**3.6 Institutional areas/Fields**

An important sociological conception is the image that societies are composed of assemblages of institutions, often arrayed within particular institutional areas (e.g. family, economy, religion etc). In this vision, it is readily seen that the 'content' of each social area differs from that of others, and that this content is particularly relevant to its analysis. Particular central values and norms are seen as flavouring the working of each institutional area. It may also be that particular institutional areas are characterised by particular structural configurations: their environment gives the social forms in a particular area some unique features.

In older sociologies, sometimes a 'billiard-ball' model of societies was used: societies were seen as a set of institutions - the economy, polity, religion, etc - and the relations between each were plotted (e.g. Weber is depicted as exploring the relations between religion and the economy in particular societies).

Bourdieu's image of a field is useful to map an institutional area. He sees the economy, polity etc in modern societies as fields with their own internal logic of development and relative autonomy, although he is also concerned with their interrelations. Each field has its own values and goals, and there is struggle amongst those in the field (employing whatever types of 'capital' they have command over and which have legitimacy in that field) for the right to set the standards, and to exercise power, in that field. In addition, Bourdieu sees linkages between institutional fields, and that fields have their own tendency to both reflect wider society and also to shuck off any too close overlaps from other institutional areas. His approach also allows investigation of the extent to which, in any social formation, there have developed separate fields: it is not assumed that there is any particular menu of institutional areas. However, the mix of available types of capital in a society may structure the range of fields which have a separate existence.

Fields also differ in terms of their organisational arrangements: whereas the formal economy is organised into firms, together with central coordinating institutions such as the stock

Sociologists of organisations have also developed a distinct vocabulary which identifies several further major features of organisations. They are seen as having goals, an internal structure, technology and resources, and a surrounding environment. In pursuit of their goals, they deploy their material and human resources to suit the key features of their technology and organisational framework in order to produce whatever goods and services

Many organisational analysts cleave to a view of organisations as being organised more-orless rationally: that their goals are provide clear guidance, that decisions are rationally made within the parameters set by the goals, and that the organisation is rationally organised in terms of its means for reaching these goals. This concern of organisations with rationality contrasts strongly with the considerable inefficiency of most other types of social entity. It

It has been found that organisations, far from being quite static in their pattern, have changed their practises of management over time. As a result, much of the recent effort in

An important sociological conception is the image that societies are composed of assemblages of institutions, often arrayed within particular institutional areas (e.g. family, economy, religion etc). In this vision, it is readily seen that the 'content' of each social area differs from that of others, and that this content is particularly relevant to its analysis. Particular central values and norms are seen as flavouring the working of each institutional area. It may also be that particular institutional areas are characterised by particular structural configurations: their environment gives the social forms in a particular area some

In older sociologies, sometimes a 'billiard-ball' model of societies was used: societies were seen as a set of institutions - the economy, polity, religion, etc - and the relations between each were plotted (e.g. Weber is depicted as exploring the relations between religion and the

Bourdieu's image of a field is useful to map an institutional area. He sees the economy, polity etc in modern societies as fields with their own internal logic of development and relative autonomy, although he is also concerned with their interrelations. Each field has its own values and goals, and there is struggle amongst those in the field (employing whatever types of 'capital' they have command over and which have legitimacy in that field) for the right to set the standards, and to exercise power, in that field. In addition, Bourdieu sees linkages between institutional fields, and that fields have their own tendency to both reflect wider society and also to shuck off any too close overlaps from other institutional areas. His approach also allows investigation of the extent to which, in any social formation, there have developed separate fields: it is not assumed that there is any particular menu of institutional areas. However, the mix of available types of capital in a society may structure

Fields also differ in terms of their organisational arrangements: whereas the formal economy is organised into firms, together with central coordinating institutions such as the stock

provides a basis for expecting clearer patterns of similarity amongst organisations.

organisational studies has gone into the tracking of changes in organisational form.

is their purpose.

**3.6 Institutional areas/Fields** 

economy in particular societies).

the range of fields which have a separate existence.

unique features.

market, the family/ household sector of society merely consists of endless numbers of small units with only the most occasional formal organisation claiming to represent the interests of some particular fraction of households.

Other conceptions which are used to understand environing 'fields' include studies of interorganisational relations and of markets. Inter-organisational relations has become a subjectarea in its own right. Many of these studies show how alliances of organisations can be mobilised to work together to shape broad areas of policy development or market operation. For example, the oil industry in USA organised to squash possible governmental flight regulations that would have then exposed commercially secret data on the paths of exploration flights. Another example concerns agricultural workers, stuck with low wage rates, who were able to mobilise their affiliates to put pressure on the networks of the employing super-company, which then eventually raised the wages. Much activity in social formations involves complex, shifting and often fragile relations amongst blocs of organisations.

Another key metaphor is that of the market. A market is a particular type of interorganisational framework which provides a mechanism through which the operations of the various units can be co-ordinated. This ideal-type model can also be held up against at least partially similar structural alternatives to examine differences in their mode of operation: e.g. command economies. A classic market is supposedly one where there is a range of different units of somewhat similar size, where each has little effect on other units and where there is a good flow of information.

Although the internal organisation of an institutional area may take the structure of being a market, this form is **particularly** appropriate only to the description of economies. Other institutional areas tend to have rather different internal arrangements. Another institutional environment which differs from economic markets is that centred on the government. This sector involves the ordinary public as 'citizens' rather than 'customers' and marches to the beat of rather different requirements. Of recent years, however, new right ideologists have increasingly attempted to subvert these differences and to remake the state sector along the lines of straight capitalism. As well as being an important area of society, a state can be a significant set of organisations leading many other areas of social activity. One important role the State often plays is in rule-setting and enforcement of these rules in the markets which the various other social units are, in turn, embedded within.

Beyond the economy and polity lie other sectors. A third sector is the voluntary and nonprofit one, which operates according to yet a further set of rules, but which is also under siege from both governmental and especially capitalist modes of operation. The current 'mixed' operation of some voluntary sub-sectors has been described as a 'quasi-market'. Another institutional area is focused on the family and household operation within communities. There are a wide variety of other institutional areas which might also deserve separate attention.

A useful distinction to invoke at this point is that contrasting 'public' and 'private' spheres. The working of some institutional areas are held to be the concern of many groups (although some are disenfranchised) and there is public discussion about them. But, in other spheres, they are not held to warrant much attention and discussion is suppressed or deflected into private nooks and crannies. In modern Western societies it has been held

Analysing Social Structures 29

required, mainly by economic means. Empires are much more expensive because more

The semi-periphery mediates between core and periphery, both exploiting the periphery, but also being exploited by the core. Semi-periphery countries may also be vulnerable to being pushed and pulled by the rather different sets of forces affecting them from both core and from periphery. As a result, some of their institutions may be quite volatile. Some of the spaces in the semi-periphery are occupied by countries or regions which are mobile

Finally, the periphery is the rim of countries whose unprocessed resources are extracted by

A major part of the identity or self of any individual is their involvement with various social groupings and how they subjectively construct that relationship (a recent sophisticated discussion is in Archer, 2007). Different processes of identity formation take place under different social conditions. In many societies, social identities are closely circumscribed and based on inherited characteristics, whereas contemporary societies often allow a huge array of choice. Identities variously involve roles or more diffuse groupings at any one often various scales and can be highly complex and multi-dimensional. A pervasive conceptualisation of social identities is the way people prioritise in a hierarchy their various identities and the way they relate these together. Identities are also forged thorough the distancing of people from groups they are not members of. Identities are often forged in cementing the boundaries between groups. But it is important, too, to assay the meanings held by individuals of their involvements in various social groupings. Components of identities have different saliencies and different consequences for commitment or even action. In addition to social contexts, various psychological and other mechanisms are important in constructing, maintaining and changing social identities. Moreover, social identities are open to change over time, and in some cases social identities can change very

the core and who serve as the relatively powerless markets for core products.

direct state coordination is required.

upwards or downwards in the hierarchy.

**3.9 Social identities** 

rapidly over time.

**4. Social processes** 


The social processes requiring separate treatment include:


**4.1 Social construction processes (Constructing the boxes)** 

Social structures are almost never built anew from the ground up. On the other hand, nor can they readily be seen as fragile frameworks that are freshly reconstructed each day. It is more reasonable to take an intermediate position to draw attention to those social processes



traditionally that only men have a voice in 'public spheres' (such as the economy and polity) whereas those spheres in which women's concerns are considered to be dominant warrant little attention. This is slowly changing.

## **3.7 Societies and cultures**

Another very important social unit is something of a shadow standing behind the nationstate (and the national economy) and is often assumed by social analysts to be the most appropriate context for their analyses. Many sociologists have made a particular point of privileging 'societies' as in many historical periods and regions they have been a dominant level of social organisation. Smaller societies are often highly cohesive 'tribes' with sharply demarcated social boundaries and in 'modern times' of the last few centuries (during which sociology was formed) the nation-state was increasingly hegemonic in its sway. Societies (especially those where a state is their leading component) are often considered to focus on social cohesion and personal identities and on the relations with other societies. (However, this is a characteristic of all social well-functioning social structures, albeit accentuated at the societal level.) One empirical test of the functioning of a society is whether or not it would be resilient if major components were destroyed (e.g. in war or natural disaster). Modern largescale societies are particularly integrated through their political and related processes and through extensions such as welfare states or police states intrude into everyday social life.

### **3.8 Civilisations and world systems**

Over a couple of decades now, Immanuel Wallerstein has built a 'world-systems' framework which shows that under some historical conditions societies are embedded within wider structures. This approach has strong Marxist influences, but has also been strongly influenced by the Annales school of French social historians. The world-systems approach argues that the internal unity and significance of nation-states has been considerably exaggerated. Rather, since the sixteenth century at least, the various European (and later other) nations have been embedded within a wider and expanding world-system which has been girded by flows of trade, capital, culture and people. The possibilities open to particular countries, regions or even individual enterprises are very considerably (often quite overwhelmingly) shaped by their position in relation to the world-system. These positions are discussed in terms of three or four main zones:


The metropolitan core is at the centre of the system and ensures that the system is organised for it to obtain the best value. The core has been traditionally involved with manufacture and service provision and is politically and militarily powerful. The world system is not, however, laced together by political mechanisms, although there may be significant coordinating arrangements (e.g. the OECD) and often there is a 'hegemonic' state amongst those states in the core countries, which then becomes the 'leader of the orchestra' (for example, the role played over many decades by the USA). Instead, the power of the core over the rest of the world-system is wielded, rather more cheaply in terms of the resources

traditionally that only men have a voice in 'public spheres' (such as the economy and polity) whereas those spheres in which women's concerns are considered to be dominant warrant

Another very important social unit is something of a shadow standing behind the nationstate (and the national economy) and is often assumed by social analysts to be the most appropriate context for their analyses. Many sociologists have made a particular point of privileging 'societies' as in many historical periods and regions they have been a dominant level of social organisation. Smaller societies are often highly cohesive 'tribes' with sharply demarcated social boundaries and in 'modern times' of the last few centuries (during which sociology was formed) the nation-state was increasingly hegemonic in its sway. Societies (especially those where a state is their leading component) are often considered to focus on social cohesion and personal identities and on the relations with other societies. (However, this is a characteristic of all social well-functioning social structures, albeit accentuated at the societal level.) One empirical test of the functioning of a society is whether or not it would be resilient if major components were destroyed (e.g. in war or natural disaster). Modern largescale societies are particularly integrated through their political and related processes and through extensions such as welfare states or police states intrude into everyday social life.

Over a couple of decades now, Immanuel Wallerstein has built a 'world-systems' framework which shows that under some historical conditions societies are embedded within wider structures. This approach has strong Marxist influences, but has also been strongly influenced by the Annales school of French social historians. The world-systems approach argues that the internal unity and significance of nation-states has been considerably exaggerated. Rather, since the sixteenth century at least, the various European (and later other) nations have been embedded within a wider and expanding world-system which has been girded by flows of trade, capital, culture and people. The possibilities open to particular countries, regions or even individual enterprises are very considerably (often quite overwhelmingly) shaped by their position in relation to the world-system. These

The metropolitan core is at the centre of the system and ensures that the system is organised for it to obtain the best value. The core has been traditionally involved with manufacture and service provision and is politically and militarily powerful. The world system is not, however, laced together by political mechanisms, although there may be significant coordinating arrangements (e.g. the OECD) and often there is a 'hegemonic' state amongst those states in the core countries, which then becomes the 'leader of the orchestra' (for example, the role played over many decades by the USA). Instead, the power of the core over the rest of the world-system is wielded, rather more cheaply in terms of the resources

little attention. This is slowly changing.

**3.8 Civilisations and world systems** 


positions are discussed in terms of three or four main zones:


**3.7 Societies and cultures** 

required, mainly by economic means. Empires are much more expensive because more direct state coordination is required.

The semi-periphery mediates between core and periphery, both exploiting the periphery, but also being exploited by the core. Semi-periphery countries may also be vulnerable to being pushed and pulled by the rather different sets of forces affecting them from both core and from periphery. As a result, some of their institutions may be quite volatile. Some of the spaces in the semi-periphery are occupied by countries or regions which are mobile upwards or downwards in the hierarchy.

Finally, the periphery is the rim of countries whose unprocessed resources are extracted by the core and who serve as the relatively powerless markets for core products.
