SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE
By G. GORDON BROWN and JAMES H. BARNETT
URRENT use of the terms, social organization and social structure, in
social science writings indicates uncertainty as to the meaning of either
term. Writers alternate in their use of these terms in the same paragraph.
This can be confirmed by reference to works on sociological concepts or to
writings in the field of social anthropology.' I t is the purpose of this article
to suggest more precise definitions of these terms and to propose a method
for the systematic analysis of these concepts.
The following distinction is suggested for the terms, social organization
and social structure: social organization refers to the systems of obligationrelations which exist among and between the groups constituting a given
society, while social structure refers to the placement and position of individuals and of groups within that system of obligation-relations.2 It is the
contention of this paper that the use of either term in analysis of social
phenomena should take place within this dual conceptual framework, and
that the difference between these terms is primarily one of approach and
emphasis.
Thus, a description of the social organization of American society would
stress the nature and functioning of obligation-relations as these operate
among the various groups constituting this society. On the other hand, an
analysis of the social structure of this society would describe the position
of the numerous groups in this social order with reference to each other as
manifested in the system of familial, economic, political, religious and socialclass obligation-relations which obtains a t any given time.
EVIDENCES OF OBLIGATION-RELATIONS
To investigate the organization and structure of a society, one must
proceed to a more intensive analysis of the concept of a system of obligationrelations. It is suggested that in a social order one discerns three types of
evidence of the existence of a system of obligation-relations: these are
definitions of ideal social behavior, statements of anticipated social behavior
and observations of actual social behavior.
To arrive a t these evidences, one may inquire of members of a society,
first, what an individual should do under given conditions, second, what an
* Robert Lowie, Social O ~ g ~ n i r a t i o(The
n Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. xiv),
Earle E. Eubank, Concepts of Sociology, pp. 123-130.
A set of reciprocal duties and privileges commonly agreed upon and practiced by a
social group.
31
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
32
[N. s., 44, 1942
individual may be expected to do, and, finally, observe what many individuals actually do under these conditions. As an example, one may inquire
of members of a society what should be done by immediate kindreda when
individuals become indigent,' what probably will be done and ~1 observe
what is done by members of that society under such cimmstances. An
illustration of this general point of view is found in the Lynds' recent book,
Middletown in Transition, which makes much of the variation in the minds
of the citizens of Middletown between their affirmed ideals of government
and their cynical assertion that they expected crookedness and corruption
in the local officials.' The Lynds stress the gap separating cherished symbol
from the anticipation of dishonesty in their officials.
I t is necessary to make a further analysis of the term, actual behavior,
as used in this context. A division of actual behavior may be made into confirmatory and deviational types. By confirmatory is meant that behavior
which confirms the anticipation as set forth under given conditions. By
deviational is meant that behavior which deviates from the anticipation set
forth with reference to a specific situation. As an example, the observance
of traffic light signals in the United States may be cited as typical of the
relations involved between anticipations and actual behavior. The actual
observance of traffic regulations by all or nearly all motorists is the basis on
which anticipations of motorists' responses to this system of symbols are
formulated. The general confirmation of the anticipation that all motorists
will stop on red and go on green lights is essential to the successful operation
of traffic in large cities. The daily confirmation by behavior of the general
acceptance of the anticipation is well-established. This is true to such a degree that public censure and actual punishment follow individual deviations
from this anticipation. The web of anticipations is accepted, and traffic
flows fairly smoothly because the motorists' behavior with reference to the
meaning of lights is characterized by an anticipatory-confirmatory behavior
sequence. If deviations were very frequent, the general anticipation would
undergo marked change until a new anticipation was established.
The relations between these aspects of a system of obligation-relations
may be illustrated by the following diagram.
I t is suggested here that the second type of evidence, that of anticipations, is the most accessible index of social organization because these represent uniformities of relationships which exist in a state of suspension within
the total cultural framework-that is, in the minds of members of a society.
8
In our society, brothers, sisters, children and parents.
' Each social order will set forth a definition of what constitutes indigence.
* Robert S. and Helen M. L p d , Middletown i n Transilion, Chapter ix.
BROWN AND BARNETT]
SOCIAL ORGANIZATION A N D STRUCTURE
33
Anticipations exhibit uniformities because real social behavior occurs within
an interlocking complex of reciprocal anticipations, which are approximately
similar within the minds of the members of a given social group. So long as
the web of reciprocal anticipations is maintained by confirmatory social
behavior, prediction of individual social behavior is possible within limits
~ C I P A T I O N S/
\
IDEALS
\
/
Fig. 1. Interaction pattern of the elements comprising a set of obligation-relations.
This device does not indicate the relative strength of the pull which each element exerts on
the other two.
of the system. These anticipations furnish patterns to guide the individual
in orienting himself in behavior situations.
I n utilizing the above analysis, it should be borne in mind that some
kinds of social behavior are more satisfactory indices than others for assessing the nature of the obligation-relations of a society. Much social behavior
occurs within an individual pattern. This permits of wide variation in accepted modes of action by individuals. Other social behavior, however, is
highly formalized and usually arises from the occupancy of a social status
which demands group-approved modes of action and which permits of relatively slight deviations from the norm. The issue may be put most succinctly
by asserting that behavior which is related to an individual’s performance in
34
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
[N.s., 44,1942
a public social role, such as that of priest or statesman, will be more highly
formalized than will his behavior in a role which involves relations with
small, informal groups of people, such as a congeniality group. The formalized role behavior affords a more accessible clue to the nature of obligationrelations.
Case studies have shown that social roles may easily come into conflict,
so that where there is a great disparity between the roles which an individual
plays simultaneously, the pressure of conflicting sets of obligation-relations
may temporarily paralyze and deter the individual from a course of action.
His behavior anticipations under such conflicting conditions are in temporary abeyance and must await reformulation.
The reciprocal behavior anticipations of a teacher, lawyer or banker in
his social or professional capacities are more clearly discernible than are
those anticipations in systems of relationships which permit of more individual variation, such as the familial ones. In a like manner, as roles vary
within a society, so similar roles, such as those of priest or parent, vary from
society to society. The degree of elasticity in interpretation of roles permitted by a given social organization is thus one indication of the particular
nature of that society. In societies which are rigidly organized, a greater
proportion of behavior tends to be stereotyped than in loosely organized
and mobile societies in which individual behavior may vary widely from
role behavior.
I n resumption of the main argument, a study of any society will reveal
the existence of a system of behavior anticipations. Some patterns will be
found of more importance than others in terms of their relationship to the
whole system. A number of criteria of the relative importance of significant
patterns within any given social system have been developed. I t is not proposed to discuss these here. It is, however, assumed that criteria are available to assess the relative potency of the various sets of obligation-relations.
As an instance, one method of determining the social significance of any
pattern of obligations is to note what follows non-observance of this pattern.
There are fruitful possibilities for research involved in this conception.
SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE
In terms of the above argument, the concept of social organization comprehends the system of obligation-relations existing in a given society a t a
given time; this system of obligation-relations is most adequately evidenced
by the commonly held sets of behavior anticipations.
Once the significant patterns in the system of anticipations have been
discerned, it will be apparent that these relationships involve certain group-
BROWN AND BARNETT]
SOCIAL ORGANIZATION A N D STRUCTURE
35
ings of individuals. We suggest that these groupings of individuals in terms
of significant patterns of obligation-relations be termed social structure.
To illustrate the foregoing analysis, two examples are offered :
Among the Hehe, a Bantu tribe in Tanganyika Territory, East Africa,
the clans is a group of people united by belief in patrilineal descent from a
remote male ancestor. Clan membership confers three social attributes: a
clan name (the root of which is the name of the clan ancestor), a praise-name,
and an avoidance, usually the avoidance of eating an animal or organ of an
animal. Clan membership entails a limited pattern of obligations: the most
important are exogamy, and the rendering of preferred treatment to a
fellow clansman. These obligations reinforce, while giving expression to a
vague belief in clan unity.
Within the clan, those who trace descent to a common patrilineal ancestor within two or three generations are more closely united: they must
mutually assist a t certain economic tasks, such as work in the plantations
and in house building. This bond is reinforced when the members live near
each other. These groups may be designated as loosely organized patrilineal
lineages. The above indicates in brief the part which the clan and lineage
obligations play in the social organization of the Hehe.
In describing social structure, attention should be focussed upon groups.
The social structure of the Hehe must, therefore, include the grouping into
lineages and clans as units. Between members of one of these units there is
one system of relationships, while between members of one unit and other
units there is a different pattern of relationships. As everyone belongs to a
lineage and a clan, the structure includes everyone within the tribe in one
whole pattern of relationships, while membership in other groupings, such
as the local settlement or the political hierarchy, would place everyone in a
different pattern within the total structure.
A second example will apply the concepts under discussion to the class
system of the United States. In terms of social structure, the essence of
class is the notion of groupings in a hierarchy. In the United States, classes
are stratified into three generally recognized groups: the upper, middle and
lower classes. Further, in an open class system, such as exists in the United
States, an important attribute of such a system is that of two-way vertical
mobility. I t should be added that class structure is but a part of total social
structure.
The complementary analysis of a class system in terms of social organization would reveal other important aspects of the concept of class. It is
suggested that the several strata of society practice specialized class inter6
The word, “clan,” as it is used by most English anthropologists.
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
36
[N.s.,
44, 1942
pretations of common social obligations, such as paternity, citizenship,
marriage and property. Also, each class grouping evolves a set of obligationrelations limited to its own membership. Subjectively, class organization is
accompanied by recognition, either open or reluctant, by members of all
classes of the position of themselves and others within the system. Individuals will, of course, vary in the acuteness of their awareness of class differences.
Thus, the social organization and structure of a given society may be
regarded as complementary ways of viewing the same phenomena. The
essence of social organization is obligation-relations which are resident in a
set of behavior anticipations supported by and interrelated with the factors
of ideal and actual behavior. Obligation-relations entailed in public role
behavior are more explicitly organized and formalized than individually
oriented behavior and so are more amenable to description and analysis. The
actual operation of a social system indicates that certain sets of obligationrelations are significant and perhaps crucial to the maintenance of that
system.
The positional grouping of individuals which results from the essential
patterns of obligation-relations constitutes the social structure of a society.
In brief, social organization is the set of obligation-relations which exists
between and among the groups composing a social order, while social structure refers to the position of groups with reference to each other as determined by the significant patterns of obligation-relations.
In research, the process of analysis of a society involves continually the
use of both concepts. Primarily, social structure is derived from an examination of masses of obligation-relations which are the social organization and
which order the behavior of individuals and groups. Once it is seen that these
relationships unite individuals, one discerns the social groups, and a first
approximation to the structure may be made. This simplifies by schematizing the relevant social facts, and further examinations of organization may
then be made. As the organization becomes clearer, so does the structure.
As the structure is more accurately delineated, so can more complex analyses
of organization be made. Thus, to the student of society, organization and
structure are conceptual means of progressively clarifying social phenomena.
They are accordingly useful instruments of research when utilized as complementary ways of viewing society.
TEMPLE
UNIVERSITY
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
UNIVERSITYOF CONNECTICUT
STORRS,
CONN.