**1. Introduction**

14 Sociological Landscape – Theories, Realities and Trends

Pingali, P.L. & Rosegrant, M.W. (1994). Confronting the environmental consequences of the

Redclift, M. (2001). Environmental security and the recombinant human: sustainability in

Rocheleau, D. (1995). Gender and biodiversity: a feminist political ecology perspective", *IDS* 

Sarkar, S. (2002). Defining "biodiversity": assessing biodiversity. *Monist*. Vol. 85, No.1, pp.

Serrat, O. (2004). Transboundary Environmental Challenges. Mekong Development Forum, June 28- 29, Paris. Retrieved on January 4, 2011. Available online from

Shiva, V. (1993). Understanding the threats to biological and cultural diversity. Inaugural

Sims, B. & Bentley J. (2002). Participatory research: a set of tools but not the key to the

Takacs, D. (1996). *The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise*, Johns Hopkins University

Tauli-Corpuz, V. (2000). Biotechnology and indigenous peoples. Retrieved on May 12, 2005.

van Djik, T.A. (1997). Editorial: analysing discourse analysis. *Discourse and Society*, Vol. 8,

Warren, D.M. (1992). Indigenous knowledge, biodiversity conservation and development,

Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. & Yates, S. (2001). Introduction, In: *Discourse as Data: A Guide for* 

Wiebe, K., Ballenger, N. & Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (eds.). (2001). *Who will be fed in the 21st*

Wilson, E.O. (1998). *Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge*, Knopf, ISBN 0-679-45077-7, New

Wood, L.A. & Kroger, R.O. (2000). *Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in* 

Woodilla, J. (1998). Workplace conversation: the text of organizing, In: *Discourse and* 

Zweifel, H. (2000). Biodiversity and the appropriation of women's knowledge, *Indigenous*

*Talk and Text,* Sage, ISNB 0-8039-7351-9, Thousand Oaks, CA.

*Knowledge and Development Monitor,* Vol. 5, No. 1 (April).

*International Conference on Conservation of Biodiversity in Africa: Local Initiatives and Institutional Roles*, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya, August 30-

*Analysis*, M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (eds.), pp. (i-iii), Sage, ISBN 0-7619-

*Century: Challenges for Science and Policy?,* International Food Research Institute

*Organization*, D. Grant, T. Keenoy & C. Oswick (eds.), pp. (31-50), Sage, ISBN 0-

lecture delivered during the 1st Annual *Hopper Lecture* series. University of Guelph,

universe. *Culture and Agriculture*, Vol. 24, No. 1 (March), pp. (34-41). ISSN 1556-

www.adb.org/projects/tonle\_sap/Speeches/transboundary-environ-

Washington, D.C.

pp. (9-16), ISSN 0265-5012.

(131-155), ISSN 0026-9662.

1752-7015.

challenges.pdf

486X.

York.

September 21, 1993.

September 3, 1992.

7619-5671-9, London.

Press, ISBN 978-0801854002, Baltimore.

No.1, pp. (5-6), ISSN 0957-9265.

7158-0, Thousand Oaks. CA.

(IFRI), ISBN 0896297047, Washington, D.C.:

Available from *http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/tokar.htm.*

green revolution in Asia, Environment and Production Technology Division (EPTD) *Discussion Paper No.2*. International Food Policy Research Institute,

the twenty-first century. *Environmental Values*, Vol. 10, (2001), pp. (289-299), ISSN

*Bulletin, Gender Relations and Environmental Change*, Vol. 26, No 1, (January 1995),

Although social structure might seem the most important concept in sociology, and one of the major concepts in social science more generally, it is something of an 'absent presence' with many theorists addressing the issue only tangentially and with sustained attention to conceptual understanding of the nature of social structures attended to by only relatively few authors (Crothers, 1996). The history of the concept of social structure in sociology (and outside) is a topic addressed briefly here only to indicate the historical development of conceptual work on it (see Callinicos, 2007; Crothers, 1996, 2004).

Phases in the development of sociological theory concerning social structure has been described in the references just noted. Many early accounts of social structure depicted a sequence of three or four successive types beginning with hunter-gatherer bands and encompassing empires, and civilisations, together with the unique features of Western modernity. As empirical sociology developed with the work of the Chicago school (and more generally in community studies) in the interwar years more empirically based (but still dynamic) accounts were developed. Immediately before, during and after the world war 2 period the functionalist approach (partially adapted by Merton from anthropological models to better fit with more complex societies) switched attention from over-time change to understandings of how social structures fitted together and how they worked as structures. In particular, structures were seen as often operating 'behind the backs' of the people in them and were laced together in considerable part through 'latent functions' that were not always immediately obvious. By the 1970s, sociological theorists began to distance themselves from some of the determinism associated with previous approaches, and social structures began to be seen as more complex performances that arose out of the interplay between people's agency and the social environments shaping them and in turn being formed by individual actions. The two most prominent of these theorists were Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens (although many others reinforced this approach) and these were sometimes labeled as 'reproduction, practise or structurationist theorists. Since then, an array of commentary has ensued which has elicited (and partially resolved) many of the difficulties in the analyses of these theorists – Giddens fails to develop a convincing rendition of social structure whereas Bourdieu, which attempting valiantly to overcome some of the dichotomies which constrain sociological analyses, overemphasises structural determinants. Moreover, sharp critique of any collectivist models continue with many sociologists unprepared to admit the existence of collectivities other than as representations held at a micro-social level. Moreover, while 'post-structurationist' approaches (such as the

Analysing Social Structures 17

The chapter draws on the immense array of sociological concepts to provide the array of analytical tools needed to understand the various dimensions of social structures. (A developed alternative is Giddens, 1984. See also Layder 2006; Lockwood, 1992; Lopez and Scott, 2000; Lopez, 2003; Mouzelis, 2008; Porpora, 1987; Sewell, 2005; Tilly, 2008).The key concepts examined in the chapter include cultures and ideologies, institutions, organisations, networks, categories, roles and statuses, resources or capitals, situations, scenes, selves, ecologies, actions and interactions, life-choices and life-chances, and social formations (communities, societies). As well as examining each of these, frameworks are

The approach adopted is a 'toolkit' one in which the various perspectives are called upon for examining different aspects of social structure as analyses suggest relevance. My argument is that to successfully understand any social structure, many (maybe all) of these perspectives will need to be brought to bear. To some degree, the perspectives compete with each other, but they are by no means intrinsically incompatible. The tools covered are not

The perspectives are presented in an ordered sequence in which foundations are laid and then more particular aspects built on these. The sequence also moves from small-scale to larger-scale and from static to dynamic. However, to some extent this ordering is arbitrary and the perspectives blur. Others might prefer different orders. The tools provide spell out

The conceptual tools fall into two main classes. The first group are perspectives which allow us to understand the 'architecture' of social structures: how they are built. The following perspectives covered are orientated towards social processes. Having set up the structure, as it were, we can then set the structure to work, to mobilise it into operation and to see how it maintains itself but also changes. Separating out these two perspectives is arbitrary but useful to guide thinking. There are two important contexts which bear on social structures. Social life takes place over time and it is inevitably spatial, and these should be elements in any analysis from each of the perspectives already covered, and since this contextual approach is sometimes forgotten, its importance needs to be emphasised even though since

these aspects are integral they are not sign-posted by giving them separate attention.

various of these conditions, but these issues are not further addressed in this chapter.

handled through discussions of the concepts of social identity and of life-course.

As well as conceptualising social structures complementary concepts are needed to cover how people feel about the way they are inserted in social structures, and this aspect is

This chapter refers only in passing to the bio-social and ecological-social settings within which social life is lived and concerning which social structural analyses take place. Any 'population' of people is based on the physical/environmental territory within which it lives (including extensions obtained by import and export) and is also embodied within a particular biological set of bodies which have various marked characteristics (e.g. gender, age, maybe 'beauty', 'health', strength etc.) and in turn an underlying genetic structure. It is assumed that social structures will be built on and will actively 'draw on' and be limited by

exhaustive, but they do cover most of the tools needed to analyse social structures.

an implicit underlying framework and show how it can be put to work.

presented about how each relate to each other.

**2. Levels and processes** 

work of Margaret Archer and Nicos Mouzelis and a range of commentators) seem to have developed sophisticated argumentation, it has yet to be widely accepted. Indeed, there is an argument that – strangely – social theorists tend to shy away from direct treatment of social structure.

Exposition of analytical tools in sociology (as much as any other sociology) needs to be accompanied with rigorous criticism as to their adequacy, but this too has to be eschewed in this presentation. The emphasis rather is on providing tools for use. Sociology might seem to be stymied without a working consensus on what the ontological structures of social structures might be with debate structured by some sophisticated conceptions of collectivities on the one hand (e.g. Elder-Vass, 2010: also Searle, 2010) and vigorous renditions of methodological individualism on the other (e.g. Martin and Dennis, 2010: see also Martin, 2009). A major difficulty in developing adequate conceptions of social collectivities are the arguments deployed against their very possibility: if it is argued that collectivities do not exist in makes little sense to pursue further considerations of them – a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it is possible that ultimately a collectivist position will prevail, but it should not prevail without sufficient weight being given the effort of endeavouring to establish the possibility that collectivities might meaningfully exist. However, it is not entirely the task of an empirically-orientated discipline to worry too much about the philosophical status of its concepts. The empirically-orientated study of social structures need not await the final verdict of its more philosophical associated discussions, although it is good if the two can develop alongside and in interaction with each other.

Unfortunately, the more empirically-orientated study of social structure flows within several channels which are not entirely linked to eachother. Some approaches hold rather different conceptions of the same term - social structure – while others pursue the study of social structure using other terminologies. This chapter provides a schema for bringing to bear this systematic array of concepts for examining the various aspects of social structures.

Social structures are at least somewhat-enduring sets of relationships amongst a group of roles which emerge, are maintained, change and eventually cease. They vary enormously between tightly drilled formations such as elite combat units or sports teams (which operate like highly oiled social machines with their social structure clearly somewhat embodied in the team's physical and behavioural routines) to loosely organised networks or relationships which may operate in subtle and usually unglimpsed ways, but nevertheless are framed by structure. While some social structures are adorned with a massive cultural apparatus or largely focused on the development of cultural goods, others are very lean. Whereas one extreme type is the endlessly interacting face to face groups (e.g. 'primary groups') the other extreme are aggregations where people belong to social categories (sometimes widely spread across space) which shape their attitudes and behaviour but which are not (or seldom) reinforced by interaction – so some social structures are local while others are cosmopolitan. Some are small and others vast in their extension over space and/or time. They differ in the way their 'footprint' is distributed across various micro-level social situations and underlying natural environments. Perhaps above all, different social structures vary in their self-awareness and in their capacity for collective or planned action. An interpenetrating set of social structures are the social forms in which people live out their lives and which to varying degrees are built into specific social formations such as communities or societies.

work of Margaret Archer and Nicos Mouzelis and a range of commentators) seem to have developed sophisticated argumentation, it has yet to be widely accepted. Indeed, there is an argument that – strangely – social theorists tend to shy away from direct treatment of social

Exposition of analytical tools in sociology (as much as any other sociology) needs to be accompanied with rigorous criticism as to their adequacy, but this too has to be eschewed in this presentation. The emphasis rather is on providing tools for use. Sociology might seem to be stymied without a working consensus on what the ontological structures of social structures might be with debate structured by some sophisticated conceptions of collectivities on the one hand (e.g. Elder-Vass, 2010: also Searle, 2010) and vigorous renditions of methodological individualism on the other (e.g. Martin and Dennis, 2010: see also Martin, 2009). A major difficulty in developing adequate conceptions of social collectivities are the arguments deployed against their very possibility: if it is argued that collectivities do not exist in makes little sense to pursue further considerations of them – a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it is possible that ultimately a collectivist position will prevail, but it should not prevail without sufficient weight being given the effort of endeavouring to establish the possibility that collectivities might meaningfully exist. However, it is not entirely the task of an empirically-orientated discipline to worry too much about the philosophical status of its concepts. The empirically-orientated study of social structures need not await the final verdict of its more philosophical associated discussions, although it

is good if the two can develop alongside and in interaction with each other.

Unfortunately, the more empirically-orientated study of social structure flows within several channels which are not entirely linked to eachother. Some approaches hold rather different conceptions of the same term - social structure – while others pursue the study of social structure using other terminologies. This chapter provides a schema for bringing to bear this systematic array of concepts for examining the various aspects of social structures. Social structures are at least somewhat-enduring sets of relationships amongst a group of roles which emerge, are maintained, change and eventually cease. They vary enormously between tightly drilled formations such as elite combat units or sports teams (which operate like highly oiled social machines with their social structure clearly somewhat embodied in the team's physical and behavioural routines) to loosely organised networks or relationships which may operate in subtle and usually unglimpsed ways, but nevertheless are framed by structure. While some social structures are adorned with a massive cultural apparatus or largely focused on the development of cultural goods, others are very lean. Whereas one extreme type is the endlessly interacting face to face groups (e.g. 'primary groups') the other extreme are aggregations where people belong to social categories (sometimes widely spread across space) which shape their attitudes and behaviour but which are not (or seldom) reinforced by interaction – so some social structures are local while others are cosmopolitan. Some are small and others vast in their extension over space and/or time. They differ in the way their 'footprint' is distributed across various micro-level social situations and underlying natural environments. Perhaps above all, different social structures vary in their self-awareness and in their capacity for collective or planned action. An interpenetrating set of social structures are the social forms in which people live out their lives and which to varying degrees are built into specific social formations such as

structure.

communities or societies.

The chapter draws on the immense array of sociological concepts to provide the array of analytical tools needed to understand the various dimensions of social structures. (A developed alternative is Giddens, 1984. See also Layder 2006; Lockwood, 1992; Lopez and Scott, 2000; Lopez, 2003; Mouzelis, 2008; Porpora, 1987; Sewell, 2005; Tilly, 2008).The key concepts examined in the chapter include cultures and ideologies, institutions, organisations, networks, categories, roles and statuses, resources or capitals, situations, scenes, selves, ecologies, actions and interactions, life-choices and life-chances, and social formations (communities, societies). As well as examining each of these, frameworks are presented about how each relate to each other.

The approach adopted is a 'toolkit' one in which the various perspectives are called upon for examining different aspects of social structure as analyses suggest relevance. My argument is that to successfully understand any social structure, many (maybe all) of these perspectives will need to be brought to bear. To some degree, the perspectives compete with each other, but they are by no means intrinsically incompatible. The tools covered are not exhaustive, but they do cover most of the tools needed to analyse social structures.

The perspectives are presented in an ordered sequence in which foundations are laid and then more particular aspects built on these. The sequence also moves from small-scale to larger-scale and from static to dynamic. However, to some extent this ordering is arbitrary and the perspectives blur. Others might prefer different orders. The tools provide spell out an implicit underlying framework and show how it can be put to work.
