EMILE DURKHEIMasdadasdasdasd

THE MAN: Durkheim was the most prominent and eminent sociologist of France in 19 th
century. He considered Auguste Comte as his master and adopted Comtean positivism and
further developed this idea in establishing sociology as an empirical discipline. He held that
sociology should also follow the scientific methods to be considered as a science.
He was born in a Jewish family in eastern French province of Lorraine on 15 th April, 1858. He
studied Hebrew language and Old Testament during childhood yet he remained an agnostic
throughout his life. He was a bright student but was not happy with the conventional subjects
taught at school and college levels. However, he graduated from famous Ecole Normale in Paris.
Later between 1882 to 1887 he taught Philosophy in Paris. Later he went to Germany where he
was introduced to scientific Psychology. Later Durkheim returned to the department of
Philosophy at University of Bordeaux in 1887 and published a series of articles on the learning
experiences of Germany. He earned a prominent place in the department. Later he was made
Head of a newly created department of Social Sciences.
In later years Durkheim had a series of personal successes. In 1893 he published he doctoral
thesis The Division of Labour in Society. Later he published The Rules of Sociological
Methods in 1885, Suicide in 1897, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life in 1912. In
1902 he was invited to the famous French university the Sorbonne. In 1906 he was made
professor of the Science of Education and later his title was changed to professor of the Science
of Education and Sociology.
Durkheim was revered as liberal political thinker as well and he worked in the area of moral
education and worked in the areas of discovering those moral principles which would guide
French education. He was influenced by Saint Simon, Auguste Compte etc. and their collectivist
ideas and therefore he reacted sharply against the individualistic ideas of Herbert Spencer and
English Utilitarians.
He was rather unhappy during his last years. The moral degeneration of French society
disappointed him greatly. At last he died in the year 1917. He greatly influenced sociology. He
started a journal named Anne Sociologique in 1896 which still continues and is one of the best
journal of sociology.
Durkhiem contributed in the areas of Sociology Education, Sociology of Law, Sociology of
Religion, Functionalism etc.

DURKHEIM AND THEORY OF SUICIDE

Introduction: Durkheims theory of suicide is a landmark study in which conceptual theory and
empirical research are brought together. Suicide is a pathological phenomenon suggesting a state
of anomie in the modern industrial society.
Durkheim defined suicide as every case of death resulting directly or indirectly from a
positive or negative death performed by the victim himself and which strives to produce
this result. Hence suicide is a conscious act and person committing suicide is fully aware of its
consequences. For illustration, a person who consumes poison, or one who hangs himself or one
shoots himself to death is fully aware of its consequences.
Durkheim used statistical data to establish his idea that suicide is a social fact and social
circumstances cause suicide. He believed that suicide is not an individual act or a private and
personal action. It is caused by factors beyond the control of the individual. It is not a personal
situation but a manifestation of a social condition. Durkheim wanted to know why people
commit suicide and rejected psychological explanations as inadequate. Experiment on suicide
was simply out of question. Case studies do not provide reliable generalizations about all
suicides. Survey method was totally inappropriate as dead people cannot be surveyed. But
statistics on suicide were readily available and he decided to analyze them.
Durkheim rejected previously held theories of suicide such as heredity, climatic and geographical
factors, waves of imitation and psychological factors as cause of suicide. Rather Durkheim held
that social factors are the real causes of suicide. Suicide is a highly individual act yet the motives
behind suicide lie in the social context in which it occurs. He found that the incidents of suicide
varied from one social group to another or one social setting to another in some consistent
manner over the years. For illustrations, Protestants, people living in larger cities, people living
alone were more likely to commit suicide than Catholics, people living in smaller communities
and people living in families respectively. Durkheim pointed out that behind all these instances
of suicide an independent variable: the extent to which the individual was integrated into a
social bonding with others. People with fragile ties with their community are more likely to
commit suicide than people with stronger ties with their communities.
After rejecting extra-social factors as causes of suicide Durkheim proceeded to analyze the types
of suicide and found three variants of it listed as under:
1. Egoistic Suicide: It results from the lack of the integration of the individual into his
social group.
2. Altruistic Suicide: It results from the over-integration of the individual into his social
group.
3. Anomic Suicide: It results from the state of normlessness or degeneration found in
society.

While analyzing the types of suicide Durkheim concluded that suicide is an individual
phenomenon whose causes are fundamentally social. He opined that incidence of suicide is
found in every society and hence it is normal phenomenon. However, a sudden increase in
suicide rates may be seen as a result of disintegrating forces at work in the social structure. He
concluded that different types of suicide are results of differences in degree and types of social
solidarity and accordingly suicide is an index to decay in social solidarity.
Criticism:
1. Durkheim has given importance only to social factors in suicide and therefore he has
neglected the role of other factors especially psychological ones. Hence its one sided
view.
2. This theory is based on small sample.
3. Criminologists have pointed out economic, psychological and even religious factors
leading to suicide which were totally overlooked by Durkheim.
THREE TYPES OF SUICIDES
Durkheim analyzed the data he gathered from different societies and cultures and identified three
types of suicide. These types reveal different types of relationship between the individual and the
society. These types are as under:
1. Egoistic Suicide: It reflects weak group integration. It is caused by extreme loneliness
and excess individualism. Individuals detached from society and when social bonding
loosens- they are more prone to commit egoistic suicide. According to Durkhiem egoistic
suicides are committed by those individuals confine themselves within themselves. Such
individuals feel hurt and ignored and they become introvert. Egoistic persons are aloof
and cut off from the mainstream of society and dont take interest in social matters and
hence get alienated and find it difficult to cope with social alienation and feel compelled
to commit suicide. Durkheim believed that lack of integration of individual into the social
group is the main cause of egoistic suicide. He studied differing degrees of integration of
individual into their religion, family, political and national communities and found that
Catholics were less prone to commit suicide than Protestants because Catholicism is able
to integrate its members more fully into its fold as compared to Protestantism favours
spirits of free inquiry, permits greater individual freedom, lacks hierarchical organization
and with fewer common beliefs and practices. Catholic church is more powerfully
integrated than Protestant church. Its due to this reason Protestants are more prone to
commit suicide than Catholics. Hence, Durkheim generalized that lack of integration is th
main cause of egoistic suicide.
2. Altruitic Suicide: It takes place when an individual ends his life heroically to promote a
cause or ideal which is very dear to him. It results from over-integration of the individual
into his group. To put simply altruistic suicide is taking off ones life for the sake of a
cause. It means even a high level of solidarity results in suicide. It is illustrated by in

some primitive societies and in modern armies such suicide takes place. Japanese
sometime illustrate this type of suicide and they call it Harakiri. In this practice some
Japanese take off their lives for the sake of larger social unity and believe that selfdestruction would prevent the breakdown of social unity. The practice of sati is another
example of this kind. Self-immolation by Buddhist monks and self-destruction in
Nirvana by ancient Indian sages are other illustrations of altruistic suicide. In all such
illustrations altruistic suicide is caused by men sacrificing their lives for a great cause,
principle, ideal or value.
3. Anomic Suicide: This type of suicide occurs due to breakdown of social norms and
sudden social changes characteristics of modern urban industrial societies. When
collective conscience weakens, men fall victim of anomic suicide. Catastrophic social
changes results into anomic suicide. At times when social relations get disturbed, both
personal and social ethics are eroded. Values of life come down and outlook gets radically
changed overnight. Dangerous developments take place in society. The change is sudden
and adjustments become difficult and those who dont get adjusted to sudden changes
commit suicide. This social disruption results into suicide. Durkheim says that not only
sudden economic disaster and industrial crises but also sudden economic prosperity can
also cause disruption and deregulation and finally result into suicide.
_____________________

Law and Society

A. Significance of Law in the Continuance of Human Society
Nearly all human societies, tribal, peasant or industrial have laws or legal rules whose scope is
coextensive with human life.
Basic function of the law is to protect, preserve and defend the members of the society against
internal disorder and external threat.
The persons who deviate from the law are given punishments of various kinds such as fines,
imprisonment, exile or even death. However, the state which is an embodiment of law may itself
become arbitrary or tyrannical.
The perennial question among jurists has been Should law be concerned with what is or what
ought to be?
B. Evolution of Legal Systems

In preliterate societies laws have been orally transmitted and often inseparable from
customs. The normative control was maintained by the strict observance of taboos which
were laws as well as being the basic fabric of society.

In complex, ancient civilizations such as Babylonia, Egypt, Israel, India and Rome, the
laws were usually based on customs, religious principles and the decrees of the monarchs
or heads of state. Of these old civilizations, Rome created the most elaborate legal system
which enabled it to exercise control over a heterogeneous society. Its far-flung provinces
in Europe, Asia and Africa were ruled efficiently by means of formal codes. While the
free citizens of the ancient world enjoyed legal protection, the slaves did not have even
basic rights.

The Hindu laws known as Dharmashastras composed by Manu and others were intended
to provide guidelines for the maintenance of Varna and observance of Dharma. These
texts legitimised the institutions of a heterogeneous country and imparted social stability.
On several occasions, when Indias political unity was weak these texts provided the
source of new political order.

As societies grew from simple to complex, there has been an extensive growth of legal
rules. This gives rise to certain problems. For example, when a nation-state is formed on
the basis of integration of a number of groups, it may be quite difficult to establish
equality before law, as these groups may be at different stages of development or have
separate legal codes. There are geographic, historic and cultural factors which hinder
legal uniformities. If these distinctions are obliterated at one stroke by a fiat of law, it
may cause grave imbalances in the social structure. However, a gradual reduction if not
removal of disparities is not only possible but also desirable, in view of the modern trend
towards equality.

C. Some Sociological Approaches to Law

Emile Durkheim - Durkheims sociology of law was tied up with the wider context of
transition from simple to complex society. An important index of this transition was that
the law which was repressive earlier became restitutive. In other words, while the law in
simple society was based on the principle of stringent punishment, in a complex society it
was based on compensatory principle.

Karl Marx - Marx regarded the legal system of his times as the outcome of certain
dominant and vested interests. Law enabled the dominant groups to preserve their
privileges and impose their will on the rest of the society. Hence in the communist society
of the future, where private interests are replaced by collective goals, both state and law
would be unnecessary. This future society would consist of guild like collectives marked
by self governance or self regulation. However, in practice in present day socialist states
there is a considerable concentration of legal authority in state and repression of those
who do not think on the same lines.

Max Weber - Webers theory of law derives from his notion of rational legal authority. In
the study of historical jurisprudence, he described the gradual ascendancy of the rationallegal principle. Rational- legal norms emphasise some basic elements such as hierarchic
structure of bureaucratic authority, division of spheres of work, impersonal interaction,
specific functions and large scale organisations. Official procedures are the very basis of
modern organisations, where contractual (means-end) relationships predominate.

In sum, the sociological theories of law emphasise the significance of social factors in the study
of law.
C. Reciprocal Relationship between Law and Society
The sociological view highlights the difference between formal (normative) and substantive
(operative) aspects of law. What is written into statute books is not always followed in practice.
At the same time, law may itself change social norms in various ways. For example, in free
India, legal abolition of untouchability is an attempt to change a long- standing social norm. Yet
it has not succeeded much due to inadequate social support. Thus there is a reciprocal
relationship between law and society.
D. Law as a Means of Social Control: Micro and Macro Levels in Operation
1. Village Panchayat
2. Caste Council
3. British Courts
4. Tribal judicial system
5. Legal System in Modern India
E. Contrasting Indigenous Jural Tradition of India and British Jurisprudence
According to Bernard Cohn, an American Anthropologist, four discrepancies occurred
between Indigenous Jural Tradition of India and British Jurisprudence.
1. The first discrepancy was between the villagers hierarchical view of interpersonal
relationship and the British notion of equality before law. As a result even if a lower caste
person, particularly an untouchable, won his case against the land owning upper caste person,
the harsh reality of the village power politics negated his victory.
2. The second discrepancy was between status and contract. According to official rules, the
relation between a landlord and a tenant was contractual; in personal terms, it was a multiple
relationship involving reciprocal (Jajmani) obligations.
3. The third discrepancy occurred in terms of the decisions itself. Usually, the British courts
insisted on clear and firm decisions. In contrast, the caste and village councils tried to bring
about a compromise between the disputing parties.

4. Fourthly, the official courts usually dealt with the disputes placed before them rather than
investigate into the past relationship between the two parties.
Some of these differences between the two systems are carried over to the present.
F. Law and Social Change in India
After Independence, the Constitution of India providing far reaching guidelines for change. Its
Directive Principles suggested a blueprint for a new nation. The de-recognition of caste system,
equality before law and equality opportunities all in economic, political and social spheres were
some of the high points of the Indian Constitution. The problem in the Indian Society is the nonfulfilment of constitutional directives, especially in respect of economic improvement of masses.
G. State Initiated Legal Measures
1. Institutions - There are three State Initiated legal institutions at present. They are:
a. Nyaya Panchayat
b. Lok Adalats
The Nyaya Panchayat and Lok Adalats have been introduced to supplement the
existing judicial bodies. Although they have not been completely effective they have
familiarised people with the secular concept of law. They are an alternative to the
former case and village councils. They have also succeeded in screening disputes at
the village level so that excessive legislation is avoided. But heir main limitations are
the paucity of resources, limited judicial powers and also non availability of legal
minded people in villages.
c. Legal Aid to the Poor
The Legal Aid to the poor is complementary to the Nyaya Panchayats and Lok
Adalats. The main reason for introducing this are the paucity of lawyers in small
towns and villages, the increasing cost of litigation and lack of awareness among
ordinary people.
2. Legal Reforms - The Law Commission of India (LCI) which came into existence in
1955 has been entrusted with comprehensive terms of reference. These include not only
the traditional spheres of law such as Company Law, Civil and Criminal Procedure,
Contract Act, etc. but also the laws oriented to social change such as those related to the
implementation of Directive Principles. The LIC has been expected to reform the existing
social legislations or usher in new laws with regard to weaker sections, bonded on
contract labour, juvenile delinquents, mentally ill and physically disabled.
H. Law and Social Justice
Ex.: Bhopal Gas Tragedy
I. Peoples Participation in Legal Change

As yet, masses in India have not been involved in the contemporary legal activities. In recent
years, the Public Interest in Litigation has increased. The journalists, lawyers and social workers
are in a position to approach a civil or criminal court for appropriate action by the government.
Of course, in this type of litigation, publicity seeking by individuals may be implicit to some
extent. Nevertheless, it is an effective weapon to uncover the scandals and deceptions through
exposure in the courts of law.
Concluding Reflections
The ineffectiveness of legal institutions in meeting the needs of society has slowed down the
pace of social change in India.
In the legal scene, hope and disappointment at once confront the average Indian in contemporary
India.

CULTURE
Culture is derived from Latin term cult or cultus meaning cultivating or refining and
worship. The term Sanskriti has been derived from the root Kri (to do).
prakriti (basic matter or condition),
Kri;
Sanskriti (refined matter or condition)
vikriti (modified/ decayed matter or condition)
When prakriti is refined it becomes Sanskriti and when broken/damaged it becomes vikriti.
CULTURE

Culture is a way of life.

Culture may be defined as the way an individual and especially a group live, think, feel
and organize themselves, celebrate and share life.
Culture thus refers to a human-made environment which includes all the material and
non-material products of group life that are transmitted from one generation to the next.
In deeper sense it is culture that produces the kind of literature, music, dance, sculpture,
architecture and various other art forms as well as the many organizations and structures
that make the functioning of the society smooth and well-ordered.
Culture is the expression of our nature in our modes of living and thinking.
Material (dress, food, and household goods)
Culture
Non-Material. (ideas, ideals, thoughts and belief)
Self restraint in conduct, consideration for the feelings of others, for the rights of others, are
the highest marks of culture.

CIVILIZATION

Civilization means having better ways of living and sometimes making nature bend to
fulfill their needs.
On the other hand culture refers to the inner being, a refinement of head and heart.
One who may be poor and wearing cheap clothes may be considered uncivilized, but
still he or she may be the most cultured person.
One possessing huge wealth may be considered as civlilized but he may not be cultured
Civilization is advanced state of culture.

HERITAGE
The culture we inherit from our predecessors is called our cultural heritage.
Humanity as a whole has inherited a culture which may be called human heritage.
A nation also inherits a culture which may be termed as national cultural heritage.
Culture is liable to change, but our heritage does not.
Architectural creations, material artifacts, the intellectual achievements, philosophy, pleasure of
knowledge, scientific inventions and discoveries are parts of heritage.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTURE

Culture is learned and acquired:

Culture is shared by a group of people:
Culture is cumulative:
Culture changes:
Culture is dynamic:
Culture gives us a range of permissible behaviour patterns:
Culture is diverse:
Culture is ideational:

IMPORTANCE OF CULTURE IN HUMAN LIFE

Culture is closely linked with life.
It is what makes us human. Culture is made up of traditions, beliefs, way of life, from the
most spiritual to the most material.
Human beings are creators of culture and, at the same time, culture is what makes us
human.

The three eternal and universal values of Truth, Beauty and Goodness are closely linked
with culture.

CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIAN CULTURE

Due to its adaptability and comprehensiveness, Indian culture has survived through the
ages.
Unity in diversity is one of the major characteristics of Indian culture which makes it
unique.
A synthesis of various cultures came about through the ages to give shape to what is
recognised as Indian culture today.
Spirituality and value based life style is the core of Indian culture but it has a scientific
temperament too.

AUGUSTE COMTE

Best Known For:

Founder of positivism

Coined the term sociology

His emphasis on systematic observation and social order

Birth:
Auguste Comte was born January 20, 1798 (according to the Revolutionary calendar then used in
France).
Death:
He died of cancer on September 5, 1857.
Early Life and Education:
Auguste Comte was born in Montpellier, France. After attending the Lyce Joffre and then the
University of Montpellier, Comte was admitted to the cole Polytechnique in Paris. The cole
closed in 1816 at which time Comte took up permanent residence in Paris, earning a precarious
living there by teaching mathematics and journalism. He read widely in philosophy and history

and was especially interested in those thinkers who were beginning to discern and trace some
order in the history of human society.
Career and Later Life:
In 1826 Comte began a series of lectures on his system of positive philosophy for a private
audience, but he soon suffered a serious nervous breakdown.
He was hospitalized and later recovered with the help of his wife, Caroline Massin, whom he
married in 1824. He resumed teaching the course in January 1829, marking the beginning of a
second period in Comte's life that lasted 13 years. During this time he published the six volumes
of the Course between 1830 and 1842.
From 1832 to 1842 Comte was a tutor and then an examiner at the revived cole Polytechnique.
He then quarreled with the directors of the school and lost his post. During the remainder of his
life he was supported by English admirers and by French disciples. In 1842 Comte separated
from his wife and in 1845 he had a profound relationship with Clotilde de Vaux, whom he
idolized. She died the following year and after her death, Comte devoted himself to writing
another major work, the four-volume System of Positive Polity, in which he completed his
formulation of sociology.
Though Comte did not originate the concept of sociology or its area of study, he greatly extended
and elaborated the field. Comte divided sociology into two main fields, or branches: social
statics, or the study of the forces that hold society together; and social dynamics, or the study of
the causes of social change. While the concept of sociology was around before Comte, he is
credited with coining the term sociology.
Major Publications

The Course on Positive Philosophy (1830-1842)

Discourse on the Positive Sprit (1844)

A General View of Positivism (1848)

Religion of Humanity (1856)

KARL MARX

Karl Marx was born in 1818 in the ancient city of Trier, in western Germany (then Prussia).
Marxs father was a prosperous lawyer, a Jew who converted to Lutheranism to advance his
career at a time when unbaptized Jews did not have full rights of citizenship. Marx studied law at
the University of Bonn and later at Berlin, where he switched to studying philosophy. He moved
again to the University of Jena, where he wrote a doctoral dissertation on ancient Greek natural
philosophy. Following the death of his father in 1838, Marx attempted to find a job as lecturer
but ran into difficulties because of controversies surrounding his teacher and mentor Bruno
Bauer (18091882), who had lost his professorship due to his unrepentant atheism. Marx decided
instead to try journalism and became editor of the Rhenish Gazette, a liberal newspaper in
Cologne but the paper ran afoul of government censors and closed in 1843. Marx then married
Jenny von Westphalen, the daughter of a wealthy industrialist, and moved to the more politically
hospitable atmosphere of France. There he encountered another German migr, Friedrich
Engels, with whom he took up an interest in economics and class struggle.
One of Marxs most important intellectual influences was the philosophy of George Friedrich
Hegel (17701831). Hegels signature concept was that of the dialectic, a word that originally
referred to the process of logical argumentation and refutation. Whereas earlier philosophers had
treated dialectic as a process for arriving at true ideas, Hegel maintained that ideas themselves
evolve according to a continual process of contradiction and resolution and that human history is
driven by this dialectical evolution of ideas. Hegels influence on Marx is evident in Marxs
belief that history is evolving through a series of conflicts in a predictable, unavoidable direction.
Hegel also influenced Marx in his characterization of the modern age. Hegel once famously
declared that man is not at home in the world, by which he meant that while human beings had
achieved an unprecedented degree of personal autonomy and self-awareness in the modern age,
this accomplishment had resulted in the individuals alienation from collective political and
cultural institutions.
The more conservative of Hegels followers, the so-called Right-Hegelians, looked to Hegels
writings on politics and the state to justify the political status quo in contemporary Prussia,
arguing that the modern state represents the height of historical evolution and the final resolution
of historical contradictions. The Left-Hegelians, including Marx, believed that society is far from
fully evolved and for proof looked not only to the authoritarianism of the Prussian government
but also to the social divisions and civil unrest created by industrialization and the increasing
polarization of society into rich and poor. Socialism, an ideology advocating the abolition of
private property, was then gaining influence among the more politically radical European
intellectuals. Although he was attracted to socialism, Marx was dissatisfied with the quality of
socialist thought that he encountered in France, such as that of the utopian Socialist Saint-Simon
(17601825). Feeling that most Socialists were navely idealistic, Marx, following his meeting
with Engels, set out to develop a theory of Socialism grounded in a better understanding of both
economics and philosophy. From that point on, Marxs project synthesizes these two distinct
intellectual approaches, combining a Hegelian, philosophical view of historical evolution with an

interest in capitalism that builds on the insights of classical economic theorists such as Adam
Smith and David Ricardo.
Together with his coauthor Engels, Marx produced such important early works as The German
Ideology (1846), which was a critique of Hegel and his German followers, and The Communist
Manifesto (1848), in which Marx and Engels distinguish their idea of socialism from other
currents of socialism and demonstrate how socialism arises naturally from the social conflicts
inherent within capitalism. Shortly after the publication of The Communist Manifesto,
revolutionary unrest broke out in much of Europe. Although the Communist League of which
Marx and Engels were leaders was in a state of disorganization, Marx took part in the revolution
in Germany as editor of a the New Rhenish Gazette in Cologne, which became a platform for
radical political commentary. Following the unrest, Marx left Germany with his family and
settled in London. The tumultuous events of 1848 and 1849 had impressed Marx deeply and
formed the subject matter of later historical studies such as The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis
Bonaparte (1852).
While in London, Marx participated in the growing international workers movement while
working toward a new synthesis of his economic and social theories. In 1867, he published the
first volume of Capital (Das Kapital), his mammoth treatise on economics. Having mastered all
of the classical politicaleconomic theorists, Marx intended in Capital to explain the modern
class struggle in terms of economic principles. Capital remains Marxs greatest achievement, a
powerfully insightful analysis of the nature of capitalism and its effects on human beings.
Although most people no longer accept Marxs conclusion that the contradictions within
capitalism will lead inevitably to a workers revolution and the worldwide establishment of
Socialism, Capital nonetheless remains a uniquely compelling book because of its ability to
describe and explain the phenomenon of capitalism. Ironically, the proponents of capitalism are
the people most likely to reject Marx as worthy of study, but it is to Marx that we owe the
concept of capitalism and the perception that modern society is capitalist. (The word capital first
acquired its importance with the publication of Capital.)
One of the main challenges a person faces in reading Marx is in abandoning preconceptions of
Marxs work resulting from the appropriation of Marxs ideas by Communist political
movements throughout the twentieth century. Many see the recent collapse of the Soviet Union
as an end to the international appeal of Marxism as revolutionary political movement. At the
same time, Marxs ideas continue to stimulate and engage thinkers in a variety of fields,
including political theory, history, and literary criticism.

Community:
Man cannot live in isolation. He cannot live alone. He keeps contact with his fellow beings for
his survival. It is not possible for him to keep contact with all the people or to belong as a
member of all the groups existing in the world.
He establishes contact with a few people who live in close proximity or presence to him in a
particular area or locality. It is quite natural for people living in a particular locality for a longer
period of time to develop a sort of likeness or similarity among themselves. They develop
common ideas, common customs, common feelings, common traditions etc.
They also develop a sense of belonging together or a sense of we-feeling. This kind of common
social living in a specific locality gives rise to the community. The examples of community
include a village, a tribe, a city or town. For example in a village community, all the villagers
lend each other hand in the event of need in agriculture and in other occupations.

They take part in all important occasions which occur in a neighbours home. They are present
when marriages, deaths, births take place in any family. They celebrate the festivals together,
worship common deities and jointly face all calamities. In this way the sense of belongingness in
generated among the villagers which creates village community.
Meaning of Community:
The word community has been derived from two words of Latin namely com and munis. In
English com means together and munis means to serve. Thus, community means to serve
together. It means, the community is an organisation of human beings framed for the purpose of
serving together. Community is a people living within a geographical area in common interdependence. It exists within the society. It is bound by the territorial units. It is a specific group
while society is abstract. Community living is natural to man.
He is born in it and grows in the community ways. It is his small world. Men, we have seen
began with group life. Over the time, they occupied a habitat and while in permanent occupation
of it; they developed likeness, common habits, folkways and mores, interdependence and
acquired a name.
They developed amongst themselves a sense of togetherness and an attachment to their habitat. A
community thus has a habitat, strong community sense, and a manner of acting in an agreed and
organized manner. There are various definitions of community.
Osborne and Neumeyer write, Community is a group of people living in a contiguous
geographic area, having common centres of interests and activities, and functioning together in
the chief concerns of life.

According to Kingsley Davis, Community is the smallest territorial group that can embrace all
aspects of social life.
As Sutherland points out, It is a local area over which people are using the same language,
conforming to same mores, feeling more or less the same sentiments and acting upon the same
attitudes.
Maclver defines community as an area of social living, marked by some degree of social
coherence.
For Bogardus it is a social groups with some degree of we feeling and living in a given area.
Mannheim describes community as any circle of people who live together and belong together
in such a way that they do not share this or that particular interest only but a whole set of interest.
Basic Elements of Community:
According to Maclver and Page, there are two main bases or essential elements on the basis of
which community is formed.
(i) Locality:
Locality implies a particular or territorial area unless a group of people live in a particular
locality; they cannot establish relations and generate the we-feeling among themselves. Living
together facilities people to develop social contacts, give protection, safety and security. Locality
continues to be a basic factor of community life. Maclver says, though due to the extending
facilities of communication in the modern world the territorial bond has been broken, yet the
basic character of locality as a social classifier has never been transcended.
(ii) Community Sentiment:
Community can be formed on the basis of community sentiment. It is extremely essential. It
implies a feeling of belonging together. It is a we-feeling among the members of a
community. People living in a community lead a common life, speak the same language,
conform to the same mores, feel almost the same sentiment and therefore, they develop a feeling
of unity among themselves.
In other words, it can be said that community feeling has the four important aspects such as wefeeling, interdependence, participation and community control. The community sentiments are
developed by we-feeling. The members of community develop we-feeling by their mutual
interdependence. They contribute to the progress of the community by participating in its
activities. Community controls the behaviour of its members. The obedience to community rules
brings uniformity among the members.
Other Elements of Community:

Some other elements of community are as follows:

(i) Group of people:
Fundamentally, a community consists of a group of people. A solitary individual cannot form a
community when a group of people share the basic conditions a common life, they form
community.
(ii) Naturality:
A community is not deliberately or purposively created. It is a spontaneous or natural growth. An
individual is born in a community. It is my virtue of community that he develops.
(iii) Permanence:
A community is generally not temporary or short-lived like a crowd or a revolutionary mob. It is
a permanent organisation or durable social group. This durability is evident from the age-old
communities existing in modern times. A community continues as long as members are there.
(iv) Likeness:
In a community there is a likeness or similarity in language, custom, mores, traditions etc. among
the members. So A. W. Green has rightly said, A community is a cluster of people living within
narrow territorial radius who share a common way of life.
(v) A Particular Name:
Every community is always known with a particular name, their immediate bases of origin give
such community a particular name. For example based on the linguistic condition people living
in Orissa are called Oriyas; living in Kashmiri culture are called Kashmiris.
(vi) Spontaneity:
Every community grows itself spontaneously. A community is not deliberately or purposively
created. A kind of natural force acts behind the origin and development of communities. Various
factors like customs, conventions, and religious beliefs bind the individuals together.
(vii) Common Life:
Some sociologists like Elwood says that the life of the people in a community is near about the
same. There is no epochal difference between the way of life of the individuals. Their eating
pattern, dressing style, language etc. are found to be similar. Due to their inhabitation on a
particular geographical area, they develop a kind of emotional and cultural uniformity.
Community is never formed with a particular aim. But they are the outcome of social uniformity
among the individuals.

(viii) Common Interests:

In community, all the members have common and collective interests. People live in community
and work together to fulfill these interests. Thus, Newmeyer says, community is a group of
people living in a delimited geographic area, having common interests and activities and
functioning together in their concern of life.

SOCIETY

A society is a group of people involved in persistent social interaction, or a large social grouping
sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority
and dominant cultural expectations. Societies are characterized by patterns of relationships
(social relations) between individuals who share a distinctive culture and institutions; a given
society may be described as the sum total of such relationships among its constituent members.
In the social sciences, a larger society often evinces stratification or dominance patterns in
subgroups.
Insofar as it is collaborative, a society can enable its members to benefit in ways that would not
otherwise be possible on an individual basis; both individual and social (common) benefits can
thus be distinguished, or in many cases found to overlap. A society can also consist of likeminded people governed by their own norms and values within a dominant, larger society. This is
sometimes referred to as a subculture, a term used extensively within criminology.
More broadly, and especially within structuralist thought, a society may be illustrated as an
economic, social, industrial or cultural infrastructure, made up of, yet distinct from, a varied
collection of individuals. In this regard society can mean the objective relationships people have
with the material world and with other people, rather than "other people" beyond the individual
and their familiar social environment.
Characteristics:
1. Society is abstract:

If society is viewed as web of social relationships, it is distinct from physical entity which we
can see and perceive through senses. As written earlier, Maclver argued, we may see the people
but cannot see society or social structure, but only its only external aspects. Social relationships
are invisible and abstract. We can just realize them but cannot see or touch them. Therefore,
society is abstract. Reuter wrote: Just as life is not a thing but a process of living, so society is
not a thing but a process of associating.
2. Likeness and difference in society:

Society involves both likeness and difference. If people are all exactly alike, merely alike, their
relationships would be limited. There would be little give-and- take and little reciprocity. If all
men thought alike, felt alike, and acted alike, if they had the same standards and same interests,
if they all accepted the same customs and echoed the same opinions without questioning and
without variation, civilisation could never have advanced and culture would have remained
rudimentary. Thus, society needs difference also for its existence and continuance.
We can illustrate this point through the most familiar example of family. The family rests upon
the biological differences between the sexes. There are natural differences of aptitude, of
capacity, of interest. For they all involve relationships in which differences complement one
another, in which exchange take place.
Likeness and difference are logical opposites but for understanding likeness, comprehension of
its relation to the other is necessary. Society exists among those who have some degree of
likeness in mind and in body. F.H. Giddings called this quality of society as consciousness of
kind (a sense of likeness). Though likeness and difference both are necessary for the society to
exist, but difference is always subordinated to likeness in society. Likeness has a predominant
share in the constitution of society.
3. Cooperation and conflict in society:

Cooperation and conflict are universal elements in human life. Society is based on cooperation
but because of internal differences, there is conflict also among its members. This is why,
Maclver and Page observed that society is cooperation crossed by conflict. We know from our
own experience that a person would be handicapped, showed down, and feels frustrated if he is
expected to do everything alone, without the aid of others. Cooperation is most elementary
process of social life without which society is impossible (Gisbert, 1957).
Though cooperation is essential for the constitution of society but modem conflict theorists (such
as Marx) have highlighted the role of conflict in society. If there is no conflict, even in small
measure, society may become stagnant and people may become inert and inactive. However, the
expression of disagreement in the form of conflict must always be held within tolerable bounds.

4. Society is a process and not a product:

Society exists only as a time sequence. It is becoming, not a being; a process and not a product
(Maclver and Page, 1956). In other words, as soon as the process ceases, the product disappears.
The product of a machine endures after the machine has been scrapped. To some extent the same
is true not only of material relics of mans past culture but even of his immaterial cultural
achievements.
5. Society as a system of stratification:

Society provides a system of stratification of statuses and classes that each individual has a
relatively stable and recognisable position in the social structure.