BACHELOR OF ARTS ENGLISH SEMESTER-IV SOCIOLOGY-IV
CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY Institute of Distance and Online Learning SLM Development Committee Prof. (Dr.) H.B. Raghvendra Vice- Chancellor, Chandigarh University, Gharuan, Punjab:Chairperson Prof. (Dr.) S.S. Sehgal Registrar Prof. (Dr.) B. Priestly Shan Dean of Academic Affairs Dr. Nitya Prakash Director – IDOL Dr. Gurpreet Singh Associate Director –IDOL Advisors& Members of CIQA –IDOL Prof. (Dr.) Bharat Bhushan, Director – IGNOU Prof. (Dr.) Majulika Srivastava, Director – CIQA, IGNOU Editorial Committee Prof. (Dr) Nilesh Arora Dr. Ashita Chadha University School of Business University Institute of Liberal Arts Dr. Inderpreet Kaur Prof. Manish University Institute of Teacher Training & University Institute of Tourism & Hotel Management Research Dr. Manisha Malhotra Dr. Nitin Pathak University Institute of Computing University School of Business © No part of this publication should be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any formor by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording and/or otherwise without the prior written permission of the authors and the publisher. SLM SPECIALLY PREPARED FOR CU IDOL STUDENTS 2 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
First Published in 2021 All rights reserved. No Part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from Chandigarh University. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this book may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. This book is meant for educational and learning purpose. The authors of the book has/have taken all reasonable care to ensure that the contents of the book do not violate any existing copyright or other intellectual property rights of any person in any manner whatsoever. In the event, Authors has/ have been unable to track any source and if any copyright has been inadvertently infringed, please notify the publisher in writing for corrective action. 3 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
CONTENT UNIT 1 - Institutions............................................................................................................. 5 UNIT 2 - Types of Institutions ............................................................................................ 37 UNIT 3 - Social Institutions Part I ....................................................................................... 72 UNIT 4 – Social Institutions Part II ..................................................................................... 97 UNIT 5 – Social Institutions Part III.................................................................................. 126 UNIT 6 – Political and Economic Institutions Part I .......................................................... 162 UNIT 7 – Political and Economic Institutions Part II......................................................... 197 UNIT 8 – Cultural Institutions........................................................................................... 230 4 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
UNIT 1 - INSTITUTIONS STRUCTURE 1.0 Learning Objectives 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Definition and Meaning 1.3 Features 1.4 Difference from Association 1.5 Community 1.6 Association and Organization 1.7 Summary 1.8 Keywords 1.9 Learning Activity 1.10 Unit End Questions 1.11 References 1.0 LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this unit, you will be able to: Describe the concept of Institutions. Illustrate the difference from Association. Explain the concept of Community. 1.1 INTRODUCTION Institutions, according to Samuel P. Huntington, are \"stable, valued, recurring patterns of behaviour\". Institutions can refer to mechanisms which govern the behaviour of a set of individuals within a given community, and are identified with a social purpose, transcending individuals and intentions by mediating the rules that govern living behaviour. According to Geoffrey M. Hodgson, it is misleading to say that an institution is a form of behaviour. Instead, Hodgson states that institutions are \"integrated systems of rules that structure social interactions\". The term \"institution\" commonly applies to both informal institutions such as customs, or behaviour patterns important to a society, and to particular formal institutions created by law as well as custom and having a distinctive permanence in ordering social behaviours. Primary 5 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
or meta-institutions are institutions such as the family that are broad enough to encompass other institutions. Institutions are a principal object of study in social sciences such as political science, anthropology, economics, and sociology (the latter described by Émile Durkheim as the \"science of institutions, their genesis and their functioning\"). Institutions are also a central concern for law, the formal mechanism for political rule-making and enforcement and a topic for historians. While institutions tend to appear to people in society as part of the natural, unchanging landscape of their lives, study of institutions by the social sciences tends to reveal the nature of institutions as social constructions, artefacts’ of a particular time, culture and society, produced by collective human choice, though not directly by individual intention. Sociology traditionally analysed social institutions in terms of interlocking social roles and expectations. Social institutions created and were composed of groups of roles, or expected behaviours. The social function of the institution was executed by the fulfilment of roles. Basic biological requirements, for reproduction and care of the young, are served by the institutions of marriage and family, for example, by creating, elaborating and prescribing the behaviours expected for husband/father, wife/mother, child, etc. The relationship of the institutions to human nature is a foundational question for the social sciences. Institutions can be seen as \"naturally\" arising from, and conforming to, human nature—a fundamentally conservative view—or institutions can be seen as artificial, almost accidental, and in need of architectural redesign, informed by expert social analysis, to better serve human needs—a fundamentally progressive view. Adam Smith anchored his economics in the supposed human \"propensity to truck, barter and exchange\". Modern feminists have criticized traditional marriage and other institutions as element of an oppressive and obsolete patriarchy. The Marxist view—which sees human nature as historically 'evolving' towards voluntary social cooperation, shared by some anarchists—is that supra- individual institutions such as the market and the state are incompatible with the individual liberty of a truly free society. Economics, in recent years, has used game theory to study institutions from two perspectives. Firstly, how do institutions survive and evolve? In this perspective, institutions arise from Nash equilibria of games. For example, whenever people pass each other in a corridor or thoroughfare, there is a need for customs, which avoid collisions. Such a custom might call for each party to keep to their own right (or left—such a choice is arbitrary; it is only necessary that the choice be uniform and consistent). Such customs may be supposed to be the origin of rules, such as the rule, adopted in many countries, which requires driving automobiles on the right side of the road. Secondly, how do institutions affect behaviour? In this perspective, the focus is on behaviour arising from a given set of institutional rules. In these models, institutions determine the rules 6 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
(i.e. strategy sets and utility functions) of games, rather than arise as equilibria out of games. Douglass North argues, the very emergence of an institution reflects behavioural adaptations through his application of increasing returns. Over time institutions develop rules that incentivize certain behaviours over others because they present less risk or induce lower cost, and establish path dependent outcomes. For example, the Cournot duopoly model is based on an institution involving an auctioneer who sells all goods at the market-clearing price. While it is always possible to analyse behaviour with the institutions-as-equilibria approach instead, it is much more complicated. In political science, the effect of institutions on behaviour has also been considered from a meme perspective, like game theory borrowed from biology. A \"memetic institutionalism\" has been proposed, suggesting that institutions provide selection environments for political action, whereby differentiated retention arises and thereby a Darwinian evolution of institutions over time. Public choice theory, another branch of economics with a close relationship to political science, considers how government policy choices are made, and seeks to determine what the policy outputs are likely to be, given a particular political decision-making process and context. Credibility thesis purports that institutions emerge from intentional institution-building but never in the originally intended form. Instead, institutional development is endogenous and spontaneously ordered and institutional persistence can be explained by their credibility, which is provided by the function that particular institutions serve. In history, a distinction between eras or periods, implies a major and fundamental change in the system of institutions governing a society. Political and military events are judged to be of historical significance to the extent that they are associated with changes in institutions. In European history, particular significance is attached to the long transition from the feudal institutions of the middle Ages to the modern institutions, which govern contemporary life. There is now widespread consensus that institutions matter crucially for development, but what are ‘institutions? This first IPPG Briefing Paper discusses institutions in general with later Briefing Papers focusing on economic, social and political institutions, and illustrative cases and problems. All human societies are characterised by more or less complex and overlapping networks of regular social interactions and practices. Whether economic, political or cultural, such repeated interactions require agreed and predictable rules – ways of doing things; such sets of rules constitute institutions. Language, for example, can be understood as an institution, constituted by the rules governing the use of sounds for meanings and communication, likewise, systems of marriage or burial are institutions which vary greatly over time and place, their specific forms being shaped by the rules which govern them. Unemployment insurance systems, relations between genders or age groups, educational practices and provision, and labour markets are also governed by rules, or institutional arrangements. Economic activity – whether silent barter, the operation of stock markets, the conditions for opening a new business or obtaining credit – is shaped by ‘the 7 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
rules of the game’ (North, 1990) which forbid some forms of behaviour and encourage others, the form which such rules take may either hinder or promote growth. Politics is also profoundly influenced by rules which steer political behaviour in different directions, consider the contrasts between politics in federal and unitary systems, or between presidential and parliamentary systems, or between proportional representation and first-past-the-post electoral systems – all of which structure politics and distribute power in different ways. Institutions can be formal or informal; formal institutions are normally established and constituted by binding laws, regulations and legal orders which prescribe what may or may not be done. Informal institutions, on the other hand, are constituted by conventions, norms, values and accepted ways of doing things, whether economic, political or social; these are embedded in traditional social practices and culture which can be equally binding. So, for example, laws which grant, recognise and protect individual land ownership establish formal institutions governing property rights in land, whereas communal systems of land tenure may be thought of as informal, embodying rules which have been established by custom and convention and do not permit private ownership, purchase or sale. Both institutional arrangements have different implications – institutions which ensure strong property rights in land (or anything else for that matter) may enhance productivity by enabling owners to use their property to obtain credit and inputs, but may also deepen inequality, (by giving rise to landlessness, for example). The institution of communal tenure, on the other hand, may guarantee access to land for subsistence, but may not promote growth through increased productivity. Likewise, formal political institutions – the rules expressed in constitutions and electoral laws, for instance, or in the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary – are supposed to set the rules about political behaviour, the use of legitimate power and authority, decision taking and patterns of governance; but there are also informal political institutions – patron-client relations, old boy networks, guanxi in China, for instance – which embody private forms of power and influence, and which may operate behind, between and within the formal institutions, hence substantially influencing how public power is used to make or prevent decisions that benefit some and disadvantage others. Institutions are neither static nor neutral, they distribute advantage and disadvantage in different ways, and there will always be winners and losers in the course of establishing or changing them. Sudden and radical institutional change does occur, but generally, institutions change slowly through the politics of modification and reform as different interests and ideas compete to get the most out of the rules. Nonetheless, institutions are best thought of as durable social rules and procedures, formal or informal, which structure the social, economic and political relations and interactions of those affected by them. 1.2 DEFINITION AND MEANING There are a variety of definitions of institutions. These definitions entail varying levels of formality and organizational complexity. The most expansive definitions may include informal but regularized practices, such as handshakes, whereas the narrowest definitions 8 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
may only include institutions that are highly formalized (e.g. have specified laws, rules and complex organizational structures). According to Wolfgang Strick and Kathleen Thelon, institutions are in the most general sense \"building blocks of social order: they represent socially sanctioned, that is, collectively enforced expectations with respect to the behaviour of specific categories of actors or to the performance of certain activities. Typically they involve mutually related rights and obligations for actors.\" Sociologists and anthropologists have expansive definitions of institutions that include informal institutions. Political scientists have sometimes defined institutions in more formal ways where third parties must reliably and predictably enforce the rules governing the transactions of first and second parties. One prominent Rational Choice Institutionalist definition of institutions is provided by Jack Knight who defines institutions as entailing \"a set of rules that structure social interactions in particular ways\" and that \"knowledge of these rules must be shared by the members of the relevant community or society.\" Definitions by Knight and Randall Calvert exclude purely private idiosyncrasies and conventions. Douglass North defines institutions as \"rules of the game in a society\" and \"humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic and social interactions.\" Randall Calvert defines institution as \"an equilibrium of behaviour in an underlying game.\" This means that \"it must be rational for nearly every individual to almost always adhere to the behaviour prescriptions of the institution, given that nearly all other individuals are doing so.\" Robert Keohanedefined institutions as \"persistent and connected sets of rules (formal or informal) that prescribe behavioural roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations.\" Avner Greif and David Latindefine institutions \"as a system of human-made, nonphysical elements – norms, beliefs, organizations, and rules – exogenous to each individual whose behaviour it influences that generates behavioural regularities.\" Additionally, they specify that organizations \"are institutional elements that influence the set of beliefs and norms that can be self-enforcing in the transaction under consideration. Rules are behavioural instructions that facilitate individuals with the cognitive task of choosing behaviour by defining the situation and coordinating behaviour.\" All definitions of institutions generally entail that there is a level of persistence and continuity. Laws, rules, social conventions and norms are all examples of institutions. Organizations and institutions can be synonymous, but Jack Knight writes that organizations are a narrow version of institutions or represent a cluster of institutions; the two are distinct in the sense that organizations contain internal institutions (that govern interactions between the members of the organizations). An informal institution tends to have socially shared rules, which are unwritten and yet are often known by all inhabitants of a certain country, as such they are often referred to as being an inherent part of the culture of a given country. Informal practices are often referred to as 9 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
\"cultural\", for example clientelism or corruption is sometimes stated as a part of the political culture in a certain place, but an informal institution itself is not cultural, it may be shaped by culture or behaviour of a given political landscape, but they should be looked at in the same way as formal institutions to understand their role in a given country. The relationship between formal and informal institutions is often closely aligned and informal institutions step in to prop up inefficient institutions. However, because they do not have a centre, which directs and coordinates their actions, changing informal institutions is a slow and lengthy process. Meaning of the Institution The meaning of the concept of ‘institution’ is a hot topic in various disciplines. Generally speaking institutions refer to man-made rules that govern human behaviour.2 an increasing number of economists agree that “institutions matter” when explaining economic performance. In sociology the concept of ‘institution’ has always been at the centre of analysis. When comparing the concept as used in different disciplines, we notice that their meaning differs significantly. When searching for the meaning of a concept we first have to develop an appropriate analysis of the situation in which the phenomenon that must be analysed plays a role. It means that we must develop an effective instrument that explains human behaviour in this respect. Then we understand why humans develop institutions, or accept institutions as they are - intended or unintended. Explanation of human behaviour implies the search for causes. We can distinguish between immediate causes and ultimate causes. In orthodox economics, for instance, humans are assumed to be economic-rational actors. In other words, they are supposed to be economically motivated, or in other words, be driven by an economic force, in an environment that consists of scarce goods. This force is conceptualised and modelled as the drive to maximise utilities under the constraint of scarce resources. If a price of an important scarce good changes an economic-rational actor is inclined to change his quantity demanded or his quantity supplied. In this case the change in behaviour can be explained in two ways: the immediate cause is the price change, and the ultimate cause is the economic force. The price change is the incentive for humans to change their behaviour. But without economic force the price change is not an incentive. Orthodox economics has isolated the analysis of the economic force from the other forces that set people in motion. When analysing institutions in a realistic way we have to add an analysis of these other forces to our typical economic analysis. So, if we want to conceptualise and explain why institutions develop and persist, we need a sophisticated analysis of the behaviour of the people who develop these institutions. Only then we have an analysis of the context in which institutions have meaning and can function properly. The setup of the paper will be as follows. In section 2 we deal with the ontological characteristics of the world to be analysed. In section 3 we derive a meaningful concept of institution from it. In section 4 we develop a series of different worlds in which institutions are assumed to play their role. We 10 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
will compare economic, psychic, social, political and moral aspects, which play their part in the analysis. Section 5 discusses the evolution of the Dutch welfare state, so as to illustrate what we mean by an integrated analysis of institutions. Section 6 concludes. As said in the previous section essentially people are very uncertain about their condition. To avoid existential fear they are driven to develop an idea about the situation. Therefore they frame their internal and external world in such a way that it becomes more understandable. Simple maps help us to decide what to do to improve the situation. In section 2 we sketched an outline of a first framing already. Other first framing is thinkable of course. Every interpretation of reality starts with an idea. If a person adopts an idea about his situation he is able to frame it, and makes it more understandable. Then it becomes clear how the person is related to his environment, and what he has to do to improve his situation. If a group adopts an idea about their identity they are able to frame their situation in such a way that it becomes clear how the group is related towards their environment, and what to do to improve their situation. Every person is driven by a composite of forces of particular strengths. Moulding of these forces means that the relative and absolute strengths of these forces change in such a way that long term interests of persons and groups are served. Framing of the external and internal world makes it possible for persons and groups to act rationally and socially. Will-power and morality affects the degree to which people really act accordingly. The general and common understandings developed by persons and by groups – i.e. culture – are the basis for the design of frameworks of more specific rules that govern human behaviour. These are called institutions. Various persons and groups develop different institutions. Families, businesses, government agencies and churches, for instance, all have their own institutions. In real life cultural systems and institutional frameworks are not perfectly consistent with each other. Some sectors or sub-sectors appear quite dysfunctional. In the long run societies cannot afford to have large sectors that are dysfunctional. It would lead to disintegration. So with persons: if the personal system consists of different aspect- or subsystems that are not consistent with each other, the person tends to become disintegrated. Disintegrating societies and persons become increasingly violent, since various basic needs cannot be satisfied anymore. In other words, a coherent cultural system, which is consistent with a coherent institutional framework, is a necessary condition for persons and groups to effectively satisfy their basic needs. Now we have formulated the function of institutions. In an interactive process between individual and group institutions are developed that mould human motivations and channel human actions in such a way that basic needs can be satisfied more efficiently. Generally formulated maps, goals and strategies give rise to the development of rules of different kind. They can be formal or informal, and they can be written down or known by stories told. People can be aware of them, or unaware. In case of unawareness we call it tacit knowledge or the individual and collective unconscious. In real life there are many cultures to be distinguished. A principal distinction is 11 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
that between more traditional and more modern cultures, or more conservative versus more progressive cultures. Traditional cultures offer quite hierarchical frameworks to deal with the problem of uncertainty. Gods rule the world. There are elites that rule societies on their behalf. Nobility rules the gentry, etc. In this way societies are very stratified. For everyone there is a position in the social structure, and if nobody resists the social problem of human rivalry has been solved. Then energy can be saved to solve the psychic and the economic problem. In more modern societies everyone is assumed to be free and responsible for their own and each other’s well-being. Individuals must be taught to solve their own economic, psychic and social problem, and in this culture institutional frameworks must be developed to make it possible for individuals to bear responsibility for their selves. If the culture is traditional and the institutions are not hierarchical and well-stratified, problems cannot be solved adequately. And so with progressive societies: free and responsible people cannot solve their problems in hierarchical institutional frameworks. Rules that constitute institutional frameworks affect human behaviour. Otherwise they are not really institutionalised. There are two mechanisms along which we can make rules more effective. The first mechanism uses the phenomenon of morality. People have the capacity to understand what is morality (practical reason) and they have the capacity to feel when a situation is morally relevant (moral sentiment or moral resentment). So if rules are institutionalised deviation from these rules create moral arousal, which implies dissatisfaction. The negative utilities that result from deviant behaviour are an incentive to stick to the institutionalised rules. A second mechanism uses the phenomenon of polity. Every system has a subsystem that is responsible for the control of the typical processes that constitute the system. This control system or polity must be institutionalised in such a way that the system does not deviate too much from its optimal strategy. A person is equipped with the capacity to judge, and can therefore decide to avoid too much deviation. A firm has a board, which is responsible for the formulation and application of optimal strategies. Societies have a government who is responsible for an effective institutional framework. If the government fails to avoid too much deviation, democratically organised societies trust people to vote for better politicians. Governments from hierarchically organised societies do not ask people for their opinion, since the masses are supposed to be ignorant. They are assumed to develop their own control mechanisms. In the following section we will discuss a series of worlds in which institutions are supposed to fulfil particular roles. Then we can illustrate why – within social science - different interpretations of the concept of institution are rivalling with each other, and why these rivalries can be conquered. 1.3 FEATURES Man is a social animal. Being social creature, he has some wants and assigned aims to comply them. 12 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Institution is a way of thought or action of some prevalence and permanence, which is embedded in the habits of a group or the customs of the people. Hence, it can be claimed that institution is that which people adopt to means for fulfilment of needs and objectives with procedures and behaviour. In simple words, institution is another word for procedure, convention and arrangements. To put in the words of E.S. Bogardus, “A social institution is a structure of society that is organised to meet the needs of people mainly, through well established procedures”. Every society consists of different types of institutions. Institutions are generally social in nature. They are established within a society, and affect different aspects of social life. It is the individuals and society that are responsible for establishing institutions within any society. Institutions are found in every type of society. They are universal and ubiquitous. They are found in different forms in the most primitive to the modern type of societies. All institutions are established procedures, governed by norms. They prescribe the ways of doing and acting. Individuals are socialized into institutional norms and regulations. Social acceptance makes these norms, rules and regulations binding on the members of society. Institutions are means of satisfying specific ends, which are basic and vital for the continued existence of society. These basic needs include the need for self- preservation, self-perpetuation and self-expression. Once social patterns are established and accepted by members of a society, they become more or less permanent patterns of behaviour. The basic structure and functions of institutions remain more or less same, though they may be subject to change because of changing social situations. We may not be able to see institutions as they are neither visible nor tangible. However, these institutions may be manifested in the forms of behaviour, rites and rituals. Associated with institutions are marriage rites, religious offerings and prayers, the existence of families and family bonds, and the various ways in which kin relationships are named, or kinship used. To the extent that institutions cannot be seen or felt, they are abstractions. Most institutions are established as mechanisms to control social behaviour. For example, economic institutions control and regulate the material necessities of people; political institutions control the basic functioning of society through formal agents like, the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. 13 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Since social life cannot be compartmentalized, and different aspects of individual life cannot be viewed in isolation, one can say that institutions governing different aspects of social life are interrelated. For example, the institution of family cannot survive without the existence of marriage as an institution. Similarly, without the establishment of family, kinship and kin relations would never come into existence. Institutions persist because they are based on traditions, whether oral or written. In primitive societies, institutions persisted and continued to survive on the basis of oral traditions, since the written word was hardly a part of such societies. In most of the modern societies, institutions survive on the basis of traditions and customs, which are formal or written. For example, many marriage rites and rituals have been formalized, though they still depend on traditions and customs that are accepted because they have been followed since time immemorial. Each institution may have its own identity, manifested by the use of certain symbols. For example, different religious groups may have different symbols that give them an identity. Each political party has its own symbol by which one can immediately identify that party. 1.4 DIFFERENCE FROM ASSOCIATION Citizen’s willingness to invest time and resources in causes other than their own is arguably a central requisite of liberal democracies. Even non-political associations seem to have unintended but important consequences for citizens’ partaking in public affairs. Volunteering is good for others and is good for you. This is not to say that all associational activity enhances the common good or that there is a one-way causality between high levels of associational activity and effective political and economic institutions. Yet, there is enough evidence about benevolent effects of associational involvement to warrant further investigation into the scope and the structure of civic engagement. The question of civic engagement is of particular importance in – and for – Europe. Civic engagement is not only significant within the context of the nation state but even more crucial as a prerequisite to Europe’s societal integration. Divergence in the practices of civic engagement in different member states may preclude the emergence of a European public sphere. Exceedingly different degrees of citizen involvement between the nation-states and a poorly developed cross-national exchange will distort the aggregation of citizens’ preferences in European politics. In contrast vibrant civil societies operate as a potential antidote to the democratic deficit of the EU. This chapter will analyse, describe and compare a wide range of social and citizen participation. We will study membership and engagement in voluntary associations (citizen participation) and also less formal involvement in the neighbourhood and in the community (social participation). We will also look at patterns of inter-personal trust in people from one’s own and from other countries as a certain level of transnational trust would 14 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
seem to represent a prerequisite for the development of a vibrant European civil society. After an initial characterisation of civic engagement we will start out with informal dimensions of social cohesion. We then describe types, scope and patterns of voluntarism in comparative perspective. Similarities and differences between the member states will be elaborated at the empirical level of observation. The question is whether it is possible to draw up separate profiles of civic engagement for different groups of countries and, if so, how each individual group should be characterised. Civic engagement has only recently received renewed attention. This is evidenced, for example, by the United Nations’ declaration of the year 2001 as the International Year of Volunteers. Scientific analyses carried out in the past few years have mainly sought to ascertain the level of engagement of citizens, the extent to which the latter is influenced by the underlying social structure and by both the individual motives behind and the many impediments to civic engagement. From the political perspective, interest in various European countries has focused on changes to national legislation which has furthered the design of social parameters that foster engagement Civic engagement is usually more institutionalised than what we have called collective action. What the former different definitions have in common is that they concern activities that are usually linked to some form of organisation, ranging from citizens’ projects and self- help groups to clubs, associations and foundations as well as political parties and trade unions. These organisational structures are seen as the underlying infrastructure for civic engagement. Although formal membership in an organisation says very little about what people actually do, it is often considered evidence of civic engagement. Beyond organised engagement, citizen involvement is also found in the form of activities carried out informally at neighbourhood, local or family level. A decisive criterion for the characterisation of activities within or without an organisational context as civic engagement is its public aspect. Any behaviour that only or primarily serves private purposes thus cannot be defined as civic engagement. It must be emphasised that the activities in question here are not necessarily those that are acceptable according to the prevailing norms, that are categorised as morally “good” and considered in some way altruistic. On the contrary, civic engagement is usually in some way concerned with the articulation of interests, and the actual activity must therefore not by any means necessarily comply with the prevailing norms. And in contrast to collective action again, it is not necessarily meant to influence society and politics. For a long time, civic engagement was not believed to have a very promising future – especially when seen in the context of the further development of the welfare state. Until well into the 1990s, volunteer workers were considered relics of the past in many countries. They were seen as well-meaning amateurs who helped out in the provision of professionally planned services and were often actually considered an obstacle to the implementation of such services. Proponents of the latter view believed volunteer workers might have been better replaced by paid professional staff. Although civic engagement was officially appreciated and applauded 15 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
by policy-makers and large organisations on appropriate occasions, it also tended to be derided as a playground for people who were obsessed with joining clubs. This attitude has changed recently in the sense that under the current economic pressure and in the context of the symptoms of three modern crises – the crisis of the welfare state, the crisis of the social security systems and the crisis of (i.e. growing dissatisfaction with) democracy – civic engagement has become an essential component of a new model of order and organisation. According to this new perspective, the state, the economy and civil society should collaborate more closely in the future. Increasingly, a closer link between civic engagement, participation in public life, social cohesion and democratic development is now being advocated – the kind of link already seen by Tocqueville as an antidote to escalating individualisation and destructive materialism. Figure 1.1: Difference from Association We come across myriad organizations in our lives and sometimes it becomes confusing to differentiate between them on the basis of their nature, scope and purpose. One such type of organization is association. We know that there are various types of associations like PETA, sports associations, blind association, and alumni associations and so on, but what is it that separates associations from organizations. As the name implies, an association is a type of organization where people having common interests come together on a platform. Association is also a word that is freely used in daily conversation where we describe the association of friends. It is a body which is a group of persons that comes together to promote some idea, sport, or object. Association is a very broad word that incorporates all types of alliances, leagues, cooperatives, conventions, gilds, 16 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
clubs, fellowships, unions, and conferences where likeminded people associate for a common cause or interest. When we talk about an institute, we are concerned with an association organized to promote art or science or education in general. ASEAN is an association of nations dedicated to economic and political cooperation in South East Asia. All types of alliances and leagues are in a way association. We hear a lot about chamber of commerce. It is actually an association of businessmen to protect and promote business interests. There are professional associations that are joined by practitioners of a particular profession such as doctors, nurses, lawyers, etc. Organizations are bodies of persons formed for a particular purpose. This definition implies that associations are also organizations. There are various entities like corporations, governments, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, charities, foundations, and even universities. The word organization has different meanings in different contexts such as business, sociology, religion etc. There are world bodies like UN and WHO that are organizations and there are small businesses like partnerships that are also organizations. Organizations are typical in that they have a definite structure and roles and functions of office holders. For management, an organization is an instrument to achieve a goal. As we know people have different needs and desires. Consequently, they also adopt different means to fulfil those needs and desires. They may fulfil their needs independently or having a conflict with others to protect one’s own interests. But they also fulfil their needs by cooperating with each other. In fact, it is this co-operative effort and mutual assistance of an individual among themselves leads to the fulfilment of ends of the collective. When a group is expressly organised around a particular interest an association is born. Association is a type of social group which is an important characteristic of modern complex society. Associations were known in earlier social formations but the nature of association as a form of social group in modern industrial society is different from earlier ones. As society gets more complex people’s needs and interest also expand. Interest or utility takes supremacy in more complex societies and begin to determine every sphere of life. Therefore, sociologically speaking groups which are established in order to protect and enhance people’s interests through certain specified rules and regulations in an organised manner are called associations. Institutions are set of rules that structure social interaction. Institutions can be understood as code of conduct or a set of rules and guidelines for human activity. They structure human interaction through stated or implied rules that set expectations. Some examples of institutions are law, education, marriage, and family. 1.5 COMMUNITY In 2007, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which has now been ratified by 160 countries, including Canada. In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) released guidelines recommending a community-based approach to empower persons with disabilities to access and benefit from 17 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
education, employment, health, and social services. Canadian provinces have introduced legislation and initiatives in an attempt to build more inclusive communities for their citizens with disabilities. For example, in 2008, Ontario enacted the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, thereby engaging the province in the modernization of community-based supports and services for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A report was recently released in British Columbia that lays out its vision to become a jurisdiction in which “disabilities are no barrier to living full lives, contributing to communities, and where no British Columbian is ever told their goals and dreams aren’t realistic because of their disability”. Despite such legislation and initiatives to improve community-based supports and services and which emphasize the rights of persons with disabilities to live in inclusive and supportive communities’ community remains a concept that is ill-defined. The lack of consensus on the definition of community might lead to form contradictory or incompatible assumptions. It also makes it difficult to study the impact of legislations, policies and services provided to persons with disabilities. Since ancient Greek philosophy, the view of community has evolved and changed with the evolution of human interactions and behaviours. Aristotle described community as a compound of parts having functions and interests in common. However, in the 19th century, the German philosopher and sociologist Ferdinand Tunnies differentiated between community and society. According to Tunnies, community is represented by individuals’ close social ties (e.g., family, friends and neighbours), whereas society refers to abstract associations among individuals who do not share feelings, and do not necessarily share space and time. In the 20th century, many authors have attempted to better define community. Nearly 100 definitions of community were identified and analysed in the academic literature to ascertain the extent of agreement; people was the only common component identified. The goal of this paper is to better understand how the concept of community is defined to help guide policy, supports and services planning, and to build inclusive communities. To this end, a review of definitions in peer-reviewed papers from various disciplines studying human behaviours and interactions was conducted, as were focus groups exploring understanding of community among persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities and members of their support planning teams. A literature review was conducted to identify and compare existing definitions of community. In addition, the perspective of four persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities and members of their communities was explored through focus groups, as part of a larger study that was approved by the Research Ethics Boards at Queen’s University, Lake head University, and the University of Ottawa. This is part of a larger study devoted to understanding the planning process and experience of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities receiving developmental services. More specifically, successes in person-directed planning (PDP) approaches to building 18 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
community capacity were studied with four individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their planning teams. A PDP approach to planning supports aims to strengthen the connections people with intellectual and developmental disabilities have with others in the community, as well as to build capacity within the community to support individuals with unique needs. Twenty people participated in the study, including four adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, two natural supports (i.e., family members), and employees of agencies providing supports to adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The supports needs of the participants with intellectual and developmental disabilities ranged from minimal to extensive; one of the participants used a wheelchair and had important physical impairments, one was visually impaired, and three had significant limitations in their communication abilities. These teams participated in a series of focus groups, one of which focused on their definition or understanding of community. Participants were asked three questions: What does the word community mean to you? Who do you consider to be part of community and why? and Is there anybody else who’s part of community and why? The focus group session was held via videoconference; all sessions were audio recorded and later transcribed verbatim. Definitions of community were analysed using a thematic content approach. First, the definitions extracted from the identified research papers were analysed. The first author divided the definitions into segments, and grouped segments that were found to be synonyms, or shared similar meaning, under the same category. Categories were then merged into themes. An independent researcher reviewed the coding structure. In addition, a senior researcher audited decision-making processes during coding, and resolved disagreements with the first author by revising, merging, and dividing categories to respect the original meaning of the data. The first author checked intra-coder agreement by coding the same segments three times, and then revising the list of segments included in each category several times. Following a framework approach, the definitions extracted from the focus group discussions were coded using the categories and themes identified through the analysis of research studies; categories and themes were expanded as needed (i.e., if the meaning of a segment did not match any of the existing categories/themes). A community is a social unit (a group of living things) with commonality such as norms, religion, values, customs, or identity. Communities may share a sense of place situated in a given geographical area (e.g. a country, village, town, or neighbourhood) or in virtual space through communication platforms. Durable relations that extend beyond immediate genealogical ties also define a sense of community, important to their identity, practice, and roles in social institutions such as family, home, work, government, society, or humanity at large. Although communities are usually small relative to personal social ties, \"community\" may also refer to large group affiliations such as national communities, international communities, and virtual communities. 19 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
The English-language word \"community\" derives from the Old French comuneté (currently \"Communauté\"), which comes from the Latin communitas \"community\", \"public spirit\" (from Latin communis, \"common\"). Human communities may have intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, and risks in common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness. 1.6 ASSOCIATION AND ORGANIZATION An association is a group of people organized for a particular purpose or a limited number of purposes. To constitute an association there must be, firstly, a group of people; secondly, these people must be organized one, i.e., there must be certain rules for their conduct in the groups, and thirdly, they must have a common purpose of a specific nature to pursue. Thus, family, church, trade union, music club all are the instances of association. Associations may be formed on several bases, for example, on the basis of duration, i.e. temporary or permanent like Flood Relief Association which is temporary and State which is permanent; or on the basis of power, i.e. sovereign like state, semi-sovereign like university and non- sovereign like club, or on the basis of function, i.e. biological like family, vocational like Trade Union or Teachers’ Association, recreational like Tennis Club or Music Club, Philanthropic like charitable societies. According to Maclver, “An organization deliberately formed for the collective pursuit of some interest or set of interest, which the members of it share, is termed as association. Ginsberg writes, “An association is a group of social beings related to one another by the fact that they possess or have instituted in common an organization with a view to securing specific end or specific ends:” G. D. H. Cole says, “By an association I mean any group of persons pursuing a common purpose by a course of corporative action extending beyond a single act and for this purpose agreeing together upon certain methods of procedure, and laying down, in however, rudimentary a form, rule for common action.” Essential Elements of Association Association is a group of persons collected together with some particular aim. It is, thus, a concrete group which can be seen; while at work. Thus, in contrary to society’ Association is a concrete form of organization of human beings. Like community, association does not grow spontaneously. It has no natural growth and it does not grow itself. They are created by men to satisfy some motive or cause Rules and regulations are formed to run a particular kind of association and the member of the association run it on the basis of these rules and regulations. 20 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
There, we find a ‘code of conduct’ to be followed by the office-bearers and other members of the association. Moreover, their rules and regulations are subjected to drastic changes if the creator of association desire so. No association is formed without any aim. First, there is the problem and the solution of which, becomes the aim of the association formed to solve such problems. For example, if it is a dramatic association, then its aim will naturally be to stage dramas and plays. No association can maintain its identity without any distinct aim and object. Every association floats on the ground of certain rules and regulations. It also contains code of conduct for the members. Those who follow the rules^ and regulations provided for and participate in the pursuit of the aim of the association are only called as the members of it. Anyone acting contrary or disowning the obligations as members may be expelled from the membership; as per procedure framed for the purpose. For example, if the member of “political association” stops believing or start criticizing the policies of the association of which he has been, hitherto the supporter, shall cease to be the member. It also becomes obligatory for every member to co-operate with other in the achievement of the goals of the association. Otherwise, what for else is he the member? What is his aim of joining such an association? The answer is; it is useless for him to be the member of such an association, and it is equally useless for an association to keep such an individual on the membership list. An association is not an essential organization like State or society. Neither is it a natural organization in which every one’s contribution can be asked for on natural grounds. Neither there is any common instinct among the persons based on common and unified ideology to become the member of a particular association. And, also there is no ‘whips’ from the heaven or State to every citizen to form an association and to become its member. But the membership of an association is voluntary. A person becomes the members because he wants it and only because he likes it and if he grows a feeling of dislike he is absolutely free to disown any such association. “Mr. A is free to become the member of Arya Samaj and shift its memberships from Arya Samaj to Sanatan Dharam Samaj.” There are no restrictions, no law and no suppression of Mr. A for his changes. The life of an association is up to the achievement of the aim for which it has been created. The existence of association after his achievement of the aim becomes, immaterial and irrelevant. It becomes nominal and lifeless body of formalities only. “The aim is the soul of the association. 21 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Differences between Association and Community An association is not a community but a group within a community. The differences between them are as follows: Firstly, F. Tonnies remarks that community is a form of grouping which arise spontaneously or naturally and on a type of will which is deeply rooted in the entire personality. Association, on the other hand, is artificially formed, reflective or deliberate, resting on a type of will which consciously means to attain given ends. Community is organic, spontaneous, and creative but association is mechanical, artificial and held together by ties which belong to the world of rivalries, bargaining, and compromises. Secondly, as used by Maclver, the community is “a focus of social life”. It is regarded as integral or whole because it fulfils all the needs of its members. One’s life may be lived wholly within it. An association, on the other hand, is “an organization of social life”. It is regarded as partial because it is formed for the pursuit of specific interests or aims. Thirdly, associations exist within community. An association is formed by the individuals for their own interests. There are a number of associations within a community. According to Maclver, association is not a community but an organisation within a community. Fourthly, the membership of an association has a limited significance. Membership is voluntary. They withdraw their membership when they lose interest in it. But the community membership has a wider significance and compulsory. People are born into community but they choose their associations. Lastly, community sentiment is necessary to constitute community without which the existence of community cannot be imagined. There can be no community without the sense of “we-feeling”. But sentiment is not at all a basic factor to form an association. The distinctions between community and association were very much clear in primitive societies. But due to the rapid of urbanization, development of transportation and communication, it becomes very difficult to distinguish between them. Differences between Association and Society The following are the points of differences between association and society: Firstly, society is a system of social relationships which are invisible and intangible. It is the result of natural evolution. Whereas association is a group of people. It is deliberately created or is artificial. Secondly, society is older than association, it is in existence since man appeared on the earth while association arose at a later stage when man learn to organise himself for the pursuit of some particular purpose. 22 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Thirdly, man cannot live without society. Society will exist as long as man exists. The membership of society is compulsory. On the other hand, man may live without being a member of any association at all. Association may be only transitory. The membership of association is voluntary. Lastly, society comes into existence for the general wellbeing of the individuals. Hence, the aim of society is general. It is marked by both co-operation and conflict. It may be organised or unorganised. But association, on the other hand, is formed for the pursuit of some particular interest or interests. Hence, the aim of association is particular. It is based on co-operation. It must be organised. Organization Organization happens when people work together to accomplish some desired end state or goal. It can happen through intentionally designed activity, spontaneous improvisation, or some combination of the two, but it always depends upon coordinated effort. As a simple example, think about the goal of moving a large stone, too big for one human working alone to push uphill. Two or even more won’t budge it either, unless they coordinate their efforts. But people often pursue more complex goals than pushing a stone uphill. Putting Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon meant coordinating everything from cleaning offices and buying paperclips to training the astronauts and designing, building, and launching their spacecraft. Supplying the Tsukiji Fish Market in Tokyo that serves the restaurants and fishmongers of the world depends on the coordinated efforts of fishing crews that sail off the coasts of Cartagena (Spain), Halifax (Canada), Boston (US), and Pusan (South Korea), and on the mostly Japanese buyers who fly to these places to survey the catch, purchase the best fish available, and crate and ship them to Tokyo. As these examples show, the coordination of human interests and activities can range from the simple to the massively complex, and its goals from the mundane to the exotic. Organizing has been with us a long time. Prehistoric humans organized to hunt and gather food, find shelter, and protect and raise their children. To nurture their souls they made art and practiced religion. By grouping together in pursuing these goals, they formed the first human organizations – families and tribes. Of course, chimpanzees and apes banded together before humans appeared, and prior to that ants formed colonies and bees built hives. On some level, all social species realize that organizing improves their chances for survival in a competitive ecology. Through organization the strength and creativity of many can be directed toward survival or civilization via developments in technology and the accumulation of economic and cultural wealth. Competition is as important to organization as is cooperation. This might seem contradictory, but it is not. Competition arises from dependence on the environment to provide food and to feed other needs and desires. If resources were unlimited, then the drive to organize might be minimal. If food dropped off trees, the climate was temperate all year round, and nothing 23 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
tried to kill us, we might get by with only those forms of organization required to amuse or enlighten, such as art, religion, and philosophy. But resources have always been limited. Life pressures us to compete, whether that competition is over food, territory, desirable mates, or jobs. Individuals compete within their groups over status and position, and groups compete with each other in their quest to dominate. Thus competition is always part of organization even though organizations depend upon cooperation to realize their goals. Compared to those of other social species like ants, bees, and apes, the complexity of human organizations is enormous. Somewhere along the trajectory from being hunters and gatherers to becoming field hands and farmers, tribes grew into villages, and later into towns, cities, city-states, and nations. Another transformation occurred along with organizational complexity: specialization – the practice of limiting one’s activities so that expertise in a specific domain or particular skill can be achieved. For example, your building skills will likely improve if you do not also have to tend fields or educate your children. Of course, other species practice specialization too. Honeybee colonies can number anywhere from 20,000 to 60,000 members, and within them worker bees specialize as nursemaids, guards, construction workers, undertakers, and attendants to the queen. Specialization serves a society by increasing the quality and variety of goods and services available to its members and by providing efficiencies in their production and delivery that allow more work to be done with less time or effort. As communal life develops through specialization and the interdependence it creates, human society and its organizations become differentiated – different people adopt different roles, and different types of organization are created as people with similar talents and interests work together on specialized tasks. Further encouragement for specialization and differentiation comes from interaction between societies. Some of this interaction involves warfare, but in peaceful times often produces exchange relationships that grow into economies. Economies depend on trust between people. This trust in turn depends upon experiences of stable, successful exchange. To appreciate what this means in organizational terms requires another concept: institution – a time-honoured activity or organization that addresses what would otherwise be a persistent social problem by encouraging behaviour that stabilizes society. Examples of institutions include the handshake, money, banking, marriage, the family, religion, and government. Take the institutions of money and banking. Both were created to address the persistent problem of developing enough trust in trade to create an economy and keep it stable. People make rules about handling money that establish organizational institutions like banks, and other institutions (such as courts and prisons) to handle those who violate the rules. As institutions stabilized societies and relationships between them developed into differentiated city-states and nations, trade and other organized activities came under formal control through institutional practices such as tax collection and the licensing of organizations. Licensing, or chartering, involves giving organizations legal status as entities along with the right to engage in specified activities (such as trade, 24 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
industry, law, education). Over time, institutionalized businesses partnered with churches and armies, combining their wealth and influence to engage in exploration and exploitation. Exploration and the new trade it brought permitted local economies to grow while the potential for exploitation forged competitive relationships between businesses and societies. As this was going on, businesses were discovering new ways to differentiate using technology derived from the invention of the machine. The invention of machines to do work led to industrialization. Factories that demanded the labour of many were built to house machines and their operators, and to help owners and supervisors manage work. Workers came from rural areas to take advantage of new opportunities to make a living. Cities grew dramatically as industrialization concentrated the populations of the most economically aggressive nations and provided enormous wealth to those with the means to control the largest organizations. Many people moved from farms to cities, and urban values replaced rural ones in the identities of industrialized nations. Concentrated populations have encouraged the development of service economies that, when combined with the computer, produce another societal transformation of at least the same magnitude brought by the change from agriculture to industry. The computer magnifies the organizational effects of this transition because computer technology, along with the ability to easily traverse the globe, allows some economically powerful organizations to grow larger than many countries. Their growth has promoted capitalism around the world, led by giants like IBM, McDonalds, ABB, Siemens, Sony, and Unilever, supported by the political alignments of capitalist countries. The trade in which massive business organizations engage has contributed greatly to globalization, which in turn affects cultures and societies by mixing and blending their members as they travel around the world. These changes bring opportunities to further increase the complexity of organizations, though limits to their growth are becoming more and more apparent. For example, the increasing power of corporations in a globalizing economy has put the natural resources of the planet under strain. Until recently, businesses were governed mainly by their owners, called capitalists because they provide the wealth (i.e. capital) needed to supply the resources business organizations depend upon for their survival. However, a different form of corporate governance is emerging. Known as the stakeholder perspective, this view, as articulated by philosopher R. Edward Freeman, holds that anyone whose life is affected by the activities of an organization has a stake in that organization, and thus a right to influence its decisions and actions. The term ‘stakeholder’ refers to customers, employees, and owners (shareholders), but also to unions, government regulators, local communities, NGOs, and activists, as well as to the suppliers, distributors, and other partners who make up the supply chain. A supply chain links business organizations that extract and supply raw materials to those that use these materials to make products and 25 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
distribute them to end-users. The definition of organization expands considerably when it includes the interests of all these stakeholders. Some believe that including all stakeholders in the definition of an organization creates a democratizing force that replaces hierarchy with more collaborative organizational forms (e.g. networks) and values environmental sustainability and social responsibility as much as profit. The movement to get companies to report on their social responsibility and environmental impact as well as their profit – collectively known as the triple bottom line – is one effect of stakeholder influence. That brand and reputation are becoming as important to organizations as products and profitability is an indication of the growing influence stakeholder’s exercise. Some take a dark view of capitalism and its effects. They say that capitalism manufactures the need to buy in order to keep itself and the growth it feeds alive. Once consumerism dominates a society, they warn, it enslaves all. The argument that capitalism shifts economic activity away from production and toward consumption is supported by the economies of the United States and Western Europe, whose industries have outsourced much of their manufacturing activity to the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India, and China – generating a new phase of economic development. But the political systems and cultures of the BRIC countries are markedly different from those of the United States and Western Europe, and, while their economies are growing rapidly now, questions of stability and sustainability make their long-term influence on the world and its organizations hard to predict. This short history introduced some of the most enduring ideas associated with organizations: cooperation, competition, goals, growth, size, complexity, differentiation, specialization, economy, globalization, structure, power, institution, and culture. With these ideas in mind, it is time to examine the concept of organizations and its close associates, organization and organizing It is difficult to say when humans first recognized organization as such, but at some point the idea appeared as an abstract concept. It takes disciplined imagination to think about organization. You can experience the discipline by challenging yourself to make distinctions between three related words we have been using without definition: organization, organizations, and organizing – let’s call them the three so Organization and organizations are nouns, while organizing refers to action and thus to a verb. Nouns name things, for example they can refer to entities, states, or conditions, as they do in the term’s organizations and organization. Verbs, on the other hand, can be inflected to indicate past, present, and future, bringing with them concern for the effects of passing time. Organization and organizations may be more closely related than either is to organizing, but the fact that all three build on the Greek root Zægann (organ on, meaning tool) suggests that the three Os are going to be difficult to distinguish. It is worth the effort, however, as much of what we know about our subject is built on taking one or another of these nuanced distinctions as primary. An analogy to some basic issues 26 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
in physics may help, since much organizational knowledge derives from insight provided by the physical sciences. The duality principle in physics states that, depending upon how you observe it, matter can appear as either a particle or a wave. Something similar can be said about organizations. Taking the particle view, you can locate an organization as an entity in time and space. The wave view gives you a sense of organizations as patterns of activity that recur with regularity in a wavelike fashion. The organizational entity known as Oxford Universit y can be found in a set of buildings located in Oxford, England, but taking the wave view, its organization can be seen in recurring teaching and learning activities, term after term. The two nouns organization and organizations are interrelated in a circular way. When organizational activities (e.g. teaching and learning) are repeated, like the frequencies that recur to form a wave, they come to be thought of as entities or objects. You might call an entity arising from patterns of teaching and learning an educational institution and exemplify it using particular organizations, like Oxford University. When you do this conversion in your mind, you make practices associated with a way of being (acts of organization) into entities in the same way that a wave becomes a particle for physicists. Conversely, you make a conversion similar to the one that turns a particle into a wave when you consider what is organizational about a particular entity; you think about coordinated practices that lead to desired end states (e.g. teaching and learning leading to education). These ideas are like the two sides of a coin; you cannot view both at the same time, but you cannot have one without the other. Another definitional challenge arises when you compare organization(s) with organizing. In physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that you cannot know with equal certainty a particle’s position and velocity; the more you know about where it is, the less you can know about where it is going. It is easy to remember the uncertainty principle if you think about an old joke in which Heisenberg gets pulled over by a policeman while driving down the highway. The policeman gets out of his car and walks towards Heisenberg’s, motioning for him to lower his window. The policeman says, ‘Do you know how fast you were driving, sir?’ to which Heisenberg replies, ‘No, but I know exactly where I am!’ Like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, you can think about organization as either outcome or process, but it is tough to think both ways at once. You have to be present in the moment to experience organizing, whereas you can observe organization(s) after the fact of their becoming. Yet, like the impossibility of knowing both a particle’s position and velocity, we are likely never to reconcile knowledge of organization(s) with that of organizing. Characteristics of Institutions We can understand the concept of social institution more precisely through its characteristics which are discussed as under. Cluster of Social Usage 27 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Institutions are composed of customs, mores, rules organized into a functioning unit. An institution is an organization of rules, and behaviour and is manifested through social activity and its material products. In short, the institution functions as a unit in the cultural system viewed as a whole. Relative degree of Permanence Our beliefs and actions are not institutionalized until they are accepted by others over a period of time. Once these beliefs and behaviour get recognition they become the yardstick for evaluation of the beliefs and actions of others. In short, institutions have a degree of permanence. It doesn’t, however, mean that they don’t change. As new ways of doing things appear and are found workable, they challenge stability and impel institutions towards change. Thus institutions function in accordance with cultural norms; however, in comparison with associations they have the greater degree of permanence. Well-defined Objectives Institutions have fairly well defined objectives which are in conformity with the cultural norms. The institution of marriage has the objective of regulating the network of social relationships and the members of the society would consciously work for the attainment of the disobjective. For example, marriage in the same caste or class. Objective has to be differentiated from different functions to which the members may be unaware of e.g. the function of marriage or gratification of sex urge and to have children. Cultural Objects of Utilitarian Value Cultural objects help in the attainment of institutional objectives. The cultural artifacts, beliefs and values system must help the institutions to attain their objectives. Cultural objects of utilitarian value which are used to accomplish the purposes of the institution are usually involved – buildings, tools, machinery, furniture and the like. Their forms and uses become institutionalized. For example, a weapon in our culture is shaped strictly in accordance with our ideas of efficiency, with few decorations, and those are dictated by aesthetic considerations. But the weapons of the primitive are decorated with symbols which are supposed to ensure the help of powers in the effective use of the weapon. Symbols are a Characteristic Feature of Institution A symbol may be defined as anything which depicts something else. Symbols may be either material or non-material in form. The institutions can have permanency, identity and solidarity if they have some symbols. The members of that institution feels quite closer to each other by sharing the common symbols. 28 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Institution has Definite Traditions: Each institution has a fairly definite tradition, oral or written. Such tradition refers to the purpose, attitude and the behaviour of the members. The tradition attempts to bring together individuals into functioning whole through established behaviour, common symbols and objectives. The traditions when become rigid, take the shape of the ritual. Institutions are Transmitters of the Social Heritage Social institutions are the great conservers and transmitters of the social heritage. It is in the institutions that individual learns basic values of the life. The child initially plays a role of general receptivity in the basic and multi-functional institution of the family and in this way receives the largest share of the social heritage. In his initial helpless state, culture is passed onto him by his family. As he learns to adapt himself to the expectations of his parents and siblings, he acquires many of the important elements of culture, which his elders have learned the same way in their time. He learns what is expected of him during the different stages of his life in the family. In this way, he is the personal conservator of an important part of the social heritage. Other institutions play a more specialized role in the preservation of the social heritage. Next to the family, the school is the most important institutional mechanism engaged in preserving and handing on the knowledge, skills and techniques of the culture. In the field of sacred learning, the educational and Trans missive function is performed by religious institution. The very life of the institution depends upon the continuity of the generations, with each slowly taking its responsible part and gradually handing its accumulated knowledge on the next. Institutions are Resistant to Social Change As patterned forms of behaviour, social institutions are more resistant to social change than behaviour where such uniformity and regularity do not apply. Institutional behaviour is by definition behaviour invested with social sanctions and structures to carry out these sanctions. It is natural that behaviour of this kind would be more resistant to social change than behaviour that has neither sanctions nor structures. Social institutions are thus, by their very nature, conservative elements in the social structure. They tend to hold firmly to the patterned behaviour of the past and to resist basic modifications therein. With the help of above description of the features of institutions we come to the conclusion that institutions are vary essential for the purpose of having an established way of living and unity among the constituent members. Social institutions are thus social patterns that establish the organized behaviour of human beings in the performance of basic social functions. 29 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
1.7 SUMMARY Regardless of the territorial location of the members of a community, the relational dimension is essential to the existence of a community. In several studies, people defined their community as the place where they work, participate, and interact with others. For members to be bounded to their community, they need to interact with each other and develop a sense a belonging; a subjective feeling of value and respect that results from a reciprocal relationship based on shared experiences, beliefs, or characteristics. Moreover, people are more likely to form relationships with peers who have similar characteristics. Consequently, community is frequently defined as a group of people who share attributes. However, the findings of this study indicate that communities can also be diverse; it was reported in two out of three focus group discussions. In addition, members of a community need to support each other in a reciprocal manner. During one of the focus groups, one individual brought up the issue of community as being comprised of people who are “unpaid” to provide support. The statement suggests that paid versus unpaid support is perceived differently: paid support might be perceived as artificial, or not as naturally occurring as those emerging from close social ties. Natural supports (e.g., friends or family) are known to be important for the promotion of physical and mental health, community involvement and sense of belonging. Dunbar has also explored the importance of the structural aspects of social networks, and notes that the quality of these relationships are determined by a number of factors (e.g., frequency of contact, shared interests, kinship); efforts to develop and maintain natural supports need to take these into account. Though infrequent, some studies defined community as an elastic process that needs to be managed and maintained in order to survive. This indicates that community is not formed at a single point in time, but instead requires collective action and participation over time. Community was also at times viewed as a tangible entity. For instance, if a person defines their community by the place where they live, then their neighbourhood is the tangible representation of their community. Conversely, symbols, such as shared rituals and language, may define membership to a community. Compared to Hillary’s results, this review allowed for a more detailed description of the group of people forming a community. While a unifying definition was proposed, it is important to remember that community is at its core a personal experience of belonging to a group; therefore, definitions of community are relative and grounded in a specific context. As such, researchers should clearly articulate their definition of community and recognize the limitations imposed by a particular definition 30 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
This study offers the following unifying definition of community: “A community is a group of people that interact and support each other, and are bounded by shared experiences or characteristics, a sense of belonging, and often by their physical proximity.” This definition could be used by researchers to inform development of measures of community to assess and evaluate practices and policies aimed at building inclusive communities. In doing so, it will be important that measures not rely solely on objective items, but also the subjective experiences of belonging and reciprocity in relationships with others. In the economic world all action is economic in nature, which means that people are economically motivated. The Omni-present problem of scarcity is the only problem they have. Scarcity is defined as the ratio between the needs of the actors and the resources available to satisfy these needs. All actors are motivated to minimise this ratio as much as possible. So the first axiom of the economic world says that actors are economic actors. To analytically isolate this motivation or drive from the operation of the social force, we assume that that are no social relationships. So, if I enter a shop, the shop keeper is just a scarce resource for me, not a human being, including a set of inalienable rights and duties. If there had not been any shopkeeper, but just a vendor machine, it would not have made any difference to me. It implies, for instance, that I do not care about the question whether the shopkeeper is male or female, black or white. There is no social distinction; neither rivalry between different religious or ethnic groups, nor solidarity between employed and unemployed, young and old, healthy and sick or handicapped people. Every actor is an independent individual without any social right or duty. So the second axiom of the economic world says that actors are asocial actors. To isolate the economic force from the operation of the psychic force, we assume that actors are perfectly rational. It means that human behaviour is based on deliberately collected information about costs and benefits of every possible strategy. Emotions are not playing any role when taking decisions. They only play a role when establishing what is desired and preferred. For example, if your beloved grandmother gave you a watch, it has much value to you. The emotion – the memory to your grandmother – makes the watch to a very valuable object for you. A rational approach to this problem would be as follows: first establish the value that you attach to the watch. Assume that this value of use is 10,000 euros. If another person is offering you 10,001 euros, it is rational for you to sell the watch to that person. If the price that is offered is lower than 10,000 euros, it is not rational to sell. An example of an emotional action is the following: you are shopping and suddenly you see a pair of very nice shoes; the size appears exactly the right one. 31 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
You decide to immediately buy it, without even asking for the price; you simply use your pin card. This is not a rational, but an emotional action. There is just the emotion of desire, without any deliberate weighing of costs and benefits. So a third axiom says that actors are perfectly rational actors. A fourth axiom says that classical logic can be applied without any problem.3 As explicated the economic world consists of economic, asocial, rational actors. They are not only inclined to produce and consume goods. They also develop rules for their selves and for the aggregate of actors. For instance, habits and routines are developed to economise on the use of scarce resources. Once a particular life style has been developed that fits the long term goals of the actor it is too costly to constantly consider different styles to see whether they are more efficient. In case of market failures it is efficient to develop a system of public governance, which adopts legislation that enhances the economic efficiency. In case of externalities, for instance, it is efficient to adopt rules to avoid prisoner’s dilemmas. So the economic world is characterized by economically motivated institutions. Remind that social relationships do not exist, which means that there is no culture. It means that there is no morally motivated control system. The political control system is the only one in operation. So only if persons really want to behave in particular ways, they accept their own rules and are inclined to adjust to the rules in case of deviation. Public rules can only be controlled by policing agents. They are allowed to punish those who breach the rules. Bribery is a natural phenomenon in the economic world, since policing agents are economic and rational and don’t have feelings of guilt in that case. We will never be able to explain and describe the real world. Our knowledge is about the picture or map of the real world we have in mind. However, if we construct a map on the basis of the idea that human actions are driven by the composite of three primary forces, rather than assuming just one, constant force the map will definitely be more realistic. In Keizer such an integrated map is constructed and analysed. Humans are driven to maximize utilities from the consumption of natural resources, and to maximize their self-respect from the way they live their life. We call the world that is analysed this way the PESworld. Methodological individualists consider these drives as the exogenous factors that explain human behaviour. In orthodox economics it is the constant economic force that explains why actors change their behaviour in case of a price change, for instance. But methodological collectivists explain human behaviour from the historical trends that are responsible for the evolution of societies at large. In this approach human nature is endogenous. Rules to reach ultimate goals more effectively can only be developed if people know what their ultimate goals are. But goals can only be established in connection with ideas about how to interpret the world. So institutions can only be developed in a 32 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
cultural context. Within this cultural-institutional setting people live their daily lives, have their experiences and adjust their behaviour if their experiences are different from what they expected. So the following scheme can be presented reflecting the relationship between culture, institutions, behaviour and experience. In this section we interpret the evolution of the Dutch welfare state in terms of our PES-approach. In this way we hope to illustrate how this approach could work, more than give an extensive analysis and explanation of this phenomenon. In our analysis the concepts ‘economic’, ‘rational’, and ‘social’ are at the centre. All actors are assumed to be economic, but some actors have a stronger economic motivation or force than others. All actors are assumed to be imperfectly rational, but some actors are more rational than others. And finally all actors are assumed to be social, but some actors are more social than others. If actors would be perfectly social, they have completely accepted the rules set by the prevailing culture and institutions. 1.8 KEYWORDS Absolute Monarchy- A political system under which a king or queen has complete control of a country. Achieved Status- A status that we either earn or choose and that is not subject to where or to whom we were born. Agents of Socialization- People, groups, and experiences that influence our behaviour and self-image. Aggregate - A collection of people who happen to be at the same place at the same time but have no other connection to one another. Alienation - The feeling of workers in a bureaucracy that they are being treated as objects rather than people. 1.9 LEARNING ACTIVITY 1. Create a session on concept of Community. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 2. Create a survey on Association and Organization. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 33 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
1.10 UNIT END QUESTIONS 34 A. Descriptive Questions Short Questions 1. Write about Organization in short term? 2. What is Association? 3. Describe the term Institutions? 4. Define the term Community? 5. Write the Meaning of Institutions? Long Questions 1. Discuss about the Features of Community. 2. Explain the concept of Association. 3. Examine the Difference from Association. 4. Describe the features of Institutions. 5. Illustrate the Overview of Organization. B. Multiple Choice Questions 1. Who coined the term sociology? a. Herbert Spencer b. Auguste Comte c. Emile Durkheim d. Karl Marx 2. When did the term sociology coined? a. 1839 b. 1732 c. 1835 d. 1650 3. Where is the term socious derived from which language? a. German b. Latin c. Greek d. Roman CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
4. Which are the words composing the term sociology a. Society and community b. Society and Science c. Socious and Logos d. Socious and science 5. Who is called the founding father of sociology? a. August Comte b. Emile Durkheim c. Marie Augustus d. Spencer Answers 1-b, 2-a, 3-b, 4-c, 5-a 1.11 REFERENCES References book Amsden, B. L., Stedman, R. C., & Kruger, L. E. (2011). The Creation and Maintenance of Sense of Place in a Tourism-Dependent Community. Leisure Science, 33, 32-51. Baker, P. M. A., & Ward, A. C. (2002). Bridging Temporal and Spatial ‘Gaps’ the Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Defining Communities. Information, Communication & Society, 5(2) Bettez, S. C. (2013). Community Building in Social Justice Work: A Critical Approach. Educational Studies, 49, 45-66. Textbook references Bloom, J. (1990). The relationship between social support and health. Social Science and Medicine, 30, 635-637. Capece, G., & Costa, R. (2013). The new neighbourhood in the internet era: network communities serving local communities. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(5), 438- 448. Chappell, N. L., Funk, L. M., & Allan, D. (2006). Defining Community Boundaries in Health Promotion Research. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21(2), 119-126. 35 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Website https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/top-10-unique-features-of-social- institutions/34962 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/207258327_What_Are_Institutions/link/556 c16be08aefcb861d61953/download https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/notes-on-community-association-and- institutions-of-sociology/8512 36 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
UNIT 2 - TYPES OF INSTITUTIONS 37 STRUCTURE 2.0 Learning Objectives 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Social 2.2.1 Family 2.2.2 Marriage 2.2.3 Kinship 2.3 Political 2.3.1 Stateless Societies 2.3.2 Politics in Society 2.4 Economic 2.4.1 Education 2.4.2 Market economy 2.4.3 Control economy 2.5 Cultural 2.5.1 Religion 2.5.2 Types of religious practices 2.6 Summary 2.7 Keywords 2.8 Learning Activity 2.9 Unit End Questions 2.10 References 2.0 LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this unit, you will be able to: DescribeaboutFamily. Illustrate the concept of Political. Examine the concept of Market economy. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
2.1 INTRODUCTION The concept of institution is a rather unclear concept in the contemporary social science literature. In the ‘Introduction’, I give a survey of the different interpretations of the concept of institution. In the first part, I make a distinction between loose norms and tight norms, and I define the concept of institution in connection with the concept of tight norm. Institution is a system of tight norms and additional norms specifying the validity scope of the tight norms as well as the control of their actual realization. Furthermore, I introduce the concept of quasi- institution to denote the typical transitions between norm systems of a different nature. In connection with the shaping of institutions and the control, I introduce the concept of the coverage of institution. The coverage of institution is the ability to shape and change the norms composing the given institution and to control the actions falling into the validity scope of institutional norms. In the second part, institutions are classified according to their coverage and distinction is made between externally covered, one-sidedly covered and internally covered institutions. Concerning quasi-institutions, I make a distinction between its two typical forms: the norm system with one-person coverage and institutional morals The concept of institution is a rather unclear and ambiguous concept in the contemporary social science and – more narrowly – sociological literature, and the different conceptions are closely connected to the typical sociological perspectives.1 However, these conceptions, which are very different from each other, are similar from the point of view that the concept of institution in a sense refers to the regularity and monitor able normalities of the actions of individuals and the interactions between them. In this introduction, before describing my own conception, I briefly review the typical conceptions of the concept of institution with regard to the main sociological perspectives. According to the different relatively widely accepted conceptions of the concept of institution, the institution may mean a special system of norms or rules the probability of attitudes and interpretational willingness’s, and monitor able normality of behaviour, the regularity of interactions. Furthermore, the institution may mean some group or organization, and finally, a sphere or a subsystem of society. According to one of the typical conceptions, the institution is of a cultural nature and consists of norms or rules that influence the actions of acting individuals.2 This conception is mostly typical of nor- mativism sociological theories, but it can also be encountered in authors representing other perspectives. One of the typical representatives of the nor-mativism version of this conception is Parsons, in whose view the institution is an aggregation of norms and roles integrated into a general and common value system and fulfilling the need-dispositions of the individuals involved. According to Parsons, institutions in principle meet the needs of individuals in their validity scope. Consequently, motivated by their expressive motives, individuals act in accordance with the institutional expectations, norms, and roles. According to the rationalist version of the conception in question, institutions are made up of norms or rules, but individuals do not conform to the institutional norms or rules in the way mentioned above. According to the representatives of the rationalist conception, the institutional norms 38 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
or rules and the sanctions attached to them establish incentives and constraints for the individuals to which they react rationally, considering their self-interests. Concerning the concept of institution, two conceptions have mainly evolved in the new institutional economics: one of them is that institutions are the sets or systems of rules that determine and constrain social behaviour and interaction; the other conception will be discussed below. In the so-called ‘institutions-as-rules’ conception, the most commonly cited definition of institutionsprings from North: ‘Institutions are the rules of the game in a society or, more formally, are the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction’. In this sense, institutions can be made up of both formal rules and informal rules. In the new institutional economics, the scholars of the main theories represent mainly this conception. However, Ingram and Clay suggest the use of this conception also for the sociological approach. In this view, ‘institutions are defined as the rules, combined with their enforcement mechanisms that constrain the choices of actors’. According to the second conception, which is mainly typical of the creativity perspective, the institution is of a mental or cognitive nature and consists of attitudes, the customary typification’s of actions and interpretational willingness’s. In other words, the institution includes the ideas and typification’s referring to the nature of reality as well as the conceptual frameworks whose usage enables the actors to attribute meaning to their environment and their actions. For example, Mead argues that ‘an institution is, after all, nothing but an organization of attitudes which we all carry in us. Berger and Luck man’s phenomenological sociology is located between the conceptions that are typical of the normativity and creativity perspectives, also from the viewpoint of the definition of the concept of institution. According to this notion, the institution seems to comprise symbolic behaviour patterns that, on one hand, reflect the already monitor able regularities of behaviour, however, on the other hand, these behaviour patterns are expressed in the typification of the actions and in this way they determine or influence the actions of individuals and the interactions between them. The approach of the institution as equilibrium and social interaction will be discussed below. The point here is that Aoki’s conception of institution is related to game equilibrium, but he defines institution as a system of shared beliefs. According to Aoki’s definition An institution is a self-sustaining system of shared beliefs about how the game is played. Its substance is a compressed representation of the salient, invariant features of an equilibrium path, perceived by almost all the agents in the domain as relevant to their own strategic choices.’ In this sense, the institution is of a mental and cognitive nature, and consists of shared beliefs that influence the actions of acting individuals. According to the third conception, the term institution means the observable regularities of behaviours and social interactions. This conception is mostly accepted in the rationalist perspective; however, a similar conception can also be found in authors representing fundamentally different perspectives. For example, Blumer, a typical representative of the creativity sociological perspective, argues that the institution is a network of interlinked actions and is a result of the 39 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
social interpretation process taking place between the participants. Banakar understands the concept of institution ‘as recursively ordered clustering’s of practices through which continued production of social practices at the level of agency are secured in time and space’. Godin claims that a social institution is – in its most general characterization and from an external point of view – a stable, valued and recurring pattern of behaviour. In political science, in Crawford and Ostrom’s view ‘institutions are enduring regularities of human action in situations structured by rules, norms, and shared strategies, as well as by the physical world’. As mentioned above, one of the two main conceptions of institution in the new institutional economics is the “institutions-as-rules” conception. Some new institutional economists, the representatives of the other main conception, build on game theory and apply the “institutions-as-equilibria” approach; that is, they conceptualize the institution as the equilibrium of a strategic game. According to Scoter one of the early representatives of this conception – institutions are ‘regularities in behaviour which are agreed to by all members of a society and which specify behaviour in specific recurrent situation’. The core idea in the ‘institutions-as equilibria’ approach is that it is ultimately the behaviour and the expected behaviour of others rather than cultural norms or rules that induce people to behave in a particular way. In this approach, economic actors strive for individual utility while recognizing that the existing institution is a self-enforcing equilibrium that shapes the consequences of their actions. According to the fourth conception, the term ‘institution’ is often used in a sense similar to the concepts of social group and social organization. This conception is not closely connected to any of the main perspectives but mostly corresponds to the structuralist perspective. For example, for Lane and Ersson the conception that an institution is an organization is one of the two main conceptions. In Martin’s view: ’Institutions are constituted by collectivises of people who associate with each other extensively, through interaction, develop recursive practices and associated meanings’. Blondel argues that, in a political context, institutions are primarily organizations. Finally, by institutions some authors in the normativity system theories mean spheres or subsystems of society; however, they mostly accept the normativity conception of the nature of institutions. English textbooks of general sociology, which deal with spheres of society like the economy, politics, education and religion, etc., under the heading ‘institutions’ reflect mainly this conception. Since the 1980s of the past century, with the spread of the new institutional theory or new institutionalism (mainly in the disciplines of economics, political science, organization theory, and sociology), the concept of institution has been and is in the focus of increasing attention. However, the flourishing of the new institutionalism has not contributed to an agreement concerning the concept of institution. 2.2 SOCIAL Social media are interactive technologies that allow the creation or sharing/exchange of information, ideas, career interests, and other forms of expression via virtual communities 40 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
and networks. While challenges to the definition of social media arise due to the broad variety of stand-alone and built-in social-media services currently available, there are some common features: Social media are interactive Web 2.0 Internet-based applications. User-generated content—such as text posts or comments, digital photos or videos, and data generated through all online interactions—is the lifeblood of social media. Users create service-specific profiles for the website or app that are designed and maintained by the social-media organization. Social media helps the development of online social networks by connecting a user's profile with those of other individuals or groups. Users usually access social media services via web-based apps on desktops and laptops, or download services that offer social media functionality to their mobile devices (e.g., smartphones and tablets). As users engage with these electronic services, they create highly interactive platforms through which individuals, communities, and organizations can share, co-create, discuss, participate, and modify user-generated content or self-curated content posted online. Additionally, social media are used to document memories; learn about and explore things; advertise oneself; and form friendships along with the growth of ideas from the creation of blogs, podcasts, videos, and gaming sites. This changing relationship between human and technology is the focus of the emerging field of techno self-studies. Social media outlets differ from traditional media (e.g., print magazines and newspapers, and TV and radio broadcasting) in a variety of ways, including quality, reach, frequency, usability, immediacy, and permanence. Additionally, social media outlets operate in a dialogic transmission system, i.e., many sources to many receivers, while traditional media outlets operate under a monologic transmission model (i.e., one source to many receivers). For instance, a newspaper is delivered to many subscribers and a radio station broadcasts the same programs to an entire city. Since the dramatic expansion of the Internet, digital media or digital rhetoric can be used to represent or identify a culture. Studying how the rhetoric that exists in the digital environment has become a crucial new process for many scholars. Observers have noted a wide range of positive and negative impacts of social media use. Social media can help to improve an individual's sense of connectedness with real or online communities and can be an effective communication (or marketing) tool for corporations, entrepreneurs, non-profit organizations, advocacy groups, political parties, and governments. Observers have also seen that there has been a rise in social movements using social media as a tool for communicating and organizing in times of political unrest. 41 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
2.2.1 Family Entrepreneurial companies often become family-owned businesses. While the spouse of the founder may have done work on behalf of the new venture in the early stages, the real transition from an entrepreneurial to a family business typically happens when the children of the company founder join the business as employees. The business may very well continue to be an entrepreneurial company and may prefer to be known that way because the owners are concerned with the perception of nepotism and lack of professionalism often ascribed to family businesses. But once next-generation members join the ranks of employees and/or shareholders, the nature of the firm changes, as do its challenges and its unique competitive profile. Family businesses are ubiquitous. Family-owned and family-controlled firms account for approximately 90 percent of all incorporated businesses in the United States, where approximately 17 million family firms (including sole proprietorships) operate. A full one- third of all Fortune 500 companies are family-controlled, and about 60 percent of publicly traded firms remain under family influence. Many family businesses are small, but there are approximately 138 billion-dollar family firms in the United States alone, with 19 such firms operating in France, 15 in Germany, 9 each in Italy and Spain, and 5 each in Canada and Japan. In the United States, family firms account for 64 percent of the gross domestic product, or approximately $6 trillion, 85 percent of private-sector employment, and about 86 percent of all jobs created in the past decade. In Germany they represent approximately 80 percent of all businesses and employ 80 percent of the working population. Family businesses are also ubiquitous in the economies of Spain and France, where they are estimated to represent approximately 80 percent of all companies and account for about 75 percent of the employment. And in Italy, India, and Latin American countries the estimates skyrocket, with 90 percent to 98 percent of all companies being family firms. One study also found that contrary to the prevalent stereotype of family businesses as nepotistic and conflict-ridden underperformers, family firms perform better than nonfamily firms.In fact, the study notes, 35 percent of the S&P 500 firms are family controlled (with the families owning nearly 18 percent of their firms’ outstanding equity), and these family-controlled firms outperformed management- controlled firms by 6.65 percent in return on assets (using either earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization [EBITDA] or net income) during the past decade. Similar results were found in terms of return on equity. Family firms were also responsible for creating an additional 10 percent in market value between 1992 and 1999, as compared with the 65 percent of the S&P firms that are management-controlled. The evidence therefore says that U.S. firms with founding-family ownership perform better, on average, than nonfamily- owned firms. This strongly suggests that the benefits of family influence often outweigh its costs. Arguably, family businesses are the primary engine of economic growth and vitality not only in the United States but in free economies all over the world. In Europe as a whole, family-controlled firms (with a minimum family stake of 50 percent) outperformed the 42 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Morgan Stanley Capital International Europe index by 16 percent annually from 2001 to 2006. Another study of European family controlled firms (this one with a minimum family stake of 10 percent and $1 billion in market capitalization) found that family companies outperformed the pan-European Dow Jones Stoxx 600 Index by 8 percent annually from the end of 1996 to the end of 2006.5 Notice that the data all come from family-controlled but publicly traded firms. Unfortunately, no research currently compares the performance of the privately held universe because the data are unavailable to scholars. Data from research conducted in several other countries are discussed in this chapter’s section on Competitive Advantage: The Resource-Based View and summarized in Table 1.1. These give us many glimpses of the contributions of family businesses to the global economy. Besides financial outperformance, families and families in business seem also to be a significant factor in the creation of new ventures. While the venture capital industry seems to be credited for its role, it is wealthy individuals and families in business that provide the bulk of the seed capital and early-stage funding for a large segment of the entrepreneurial population. Of the 286 million entrepreneurs worldwide who launched new ventures since the mid-1990s, only 19,000 were financed by venture capital firms, which raised only $59 billion, versus the $271 billion provided by family and friends operating as angel investors.6 on the down side, approximately 85 percent of all new businesses fail within their first five years of operation. Among those that survive, only 30 percent are successfully transferred to the second generation of the founding-family owners. This high failure rate amounts to the squandering of a significant opportunity for job and wealth creation in many communities. Not all family businesses that are not passed down to the next generation go on to close their doors, but many do. And the odds get worse in the transitions between the second and third generations and the third and fourth generations, when only 12 percent and 4 percent of such businesses, respectively, remain in the family. This seems to prove true the old adage “from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.”7 Today, there is a widespread myth that a company is prehistoric and on the road to extinction unless it is “high tech” or has grown to be a very large, diversified multinational corporation. Ironically, this myth is often promoted by news media that are largely family-controlled; leading newspapers such as the New York Times (owned by the Sulzberger family), the Washington Post (the Graham family), and the Wall Street Journal (the Murdoch family) come to mind. Yet, in the presence of widespread global hyper competition, family businesses that are niche-focused and high quality and have great customer service are thriving. You might be surprised to learn that Smucker’s, Perdue Farms, Gap, Levi Strauss, L.L. Bean, Hermes (France), Zara/Inditex (Spain) Mars, Femsa/Tecate (Mexico), Bacardi, William Grant & Sons (Scotland), Osborne Wines (Spain), Fidelity Investments, Banco Popular (Puerto Rico), Timken, Reliance Industries and Modi Group (India), LG Electronics (Korea), Casio (Japan), Marriott/ Ritz-Carlton, American Greetings, Hallmark, Ford Motor, 43 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Fiat (Italy), BMW (Germany), Kohler, Roca (Spain), Nordstrom, Ikea (Sweden), Metro A.G. (Germany), SC Johnson, Bigelow Tea, and Wal-Mart are all family-owned or family- controlled. And then there are thousands of smaller and less well known, but just as successful, family owned businesses—companies that build homes and office buildings, manufacture unique products, and provide custom services; that are the backbone of most supply chains and distribution channels; and that are the retailers for much of what consumers buy. 2.2.2 Marriage Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock is a culturally recognized union between people called spouses. It establishes rights and obligations between them, as well as between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. It is considered a cultural universal, but the definition of marriage varies between cultures and religions, and over time. Typically, it is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged or sanctioned. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. A marriage ceremony is called a wedding. Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes. Whom they marry may be influenced by gender, socially determined rules of incest, prescriptive marriage rules, parental choice, and individual desire. In some areas of the world arranged marriage, child marriage, polygamy, and forced marriage are practiced. In other areas, such practices are outlawed to preserve women's rights or children's rights (both female and male) or as a result of international law. Marriage has historically restricted the rights of women, who are sometimes considered the property of the husband. Around the world, primarily in developed democracies, there has been a general trend towards ensuring equal rights for women within marriage (including abolishing coverture, liberalizing divorce laws, and reforming reproductive and sexual rights) and legally recognizing the marriages of interfaith, interracial, and same-sex couples. Controversies continue regarding the legal status of married women, leniency towards violence within marriage, customs such as dowry and bride price, forced marriage, marriageable age, and criminalization of premarital and extramarital sex. Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community, or peers. It is often viewed as a contract. A religious marriage is performed by a religious institution to recognize and create the rights and obligations intrinsic to matrimony in that religion. Religious marriage is known variously as sacramental marriage in Catholicism, nikah in Islam, nissuin in Judaism, and various other names in other faith traditions, each with their own constraints as to what constitutes, and who can enter into, a valid religious marriage. Governments that support monogamy may allow easy divorce. In a number of Western countries, divorce rates approach 50%. Those who remarry do so usually no more than three 44 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
times. Divorce and remarriage can thus result in \"serial monogamy\", i.e. having multiple marriages but only one legal spouse at a time. Serial monogamy creates a new kind of relative, the \"ex-\". The \"ex-wife\", for example, remains an active part of her \"ex-husband's\" or \"ex-wife's\" life, as they may be tied together by transfers of resources (alimony, child support), or shared child custody. Bob Simpson notes that in the British case, serial monogamy creates an \"extended family\" – a number of households tied together in this way, including mobile children (possible exes may include an ex-wife, an ex-brother-in-law, etc., but not an \"ex-child\"). These \"unclear families\" do not fit the mould of the monogamous nuclear family. As a series of connected households, they come to resemble the polygynous model of separate households maintained by mothers with children, tied by a male to whom they are married or divorced. Polygamy is a marriage which includes more than two spouses. When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny, and there is no marriage bond between the wives; and when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry, and there is no marriage bond between the husbands. If a marriage includes multiple husbands or wives, it can be called group marriage. A molecular genetic study of global human genetic diversity argued that sexual polygyny was typical of human reproductive patterns until the shift to sedentary farming communities approximately 10,000 to 5,000 years ago in Europe and Asia, and more recently in Africa and the Americas. As noted above, Anthropologist Jack Goody's comparative study of marriage around the world utilizing the Ethnographic Atlas found that the majority of Sub-Saharan African societies that practice extensive hoe agriculture show a correlation between \"Bride price\" and polygamy. A survey of other cross-cultural samples has confirmed that the absence of the plough was the only predictor of polygamy, although other factors such as high male mortality in warfare (in non-state societies) and pathogen stress (in state societies) had some impact. Marriages are classified according to the number of legal spouses an individual has. The suffix \"-gamy\" refers specifically to the number of spouses, as in bi-gamy (two spouses, generally illegal in most nations), and poly-gamy (more than one spouse). Societies show variable acceptance of polygamy as a cultural ideal and practice. According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry. However, as Miriam Zeitzen writes, social tolerance for polygamy is different from the practice of polygamy, since it requires wealth to establish multiple households for multiple wives. The actual practice of polygamy in a tolerant society may actually be low, with the majority of aspirant polygamists practicing monogamous marriage. Tracking the occurrence of polygamy is further complicated in jurisdictions where it has been banned, but continues to be practiced. 45 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Zeitzen also notes that Western perceptions of African society and marriage patterns are biased by \"contradictory concerns of nostalgia for traditional African culture versus critique of polygamy as oppressive to women or detrimental to development.\" Polygamy has been condemned as being a form of human rights abuse, with concerns arising over domestic abuse, forced marriage, and neglect. The vast majority of the world's countries, including virtually all of the world's developed nations, do not permit polygamy. There have been calls for the abolition of polygamy in developing countries. Polygyny usually grants wives equal status, although the husband may have personal preferences. One type of de facto polygyny is concubinage, where only one woman gets a wife's rights and status, while other women remain legal house mistresses. Although a society may be classified as polygynous, not all marriages in it necessarily are; monogamous marriages may in fact predominate. It is to this flexibility that Anthropologist Robin Fox attributes its success as a social support system: \"This has often meant – given the imbalance in the sex ratios, the higher male infant mortality, the shorter life span of males, the loss of males in wartime, etc. – that often women were left without financial support from husbands. To correct this condition, females had to be killed at birth, remain single, become prostitutes, or be siphoned off into celibate religious orders. Polygynous systems have the advantage that they can promise, as did the Mormons, a home and family for every woman.\" Nonetheless, polygyny is a gender issue which offers men asymmetrical benefits. In some cases, there is a large age discrepancy (as much as a generation) between a man and his youngest wife, compounding the power differential between the two. Tensions not only exist between genders, but also within genders; senior and junior men compete for wives, and senior and junior wives in the same household may experience radically different life conditions, and internal hierarchy. Several studies have suggested that the wives’ relationship with other women, including co-wives and husband's female kin, are more critical relationships than that with her husband for her productive, reproductive and personal achievement. In some societies, the co-wives are relatives, usually sisters, a practice called sororal polygyny; the pre-existing relationship between the co-wives is thought to decrease potential tensions within the marriage. Fox argues that \"the major difference between polygyny and monogamy could be stated thus: while plural mating occurs in both systems, under polygyny several unions may be recognized as being legal marriages while under monogamy only one of the unions is so recognized. Often, however, it is difficult to draw a hard and fast line between the two.\" As polygamy in Africa is increasingly subject to legal limitations, a variant form of de facto (as opposed to legal or de jure) polygyny is being practiced in urban centres. Although it does not involve multiple (now illegal) formal marriages, the domestic and personal arrangements follow old polygynous patterns. The de facto form of polygyny is found in other parts of the world as well (including some Mormon sects and Muslim families in the United States). In 46 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
some societies such as the Lovedu of South Africa, or the Nuer of the Sudan, aristocratic women may become female 'husbands.' In the Lovedu case, this female husband may take a number of polygamous wives. This is not a lesbian relationship, but a means of legitimately expanding a royal lineage by attaching these wives' children to it. The relationships are considered polygynous, not polyandrous, because the female husband is in fact assuming masculine gendered political roles. Religious groups have differing views on the legitimacy of polygyny. It is allowed in Islam and Confucianism. Judaism and Christianity have mentioned practices involving polygyny in the past, however, outright religious acceptance of such practices was not addressed until its rejection in later passages. They do explicitly prohibit polygyny today. 2.2.3 Kinship In anthropology, kinship is the web of social relationships that form an important part of the lives of all humans in all societies, although its exact meanings even within this discipline are often debated. Anthropologist Robin Fox states that \"the study of kinship is the study of what man does with these basic facts of life – mating, gestation, parenthood, socialization, sibling ship etc.\" Human society is unique, he argues, in that we are \"working with the same raw material as exists in the animal world, but can conceptualize and categorize it to serve social ends.\" These social ends include the socialization of children and the formation of basic economic, political and religious groups. Kinship can refer both to the patterns of social relationships themselves, or it can refer to the study of the patterns of social relationships in one or more human cultures (i.e. kinship studies). Broadly, kinship patterns may be considered to include people related by both descent – i.e. social relations during development – and by marriage. Human kinship relations through marriage are commonly called \"affinity\" in contrast to the relationships that arise in one's group of origin, which may be called one's descent group. In some cultures, kinship relationships may be considered to extend out to people an individual has economic or political relationships with, or other forms of social connections. Within a culture, some descent groups may be considered to lead back to gods or animal ancestors (totems). This may be conceived of on a more or less literal basis. Family relations can be represented concretely (mother, brother, grandfather) or abstractly by degrees of relationship (kinship distance). A relationship may be relative (e.g. a father in relation to a child) or reflect an absolute (e.g. the difference between a mother and a childless woman). Degrees of relationship are not identical to heirship or legal succession. Many codes of ethics consider the bond of kinship as creating obligations between the related persons stronger than those between strangers, as in Confucian filial piety. In a more general sense, kinship may refer to a similarity or affinity between entities on the basis of some or all of their characteristics that are under focus. This may be due to a shared ontological origin, a shared historical or cultural connection, or some other perceived shared 47 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
features that connect the two entities. For example, a person studying the ontological roots of human languages (etymology) might ask whether there is kinship between the English word seven and the German word Sieben. It can be used in a more diffuse sense as in, for example, the news headline \"Madonna feels kinship with vilified Wallis Simpson\", to imply a felt similarity or empathy between two or more entities. In biology, \"kinship\" typically refers to the degree of genetic relatedness or coefficient of relationship between individual members of a species (e.g. as in kin selection theory). It may also be used in this specific sense when applied to human relationships, in which case its meaning is closer to consanguinity or genealogy. Family is a group of people affiliated by consanguinity (by recognized birth), affinity (by marriage), or co-residence/shared consumption. In most societies it is the principal institution for the socialization of children. As the basic unit for raising children, Anthropologists most generally classify family organization as matrifocal (a mother and her children); conjugal (a husband, his wife, and children; also called nuclear family); avuncular (a brother, his sister, and her children); or extended family in which parents and children co-reside with other members of one parent's family. However, producing children is not the only function of the family; in societies with a sexual division of labour, marriage, and the resulting relationship between two people, it is necessary for the formation of an economically productive household Kinship terminologies include the terms of address used in different languages or communities for different relatives and the terms of reference used to identify the relationship of these relatives to ego or to each other. Kin terminologies can be either descriptive or classificatory. When a descriptive terminology is used, a term refers to only one specific type of relationship, while a classificatory terminology groups many different types of relationships under one term. For example, the word brother in English-speaking societies indicates a son of one's same parent; thus, English-speaking societies use the word brother as a descriptive term referring to this relationship only. In many other classificatory kinship terminologies, in contrast, a person's male first cousin may also be referred to as brothers. A descent group is a social group whose members talk about common ancestry. A unilineal society is one in which the descent of an individual is reckoned either from the mother's or the father's line of descent. Matrilineal descent is based on relationship to females of the family line. A child would not be recognized with their father's family in these societies, but would be seen as a member of their mother's family's line. Simply put, individuals belong to their mother's descent group. Matrilineal descent includes the mother's brother, who in some societies may pass along inheritance to the sister's children or succession to a sister's son. Conversely, with patrilineal descent, individuals belong to their father's descent group. Children are recognized as members of their father's family, and descent is based on 48 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
relationship to males of the family line. Societies with the Iroquois kinship system, are typically unilineal, while the Iroquois proper are specifically matrilineal. In a society which reckons descent bilaterally, descent is reckoned through both father and mother, without unilineal descent groups. Societies with the Eskimo kinship system, like the Inuit, Yupik, and most Western societies, are typically bilateral. The egocentric kindred group is also typical of bilateral societies. Additionally, the Batek people of Malaysia recognize kinship ties through both parents' family lines, and kinship terms indicate that neither parent or their families are of more or less importance than the other.] Some societies reckon descent patrilineal for some purposes, and matrilineally for others. This arrangement is sometimes called double descent. For instance, certain property and titles may be inherited through the male line, and others through the female line. Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal. A broad definition of marriage includes those that are monogamous, polygamous, and same-sex and temporary. The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved, and any offspring they may produce. Marriage may result, for example, in \"a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners.\" Edmund Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures, but offered a list of ten rights frequently associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children. There is wide cross-cultural variation in the social rules governing the selection of a partner for marriage. In many societies the choice of partner is limited to suitable persons from specific social groups. In some societies the rule is that a partner is selected from an individual's own social group – endogamy, this is the case in many class and caste based societies. But in other societies a partner must be chosen from a different group than one's own – exogamy, this is the case in many societies practicing totemic religion where society is divided into several exogamous totemic clans, such as most Aboriginal Australian societies. However, marriages between more distant relatives have been much more common, with one estimate being that 80% of all marriages in history have been between second cousins or closer. 2.3 POLITICAL Political psychology finally took shape as an academic discipline in its own right when the International Society of Political Psychology was founded in 1978 and began holding annual 49 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
scientific meetings and publishing a quarterly journal, Political Psychology. Today, political psychology is a key component of the political behaviour subfield of political science. Its diverse objects of analysis range from the psychobiography of political leaders to inquiries into the “post material” bases of identity politics. Psychological terminology is now an important and pervasive part of political science discourse, as numerous psychological concepts have been incorporated into political studies at both the national and international level. Psychological concepts are widely used in research on voting behaviour, political socialization, political leadership, the dynamics of public opinion, political attitudes, political conflict and cooperation, international negotiation, decision-making, and, more recently, political information processing. The two empirical research methods most often employed to study psychological variables are the sample survey and the in-depth interview. For example, political psychologists frequently use attitude surveys to probe the connections among personality structures, demographic and population variables, and dispositions toward political participation and party preference. Other more innovative but less frequently utilized research tools include simulation, projective techniques, content analysis, focus groups, and the controlled experiment. The application of psychological insights to political inquiry remains a widespread and growing trend, as many political psychology studies continue to appear within the framework of related social-science disciplines, especially political science. Although no underlying scientific paradigm or even a single basic theory provides unity and coherence to this eclectic interdisciplinary field, political psychology has already acquired a permanent, if rather heterogeneous and pluralistic, presence within the discipline of political science. The first efforts to systematically study politics can be traced to Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics. Their works were later incorporated into Christianity through Neo- Platonists, such as St. Augustine, and neo Aristotelians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas. The classical and Christian traditions of political philosophy postulated metaphysical first principles and relied on a process of deductive reasoning that sought to derive the moral and ethical principles of an ideal-state. Whether the ideal-state was ever achieved by any civilization was considered secondary to discovering the “highest good” that ought to guide citizens and statesmen. The political writings of Niccolò Machiavelli were the first to break with these traditions of political philosophy. Machiavelli believed that the study of political history could yield general principles to guide statesmen in the conduct of politics, diplomacy, and war. He studied existing and historical political institutions, and the actions of great statesmen, not for the purpose of discerning a morally ideal-state, but to identify institutional arrangements that would maintain social order and political stability. The separation of politics from any metaphysical or theological foundation led subsequent political philosophers to seek a new basis for legitimate political authority, although, in the end, solutions such as reason, natural law, custom, and tradition were superseded by the idea that sovereignty resides in a nation’s people. 50 CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- 201
- 202
- 203
- 204
- 205
- 206
- 207
- 208
- 209
- 210
- 211
- 212
- 213
- 214
- 215
- 216
- 217
- 218
- 219
- 220
- 221
- 222
- 223
- 224
- 225
- 226
- 227
- 228
- 229
- 230
- 231
- 232
- 233
- 234
- 235
- 236
- 237
- 238
- 239
- 240
- 241
- 242
- 243
- 244
- 245
- 246
- 247
- 248
- 249
- 250