ADVERTISEMENTS:
The following points highlight the two main elements of culture. The elements are: 1. Thinking 2. Doing.
Element # 1. Thinking:
(i) Values:
One cannot meaningfully interpret many aspects of the culture of a group without a broad acquaintance with the ‘values’ and ‘beliefs’ of the group. ‘Value’ may be defined as a conception or standard by which feelings, ideas, actions, qualities, objects, persons, groups, goals, means, etc. are evaluated as desirable or undesirable, more meritorious or less, more correct or less.
A social group is emotionally committed to the ‘values’ which prevail. ‘Values’ are seldom questioned. These are tacitly accepted. Such ‘values’ may grow out of deep philosophical reflection or out of practical experience and knowledge about the physical and social universe.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
When we speak of the spirit of Indian culture or the Indian way of life, we actually mean the values which permeate the Indian society and regulate the thinking and behaviour of Indians in general. ‘Values’ are generally arranged in a hierarchical order — some dominant some less dominant and still some others secondary.
(ii) Beliefs:
Unlike ‘values’ which are essentially social in nature, ‘beliefs’ are more personal. ‘Beliefs’ do not lay down, like ‘values’, any standard by which to judge anything as good or bad. Appropriate or inappropriate, desirable or undesirable. ‘Beliefs’ are neither true nor false.
The efficacy or validity of a ‘belief is not tested by knowledge or experience of the physical and social universe. Thus, the primitive people in all parts of the world ‘believed’ in the world of spirit and took various means to propitiate or control evil spirit. Many people in all parts of the world even today entertain such ‘beliefs’.
Even in advanced societies of today, ‘beliefs’ exist side by side with modern scientific knowledge. For example, a devout Hindu or a Moslem or a Christian says a silent prayer at the same time that he is taking a patient’s temperature with a thermometer.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is wrong to assume that ‘beliefs’ are confined to religious sphere alone. In modern societies, economic, political and social ‘beliefs’, have assumed a tremendous importance.
Some governments consider certain political or social ideas to be inimical to its security and spare no pains to suppress those ideas. Most often such perceptions are based on untested knowledge and are thus of the essence of ‘beliefs’.
Because of its intimate relation to conduct, ‘belief has been of continuing interest to social philosophers and its psychological nature a frequent subject of study. It is generally recognised that to the extent that an idea fills the mind to the exclusion of possible alternatives we tend to hold it true.
Thus, fixed ideas and inflexible ‘beliefs’ arise in a state of mental debility. Certain psychologists emphasize the active element of assent in the judgment that something is true.
Some have stressed the purely voluntary character of this assent while others insist that when we truly believe, as when we truly love, we feel compelled to do so. The recognition that we have a choice means that another view is possible, and this is implicit doubt.
Whatever the psychological characteristics of belief, it is clear that its specific forms are largely social in origin. These are in many cases conditioned by our habitual emotional reactions with the result that through following a certain mode of life, one generally ends by sharing the beliefs of others who follow that mode. ‘Beliefs’ may be institutionalized.
A dogma, for example, is a religious belief that members of a particular religious group ‘must’ accept. Similar is the case with a political dogma or creed which the members of the particular political party ‘must not’ challenge.
(iii) Ideologies:
In addition to ‘values’ and ‘beliefs’, there are other ideas which the members of a society are expected to believe and uphold not because these are true (the question of truth may be impossible to determine) but because these are considered right or good or proper in that society.
As a matter of fact, there is, so to say, a moral obligation to believe and uphold those ideas if one wishes “to remain in good standing” in that “society.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
These are the ideologies. Every society has its set of ideologies. For instance, those who share the contemporary culture of the Indian society also share the ideology “The truth shall prevail”. It is accepted as a self-evident truth. No one needs to prove the validity of the motto. The possibility that falsehood may sometimes win over truth is not taken into account such considerations are irrelevant.
The proposition that ‘the truth shall prevail’ is thus ideological rather than scientific. Some sort of sanctity is attached to these ideologies. Not that all those who accept this ideology act according to the standard implicit in the ideology. One may often say and do things bordering more on falsehood than on truth. Yet no one can openly advocate falsehood as a national motto.
It is easier to indulge in falsehood than it is to advocate it. Similarly, a life of renunciation is accepted as an ideal by almost all sections of the Indian people. One who gives up all his earthly possessions and severs connections with his family and friends and takes to the life of a ‘sanyasin’ or ‘fakir’ is held as an ideal.
But few mothers would encourage their sons to follow the ideal. On the contrary, in most cases they would be genuinely unhappy if their sons decide to follow the ideal. No effort will be spared to dissuade them from taking to the life of a ‘sanyasin’ or ‘fakir’. Nevertheless, the life of renunciation is upheld as an ideal and one who practices the ideal is held in high esteem.
The following example may be cited to indicate the nature of ideology. In the late thirties, Bertrand. Russell was appointed to the faculty of The City College of New York as a teacher in mathematical logic. The offer of appointment aroused very Strong and bitter resentment.
The ground on which the appointment was opposed was that in one of his works Russell had suggested that the taboo on adultery be reconsidered, and that such relaxation might contribute to the stability of marriage.
The opposition was so violent and strong that ultimately the budgetary provision for his salary was withdrawn and the entire proposal was dropped. It is to be noted that Russell himself was not guilty of having committed adultery. He only expressed his personal views on social morals which offended the sensibilities of the people and challenged their ideological stance on adultery.
It is also to be noted that his views on morals had nothing to do with his teaching mathematical-logic. Apparently, it is easier to commit adultery than it is to advocate it openly. It is thus evident that all societies cherish some ideologies and these ideologies are an intimate and important part of their culture.
Utopian Structures:
Ideologies are defined by some sociologists as ‘utopian structures’ which may be defined as those particular sets of normative patterns which, though not institutionalized, do require allegiance to them as institutionalized ideals.
Allegiance to them as ideals is highly traditionalized in both conformity and sanction aspects. Thus, one does not in fact expect conformity to the principle of ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself. But its expression as an ideal is certainly institutionalised in some social contexts and its perpetuation is institutionalised.
Element # 2. Doing:
Norms:
We have seen that culture means the way of life of a people living in a particular society. It is the cementing bond which knits the people together; through experience people in society have discovered what is right and proper and what is improper and wrong for a healthy social life.
These standards of behaviour, called norm are built into the cultural life of the people.’ When sociologists use the concept of norm, they refer not to ways of thinking but to ways of doing. Most of the things we do as members of society and most of the things we refrain from doing are cultural in character.
A close analysis of cultural pattern reveals its prescriptive and proscriptive elements. It prescribes the way the people should behave. It also proscribes patterns of behaviour which the people should avoid. Culture is, therefore, essentially a bundle of do’s and don’ts. And the society in which the people live is essentially a normative society.
These prescriptive and proscriptive elements of culture, however, differ in terms of the degree of pressure which the society brings to bear upon its members to conform to the norms.
In some cases, the society exercises the utmost pressure to enforce conformity; in some cases the pressure is comparatively mild and in some cases the pressure is virtually non-existent. The norms are accordingly classified into institutions, mores and folkways. We take up these norms in a reverse order.
i. Folkways:
The term ‘folkways’ was coined by William Graham Sumner, the Yale University sociologist. Folkways are conventional practices which are accepted as appropriate but not insisted upon. All forms of social etiquette and models of social behaviour go by the name of ‘folkways.
They may vary from society to society, and from time to time. The folkways generally relate to dress, polite behaviour or etiquette and convention. Thus, a Rajput, who does not wear a turban, is ignoring one of the folkways of the Rajput community.
A Westerner, who refuses to wear a tie on formal occasions, is ignoring one of the folkways of the Western society. Similarly, ladies are expected to wear a particular type of dress when they attend a wedding reception and to dress differently when they attend a funeral.
Society has also developed what is called etiquette or standard of polite behaviour in order to make social living smooth and pleasant. Thus, when a host, who invites people to a dinner on some occasion, asks his guests about the quality of food served, etiquette demands that the guests should speak well of the quality of cooking even though it may not really be so.
Polite behaviour demands that one should not be truthful in such matters.
There are also well-established conventions in every society which its members are expected to conform to. Thus, it is generally accepted as a sign of good behaviour that one should not ask a stranger or a chance acquaintance about the salary he draws. This is considered to be impolite and unconventional. Those persons who deviate from any of the aforesaid patterns of behaviour may be looked upon merely as eccentric or staunch individualists.
Folkways are norms to which we conform because it is customary to do so in our society. Conformity to the folkways is neither required by law non-enforced by any special agency of society. Folkways perform two important functions.
First, folkways constitute an important part of the social structure and contribute to the order and stability of social relationships. Second, conformity to folkways gives a sense of security to the members of society.
Convention:
Convention emphasises common agreement about a customary practice. It has many forms. Thus, in a social gathering we generally ignore aspects of a situation that are likely to cause bitterness or to produce difficulties.
The relation between two gentlemen, for instance, may be far from cordial. But when they meet in a social gathering, they generally follow the convention not to bring out their conflict into the open lest that should spoil the congenial atmosphere of the gathering.
Similarly, there is a tacit agreement not to ask a stranger or a chance acquaintance about his salary. The convention is thus a very useful code which “serves to maintain a superficial but often serviceable type of solidarity”.
Etiquette:
The term etiquette is used for certain customary practices in ‘polite society’ generally involving detailed formalities. For example, it is bad manners for a host to sit down before his guest takes his seat. Similarly, social etiquette demands that men should get up when a woman guest arrives.
“In fact, every group that possesses a tradition of any length develops a protocol of regulations prescribing the norms of behaviour for certain events”.
Etiquette serves a social purpose because it prescribes the procedure for specific occasions or circumstances. Since it represents a code of manners of a group, etiquette distinguishes superficially a social class, and is sometimes made a criterion of one’s right to belong to it.
Mores:
The more binding folkways were characterised by Sumner as ‘mores’ (the plural form of the rarely used Latin word ‘mos’, pronounced mo-rez).He defined the mores as “the popular usages and traditions, when they include a judgment that they are conducive to societal welfare, and when they exert a coercion on the individual to conform to them, although they are not co-ordinated by any authority ….” Mores are norms to which we conform because it is considered to be morally appropriate in our society.
Mores differ from folkways in the sense that moral conduct differs from merely customary conduct. Our society requires us to conform to the mores without, however, having established a special agency to enforce conformity. Conformity to mores is enforced in various ways.
Any failure to conform to the prevailing mores is followed by moral disapproval and frequently strong pressure from those who disapprove of such violation. Some examples would make the meaning clear.
The man or woman who pushes to the head of the queue and tries to board a bus or tram out of turn is violating one of the mores of the society. It is more likely in such an event that he would not be allowed to board the bus by jumping the queue.
The man who supports a wife and a mistress is regarded as having committed an immoral act. Hence, he is charged with violation of mores. Various kinds of social pressure in the form of satire, social boycott, etc. are brought to bear upon him to enforce conformity to mores.
As group standards and value judgments vary, so does the mores. Thus, one group condemns the re-marriage of widows on moral grounds whereas another group may not find anything morally wrong in re-marriage of widows and may actually commend it.
Similarly, among Hindus in North India married women are obliged to cover their heads while among Hindus in South India only widows (and not all married women) are obliged to cover their heads.
The mores perform three important functions in social life. In the first place, since mores are strongly enforced by a group which constantly exerts pressure on every individual member, they determine much of our individual behaviour. Secondly, by conforming to the group mores, an individual identifies himself with the group.
Such identification is obviously essential for satisfactory social living. Thirdly, the identification of individuals with the group serves to bring about and maintain group solidarity. A group striving for greater solidarity tries to strengthen the hold of its mores on the members.
The mores are usually agents of conservatism in social life. They represent a vast amount of past experience of the group which is “transformed and stereotyped into tradition”. Naturally, therefore, members of a group look upon them as “right” and ‘proper’.
They are also not inclined to pursue practices or methods which are not approved by the prevailing mores, sometimes out fear and sometimes out^^ uncertainties inherent in untried means.
A word of caution about the distinction between folkways and mores. The distincti6n between the two is not rigid. What is considered to be mores today may be considered to be folkways in future and vice versa. It all depends upon the degree of importance attached by a society to certain norms.
Customs:
Folkways and mores together constitute the customs of society. Just as an individual is habituated to do certain things during certain hours of the day, so also the members of a society habitually follow folkways and mores. These are social customs.
Individual acts, if repeated, become habits. Thus, when a person gets up early in the morning regularly, we call it his habit. “Habit means an acquired facility to act in a certain manner without resort to deliberation or thought”.
When we form a habit, it becomes easier for us to act in a certain way, and difficult to act in ways other than the one to which we are habituated. Habit-formation is a part of our learning process. Once a habit is formed, it becomes a part of our nature — a “second nature”; as it is called.
Habit is useful to us in our day-to-day living. There are many acts which have to be repeated every day, such as brushing teeth and washing mouth in the morning, using soap at the time of taking bath, etc. Our lives would have been miserable if we had to think afresh each day of each step of these processes.
It is undoubtedly a tremendous gain to be able to entrust these repetitive acts “to the semi-conscious operations of habit”. We thereby gain time for more useful jobs. Maclver and Page have therefore observed: “Habit as the instrument of life economizes energy, reduces drudgery and saves the needless expenditure of thought”.
But habit has another aspect also. Once habituated, we follow mechanically certain ways of doing things as a matter of routine. We do not generally think of alternative ways. Habit thus acts “as a conservative force in social life”. Among ‘barriers’ to social change, the most important one is that presented by habit.
It is, however, wrong to assume from the aforesaid discussion that mart is a slave to his habit, that habit is “some all-powerful master ruling us against our will”. The actual choice from among a set of alternatives is made by a man who acts on his own. Once the decision has been made, “habits begin to confirm the choice, to counter its disadvantages and disappointments, to close the alternatives”.
When individual habits are repeated among masses of people, and when the repetition is frequent enough, they become customs. The distinction between habit and custom is not, however, merely a quantitative one. Custom is more than the habits of a group. It has a social quality, which is lacking in the case of habit.
A habit concerns an individual who may form his habits in isolation from the society. A hermit, for example, may develop certain habits which do not concern the society at all. A custom, on the contrary, has behind it the sanction of society. It exists as a part of the social fabric. Ogburn and Nimkoff have therefore observed: “Customs are social habits and through repetition become the basis of an order of social behaviour”.
Though habit and custom are distinct, yet they are sometimes causally related in social life. Thus, “the customs of the group are translated through education into the habits of each generation, and the habits thus formed perpetuate the customs.”
Here customs precede and influence habits. But habits also precede and influence customs. “When personal habits are sufficiently similar, such as those induced by the discovery of new techniques, they are apt not only to modify old customs but also to stimulate new ones”.
In urban areas, for instance, many people develop the habit of dining out in hotels and restaurants. When such a habit becomes fairly common among the members of a community, the custom of arranging receptions (say, in connection with marriage) in hotels, instead of at home, becomes increasingly popular.
Similarly, many new habits induced by many new scientific devices and industrialisation in general “have undermined old customs and have helped to bring about others”.
Custom has been the earliest means of social regulation. Where social organisation is simple, custom plays an important part. It is virtually the king. “With the weight of tradition behind it, custom ordains every occasion, assigns to each his rights and duties, adjusts the claims and interests of each to those of the rest”.
Custom has not grown in any community by a conscious effort, but “by an imperceptible process of growth as a reflex from the feelings of order, justice, and utility that existed in the minds of the people”. It is obeyed for a variety of reasons.
It is obeyed because of habit, of its social utility, and of the security which it provides. Thus, a community which is exposed to acts of aggression from without is likely to develop various customs which are conducive to the growth of militant outlook.
At the time of the Moghuls, the Rajput’s developed customs which had this very purpose in view. But as social relations become complex, custom fails to provide with sufficient promptness the new rules for the regulation of new problems as they arise.
There are several reasons as to why the rule of custom must be supplemented by some cither social code. In the first place, custom lacks authoritative agency to enforce its decision in cases of dispute.
Secondly, customs are effective in a simple society marked by face-to-face relationships. In such a society “no one escapes beyond the range of gossip, of group opinion and group control”. Besides, seldom does any novel situation arise for which custom cannot provide.
In a complex society, on the other hand, personal relationships are replaced by impersonal ones and old ways of life are replaced, partially or wholly, by new ways.
It is, therefore, natural that the effectiveness of custom as an agency of social control diminishes in a complex society. Thirdly, a complex society consists of different groups having different customs.
These differences in customs may arise from differences in the linguistic or religious or ethnic backgrounds of these groups. In such cases customary rules must be replaced by a code of conduct equally acceptable to all the groups.
Traditions:
When customs operate for a fairly long period of time and acquire a strength because of their having continued for a long period, these are generally referred to as traditions of the society. Traditions may, therefore, be defined as customs of very long standing. The term ‘tradition’ may also be defined as an institution whose perpetuation is institutionalised — that is, as a special form of institution.
A tradition in this sense is a double institutionalization:
(i) The structure concerned is an institution, and
(ii) The perpetuation of the structure is also an institution.
Fashion:
We may introduce here the concept of fashion. It refers to changing customs which lack continuity and persistence and are expected to change rapidly, usually within limits set by the prevailing mores. Fashion does not affect basic values. It affects those aspects of life which are considered to be relatively of minor importance.
For example, there is in every group a customary dress for men and women. But slight variations in such customary dress may become fashionable for some time. Hence, Maclver and Page have defined fashion as “the socially approved sequence of variation on a customary theme”.
As compared to fashion, custom is more enduring, more closely related to the life and temperament of the group, and more intimately wedded to tradition, Fashion, on the other hand, is concerned with the superficial aspects of life, and is definitely opposed to tradition. Some sociologists, therefore, define fashion as the “imitation of contemporaries”, and contrast it with custom which is the “imitation of ancestors”.
The meaning of fashion will be more adequately brought out when we contrast it with style. Style is more individualistic and personal, as is the case with an artist who follows a style of his own. When his style is followed more widely by others, then the element of fashion comes in.
Similarly, a film actress may follow a particular hair style of her own. When this particular hair style becomes popular and is widely copied by others, it becomes a ‘rage’, a fashion with a group.
Though fashion is concerned with the superficial aspects of life, yet it satisfies some of the deeper urges of man. A hankering after novelty, a craving for distinction, and the need for conformity — these are the three demands of social men which are satisfied by fashion. The demand for novelty is not always consistent with the demand for conformity.
A harmonisation between these logically opposite needs is brought about by fashion. Since fashion is concerned with the external and superfluous aspects of social life, it does not stand in the way of conformity.
At the same time, the slight changes from the established practices in dress, hair styles or other forms of behaviour satisfy the craving for novelty. These minor changes “seem for the moment to give the victory to the individual”.
In an open-class society marked by vertical mobility, external symbols are very important in determining the status of a person. Since fashion generally radiates from “the prestige owning groups” the people follow a fashion because it meets their desire to look respectable.
Different types of fashion represent different “standards of income and of taste”. So a person who is eager to show off his distinctions in these fields naturally adopts the prevalent fashionable practices.
Fashion has gained greater prominence in modern times than it ever did before. As soon as a new fashion is introduced, it extends over a very wide area, and affects people belonging to all classes. Fashions also change with greater frequency today than it ever did before.
We may explain these developments with reference to the following factors:
(a) Changes in class structure:
Under the closed social system, status of a person depends on birth, land ownership or wealth. External symbols are not, therefore, very important in determining his status.
Under the impact of technology and industrialisation, the closed social system is being replaced at a very rapid pace by an open class structure (even in developing countries) in which possession of external symbols adds to the status of a person. Naturally it becomes fashionable to imitate the ways of those who have prestige in that particular field,
(b) Increased prosperity and leisure:
Almost all forms of fashion make a demand on one’s purse and time. Previously, only a few could afford the necessary time and money to cultivate fashionable practices. But the application of technology has made available to a large number of people greater amount of prosperity and leisure. Hence, what was once a privilege of the few is now within reach of a large number of people.
(c) Easy means of communication:
The spread of fashion in modern times is also the result of the enormous development of the means of communication which has practically annihilated distances. Different regions and communities have, consequently, lost their previous compactness and aloofness.
“Contacts bring alien customs together and diminish the sanctity of many of the established ways”. In these circumstances, custom and tradition naturally lose hold, and fashion gains ground,
(d) Modern industrial organization and mass media of communication:
Modern industrial organisation is associated with mass production of commodities. So sales agencies are “at work to stimulate the growth of fashion and above all to accelerate the change of fashion” in order to push the sale of particular products.
When a new model or a new design of a product is brought out, the advertising agencies utilise the available mass media of communication to impress upon the people that a new fashion has arrived in the market and that people of good taste should have it.
“Modern advertising-shows more and more the tendency to praise less the quality of the goods which are advertised than to suggest social image. Modem research has proved that people buy not only to satisfy material needs but that an act of social communication is linked with the purchase. In this way people take part in the way of life and habits of a highly esteemed minority group”.
It is, therefore, no wonder that it becomes ‘fashionable’ at a particular time to buy a certain commodity or to see a particular film, or to wear a particular type of dress.
ii. Institution:
Obviously, it is not possible to bind the society with the help of folkways and mores which are not enforced very strongly. Nor are there specific agencies to enforce these norms. This gap is filled in by another type of norm called institution.
The concept of institution suggests the idea of some sort of social control. It denotes “patterns of approved or sanctioned behaviour” of a group which has sometimes the backing of the law as well as the moral approval of the community.
For instance, marriage may be viewed as an institution which regulates the mating relationship between man and woman. This may be distinguished from courtship which is considered to be a custom which is not insisted upon before a couple decides to marry. But the society will not allow a man and a woman to live as husband and wife unless they are formally married according to socially approved practices.
Complications arise with regard to a child born of a couple who were not married according to socially accepted practice. Such a child bears the stigma of an illegitimate off spring affecting adversely his rights to property as well as his social standing. One should bear in mind the distinction between the sociological meaning of the term ‘institution’ with its meaning in ordinary parlance.
Anything that is socially established is called an institution in ordinary speech. Thus, by educational institution, we mean a school or college. In Sociology the term ‘institution’, like many other sociological concepts, carries a very specific meaning.
According to sociologists, the institutions are developed with a view to fulfilling certain interests or special objectives.
We may show the relation between social organisation (or association), institutions and special interests with reference to the following chart:
The aforesaid chart becomes meaningful when we are clear about the points of distinction between an association and an institution. An association is an organised group. It may be large or small. It is organised with some specific purpose or purposes in view. Since it is an organization, it has obviously some structure and some continuity.
It has, in addition, an identity and a name. An institution, on the contrary, is not at all a group, whether organized or unorganized. “An institution is an organised procedure ………….. a formal, recognised, established and stabilized way of pursuing some activity in society. In succinct terms, then, an association is an organized group; an institution is an organized procedure”.
The distinction may be illustrated with reference to concrete cases. Two street urchins may be engaged in fighting, one trying t® run the other down. In another case, in an organised show two boxers may be engaged in the same kind of activity with the similar objective of one knocking the other down.
There is, however, an important difference between these two cases. In the former, the activity is unorganised and not related to any established and recognised procedure. In this sense, the activity (i.e. fighting between the urchins) is not institutionalised.
In the second case the boxers are engaged in a fight strictly in terms of a rigorous set of norms. In this case, the boxing activity is institutionalised. Such organised procedure is an institution. We may think of another case.
A child is taught at home by his father, mother, elder brothers or sisters. He may also be taught by his teachers in the school. Teaching at home is unorganised, and it does not follow any prescribed procedure. Teaching in the school is, however, very much formal and organised to the minutest details, starting from a prescribed daily time table to the holding of periodical and annual examinations.
Here the teaching procedure is institutionalised. The school is an association and the procedure of teaching at school is an institution. Similarly, “the care and cure of the ill can be institutionalised in some societies, political leadership in others, and intercession with the gods in all”. Thus, we have educational institution, political institution, educational institution or religious institution.
Two simple tests may be applied in order to dispel the confusion with regard to the distinction between these two phenomena, associations and institutions. The first is that an association has always a reference to a location.
An institution, on the other hand, has no such reference. It is absurd to think of an institution having a locational dimension. Thus, a college or a university has a location, but, not teaching procedure or examination system or education.
The second test is that one belongs to an association but not to an institution. We belong to a college or a university, but not certainly to the examination system. Likewise, we may belong to a family, but not to marriage or to the family conceived as a complex of various procedures regulating mutual relationship among members of the family and various functions like procreation and upbringing of children.
“Similarly, a government is an association, government an institution. The Government of India, the Government of Maharashtra or, for the matter of that, any government is an organised group and hence an association. Government, on the other hand as a regular and recognised way of governing — that is, of making political decisions, enacting and enforcing laws, and maintaining formal order in a society — is an institution”.
We may now enquire in what respect an institution, which has been defined as an established procedure, differs from other social norms, particularly from folkways and mores. The latter are “sustained and sanctioned by unorganised groups within a society and by entire communities”.
We have already seen that there are no special agencies to enforce folkways and mores. Institutions, on the other hand, require specific associations to sustain them. Wherever there is an institution, there is also an association to sustain and enforce that particular institution. Thus, to impart elementary education to a child is a customary activity carried on by members of the family.
But when we come to formal education, we have to think of schools and colleges in order that an elaborate procedure may be set up for the purpose of imparting teaching, “Institutions and associations are thus concomitant and correlative phenomena.”
To cite another example, the customary greeting procedure, whether by joining the two’ palms together and saying ‘Namaste’ or by shaking hands and saying ‘hallo’, is sanctioned and sustained by the unorganized community. A salute, on the other hand, is sustained and supported by the Army or the Police organization. The former is a folkway and the latter an institution.
Law:
We know that in a complex society custom fails to regulate social life very effectively on certain occasions. There is, therefore, the need for a legal code as the regulator of social life. Laws deal with external conduct and are enforced by a system of compulsions.
Law has been variously defined. According to the Analytical Theory, law is, in the last analysis, reducible to the commands of a determinate superior. The Historical School of Jurisprudence objects to this view.
According to this school, law is the product of different social forces. From this point of view, law may be defined as the totality of the historical, moral, religious, economic and ethical forces functioning within society.
Woodrow Wilson, who sought to harmonies these two views, defined law as “that portion of the established thought and habit which has gained distinct and formal recognition in the shape of uniform rules backed by the authority and power of government”.
We may reduce from this definition certain essentials of law. These are:
(i) The presence of a civic community;
(ii) Laws as reflecting the social conditions of that community;
(iii) Laws as a body of rules;
(iv) Laws as regulating the external conduct of man; and
(v) Laws as implying coercion, more physical than moral
From this point of view, non-legal norms of society may be distinguished from laws which are “legally established norms which may or may not have the moral sanction, characteristic of the mores”. Non-legal norms are also distinguishable from laws from another point of view. Non-legal norms, to use one of Sumner’s expressions, are crescive.
That is, they just grow. “A simple example can be found in the college classroom. Seats are normally unassigned and students sit where they like. After the first few meetings of the class, however, the students tend to occupy the same seats every day and may even develop a proprietary attitude toward them. Thus a seating pattern emerges that was wholly unplanned”.
On the other hand, laws are enacted. They are enacted by legislatures, interpreted and applied by the courts, and enforced by the executive branch of the government.
The functions of law are broadly two in number. First, to maintain an order “within which men shall find security and the common conditions of opportunity”. Second, to adjust and peacefully settle “those conflicts of interests between individuals or groups which they cannot settle for themselves or in the settlement of which they encroach on the interests of others”.
It is, therefore, obvious that law is an instrument in the hands of the government to maintain law, order and security. The nature of this instrument also indicates its limitations. Law is primarily concerned with the external acts of men, and not with their motives, thoughts and attitudes.
Its scope is thus much more restricted than that of ethics which control the totality of human life, both his thoughts and deeds. Law is virtually ineffective to produce any effect in those areas where emotions and sentiments are involved, as in the case of religion.
We know that custom is inadequate to deal with problems of a relatively complex society. So also is law ineffective to “prescribe religions or other forms of belief. But the fact remains that both types of code are essential in social life. In important respects they are interdependent.
It has been said that in the development of law, custom is the conservative element, and legislative enactment the radical. The chief function of custom is to maintain the status quo. But customs become sometimes inconsistent with the spirit of the time. In such cases legislative enactment should provide rules consistent with newer social needs.
Laws should not be invented, in the sense that they should not be far in advance of what is recognised as usual by the general conscientiousness of the people. A law remains a dead letter when it is far in advance of what is recognised by the people to be necessary and useful. Laws must, therefore, be supported by custom. Custom also supplements law and prepares the way for its development.
Aristotle remarked that “a law derives all its strength from custom”. The customary law in India and the Common Law of England are good illustrations of the notable part played by custom in the evolution of law.
By way of emphasizing the part played by custom in the development of law, Maclver says:
“In the great book of law the State merely writes new sentences and here and there scratches out an old one. Much of the book was never written by the state at all”.