups include aunts, uncles,
cousins, in-laws, and so forth. In a society such as the United States, the kinship group may come
together only rarely, for a wedding or funeral. However, kinship ties frequently create
obligations and responsibilities. We may feel compelled to assist our kin, and we may feel free to
call on them for many types of aid, including loans and babysitting. How do we identify kinship
groups? The principle of descent assigns people to kinship groups according to their relationship
to a mother or father.

There are three primary ways of determining descent. The United States follows the system of
bilateral descent, which means that both sides of a person’s family are regarded as equally
important. For example, no higher value is given to the brothers of one’s father than to the
brothers of one’s mother. Most societies—according to George Murdock, 64 percent— give
preference to one side of the family or the other in tracing descent. In patrilineal (from the Latin
pater, “father”) descent, only the father’s relatives are significant in terms of property,
inheritance, and emotional ties. Conversely, in societies that favor matrilineal (from the Latin
mater, “mother”) descent, only the mother’s relatives are significant.

Authority Patterns: Who Rules?

Imagine that you have recently married and must begin to make decisions about the future of
your new family. You and your spouse face many questions. Where will you live? How will you
furnish your home? Who will do the cooking, the shopping, and the cleaning? Whose friends
will be invited to dinner? Each time a decision must be made, an issue is raised: Who has the
power to make the decision? In simple terms, who rules the family? Societies vary in the way
power is distributed within the family. A society that expects males to dominate in all family
decision making is termed a patriarchy. In patriarchal societies the eldest male often wields the
greatest power, although wives are expected to be treated with respect and kindness. In many
patriarchal societies, women find it more difficult to obtain a divorce than a man does. In
contrast, in a matriarchy, women have greater authority than men. Matriarchies, which are very
uncommon, emerged among Native American tribal societies and in nations in which men were
absent for long periods because of warfare or food-gathering expeditions (Farr 1999).

In a third type of authority pattern, the egalitarian family, spouses are regarded as equals. That
does not mean, however, that all decisions are shared in such families. Wives may hold authority
in some spheres, husbands in others. Many sociologists believe the egalitarian family has begun
to replace the patriarchal family as the social norm in the United States.

Sociological Perspectives on the Family

Do we really need the family? Over a century ago, Friedrich Engels ([1884] 1959), a colleague
of Karl Marx, described the family as the ultimate source of social inequality because of its role
in the transfer of power, property, and privilege. More recently, conflict theorists have argued
that the family contributes to societal injustice, denies women opportunities that are extended to
men, and limits freedom in sexual expression and mate selection. In contrast, the functionalist
view focuses on the ways in which the family gratifies the needs of its members and contributes
to social stability. The interactionist view considers the intimate, face-to-face relationships that
occur in the family.

Functionalist Perspective The family performs six paramount functions, first outlined nearly 80
years ago by sociologist William F. Ogburn (Ogburn and Tibbits 1934):

1. Reproduction: For a society to maintain itself, it must replace dying members. In this
sense, the family contributes to human survival through its function of reproduction.
2. Protection: In all cultures, the family assumes the ultimate responsibility for the
protection and upbringing of children.
3. Socialization: Parents and other kin monitor a child’s behavior and transmit the norms,
values, and language of their culture to the child.
4. Regulation of sexual behavior: Sexual norms are subject to change both over time (for
instance, in the customs for dating) and across cultures (compare strict Saudi Arabia to
the more permissive Denmark). However, whatever the time period or cultural values of
a society, standards of sexual behavior are most clearly defined within the family circle.
5. Affection and companionship: Ideally, the family provides members with warm and
intimate relationships, helping them to feel satisfied and secure. Of course, a family
member may find such rewards outside the family—from peers, in school, at work—and
 may even perceive the home as an unpleasant or abusive setting. Nevertheless, we expect
our relatives to understand us, to care for us, and to be there for us when we need them.
6. Provision of social status. We inherit a social position because of the family background
and reputation of our parents and siblings. The family presents the newborn child with an
ascribed status based on race and ethnicity that helps to determine his or her place within
society’s stratification system. Moreover, family resources affect children’s ability to
pursue certain opportunities, such as higher education. Traditionally, the family has
fulfilled a number of other functions, such as providing religious training, education, and
recreational outlets.

Conflict Perspective

Conflict theorists view the family not as a contributor to social stability, but as a reflection of the
inequality in wealth and power that is found within the larger society. Feminist and conflict
theorists note that the family has traditionally legitimized and perpetuated male dominance.
Throughout most of human history—and in a wide range of societies—husbands have exercised
overwhelming power and authority within the family. Sociologists have found that while married
men are increasing their involvement in childcare, their wives still perform a disproportionate
amount of it. Furthermore, for every stay-at-home dad there are 38 stay-at-home moms. And
unfortunately, many husbands reinforce their power and control over wives and children through
acts of domestic violence (Fields 2004:11–12; Garcia-Moreno et al. 2005; Sayer et al. 2004).
Conflict theorists also view the family as an economic unit that contributes to societal injustice.
The family is the basis for transferring power, property, and privilege from one generation to the
next. Although the United States is widely viewed as a land of opportunity, social mobility is
restricted in important ways. Children inherit the privileged or less-than privileged social and
economic status of their parents (and in some cases, of earlier generations). The social class of
parents significantly influences children’s socialization experiences and the degree of protection
they receive. Thus, the socioeconomic status of a child’s family will have a marked influence on
his or her nutrition, health care, housing, educational opportunities, and in many respects, life
chances as an adult. For this reason, conflict theorists argue that the family helps to maintain
inequality.

Interactionist Perspective

Interactionists focus on the micro level of family and other intimate relationships. They are
interested in how individuals interact with one another, whether they are cohabiting partners or
longtime married couples. For example, in a study of both Black and White two-parent
households, researchers found that when fathers are more involved with their children (reading to
them, helping them with homework, or restricting their television viewing), the children have
fewer behavior problems, get along better with others, and are more responsible (Mosley and
Thomson 1995). Another interactionist study might examine the role of the stepparent. Studies
have found that stepmothers are more likely than stepfathers to accept the blame for bad relations
with their stepchildren. Interactionists theorize that stepfathers (like most fathers) may simply be
unaccustomed to interacting directly with children when the mother isn’t there (Bray and Kelly
1999; F. Furstenberg and Chelin 1991).
 You and the Family Life Cycle

One way to look at yourself and your family is through the concept of
the family life cycle. The family life cycle denotes the stages a family
goes through during its lifetime. Modern day families have a life span of
50 to 60 years. Most families go through five stages: 1) family founding;
2) child bearing; 3) child rearing; 4) child launching; and 5) empty nest.
If you imagine your life in the family as an on-going cycle, it looks about
like this. The circle represents a life span of about 50 years.

The family life cycle begins with marriage and ends with the death of
both partners. However, a family never ends—it goes on through the
generations. The typical young couple starting marriage today can
predict about a two-year interval before the birth of the first child. The
last baby will probably be born about six years after marriage.

An understanding of the various stages and the approximate time

couples can expect to spend in each stage will help you and your family
develops your family spending and saving plan. This understanding is
important in planning your housing, recreation, insurance, and other
resources. It influences your home management and all your planning
for the future.

At each stage of development, families have certain tasks to

accomplish. The concept of family developmental tasks can be
understood by comparing them to developmental tasks of individuals.
Each child goes through various stages, depending on his age and what
is expected of him. At each stage, a child has certain tasks to
accomplish.
Developmental Tasks at Different Stages

1. Family founding

Establish a home.
Become emotionally dependent on one another; emotionally
independent of parents.
Work out ways of handling differences.
Learn homemaking skills.

2. Child bearing

Learn about pregnancy, childbirth, and children

Gain understanding of new husband-wife relationship

Develop philosophy of child rearing.

Accept responsibilities of parenthood.

3. Child rearing

Continue to learn about children.

Adjust financial plans and housing to meet needs of children.

Assume responsibility for school and community betterment.

Become alert to particular needs of children at different ages.

4. Child launching

Discard folklore about love and marriage; gain insight and knowledge to
help children.

Enlarge child's vocational choice by learning about new opportunities.

Give emotional support to children as they leave home for work,
military service, school, or marriage.

Release children to live their own lives.

5. Empty nest

Adjust to life as a couple after years as parents.

Accept the reality of your life's accomplishments.

Learn about modern methods of child rearing to improve skills as

grandparents.

Prepare for and adjust to retirement.

Prepare for living alone.

Changes and Challenges Our Families Face Today:

Sociologists and other social scientists have observed the following

changes and challenges our families face today:

1. Marriages are dissolving with increasing frequency due to

abandonment, separation, family squabbles and disorganization.

2. Unwed motherhood and single parenthood are increasingly

common.

3. Working mothers are carrying increasing economic responsibility

for their children.

4. The onset of the “electronic age” children turn to computer,

Internet, radio, television, audio and videotapes as their
 information source of up-to-the-moment information on trends,
values, manners, customs, or ethics.

5. Generation ago the parents, siblings and teachers were the most
visible and powerful role models. Now, role models come from
sports, theatre, film and animals made famous and visible by the
media.

6. Mass poverty has forced mothers and fathers to seek work here
and abroad leaving very little time for the family to be together
for the emotional nurturance of the children.

7. The challenge of consumerism has placed tremendous pressure

on our children to desire goods and items advertised by the
media. This encourages the value of materialism among our
children.

8. The rising cases of child abuse and child labor expose our children
to the harsh reality of life especially among poor families.

9. Drug addiction, alcoholism, violence and sexual permissiveness

have gone to an all-time high.

10. Western ideas on sexual revolution, premarital relationships,

live-in relationships, abortion, use of contraceptives, gender
liberation, materialism and extreme individualism are slowly but
surely creeping into our social and cultural
system.(https://www.imbalife.com/changes-and-challenges-our-
families-face-today)
Effects of Industrialization on Traditional Family
Political system
A society’s political system is the institution that regulates the access to
and use of power that is essential to articulating and realizing individual,
local, regional, national, international, or global interests and agendas.
Power is the probability that an individual can achieve his or her will,
even against opposition. That probability increases if the individual can
force people to obey his or her commands or if the individual has
authority over others.
Government
Government is the organizational structure that directs and coordinates
people’s involvement in the political activities of a country or some
other territory, such as a city, county, or state. It is also the mechanism
through which people gain power and exercise authority over others.
Governments make laws and create policies that shape every aspect of
life. Governments are often divided into branches of power, such as
executive, judicial, and legislative.
Forms of government
Democracy
Totalitarianism
Authoritarianism
Monarchy
Theocracy
Democracy
Sir Winston Churchill (1947), prime minister of the United Kingdom
during World War II, once said that “democracy is the worst form of
government except for all others that have been tried” (p. 7566).
Representative democracy is a system of government in which power is
vested in citizens who vote into office, those candidates they believe can
best represent their interests. Because it is not feasible for citizens to
vote on every matter that affects them, they make their voices heard
through those they elect. In a democracy, political candidates can be
from more than one party and those in minority parties can oppose the
party holding power.
In addition, when a majority of voters elects to change the party in
power, the transition is orderly and peaceful. In democracies, elected
representatives make laws, vote on taxes, establish budgets, and support
or oppose the party in power. Democratic forms of government extend
basic rights to citizens and legal residents. These rights include freedom
of speech, movement, religion, press, and assembly (that is, the right to
form and belong to parties and other associations), as well as freedom
from unwarranted arrest and imprisonment. Other characteristics of
democracies include free and fair elections, access to alternative
information sources (free press), an educated or informed citizenry, and
a constitution that sets limits on executive and other powers (Bullock
1977).
Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism is a system of government characterized by
(1) a single ruling party led by a dictator,
(2) an unchallenged official ideology that defines a vision of the
“perfect” society and the means to achieve that vision,
(3) a system of social control that suppresses dissent, and
(4) centralized control over the media and the economy.
 Ideological goals vary but may include overthrowing capitalist and
foreign influences (as in China under Mao Zedong), creating the perfect
race (as in Germany under Hitler), or meeting certain economic and
development goals (as during China’s Great Leap Forward). Whatever
the government’s goals, the political leaders, the military, and the secret
police intimidate and mobilize the masses to help the state meet the
goals.
Totalitarian governments are products of the 20th century, because by
that time technologies existed that allowed a few people in power to
control the behavior of the masses and the information the masses could
hear. Many of the governments labeled as totalitarian have followed
communist principles. Traditionally, communist governments have
outlawed private ownership of property, supported the equal distribution
of wealth and offered status and power to the working class or
proletariat. Communist leaders also mobilize the masses to bring about
change. North Korea’s government is considered totalitarian.
Authoritarianism
Under authoritarian government, a single person (a dictator), a group (a
family, the military, a single party), or a social class holds all power. No
official ideology projects a vision of the “perfect” society or guides the
government’s political or economic policies. Authoritarian leaders do
not seek to mobilize the masses to help realize a vision or meet
ideological goals. Instead, the government functions to serve those in
power, who may or may not be interested in the general welfare of the
people. Common to all authoritarian systems is a lack of checks and
balances on the leader’s power and no commitment by the leader to law
or guiding ideology (Chehabi and Linz 1998). How does a single person,
a group, or a social class gain control of an entire country? Authoritarian
leaders typically receive support from a foreign government that expects
to benefit from their leadership (Buckley 1998). Saddam Hussein is one
example of an authoritarian leader whom the U.S. government both
supported and opposed. The U.S. government supported Hussein during
the IranIraq War (1980–1988)—even though he invaded Iran, abused the
human rights of Iraqi citizens, used chemical weapons on Iranians and
his own people, and sought to produce nuclear weapons. Then, the U.S.
government opposed Hussein during and after the 1991 Gulf War. In
2003, the United States invaded Iraq and deposed Hussein on the
grounds that the dictator had been secretly developing and building
weapons of mass destruction. When no evidence of such weapons turned
up, the U.S. government justified the invasion on the grounds that
Hussein had abused the human rights of Iraqi citizens and used chemical
weapons against his own people.
Monarchy
A monarchy is a form of government in which the power is in the hands
of a leader (known as a monarch) who reigns over a state or territory,
usually for life and by hereditary right. Typically, the monarch expects
to pass the throne on to someone who is designated as the heir, usually a
firstborn son. Saudi Arabia qualifies as a monarchy. Since 1932, it has
been ruled by the sons and grandsons of the first king of Saudi Arabia,
Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud. Saudi Arabia has no official political parties and
no national elections. As King, Abdullah ibn Abdul Aziz’s power is
tempered by consultation with the royal family and with an appointed
consultative body known as the Majlis al-Shura, which debates, rejects,
and amends proposed legislation; holds oversight hearings over
government ministries; and initiates legislation. While the head of state
and government is a king and not a religiously trained leader, the
constitution and legal system are grounded in Islamic laws. The United
Kingdom has a constitutional monarchy in which the queen (Elizabeth
II) is head of state in a nominal sense. She assumes a representational
role in that “she acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride;
gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognizes success
and excellence; and supports the ideal of public and voluntary service”
(Royal Family 2009).
Theocracy
Theocracy, which means rule of the deity, is a form of government in
which political authority rests in the hands of religious leaders or a
theologically trained elite group. The primary purpose of a theocracy is
to uphold divine laws in its policies and practices. Thus, there is no legal
separation of church and state. Government policies and laws
correspond to religious principles and laws.
Contemporary examples of theocracies include the Vatican under the
pope, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Iran under Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei.
 Social stratification

Social stratification is a particular form of social inequality. All societies arrange

their members in terms of superiority, inferiority and equality.

Stratification is a process of interaction or differentiation whereby some people

come to rank higher than others. When individuals and groups are ranked,
according to some commonly accepted basis of valuation in a hierarchy of status
levels based upon the inequality of social positions, social stratification occurs.

Social stratification means division of society into different strata or layers. It

involves a hierarchy of social groups. Members of a particular layer have a
common identity. They have a similar life style.

Ogburn and Nimkoff: ‘The process by which individuals and groups are ranked in
more or less enduring hierarchy of status is known as stratification”.

Characteristics of Stratification:

1. It is Social:

Stratification is social in the sense that it does not represent inequalities, which are
biologically based. It is true that factors such as strength, intelligence, age, sex can
often serve as the basis on which status are distinguished. But such differences by
themselves are not sufficient to explain why some statuses receive more power,
property and prestige than others.

2. It is Ancient:

The stratification system is very old. Stratification was present even in the small
wandering bands. Age and sex were the main criteria of stratification. Difference
between the rich and poor, powerful and humble, freemen and slaves was there in
almost all the ancient civilization. Ever since the time of Plato and Kautilya social
philosopher have been deeply concerned with economic, social, political
inequalities.

3. It is Universal:

Social stratification is universal. Difference between rich and poor, the ‘haves’ or
‘have notes’ is evident everywhere. Even in the non-literate societies, stratification
is very much present.

4. It is in diverse Forms:

Social stratification has never been uniform in all societies. The ancient Roman
society was stratified into two strata: the Patricians and the Plebians. The Aryan
society was divided into four Varnas: the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and the
Sudras, the ancient Greek society in to freemen and slaves, the ancient Chinese
society into landlord, merchants, Farmer and soldiers. Class and estate seem to be
the general forms of stratification found in the modern world.

5. It is Consequential:

The stratification system has its own consequences. The most important, most
desired and often the rarest things in human life are distributed unequally because
of stratification. The system leads to two kinds of consequences: (i) Life chances
and (ii) Life style.

* Life chances refer to such things as infant mortality, longevity, physical and
mental illness, marital conflict, separation and divorce.

*Life styles include the mode of housing, residential area, education, means of
recreation, relation between parent and children, modes of transport and so on.
Caste and Class systems

Sociologists distinguish between closed systems, which allow for little change in
social position, and open systems, which permit much more social mobility.
Closed systems are called caste systems, and more open systems are called class
systems.
Types of social stratification

There are many ways in which social stratification can manifest itself, based on
different factors and elements. Mentioned below are the most common types of
social stratification being followed in the society:-

1. The Caste system

The caste system is a system of social stratification in India, where in Hindu

tradition people are catagorized into four main groups. We can even find the
mention of these four varnas in important Hindu literatures. These four varnas
are Brahmins, Kshyatryas, Vaishyas and Sudra caste. The powers, duties and
financial status of each varna differ from each other.

 The Brahmins at the top (i.e. the priests and the teachers),

 The Kshyatryas on the next level down (these are rulers and warriors),

 The Vaishyas (farmers, merchants and traders),

 The Shudras (i.e. the labourers) on the bottom rung of the social ladder.

When an individual is born into a particular caste, he or she remains to be a

member of it forever. Every caste is identified by name, and marriage in such a
social stratification a system is also determined by the caste of the likely couples.
Since the caste system is hierarchical, a society that practices it is often faced with
the challenge of class resentment.

2. The Class system

Some countries have a class system, where people in society are divided into
three classes: upper, middle and lower class. Stratification is mainly based on the
wealth of an individual. Just as the name of each class suggests,

 The upper classes tend to be aristocrats (or landed gentry) who have been born
into lives of greater wealth and privilege. The high-class consists of eminent
people in society. They are generally regarded as a successful people in the
society.

 The middle class comprises of people that can afford to live decently but are not
wealthy enough to enjoy the type of fine living experienced by the upper class.
They manage to earn average income and enjoy decent social status in society.
The middle classes can be further subdivided into upper middle and lower middle
class people.

 The lower class is the category with people having lowest social status in terms
of their position and economic status. Most people who belong to this ‘lower’
stratum of society tend to prefer to be referred to as working class.

A class system can easily become entrenched, and it can be hard to move
between the classes. Moving between classes – e.g. from the working class to the
middle class – can be done through education, marriage or acquiring wealth.
Estate system

This system comes from the medieval Europe origin. Estate based social
stratification gives much importance on the original birth status. It also considers
wealth and other possessions that belong to the individual. This means if a person
was born in a particular class, he/she remains in the same until death, without
any change. This kind of social stratification works on the principle that each
estate has a state and remains with it, right from the beginning until the end.
There were three estates:

The first estate: the clergy consisted of rich and poor. They were very wealthy
abbot’s members of the aristocracy who lived in luxury of wealthy church land.
There were poor priest who lived like peasants.

The second estate: the nobility inherited their title and got wealth from the land.

The third estate: The common people

3. Slavery

Every slave is under a master whom he/she belongs to. This system remains so
from one hierarchy level to the other. It continues for generations. The master,
thus, owns the slave and by this his power on the slave remains unlimited. It also
means that the master can technically use the slave for varied set of reasons. The
master can assign any task to the slave. The slave has to complete that task as and
when asked for.

Social mobility

Social mobility refers to the movement within the social structure, from one social
position to another. It means a change in social status. All societies provide some
opportunity for social mobility. However, the societies differ from each other to
extent in which individuals can move from one class or status level to another. It
is said that the greater the amount of social mobility, the more open the class
structure. The concept of social mobility has fundamental importance in
ascertaining the relative “openness” of a social structure. The nature, forms,
direction and magnitude of social mobility depends on the nature and types of
social stratification. Any group that improves its standard will also improve its
social status. But the rate of social mobility is not uniform in all the countries. It
differs from society to society from time to time.

Types of Social Mobility:

In social stratification, the movement occurs in three directions.

(a) From lower to higher

(b) From higher to lower

(c) Between two positions at the same level.

Social mobility is of two types:

(i) Vertical mobility

(ii) Horizontal mobility

i) Vertical mobility:

It refers to the movement of people from one stratum to another or from one
status to another. It brings changes in class, occupation and power. It involves
movement from lower to higher or higher to lower. There are two types of
vertical mobility. One is upward and other is downward mobility.

Higher Lower
Lower Higher

Upward Mobility Downward Mobility

When an individual moves from lower status to higher status, it is called upward
mobility. For example, if the son of a peon joins a bank as an officer, it is said to
be upward social mobility but if he loses the job due to any other reason or
inefficiency, he is downwardly mobile from his previous job. So downward
mobility takes place when a person moves down from one position to another
and change his status.

(i) Horizontal Mobility:

It refers to the movement of people from one social group to another situated on
the same level. It means that the ranks of these two groups are not different. It
indicates change in position without the change in status. For example, if a
teacher leaves one school and joins another school or a bank officer leaves one
branch to work in another or change of residence is the horizontal mobility.

Change in status at the same level

Apart from the above two broad types of social stratification, there are two other
types of social stratification in terms of dimension of time. They are:
 (i) Inter-generational mobility:

When changes in status occur from one generation to another, it is called

intergenerational mobility. For example, if the son changes his status either by
taking upon occupation of higher or lower rank with that of his father, there inter-
generational mobility takes place.

(ii) Intra-generational mobility:

When changes in status occur within one generation, it is called intra-generational

mobility. For example, the rise and fall in the occupational structure of a family
which leads to change in its social status within one generation is called intra-
generational mobility
 Status and Role

Statuses:
The term status refer to any of the full range of socially defined
positions within a large group or society, from the lowest to the
highest. Within our society, a person can occupy the status of
president, fruit picker, son or daughter, violinist, teenager, dental
technician, or neighbor. A person can hold a number of statuses at the
same time.
• Ascribed
• Achieved
• Master
• An ascribed status is assigned to a person by society without regard
for the person’s unique talents or characteristics. Generally, the
assignment takes place at birth; thus, a person’s racial background,
gender, and age are all considered ascribed statuses. Though these
characteristics are biological in origin, they are significant mainly
because of the social meanings they have in our culture.
Achieved status comes to us largely through our own efforts. “Computer
programmer” and “prison guard”, “lawyer,” “pianist,” “sorority member,” “convict,”
and “social worker.” We must do something to acquire an achieved status—go to
school, learn a skill, establish a friendship, invent a new product. Our ascribed
status heavily influences our achieved status.
A master status is a status that dominates others and thereby determines a
person’s general position in society. For example, Arthur Ashe, who died of AIDS in
1993, had a remarkable career as a tennis star, but at the end of his life, his status
as a well-known personality with AIDS may have outweighed his statuses as a
retired athlete, author, and political activist.
• Roles:
A social role is a set of expectations for people who occupy a given social
position or status. Thus, in the United States, we expect that cab drivers
will know how to get around a city, that receptionists will be reliable in
handling phone messages, and that police officers will take action if they
see a citizen being threatened.

Role conflict

Roles:
Role Strain
• Role conflict occurs when incompatible expectations arise from two
or more social positions held by the same person. Fulfillment of the
roles associated with one status may directly violate the roles linked
to a second status.
• Imagine the delicate situation of a woman who has worked for a
decade on an assembly line in an electrical plant, and has recently
been named supervisor of her unit. How is this woman expected to
relate to her longtime friends and co-workers? Should she still go out
to lunch with them, as she has done almost daily for years? Is it her
responsibility to recommend the firing of an old friend who cannot
keep up with the demands of the assembly line?
• In the example just given, the newly promoted supervisor will most
likely experience a sharp conflict between her social and occupational
roles. Such role conflicts call for important ethical choices. The new
supervisor will have to make a difficult decision about how much
allegiance she owes her friend and how much she owes her
employers, who have given her supervisory responsibilities.
Role Strain
Role conflict describes the situation of a person dealing with the
challenge of occupying two social positions simultaneously. However,
even a single position can cause problems. Sociologists use the term
role strain to describe the difficulty that arises when the same social
position imposes conflicting demands and expectations.
• Role Exit
• Sociologist Helen Rose Fuchs Ebaugh (1988) developed the term role exit to describe
the process of disengagement from a role that is central to one’s self-identity in order to
establish a new role and identity.
• The first stage begins with doubt. The person experiences frustration, burnout, or
simply unhappiness with an accustomed status and the roles associated with the social
position.
• The second stage involves a search for alternatives. A person who is unhappy with his or
her career may take a leave of absence; an unhappily married couple may begin what
they see as a temporary separation.
• The third stage of role exit is the action stage or departure. Ebaugh found that the vast
majority of her respondents could identify a clear turning point that made them feel it
was essential to take final action and leave their jobs, end their marriages, or engage in
another type of role exit.
• The fourth stage of role exit involves the creation of a new identity. Many of you
participated in a role exit when you made the transition from high school to college.
Social Policy

Social policy refers to all policies that ensure the welfare of the state and
individuals. The main goal of social policies is to ensure that everyone in society
lives in peace and harmony away from conflicts.

Broadly speaking, the term ‘policy’ refers to the general guidelines or principles,
which give direction to a particular course of action by the government or by an
organization. It also refers to, in a very specific sense, an intended or executed
course of action.

According to David Gill, “Social policies are principles/course of action designed to

influence the overall quality of life in a society, the circumstances of living of
individuals and groups in that society, and the nature of intra- societal
relationships among individuals, groups and society as a whole.

Characteristics of Social Policy

The following are some of the characteristic features of Social Policy:

1. Many writers on social policy including such well-known names like

Titmuss, Donnison and Boulding have stressed that the distinguishing trait
of social policy is its distributional or redistributive character. Thus, the
concern of social policy is with social and economic justice based on the
principle of equality, which means that the redistribution of social
resources should take place from the better sections towards the worse
sections of society.
2. The second characteristic of social policy is its concern with weaker and
vulnerable sections of society such as poor, women, children, disabled,
 backward classes to bring them at balance with the rest of society. Thus,
social policies visualize of an egalitarian society where inequalities are
reduced to minimum level.
3. Another characteristic of social policy is that social policies do not exist in
isolation. These are determined largely by the socio-political scenario of a
nation, its economic feasibility and by socio-cultural ethos of people of the
nation. Now after Liberalization, Privatization, and Globalization
policies have become global and changes in one corner of the
world definitely leave impact over rest of the world. Live example of this
feature is the opening up of economy by most of third world countries in
accordance with guidelines of World Bank and International Monetary
Fund.

Objectives of Social Policy

The following are some of the important objectives of Social Policy:
1. It is frequently stated that social policies aim to bring about social change.
In the final analysis, all social policies are government policies as stated by
Marshall and Boulding. As part of the operation of the government, social
policy cannot hope to introduce fundamental changes in society, which
would mean undermining the status quo on which government rests.
Whether in the socialist countries or in the capitalist countries, the social
policy cannot guide in the fundamental structural change. It can only
achieve moderate social change, whereby certain undesirable conditions of
a section or sections of society are redressed and as a result, social tension
is minimized.
 2. Pinker has argued that objective of social policy is minimization of
sufferings and maximization of welfare.
3. Another objective of social policy is improvement of quality of life of
people. It is necessary to ask whose quality of life that we want to improve.
This is a pertinent question in developing countries where majority of the
population live in conditions of serious deprivation, without being able to
get even the necessities for survival. They are said to be living in absolute
poverty or below the poverty line. According to World Bank the estimates
of poor population in the developing countries is 57%. It should be very
clear that the limited resources of the developing countries could not be
utilized to improve the quality of life of all the population of these
countries. Therefore, the aim of social policy should be to redistribute
social resources so that the quality of life of the top 20% of the population
does not keep on improving at the cost of the provision of the necessities
for the very survival of the 50 or 60% of the population.

Social planning

Social planning is the process by which policymakers - legislators, government

agencies, planners, and, often, funders - try to solve community problems or
improve conditions in the community by creating and implementing policies
intended to have certain results.

Human development and improvement in quality of life are the ultimate

objectives of all Social Planning. Right Social Planning is expected to take into
account the resources required for human development and human resources
available for carrying out the Plan.
Planning is the process of preparing a blueprint of actions to attain stated
objectives within a period. The determination of objectives, the strategy for
mobilization of resources, the allocation of expenses to different development
sectors, the blueprint of actions (including their operationalization in the shape of
policies, programs and their delivery system) are aspects, which have to be
considered in any planning exercise.

Obstacles of Social Planning:

Social planning has been there in all the countries. But it is not free from
obstacles. Three related factors make the task of social engineering very difficult.
They are: (i) the complexity of modern culture and society, (ii) the rapidity of
contemporary social and cultural change, (iii) the large number of people in
interlocking relationship.

(i) Complexity of Modern Society and its Culture:

Modern technology has made the present- day society more complex. Changes
that take place in any one of the institutions such as political, economic, social,
etc., would affect the other. Due to the development in the means of transport
and communication, people’s worldview has changed a great deal.

Science and technology have been helping man to lead a pleasurably life.
“Pleasure-seeking” has become a “life-policy” of many. Such people look towards
planning only as a means for enjoyment and not as a means for improvement
with concerted efforts.

Everyone tries to look at planning from individual point of view and not from the
viewpoint of the entire group or community. Further, due to the interdependence
of various social institutions, it is difficult to tackle any one with planning without
affecting the other.

(ii) The Rapidity of Socio-Cultural Change:

The modern complex society is undergoing fast change. A single change is

capable of bringing about a series of changes. A change in one aspect of culture
may also lead to changes in other aspects also. Radical changes have taken place
in values. The speed of socio-cultural change in general has vitally affected
stability of society. In a state of instability and rapid social change, social planning
is difficult to be made, if not, impossible.

(iii) An Increase in Population:

Social planning is quite easier and more effective in small communities with
limited population than big communities with vast population. In many Asian and
African countries, population is increasing at a very fast rate. At the same rate of
growth, means of subsistence are not growing.

Hence, social planning has become quite challenging in such countries. This is
particularly true in countries such as China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, etc.
Similarly, planning in cities where population is increasing beyond control is also
difficult.