Table 1.

Assumptions of Functionalism, the Conflict Perspective, and Symbolic Interactionism 1

MACROSOCIOLOGY MICROSOCIOLOGY
Functionalism The Conflict Perspective Symbolic Interactionism
Leading Theorists: Leading Theorists: Leading Theorists:
Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Charles H. Cooley, George Herbert
Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, Georg Simmel, Gaetano Mosca, Mead, William I. Thomas, Herbert
Robert Merton Vilfredo Pareto, Thorstein Veblen, Blumer
Systems Theory (Niklas Luhman) Critical School, Analytical Socio. Labeling Theory (H. Becker)
Assumptions Assumptions Assumptions
1. A society is a relatively integrated 1. A society experiences 1. Human beings act according to
whole. inconsistency and conflict their own interpretation of reality.
2. A society tends to seek relative everywhere. 2. Subjective interpretations are
stability or dynamic equilibrium 2. A society is continually subjected based on the meanings we learn
3. Most elements of a society to change everywhere. from others.
contribute to the society’s well- 3. Elements of a society tend to 3. Human beings are constantly
being and survival. contribute to the society’s interpreting their own behavior as
4. A society rests on the consensus of instability. well as the behavior of others in
its members 4. A society rests on the constraint terms of learned symbols and
and coercion of some of its meanings.
members by others.
Other major theories
Role Theory; Dramaturgy (Erving Goffman); Exchange Theory (G. Homans); Sociological Phenomenology
(Edmund Husserl, Alfred Schutz, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann), Ethnomethodology (H. Garfinkel)
Integrative Theories (ex. A. Giddens, P. Bourdieu) Postmodern Theories (J.F. Lyotard, J. Baudrillard etc.)

THE DUALITY OF CULTURE AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Culture “… taken in its wide ethnographic sense is that complex whole which
includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and
habits acquired by man as a member of society…” (Edward B. Tylor, 1871, p. 1) 2

Society “is composed of a people living within defined territorial borders who share
a common culture [and who interact more with each other than they do with other
individual—who cooperate with each other for the attainment of certain ends. 3] It is
the largest and most nearly self-sufficient social structure in existence… it contains
enough smaller social structures—family, economy, government, religion—to fulfill
all the needs of its members…” 4

Note: “Society is generally used to refer to the ‘patterned relationships obtaining

between people,’ while Culture is often regarded as the ‘the product of such
patterned relationships’ (i.e., the technology, beliefs, values, and rules that both
serve as guides to, and result from, such patterned relationships). While this
distinction may be useful one for various analytical purposes, it is highly artificial
and it sharply divorced from the concrete reality of the lives of human beings. The
distinction therefore has little to commend it, and it has probably done more
harm than good. Accordingly, to avoid this distinction it is useful to follow
those who have used the hybrid term sociocultural system…”5(Emphasis mine)
Figure 1, The links between Culture and
Social Structure (Shepard, 1993, p. 114)
1
Based on the work of Ralf Dahrendorf (1958) as quoted in Shepard, J. (1993), Sociology, 5th ed., St. Paul, MN:West Pub. Com. p. 32
2
Quoted in Harris, M. (2000), Cultural Anthropology, 5th ed., Massachusettes: Ally & Bacon, p. 9
3
Kluckholm, C. (2000, orig. pub. 1968), Queer Customs (from Mirror for Man). In G. Massey (Ed.), Readings for Sociology, 3rd ed.,
NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., pp. 82-89
4
Shepard, 1993, p. 120
5
Sanderson, S. K. (1999), Macrosociology: An Introduction to Human Soceities, 4th ed., NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., p. 32
Sociocultural system [is] “a collection of people who make use of various means of adapting to their physical
environment, who engage in patterned forms of social conduct, and who create shared beliefs and values designed to
make sense of their collective actions.” 6
NATURE (Biology) VS. NURTURE (Social and Cultural Environment)
Instincts “are genetically inherited, complex patterns of behavior that always appear among members of a
particular species under appropriate environmental conditions… reflexes –[are] simple, biologically
inherited automatic reactions to physical stimuli…” 7
Drive – “a physiological condition which impels the organism to become active in being initially
indiscriminate, without an appropriate direction.” 8Drives are “impulses to reduce discomfort.” 9
Cultural environment “refers to the learned ways of living and norms of behaviors –folkways, mores, laws,
values, ideas, and patterned ways of the group…Personality refers to the sum total of all the physical,
mental, emotional, social, and behavioral characteristics of the individual... [the] Social environment…
refers to the various groups and social interactions going on in the groups of which one is a member…” 10
From Clyde Kluckholm’s Queer Customs11
...The members of all human groups have about the same biological equipment. All men undergo the same
poignant life experiences such as birth, helplessness, illness, old age, and death. The biological potentialities
of the species are the blocks with which cultures are built. Some patterns of every culture crystallize around
focuses provided by the inevitable of biology: the difference between the sexes, the presence of persons of
different ages, the varying physical strength and skill of individuals. The facts of nature also limit culture
forms. No culture provides patterns for jumping over trees or for eating iron ore.
There is no “either-or” between nature and that special form of nurture called culture. Culture
determinism is as one-sided as biological determinism. The two factors are interdependent. Culture arises out
of human nature, and its forms are restricted both by man’s biology and by natural laws. It is equally true that
culture channels biological processes—vomiting, weeping, fainting, sneezing, the daily habits of food intake
and waste elimination. When a man eats, he is reacting to an internal “drive,” namely, hunger contractions
consequent upon the lowering of blood sugar, but his precise reaction to these internal stimuli cannot be
predicted by physiological knowledge alone. Whether a healthy adult feels hungry twice, three times, or four
times a day and the hours at which this feeling recurs is a question of culture. What he eats is of course
limited by availability, but it also partly regulated by culture. it is a biological fact that some types of berries
are poisonous; it is a cultural fact that, a few generations ago, most Americans considered tomatoes to be
poisonous and refused to eat them. Such selective, discriminative use of the environment is characteristically
cultural. In a still more general sense, too, the process of eating is channeled by culture. Whether a man eats
to live, lives to eat, or merely eats and lives is only in part an individual matter, for there are also cultural
trends. Emotions are physiological events. Certain situations will evoke fear in people from any culture. But
sensations of pleasure, anger, and lust may be stimulated by cultural cues that would leave unmoved
someone who has been reared in a different social tradition…
Special Topic: The Sociobiology Controversy (Text adapted from Sanderson, 1999, pp. 38-39)
...Sociobiologists attempt to discover the extent to which human social behavior is the result of genetic traits
characteristic of the entire human species. In other words, they are interested in identifying the basic features
of human nature. They base their assumptions on the Darwinian model of biological evolution through
natural selection. They believe that as humans evolved from their primate ancestors they inherited certain
biological traits from those ancestors that continue to exist in modern humans. These traits are held to have a

6
Sanderson, 1999, p. 42
7
Shepard, 1993, p. 78
8
Zulueta, F. M. & Paraso, M. S. (2004), General Psychology, Mandaluyong: National Book Store, p. 437
9
Shepard, 1993, p. 78
10
Panopio, I. & Raymundo, A. (2004), Sociology: Focus on the Philippines, 4th ed., Quezon City: Ken Inc. pp. 98-99
11
Kluckholm, C. (2000, orig. pub. 1968), Queer Customs (from Mirror for Man). In G. Massey (Ed.), Readings for Sociology, 3rd ed.,
NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., pp. 82-89
direct influence on many patterns of social behavior. Sociobiologists do not claim that human social behavior
is merely the product of our genetic programming; they recognize that most human activities result from
specific forms of learning in particular social and cultural environments. Nevertheless, they argue that human
behavior is not entirely learned, and that many aspects of it may be under genetic control.
A well-known example of sociobiological reasoning is found in the work of Lionel Tiger and Robin
Fox (1971). Tiger and Fox argue that humans come equipped with a biogrammar: a basic set of biological
instructions predisposing them to act in certain ways. They do not regard these instructions as constituting
fixed, immutable instincts. Rather, they view them as general behavioral tendencies that are subject to being
modified or even neutralized by certain learning experiences. They see the following as the most essential
elements of the human biogrammar:
 The tendency of humans to form strongly hierarchical groups and societies in which the competition for
status is of paramount importance.
 The tendency of males to bond together in political coalitions in which they exercise political dominance
and control over females.
 The tendency of mother and child to form a strong mutual attachment.
 The predisposition of humans (especially males) to engage in various forms of aggression and violence.
 The tendency of humans to defend territorial space against intrusions by outsiders.
Tiger and Fox reach these conclusions by drawing analogies between human behavior and the
behavior of contemporary nonhuman primates. They not that most nonhuman primates are organized into
societies based on status hierarchies with dominance of male over females, and they infer from this that a
basic primate biogram has been retained throughout human evolutionary history. The tendency for modern
humans to form hierarchical, competitive, and male-dominated social systems is therefore seen as resting
essentially in our genes. The same kind of bioevolutionary reasoning is applied by Tiger and Fox in reaching
the conclusion that mother-child boning and the predisposition toward aggression and territoriality are rooted
in our biological nature.
Tiger and Fox’s arguments are illustrative of one particular version of sociobiological theorizing.
Other Sociobiologists employ the theory of kin selection as the guiding principle in their thinking (E. O.
Wilson, 1975; Symons, 1979; Trivers, k1985). This theory is based on the recent assumption made by many
evolutionary biologists that the gene, rather than the organism or species, is the unit on which natural
selection operatives (cf. Dawkins, 1976). Evolutionary biologists who maintain this assumption claim that
natural selection operates to preserve certain genes and maximize their representation in future generations.
Kin selection theory…posits that many forms of behavior result from the attempts of individuals to
maximize their inclusive fitness. Inclusive fitness is the sum of an individual’s own fitness plus the fitness
present in the genes of all its relatives. A major application of kin selection theory has been to the commonly
observed phenomenon of altruism among closely related individuals. For example, the theory holds that
when a parent behaves in a self-sacrificial manner toward its offspring it is assisting them to survive and
reproduce and therefore leave more copies of its genes in future generations. Such altruistic behavior, then,
serves to maximize the parent’s inclusive fitness.
…Since the theory successfully explains the importance of kinship bonds in may animal species, it
has been proposed that it helps to explain the universality of human kinship systems and the great
significance that is attached to kinship in so many societies (van de Berghe, 1979)…

A Critism…
… Anthropologist Marvin Harris (1980) agrees that there is some biological continuity between
human and nonhuman animals and that there is a basic human nature. He objects, however, to the
Sociobiologists’ attempt to explain human behavior genetically. There is, contends Harris, too much cultural
diversity around the world to explain human behavior biologically. The human brain and the unique human
capacity for using language and creating culture have allowed humans to overcome any significant
contribution to behavior that might come from their genes. Because of the size of their cerebral cortex—
which permits, among other things, abstract thinking—humans possess a greater capability for the creation
and learning of culture. Nonhuman species, which either have no cerebral cortex or have an undeveloped
cerebral cortex, behave similarly because of a genetic code. Birds do not walk south for the winter, salmon
do not fly upstream, and lions do not prefer ferns to fresh mean. Humans, liberated from the confines of their
 genes by a large, well-developed cerebral cortex, on the other hand, create and transmit a dazzling array of
ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving. More over, a better explanation—one based on culture—already
exists. Harris and many other critics believe that sociobiology should not sidetrack us from our efforts to
understand and explain human behavior in cultural terms. 12
CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTURE
1. Culture rests on symbols13
Signs or signals –“the distinctive quality of a sign is that the relationship between it and the meaning it is
intended to convey is genetically fixed [instinctive]…Signs are thus closed, or nonproductive, mechanisms
of communication; their meaning is rigidly predetermined, and there is no possibility of new meanings being
added.”
Symbol—is something that represents something else.
Language –is “the systematized usage of speech and hearing to convey, communicate, or express feelings
and ideas (Eshelman and Cashion 1983: 93).” 14 “Charles Hockett and Robert Ascher (1964) have specified
four primary characteristics of true language… [1] language has the quality of openness. The symbols out of
which language is build can take on new and varied meanings…in addition, speakers can emit new
utterances that have never been heard or said before… [2]… [is] displacement…[which] refers to the ability
to speak of things that are out of sight, in the past or future, or even nonexistent… [3] duality of patterning is
a distinctive characteristic of language. Language has, on the one hand, a patterning of a basic set of
elementary sound units [i.e. phonemes], themselves meaningless in isolation, and, on the other hand, a
patterning that combines these individual sound units into prescribed sequences that render them meaningful
[i.e. morphemes, syntax]…Finally, [4] language is transmitted by learning…”15
The Sapir –Whorf Hypothesis
According to Edward Sapir (1929) and Benjamin Whorf (1956), language is our guide to reality; our view of
the world depends on the particular language we have learned. Our perception of reality is at the mercy of the
words and grammatical rules of our language. And because our perceptions are different, our worlds are
different. This is know as the hypothesis of linguistic relativity…When something is important to people, the
language of those people will contain many words to describe the thing…When something is unimportant to
people, such people may have no word for the thing… Although the principle of linguistic relativity states
that a person’s view of the world is colored by his or her language, it does not state that people are forever
trapped by their language…People can begin to view the world differently as they learn a new language.
Most people, however, confine themselves to their native language. Consequently, most people interpret
their environment through the words and structure of their language. This limits their ability to perceive and
understand. Language, then, so necessary for the creation and transmission of culture, is also constricting. 16
2. Culture is transmitted
3. Culture is social, collective, and learned
4. Culture is ideational
“Ideal Culture vs. Real Culture”
5. Culture is gratifying
6. Culture is adaptive
7. Culture is an integrated whole

12
Shepard, 1993, p. 79
13
Sanderson, 1999, p. 32
14
Panopio & Raymundo, 2004, p. 53
15
Sanderson, 1999, p. 27
16
Shepard, 1993, p. 81
DIMENSIONS OF CULTURE (Definitions were copied verbatim from Panopio I. and Raymundo A., 2004, pp. 58-95,
footnoting was continued for texts from other sources)
A. Values are abstract concepts of what is important and worthwhile. These values are the basis of our judgment,
of what we consider good, desirable, and correct, as well as what is considered bad, undesirable, and wrong
(p. 63)…To identify the values operating in a given society, one may apply the fourfold test of Robin
Williams (1970:448). These are: extensiveness, duration, intensity, and prestige of its carrier (p.84)… Values
are not called full values unless they go through the cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes (p.87).
“…Values are so general that they do not specify appropriate ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving. Thus, it
is possible for different societies or different groups within the same society to have quite different norms
based on the same value.”17
FILIPINO VALUES
Four Basic Filipino Values based on the studies of Jaime Bulatao (pp. 87-88)
1. Emotional closeness and security in a family
2. Approval from authority and of society
3. Economic and social betterment
4. Patience, endurance, and suffering
Ten Filipino values identified by Robin Williams (1970) adapted from the American Culture. (pp. 89-90)
1. Equal opportunity…society should provide everyone with the opportunity to be successful.
2. Achievement and success are encouraged by competition so that a person’s rewards reflect his or her
personal trait.
3. Material comfort which refers to money making…[in order to buy for] symbols of wealth
4. Activity and work. We tend to prefer action to reflection and try to accept hard work than accept our fate.
5. Practicality and efficiency
6. Progress. The preference for products which are identified as the “latest” therefore the “best.”
7. Science
8. Democracy and free enterprise
9. Freedom
10. Racism and group superiority
Key values that dominate in Philippine way of life (pp. 90-94)
1. Nonrationalism vs. Rationalism. The philosophy implied in non-rationalism is the idea that people have to
adapt themselves to nature and the forces outside themselves.… [it] involves an uncritical acceptance,
reverence, and protection of traditions and rituals…Rationalism is the belief that one can actively control
and manipulate his or her destiny by systematic planning, studying, and training…[he or she] is future-
oriented rather than present or past oriented… He or she gives high priority to self-expression and
creativity over group conformity and security.
Some nonrational Filipino practices:
Bahala na, tiyaga, lakaran, iginuhit ng tadhana, gulong ng palad, amor propio (high self-esteem), hiya,
utang na loob, awa, pagiging matiisin, pakikisama, euphemisms, delicadesa (conformity with the ethical
practices of the group), hele-hele bago quiere (pakipot), ,Kamag-anakan, kumpadre system, nepotism,
lakaran, tayo-tayo, regionalism
2. Personalism vs. Impersonalism,
3. Particularism vs. Universalism
4. Filipino Nationalism suffers from “national amnesia” and “colonial mentality.”
B. Normative Dimension; Norms are rules or group expectations of how one should behave or act in certain
situations (p. 58).
1. Folkways are the general rules, customary and habitual ways, and patterns of expected behavior within
the society where they are followed, without much though given to the matter (p. 59). “Since folkways are
not considered vital to the welfare of the group, disapproval of violators is not very great. Those who

17
Shepard, 1993, p.85
 consistently violate folkways…might be considered odd and may be avoided, but they are not considered
wicked or immoral.”18
2. Mores (singular is Mos) are special folkways which are important to the welfare of the people and their
values. They are based on ethical and moral values which are strongly held and emphasized (p. 61).
“Although conformity to folkways is generally a matter of personal choice, conformity to mores is
required of all members of a society. As in the case of folkways, some mores are more vital to a society
than others…a taboo is a norm so strong that its violation is thought to be punishable by the group or
society or even by supernatural force.”19 Ex. Incest taboo and bestiality
3. Laws are formalized norms, enacted by people who are vested with government power and enforced by
political and legal authorities designated by the government (p. 61). “Folkways and mores emerge slowly
and are often unconsciously created and enforced. Mores are an important source of laws…but not all
mores become laws…nor have all laws been mores at one time…” 20
 Mechanisms on enforcing norms:
a. Sanctions “are rewards and punishments used to encourage socially acceptable behavior. Formal
sanctions may be given only by officially designated person, such as judges, executioners, or college
professors. [They] range widely in their severity…Informal sanctions… can be applied by most
members of the group… Sanctions are not used randomly. Specified sanctions are associated with
specific norms…Sanctions do not have to be used most of the time. After we reach a certain age, most
of us conform because we believe that the behavior expected of us is appropriate, because we wish to
avoid guilt feelings, or because we fear social disapproval. In other words, if we have been properly
socialized, we will sanction ourselves mentally before doing something deviant.” 21
 Formal and Informal sanctions can be either positive or negative sanctions.
C. Cognitive Dimension; “Cognition is the mental process that enables humans to think, remember, recognize
and imagine.”22
1. Knowledge is the total range of what has been learned or perceived as true...This body of information is
accumulated through experience, study, or investigation. However, what is considered to be the truth may
change…Culture includes natural, supernatural, technical, and magical knowledge (Richter 1987: 149-
150). Natural knowledge refers to the accumulated facts about the natural world, including both the
biological and physical aspects. Technological knowledge pertains to the knowledge of nature which is
useful in dealing with practical problems… Supernatural knowledge refers to perceptions about the
actions of gods, demons, angels, or spirits, and natural being like shamans, withes, or prophets who are
held to possess supernatural powers. Magical knowledge refers to perceptions about methods of
influencing supernatural events by manipulating certain laws of nature (p. 58).
2. Beliefs embody people’s perception of reality and may include primitive ideas of the universe as well as
the scientist’s empirical view of the world… People consider, consult, and depend on their body of beliefs
for certain courses of action (pp. 63-64).
D. Material Dimension; “Material Culture refers to the concrete, tangible objects within a culture” 23
1. Technology refers to techniques and know-how in processing raw materials to produce food, tools,
shelter, clothing, means of transportation, and weapons (p. 64).
2. Artifacts are the material objects that are produced by technology (Ibid).
Table 2. The Basic Components of Sociocultural Systems 24
IDEOLOGICAL SUPERSTRUCTURE SOCIAL STRUCTURE MATERIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
General Ideology; Religion; Science; Social Stratification; Racial and ethnic Technology; Economy; Ecology;
Art; Literature stratification; Polity; Gender inequality Demography
Family and kinship; Education

18
Shepard, 1993, p. 82
19
Ibid, p. 83
20
Ibid, pp. 83-84
21
Ibid, pp. 84-85
22
Ibid, p. 87
23
Ibid
24
Sanderson, 1999, p. 44
Excerpts from Sanderson, S. K. (1999). Macrosociology: An Introduction to Human Societies, 4th ed., NY:
Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

The material infrastructure consists of the basic raw materials and social forms pertinent to human survival
and adaptation. A society’s infrastructure is its most basic component in the sense that without it physical
survival is literally impossible. The infrastructure is itself composed of four fundamental subunits (p. 43):

Technology [and artifacts] – consists of the information, tools, and techniques with which human adapt
to their physical environment. It consists not merely of physical or concrete tools or objects, but also of
knowledge that humans can apply in particular ways….

Economy – the organized system whereby goods and services are produced, distributed, and exchanged
among individuals and groups. Production refers to such things as what goods are produced, who
produces them, what tools or techniques are used in their production, and who owns the basic materials
that enter into the process of production. Distribution involves the manner in which the items produced
are allocated to various individuals and groups within the society. Exchange is carried out when
individuals and groups transfer valuables to one another in return for other valuables. A society’s means
of distributing goods and services is generally dependent upon the means by which they are produced.

Ecology – includes the totality of the physical environment to which humans must adapt. It involves
such things as types of soils, the nature of climates, patterns of rainfall, the nature of plant and animal
life, and the availability of natural resources. In a strict sense, ecology is not a part of a sociocultural
system; it is the external environment to which sociocultural systems must adjust. However, since
ecological factors are frequently crucial determinants of various aspects of social life, ecology is here
treated as a fundamental component of sociocultural systems.

Demography. Demographic factors are those involving the nature and dynamics of human
populations. The size and density of the population; its growth, decline, or stability; and its age and sex
composition are important things to know in studying any society. Demographic factors also include
techniques of population regulation or birth control and the intensity with which these are applied.

Social Structure …consists of the organized patterns of social life carried out among the members of a society,
excluding those social patterns that belong to the infrastructure. It is imperative to note that the social structures
always refers to actual behavioral patterns, as opposed to images or mental conceptions that people have bout
those patterns. In other worlds, the social structure consists of what people actually do, not what they say they
do, think they do, or think they ought to do. For present purposes, the social structure consists of six subunits
(pp. 43-45):

Social stratification (or its absence) – refers to the existence within a society of groups of unequal
wealth and power. Not all societies have social stratification [in terms of wealth and power]…

Racial and ethnic stratification (or their absence). This refers to whether or not there exist within a
society groups that may be distinguished by racial or ethnic characteristics, and if so, whether or not
such groups occupy unequal positions with respect to each other. (Racial groups are those that are
distinguishable on the basis of observable physical characteristics; ethnic groups are those that exhibit a
cultural distinctiveness.) Many societies in human history have not had racial or ethnic stratification. In
the past several hundred years, however, racial/ethnic stratification has been a prominent feature of
numerous complex societies.

Polity. This refers to a society’s organized means of maintaining internal law and order, as well as to its
means of regulating or conducting intersocietal relationships. All societies have political systems,
although the nature of such systems varies greatly from one society to another.
 Gender divison of labor and gender inequality. This involves the way in which men and women are
allocated to specific tasks or roles within the social division of labor. It also includes the ways in which
and the degree to which men and women occupy positions of unequal rank, power, and privilege within
a society. Although the gender division of labor and gender inequality are universal, there is a great
variation among societies in terms of the specific forms these phenomena take.

Family and kinship. All societies have family and kinship systems, or organized sociocultural patterns
devoted to mating and reproduction… the specific nature of these systems varies greatly from one
society to another. Furthermore, different subcultures within a society often reveal different family and
kinship patterns.

Education – is any formalized or semiformalized system of cultural or intellectual instruction. Most

societies have lacked highly formalized educational systems, but not society has failed to develop some
sort of procedure for transmitting knowledge, skills, or values to the next generation.

Ideological superstructure involves the patterned ways in which the members of a society think,
conceptualize, evaluate, and feel, as opposed to what they actually do. Whereas the structure refers to behavior,
the superstructure refers to thought. The superstructure includes the following subcomponents (p. 45):

General Ideology. This refers to the predominant beliefs, values, and norms characteristic of a society
or some segment of a society. Beliefs are shared cognitive assumptions about what is true and what is
false. They concern such things as the nature of the universe, what child-training techniques produce
children with healthy personalities, what differences exist between men and women, and literally
thousands of other things. Values are socially defined conceptions of worth. They order our experience
of what is god and bad, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, desirable and undesirable, and so on.
Norms represent shared standards or rules regarding proper and improper social conduct. They are the
do’s and don’ts that societies attempt to instill in their members. All societies create beliefs, values, and
norms, but the diversity of these phenomena is extraordinary.

Religion consists of shared beliefs and values pertaining to the postulation of supernatural beings,
powers, or forces. Such beings, powers, or forces are generally held to intervene directly in the operation
of society, or at least to have some indirect connection with it. Like many of the other components of
sociocultural systems, religion is a universal feature of human social life.

Science is a set of techniques for the acquisition of knowledge relying upon observation and experience
(i.e., collection of factual evidence, demonstration, proof, etc.). It includes not only the techniques and
procedures for producing knowledge, but also the accumulated body of knowledge itself. Conceived in
this way, science is not a cultural universal, but has flourished only in certain places at certain times.

Art is a universal component of sociocultural systems. It consists of the symbolic images or

representations having esthetic, emotional, or intellectual value for the members of a society or segment
of a society. The symbolic images or representations in question are of a physical nature.

Literature also consists of symbolic images or representations having esthetic, emotional, or intellectual
value. However, in this case the images or representations are verbal (oral or written) rather than
physical in nature. Conceived in this way, myth, legend, and the plays of Shakespeare all account as
literature.

The Logical Priority of Infrastructure (pp. 53-54)

…A materialist approach is unable to explain all relevant sociocultural phenomena, but an approach that
could do so does not exist… Materialists hold that infrastructural variables take priority because they constitute
the fundamental means whereby human beings solve the most basic problems of human existence. Before
humans can formulate marriage rules, organize political systems, and construct abstract religion concepts, the
must organize the means whereby they will survive. Marx and Engels clearly understood this elementary fact.
As Engels put it in his famous eulogy at Marx’s graveside (Engels, 1963, pp. 188-189):

Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in
human history; he discovered the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind
must first of all eat and drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, religion, art,
etc., and that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the
degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon
which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, the art and even the religion ideas of the people concerned have
been evolved, and in the light of which these things must therefore be explained, instead of vice versa as had
hitherto been the case.

Marvin Harris has argued for the logical priority of infrastructure along similar lines (1979, p. 57):

Infrastructure… is the principal interface between culture and nature, the boundary across which the ecological,
chemical, and physical restraints to which human action is subject interact with the principal sociocultural
practices aimed at overcoming or modifying those restraints. The order of cultural materialist priorities from
infrastructure to the remaining behavioral components and finally to the mental superstructure reflects the
increasing remoteness of these components from the culture/nature interface… Priority for theory building
logically settles upon those sectors under the greatest direct restraints from the givens of nature. To endow
the mental superstructure with strategic priority, as the cultural idealists advocate, is a bad bet. Nature is
indifferent to whether god is a loving father or a bloodthirsty cannibal. But nature is not indifferent to whether
the fallow period in a swidden field is one year or ten. We know that powerful restraints exist on the
infrastructural level; hence it is a good bet that these restraints are passed on to the structural and superstructural
components.

Ethnocentrism – A universal social doctrine holding that one’s own culture or society is superior to all others.
Literally, “my group is the center.” (p. 412) …To a very substantial degree, we are products of our own culture,
and virtually all of us are inclined to think of our own way of life as the most desirable and other cultures as
representing various gradations of less desirable lifestyles. Ethnocentrism is a universal human phenomenon (p.
34).

Cultural relativism – the doctrine that no culture is inherently superior or inferior to others, but that, since
every culture represents an adaptive solution to fundamental human problems, all cultures are “equally valid.”
Cultural relativists believe that the standards of one culture cannot be used to evaluate another, and therefore
that the standards for the evaluation of a culture can only be those of that culture itself (p. 34).

[Criticisms]

“It leads to the approval of practices that are patently inhumane” (Hatch, quoted in Sanderson, 1999, p.
35) …In addition, cultural relativism seems to perpetuate a kind of “tyranny of custom” by leaving little or no
room for the autonomy of the individual (ibid).
Elvin Hatch (1983) has suggested a way around cultural relativism that overcomes its basic deficiencies
while at the same time retaining what seems to be of value in it: its general plea for tolerance. Hatch propose
what he calls a “humanistic principle” as a means of judging other cultures. This principle holds that cultures
can be evaluated in terms of whether or not they harm persons by such means as torture, sacrifice, war, political
repression, exploitation, and so on. It also judges them in terms of how well they provide for the material
existence of their members, that is, the extent to which people are free from poverty, malnutrition, disease, and
the like. Beyond this consideration, cultures cannot really be meaningfully evaluated (Hatch, 1983, p. 138):
Relativism prevails in relation to the institutions that fall outside the orbit of the humanistic principle, for here a
genuine diversity of values is found and there are no suitable cross-cultural standards for evaluating them. The
finest reasoning that we or anyone else can achieve will not point decisively to the superiority of Western
marriage patterns, eating habits, legal institutions, and the like. We ought to show tolerance with respect to these
institutions in other societies on the grounds that people ought to be free to live as they choose.
 While Hatch’s proposal does seem to improve considerable on cultural relativism, such complex ethical
questions unfortunately cannot be settled quite so easily. It is highly doubtful that even Hatch’s strongly
modified version of cultural relativism can be taken as a truly acceptable ethical philosophy. Yet despite our
objections to either of these versions of relativism, we must recognize that cultural relativism is useful and
necessary as a sort of practical guiding premise in exploring the nature of sociocultural systems. It therefore has
methodological, if not ethical, value. It has methodological value because it compels the examination of cultural
patterns in terms of their adaptive character. Without cultural relativism as a methodological tool, we would
confront other cultures wearing a set of cultural blinders, the result of which would undoubtedly be the
perpetuation of ignorance rather than the illumination of the basic workings of sociocultural systems (pp. 35-
36).

Subculture – a smaller culture existing within the framework of a larger culture. The members of a subculture
share specific cultural patterns that are in some way different from those that prevail in the larger culture, while
at the same time generally accepting and sharing in the patterns of the larger culture… [Many] subcultures exist
in complex societies, of course, with such factors as race, religion, regionalism, and social class serving as
important criteria for subcultural distinctions (p. 36).

Counter culture – [is a subculture, but unlike the latter, its members] do not share in the dominant cultural
patterns. Instead, countercultures tend to be based on hostility to, and rejection of, such dominant patterns.
Some countercultures are genuinely revolutionary in that they are predicated upon an attempt to make a
fundamental alteration in the dominant culture. Most countercultures, however, are not imbued with such
revolutionary intentions; instead, they are generally organized around a withdrawal from the mainstream of
cultural life (p. 36).