Society and Social Organization: An Anthropological View
This paper examines society and social organization from an anthropological perspective, arguing that social organization emerges from the complex relationships, shared cultural norms, and interactions that humans form as members of society. Drawing on theorists including Carrithers, Haviland, Just and Monaghan, Arnold van Gennep, and Franz Boas, the paper traces how culture, sociality, class stratification, rites of passage, and the prolonged human developmental period all contribute to the formation of social organization. It concludes that social organization is the product of interpersonal relationships, language, behavior, and societal norms rather than environmental determinism alone.
- Introduction: Culture and Social Organization: Culture as the foundation of social organization
- Defining Social Organization: Broad definitions of social organization and class
- Human Nature and the Basis for Social Interaction: Human social nature drives organizational complexity
- Class, Stratification, and Societal Norms: Haviland and Boas on norms and stratification
- Rites of Passage and Social Transition: Van Gennep on ritual transitions and social status
- Sociality, Biology, and the Anthropological Debate: Carrithers and Geertz on sociality versus culture
- Conclusions: Social organization as product of human relationships
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper synthesizes multiple anthropological theorists — Carrithers, Haviland, Gennep, Boas, and Geertz — to build a coherent, multi-perspective argument rather than relying on a single authority.
- It consistently returns to a central thesis: social organization arises from human relationships and interaction, reinforcing this claim at each stage with new theoretical support.
- The use of direct quotations, with page references, anchors abstract claims in specific scholarly sources, lending credibility to the argument.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates theoretical triangulation — the practice of using multiple independent scholars to support the same core argument. By showing that Carrithers, Just and Monaghan, Haviland, and Boas each arrive at overlapping conclusions through different frameworks, the writer strengthens the plausibility of the central claim without relying on any single source as definitive proof.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a definitional foundation, establishing what anthropologists mean by culture and social organization. It then narrows progressively — from broad definitions to human nature, then to class and stratification, then to rites of passage, and finally to the biological-anthropological debate around sociality. A brief conclusions section synthesizes the major threads. This funnel structure moves from the general to the specific before returning to a broad summary judgment.
Introduction: Culture and Social Organization
One often looks to culture as a means of describing society and social organization. Most anthropologists would agree that culture is related to aspects of the human condition that are "derived as what we learn as members of society" (Just and Monaghan, 2000, p. 35). Further, aspects of the human condition learned as members of society can readily be translated into the concept of social organization.
Society forms the basis for social organization from an anthropological perspective. Many anthropologists use the term "culture" to refer to society and the resultant social organization or behaviors demonstrated by individuals living within a particular culture. In order to understand social organization, anthropologists generally approach society or culture from a "holistic" perspective, so as to understand the complex behaviors and practices that determine social behavior and social organization.
Defining Social Organization
One can broadly define social organization as the tendency of humans to involve themselves in complex relationships, "due to his innate tendency to interact with others in a social manner" (Carrithers, 1992, p. 34). Social organization may further be defined through a class system, as many anthropologists argue that humans have a unique tendency to form relationships and social organizations based on class distinctions (Haviland, 2002, p. 310).
This falls along the line that "like goes with like" — that people have a natural tendency to create relationships with those most similar to themselves rather than those most different. People therefore tend to organize their thoughts and behaviors along similar lines within similar cultures or societies.
Since the earliest human societies, many social anthropologists have acknowledged that much of what forms society and culture consists of basic, shared common resources and behaviors. Culture is generally recognized as anything that is public and shared as part of society as a whole (Carrithers, 1992, p. 35). Societal norms may be considered the building blocks of social organization, and these norms are often translated into culture. Definitions of culture vary from anthropologist to anthropologist, and some tend to believe that certain tendencies — such as social stratification — are more prevalent in certain societies than others.
Human Nature and the Basis for Social Interaction
Before one can understand culture and social organization, one must examine the nature and behavior of humans in society. To fully understand society, one must explore the relationships people share with one another. Relationships and interaction are a natural part of the developmental process. Human beings are, by nature, social creatures, and the complex relationships they create as members of society are directly related to the concept of social organization.
Many have argued that social organization should be understood in terms of the relationships that humans create. This view rests on the notion that social organization stems from culture and interaction. Humans are social animals by nature and cannot function or create social organization without depending on other human beings. One cannot simply study the abstract "idea" of culture in order to understand social organization; rather, one must examine the complexity of human relationships to understand societal norms and organization.
This idea is supported by numerous anthropologists including Carrithers (1992), Just and Monaghan (2000), and Boas (1930). Social organization is built on the premise that humans must involve themselves in complex relationships in order to thrive, survive, and establish a foundation for behaving and interacting.
Social organization also stems from the manner in which humans grow and become participating members of society. Humans are unique in that they require a period of "infantile and juvenile dependence" — a period in which the individual "absorbs and transmits methods for living, knowing and doing things." The manner in which these activities are conducted is unique to each society and forms the basis for inherited and learned language, communication, and complex social organization (Just and Monaghan, 2000, p. 35).
In no other animal population is there a dependency phase as prolonged as that which humans require before they can function and interact independently, further supporting the notion that humans require relationships and interaction to exist and organize socially.
Social organization is created from societies — from the unique cultural aspects of society that help individuals learn methods for living, communicating, interacting, and relating to others. Social organization may further be defined as the complex whole of a society that includes the "knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits" that individuals acquire as members of a particular society (Just and Monaghan, 2000, p. 36). No one aspect is more important than another, because all of these factors influence the behavior and attitudes of individuals living in society.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.