The development of the concept of society

From Leon H. Mayhew's article, "Society," in vol 14 of the International Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences (Macmillan & Free Press, 1968), pp. 577-86:
". . . 'society' is frequently used merely to refer to an encompassing network of social relationships that enclose some more
specific phenomenon which is the primary object of analysis. . . . It is only when analysis begins to isolate the attributes of the
larger whole which we term 'a society' that analytical treatments of the concept begin to emerge. . . .
"Analytical definitions usually treat a society as a relatively independent or self-sufficient population characterized by internal
organization, territoriality, cultural distinctiveness, and sexual recruitment. . . . [578]
"It is not surprising that definitions of society are so closely articulated with conceptions of the nature and functions of
sociological thought, for from the beginning of the analytical development of the concept, social theorists have found in 'society'
a convenient foundation for relating their specific problems to a larger context. . . .
"History of the concept. In the Western world the concept of society as an entity distinct from the state emerged rather late. The
age of reason, when philosophers began to search for secular foundations for critical analysis of existing political institutions, was
one of the earliest periods when Western thinkers came to view society as something clearly prior to and outside of the state. The
vehicle used to establish this differentiation was the social contract doctrine. . . .
The utilitarian conception of society. . . . [T]he liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment wished to justify secular rational criticism of
the state. In developing a critical doctrine, such thinkers as Locke began to distinguish the law of nature from the social contract
that had formed the state. For Locke there is a layer of natural order guaranteed by man's interdependence and his sense of the
natural rights of all. . . . [579]
"By a similar logic the critical philosophers sought to establish anayltical distinctions between society and church and to separate
church and state. . . .
". . . [T]he idea of society developed during the Enlightenment was not entirely satisfactory, for the ultimate premises of
argument continued to be the same premises from which Hobbes had derived the war of all against all. Enlightenment thought
was founded on the concept of reason. The method of reason is analytical reduction; complex wholes must be reduced to their
fundamental particles and the whole reassembled by a process of deduction from the laws governing the particles. For society,
the particle is the individual, and the law governing particles derives from the most essential quality of individuals, their natural
reason. Each man uses his reason to rationally pursue his chosen ends. . . . The utilitarians could protect their Achilles heel, that
is, the problem of conflicting ends, only by arbitrarily postulating such metaphysical concepts as the 'natural identity of interests,'
'natural rights,' and 'the spirit of sociability.'
"The more perceptive figures of the Enlightenment -- Hume, for example -- recognized the inner weakness of the utilitarian
conception . . .
"Romanticism and organismic conceptions. In the latter part of the eighteenth century, and especially in the period after the
French Revolution, many social theorists became disillusioned with individual reason and the reductive methods of the analytical
philsophers. As the philosophy of romanticism became more influential . . [s]ociety came to be viewed as an organic whole,
embodying the practical and profound wisdom of convention and tradition. Being a cumulative organic product, society has an
organic unity. Abstract analytical segments cannot be separated from the whole and arbitrarily changed; to do so is to destroy the
complex interdependence of the web of social life . . . .
"The organismic conception . . . drew attention to a new element, cultural tradition, as a functionally necessary part of society.
The idea of a cultural order as a constituent part of a society was developed further by August Comte in the early nineteenth
century. . . . At the same time he refused to derive the larger society from individual reason and the concurrence of interests.
Drawing on organismic conservatism, he found in cultural tradition the specifically collective factor in society. For Comte, the
formation of any society presupposed a system of common opinions about nature and man. The Enlightenment philosophers, by
destroying the normative order of the religiously based society, had loosed anarchy upon the world. Comte argued that the
reformation of society required the creation of a new, scientifically based moral order. Again we see an example of the
ideological use of the concept of society. . . . [580]
"The belief that society is an institutional order which embodies a fundamental set of cultural ideas was prominent in another
branch of romantic thought which might be termed 'idealism.' Idealism, which was especially prominent in nineteenth-century
German thought, stresses the cultural distinctiveness of each society. A society reflects a peculiar Geist or spirit that is embodied
in its distinctive traditions and institutions. . . .
"The economic conception of society. . . ."According to Marx, society exists in the concrete relations between social groups and
not in the concepts used by philosophers to summarize these relations. The Geist is a mere analytical construct of the observer.
The real foundations of society and the real springs of social development lie in the economic relations between men. . . . .
"[This] conception of society starts with the assumption that man's most fundamental problem is to provide for his material
needs. To do so, man must cooperate with other men by entering into relations of production. Stable relations of production
constitute economic structures. Economic structures are variable, but they generally involve two crucial phenomena: the division
of men into classes and the exploitation of one class by another. . . . The state, law, religion, and ideology function to bring
temporary stability into inherently unstable situations. Since economic structure is more basic, it can be termed the 'substructure'
of society; and the supporting institutions may be termed the 'superstructures' . . . In the theory of substructure and superstructure,
we see one of the first and most comprehensive theories of society as an institutional order.
"Conflict theory. The Marxian conception of society is one of a larger set of conceptions that can combine under the heading of
'conflict theory.' The premise of conflict theory is that men are organisms, and as such they must compete for access to the
resources of life. The struggle for existence does not occur between isolated individuals but between certain groups. In various
versions of conflict theory the competing units may be families, bands, classes, nations, or races, depending on the special
interests of the analyst or the stage of social development under analysis. . . . Society is viewed as an organizational device for
relating populations of organisms to an environment, and in this sense conflict theory may be said to adopt an ecological
perspective. . . . [581]
"Emergence of the 'utilitarian society.' Nineteenth-century evolutionary theory . . . worked out developmental sequences for every
institutional sphere of society. . . . As [societies come to increase in scale and complexity,] . . . new forms of social organization
become possible. Social organization can be built upon processes of free discussion, free exchange, and the pursuit of individual
interests. The inflexibility of the 'cake of custom' and rigid military organization becomes nonadaptive; only a looser framework
of organization can improve the adaptation of society to the environment by unleashing the forces of creativity and
innovation. . . .
"Not all of the social analysts writing at the end of the nineteenth century viewed the emergence of the utilitarian society with
equanimity. According to some analysts, the breakdown of old forms of organization meant the loss of what had once provided
society with integration, coherence, and meaning. The utilitarian society, founded upon the industrial revolution, the capitalist
system, and the market mentality, fails to provide for an ethical standard outside of the individual or a viable source of social
cohesion.
"In 1887 Tnnies incorporated this type of perspective into his famous dichotomy between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. In
the Gemeinschaft (usually translated as 'community') men are held together by communal feeling and organic ties. In
the Gesellschaft (usually translated as 'society') organic ties are replaced by artificial ties of calculating self-interest. . . .
"The independent reality of society. In 1893 Durkheim . . reaffirmed the reality of society as an entity. . . . [H]e insisted that a
modern society, founded on the extensive division of labor, cannot be conceptualized as a mere collection of the wills of isolated
individuals. It is . . . no less organic than earlier forms of society. . . .
"Other analysts of the era developed similar techniques for identifying the reality of the social. Simmel found a social level in the
mutual influence that interacting persons have upon each other. Mutual influence comes to have coherent forms, and thus, as
people interact, they create society. . . .
'The social-psycholgical approach. In the United States a social-psychological school emerged which found in the concept of
symbolic interaction the key to the integrated treatment of society and the social person. Cooley, Mead, and others explored the
development of personality and society as they emerge through interaction. Their analysis permitted a novel conceptualization of
human society as a symbolically regulated process. . . . It is through participation in that complex of differentiated and
interrelated roles called 'society' that we develop our distinctly human capacities and identities. It is through adopting, playing,
and imaginatively construing social roles that we develop social personality. Thus, self and society are intimately connected
through the concept of role. . . .
"Society as process. . . . [T]he most sophisticated analysts converged on the idea that society is ultimately an organized
process. . . . The units of [social] relations are not people but activities. . . .
"The new emphasis on process did not eliminate the ideological component of the concept of society. . . . For example, the
popularity of the social-psychological approach in the United States cannot be separated from its capacity to provide a
sociological foundation [for] the defense [583] of either conservatism or radicalism, depending on whether social reality is
conceived as an irreducible obstacle or an inexorable transformative force. . . .
"The truth or falsehood of alternative conceptions of society is not at issue here. . . .
"How . . . is a society to be distinguished from a community? The term community has been used in a variety of ways. For some,
communities are locally based units of a larger society; for others, 'community' [584] refers to some aspect of society, such as its
solidarity (that is, communal) or spatial components. Others, particularly in the German sociological tradition, distinguish
communities as relatively solidary types of societies.
"It is legitimate to use the term 'community' to refer to both locally based units and some aspect of the larger society. . . . The
concept of population can be used in a similar way to distinguish societies from other sets of systems of social processes, since
the latter may have sets of members without having populations in the biotic sense. A society is sustained by a population. To
establish the boundaries of a societal population we may adopt a definition of population quite similar to the one employed by
bioecologists: A population consists of the self-perpetuating inhabitants of a territorial area. In this context the term 'self-
perpetuation' implies mating, and the term 'inhabitant' implies relatively permament residence. Thus, the boundaries of a society
are established by the limits of the largest territorial area within which mating is common and residence is relatively
permament. . . .
"The society is not the population, but the complex systems of action in which the units of the population participate.
"In a highly organized society, which closely controls the relations between the units of its population and members of other
populations, it may be useful to treat only relations within the societal population as internal to the society. On the other hand,
when societal systems become very permeable to social influences that transcend population boundaries, it is more realistic to
consider the society to have irregular boundaries and to overlap other societies.
"If sociological analysis is adequately to represent the constraints imposed by this emergent global level of social reality, its
analytical conceptions must not be inflexibly tied to the concept of the national boundary."
History of the social sciences
The history of the social sciences has origin in the common stock of Western philosophy and shares various precursors, but
began most intentionally in the early 19th century with the positivist philosophy of science. Since the mid-20th century, the term
"social science" has come to refer more generally, not just to sociology, but to all those disciplines which analyse society and
culture; from anthropology to linguistics to media studies.The idea that society may be studied in a standardized and objective
manner, with scholarly rules and methodology, is comparatively recent. Whilst there is evidence of early sociology in medieval
Islam, and whilst philosophers such as Confucius had long since theorised on topics such as social roles, the scientific analysis of
"Man" is peculiar to the intellectual break away from the Age of Enlightenment and toward the discourses of Modernity. Social
sciences came forth from the moral philosophy of the time and was influenced by the Age of Revolutions, such as the Industrial
revolution and the French revolution.
[1]
The beginnings of the social sciences in the 18th century are reflected in various
grand encyclopedia of Diderot, with articles from Rousseau and other pioneers. The growth of the social sciences is also reflected in
other specialized encyclopedias. In the modern period, the term "social science" first used as a distinct conceptual field.
[2]

Around the start of the 20th century, Enlightenment philosophy was challenged in various quarters. After the use of classical
theories since the end of the scientific revolution, various fields substituted mathematics studies for experimental studies and
examining equations to build a theoretical structure. The development of social science subfields became very quantitative in
methodology. Conversely, the interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary nature of scientific inquiry into human behavior and social and
environmental factors affecting it made many of the natural sciences interested in some aspects of social science
methodology.
[3]
Examples of boundary blurring include emerging disciplines like social studies
of medicine, sociobiology, neuropsychology, bioeconomics and thehistory and sociology of science. Increasingly, quantitative and
qualitative methods are being integrated in the study of human action and its implications and consequences. In the first half of the
20th century, statistics became a free-standing discipline of applied mathematics. Statistical methods were used confidently.
In the contemporary period, there continues to be little movement toward consensus on what methodology might have the power
and refinement to connect a proposed "grand theory" with the various midrange theories which, with considerable success, continue
to provide usable frameworks for massive, growing data banks. See consilience.
Characteristics of society
Is it really possible to study main characteristics of a society without study of the cities that are part of that? Sociologist have a wide
variety of technics that help them to find main features of a society such as study major cities, study works of literature and study
monuments. There can be no doubt that study major cities of a society can make a significant help to understand that
society. In my view, study major cities is not necessary for [b]discover important characters of a society.[/b]( there is a conflict
here)

First and foremost reason why study major cites does not make help is that a territories if a society my be spread among many
countries and sometimes many continents.( not clear) For instance, Western society is spread between North America and
Europe therefore study a city such as New York City and Paris not help us but also distract sociologist. For example in New York
City people always in hurry and usually eat fast foods on the other hand whereas in Paris people pay more attention to their
mealtime so eat their food in peaceand some times take more than an hour to eat their main course. Thus, who only studies these
two cities cannot understand whether people in Western society have their meal in a hurry or peace.

A second instance in which study a major city is not necessary is that it takes long time for a society to form, so study a city only
shows the contemporary situation of that city. For instance, study a current situation of Beijing - capital city of China - does not help
us to understand important characteristics of East society. These days modern cities are changing dramatically and it is very hard to
find static characters in them. In Eastern society people usually spend their time with their family at home but these days in a city
like Beijing new recreation facilities motivate people to spend their times in night clubs rather than stay home with their families.

Last but not least reason why we should study more important factors instead of cities is that these days cities are full of people
from different cultures and nationalities so it is very hard to find the similar attributes between them. For instance, It is very
hard to find a Western society characteristics in a cosmopolitan like New York city because in that city you can find more than 25
different nationalities live together and each have their own specific culture.

In conclusion, it is clear that study major cities in a society does not help us to find important characteristics. These days cities are
mixture of people with different thoughts, cultures and ideas and each of them belongs to a specific society. Ultimately, there are
better ways rather than studying cities that help sociologist to discover the most important characteristics of a society.
I just pick up some mistakes in your writing.I think your essay is good in terms of organisation and flow of writing, grammar and
vocabulary.However, the topic sentence in the 1st para is not clear.

Atomic Structure
The text provides a historical perspective of how the internal structure of the atom was discovered. It is certainly one of the most
important scientific discoveries of this century, and I recommend that you read through it. However, we will begin our discussion of
the atom from the modern day perspective.All atoms are made from three subatomic particles
Protons, neutron & electrons.
These particles have the following properties:
Particle Charge Mass (g) Mass (amu)
Proton +1 1.6727 x 10
-24
g 1.007316
Neutron 0 1.6750 x 10
-24
g 1.008701
Electron -1 9.110 x 10
-28
g 0.000549
In the above table I have used a unit of mass called the atomic mass unit (amu). This unit is much more convenient to use than
grams for describing masses of atoms. It is defined so that both protons and neutrons have a mass of approximately 1 amu. Its
precise definition will be given later.The important points to keep in mind are as follows:
Protons and neutrons have almost the same mass, while the electron is approximately 2000 times lighter.
Protons and electrons carry charges of equal magnitude, but opposite charge. Neutrons carry no charge (they are
neutral).
It was once thought that protons, neutrons and electrons were spread out in a rather uniform fashion to form the atom (see J.J.
Thompsons plum pudding model of the atom on page 42), but now we know the actual structure of the atom to be quite different.
What does an atom look like?
Protons and neutrons are held together rather closely in the center of the atom. Together they make up the nucleus, which accounts
for nearly all of the mass of the atom. Electrons move rapidly around the nucleus and constitute almost the entire volume of the
atom. Although quantum mechanics are necessary to explain the motion of an electron about the nucleus, we can say that the
distribution of electrons about an atom is such that the atom has a spherical shape. Atoms have sizes on the order of 1-5 (1
angstrom = 1 = 1 10
-10
m) and masses on the order of 1-300 amu. To put the mass and dimensions of an atom into perspective
consider the following analogies. If an atom were the size of Ohio stadium, the nucleus would only be the size of a small marble.
However, the mass of that marble would be ~ 115 million tons.
What holds an atom together?
The negatively charged electron is attracted to the positively charged nucleus by a Coulombic attraction. The protons and neutrons
are held together in the nucleus by the strong nuclear force.
How many electrons, protons and neutrons are contained in an atom?
Atoms in their natural state have no charge, that is they are neutral. Therefore, in a neutral atom the number of protons and
electrons are the same. If this condition is violated the atom has a net charge and is called an ion.The number of protons in the
nucleus determines the identity of the atom. For example all carbon atoms contain six protons, all gold atoms contain 79 protons, all
lead atoms contain 82 protons.Two atoms with the same number of protons, but different numbers of neutrons are called isotopes.
How does the structure of the atom relate to its properties?
Chemical reactions involve either the transfer or the sharing of electrons between atoms. Therefore, the chemical reactivity/
properties of an element is primarily dependent upon the number of electrons in an atom of that element. Protons also play a
significant role because the tendency for an atom to either lose, gain or share electrons is dependent upon the charge of the
nucleus. Therefore, we can say that the chemical reactivity of an atom is dependent upon the number of electrons and protons, and
independent of the number of neutrons.The mass and radioactive properties of an atom are dependent upon the number of protons
and neutrons in the nucleus.
Note: The number of protons, neutrons and electrons in an atom completely determine its properties and identity, regardless of how
and where the atom was made. So it is inaccurate to speak of synthetic atoms and natural atoms. In other words a lead atom is a
lead atom, end of story. It doesnt matter if was mined from the earth, produced in a nuclear reactor, or came to earth on an
asteroid.
All matter is made up of atoms. An atom is like a tiny solar system. In the center of the atom is the nucleus which
is a cluster of protons and neutrons. The protonshave a positive electric charge while the neutrons are
electrically neutral. The nucleus makes up almost all of an atom's mass or weight. Whirling at fantastic speeds
around the nucleus are smaller and lighter particles calledelectrons which have a negative electric charge.

An atom has the same number of electrons (- ve charge) and protons (+ ve charge) to make the atom electrically
neutral. An extremely powerful force, called the nuclear force, holds the protons together in the nucleus as they
naturally repelled one another electrically.

The atoms of each chemical element have a different nucleus. An atom of hydrogen has one proton and no
neutrons. An atom of nitrogen has 7 protons and 7 neutrons. Heavy elements have a large number of protons and
neutrons. For example, the most commonisotope of uranium, uranium-238 has 92 protons and 146 neutrons in its
nucleus.

The drawing on the left shows a carbon atom with 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons.
"Let Her Go"

Well you only need the light when it's burning low
Only miss the sun when it starts to snow
Only know you love her when you let her go

Only know you've been high when you're feeling low
Only hate the road when youre missin' home
Only know you love her when you let her go
And you let her go

Staring at the bottom of your glass
Hoping one day you'll make a dream last
But dreams come slow and they go so fast

You see her when you close your eyes
Maybe one day you'll understand why
Everything you touch surely dies

But you only need the light when it's burning low
Only miss the sun when it starts to snow
Only know you love her when you let her go

Only know you've been high when you're feeling low
Only hate the road when you're missin' home
Only know you love her when you let her go

Staring at the ceiling in the dark
Same old empty feeling in your heart
'Cause love comes slow and it goes so fast

Well you see her when you fall asleep
But never to touch and never to keep
'Cause you loved her too much
And you dived too deep

Well you only need the light when it's burning low
Only miss the sun when it starts to snow
Only know you love her when you let her go

Only know you've been high when you're feeling low
Only hate the road when you're missin' home
Only know you love her when you let her go

And you let her go (oh, oh, ooh, oh no)
And you let her go (oh, oh, ooh, oh no)
Will you let her go?

'Cause you only need the light when it's burning low
Only miss the sun when it starts to snow
Only know you love her when you let her go

Only know you've been high when you're feeling low
Only hate the road when you're missin' home
Only know you love her when you let her go

'Cause you only need the light when it's burning low
Only miss the sun when it starts to snow
Only know you love her when you let her go

Only know you've been high when you're feeling low
Only hate the road when you're missin' home
Only know you love her when you let her go

And you let her go

Dahan lang, dahan lang

Pwede bang umibig nang hindi nasasaktan
Pwede bang pigilin ang pusong nagmamahal
Nangangarap lang sana'y malaya ka
'Di makatulog sa gabi sana ikaw ang katabi

Ooh, dahan-dahan lang
Dahan-dahan lang
Dahan-dahan lang
Ooh, dahan lang
Dahan-dahan lang
Masakit man aminin 'di maalis sa isipan
Ang halik na galing langit sa labi mong pinagmulan
Dahan-dahan lang

Dahan-dahan lang
(Dahan lang, dahan lang)
Ooh...

Pagkakamali ba ang ako'y magdahilan
Paano lilimutin ang ating nakaraan
Kasalanan bang ibigin kang tapat
May luha bang pumapatak dahil sa tuwa't galak

Ooh, dahan-dahan lang
Dahan-dahan lang
Dahan-dahan lang
Ooh, dahan lang
Dahan-dahan lang
Masakit man aminin 'di maalis sa isipan
Ang halik na galing langit sa labi mong pinagmulan
Dahan-dahan lang

'Wag padalos-dalos sa landas
Ang buhay natin marahas
Ipaglalaban kong karapatan na lumigaya
Ngunit ngayo'y litong-lito
Paano ba tayo umabot dito
Tama o mali, pwede bang pwede bang pakisabi

Ooh, dahan-dahan lang
Dahan-dahan lang
Dahan-dahan lang
Ooh, dahan lang
Dahan-dahan lang
Masakit man aminin 'di maalis sa isipan
('Di maalis sa isipan)
Ang halik na galing langit sa labi mong pinagmulan
Dahan-dahan lang

Dahan lang, dahan lang
Dahan lang, dahan lang
Dahan lang, dahan lang
Dahan-dahan lang