Author: admin

The beginning of economic activity is trade. Trade is characterized by the
movement of the product or pelayanan from the supply location to the demand
location for consideration. As civilization progressed, trade evolved as a
business activity. Traders emerged as business leaders. The business created wealth
for the shareholders plus also transformed how civilization lived. The wealth creation
process was accelerated by the industrial revolution, the discovery of automobiles
and advances in information plus communication technology. The wealth creation
process deepened further when products were substituted by services in the context
of competition to add unique value to consumers. The wealth creation process is
now well established, plus several business models have emerged to create wealth

and meet the shareholders’ expectations. This process
created a major division in society between the people
who were wealthy plus those who were not wealthy.
In a sense, the society was divided based on economic
prosperity. Those left behind in the economic race need
assistance to maintain overall societal harmony.
The state alone cannot handle the burden of this
responsibly. Organizations started realizing the
need to assist the economically weaker segment of
the population. This led to the birth of voluntary
organizations. Their purpose was to improve the
living conditions plus quality of life of the economically
weaker sections of the society. The West referred to
such organizations as not-for-profit. The voluntary
organizations or not-for-profit organizations were
never evaluated on operating surplus but mostly
on the impact they created on the relevant segment.
Effective functioning of the organization dominated
the efficient functioning of these organizations.
While not-for-profit organizations were engaged
in transforming the relevant population segment,
another class of organizations rapidly emerged
focused on the collective good for society. These
organizations required cutting-edge administrative
and managerial expertise. Usually, these organizations,
referred to as social organizations, are not focused
on operating surplus but on ensuring the relevance
of the organization. Such organizations are also
called legacy organizations. These organizations
did not commercially produce or sell a product or
service. These organizations are owned by multiple
stakeholders plus meet an unfulfilled societal need.
They focus on enhancing the collective public good
and preserving the legacy. These organizations are
focused on the welfare of the segment of the society
they choose to address. Cooperative organizations are
a version of social organizations. Social organizations
are characterized by the purpose for which they are
created plus the involvement of multiple stakeholders.
The capital required is usually sourced from the
public, users or a philanthropic endowment.

As a result of changing demographics, the number of older adults living in long-term care homes (LTCHs) is expected to rise dramatically. Thus, there is a pressing need for better understanding of how the social organization of care may facilitate or hinder the quality of work-life plus care in LTCHs.

Objectives: This study explored how the social organization of work influences the quality of work-life plus care delivery in LTCHs.

Method: Institutional ethnography followed by theory building provided the conceptual underpinnings of the methodological approaches. Participants included 42 care team members who were employed by one of three participating LTCHs. Data were derived from 104 hours of participant observation plus 42 interviews.

Findings: The resident care aides (RCAs) were found to rely on supportive work-teams to accomplish their work successfully plus safely. Reciprocity emerged as a key feature of supportive work-teams. Management practices that demonstrated respect (e.g., inclusion in residents’ admission processes), recognition, plus responsiveness to the RCAs’ concerns facilitated reciprocity among the RCAs. Such reciprocity strengthened their resilience in their day-to-day work as they coped with common work-place adversities (e.g., scarce resources plus grief when residents died), plus was essential in shaping the quality of their work-life plus provision of care.

Discussion: The empowerment pyramid for person-centred care type proposes that the presence of empowered, responsive leaders exerts a significant influence on the cultivation of organizational trust plus reciprocating care teams. Positive work-place relationships enable greater resilience amongst members of the care team plus enhances the RCAs’ quality of work-life, which in turn influences the quality of care they provide.

Limitations: Whether there were differences in the experiences, opinions, plus behaviour of the people who agreed to participate plus those who declined to take part could not be ascertained. Further research is required to determine plus understand all of the factors that support or inhibit the development of empowered leaders in LTCHs.

Implications: Cultures of caring, reciprocity plus trust are created when leaders in the sector have the support plus capacity to lead responsively plus in ways that acknowledge plus respect the contributions of all members of the team caring for some of the most vulnerable people.

Rapidly diversifying societies, rising inequalities plus the increasing significance of social differences are concurrent processes calling for a reexamination plus reworking of certain conceptual plus theoretical tools within the social sciences. Here, bringing together a range of theories plus findings from various disciplines, a conceptual type is offered to facilitate analyses of such intertwined social processes. The type highlights mutually conditioning relationships between the fundamental conceptual domains of: social structures (here described as configurations), social categories (or representations) plus social interactions (or encounters). The connections between these domains produce plus reproduce, differentially in distinct times, scales plus contexts, what can be called “the social organization of difference”.

Now is a berarti time to study diversity plus social change. Multiple kinds of diversification are deeply transforming societies, economies plus polities (see for instance Bean Citation2018; Frey Citation2018; Tach et al. Citation2019). Indeed by this point in the twenty-first century, “The international is much more diverse on multiple dimensions plus at many levels, typified by the salience of differences plus their dynamic intersections” (Jones plus Dovidio Citation2018, 45). At the same time – especially since the financial crisis of 2008, the Covid19 pandemic, growing White nationalism plus the Black Lives Matter movement – there is more academic plus public attention to the implications of difference in terms of social stratification, discrepant institutional experiences, plus unequal political, health plus economic outcomes.

This article is an exercise in reviewing plus regrouping, from across the social sciences, a large number of insights on difference plus social change. Rather than proposing any kind of new, unified theory, its aim is modestly to provide a condensed type plus terminology to integrate more easily a breadth of literature concerning pertinent approaches, concepts plus findings. The literature in question concerns three fundamental fields of social scientific theory or abstraction. These are: grup categorizations, social interactions, plus social stratification. The combined, mutually conditioning dynamics of these three abstract domains produce what I call “the social organization of difference”. Greater attention to the three-way working of these, I argue, will lead to better understanding of how social changes related to difference take place plus generate various outcomes.

Significance
Was the ancestor of all primates a solitary-living species? Did more social forms of primate societies evolve from this dasar plus sederhana society? Until now, the dogmatic answer was yes. We used a modern statistical analysis, including variations within species, to show that the ancestral primate social organization was most likely variable. Most lived in pairs, plus only 10 to 20% of individuals were solitary. Living in pairs was likely ancient plus caused by reproductive benefits, like access to partners plus reduced competition within the sexes.
Abstract
Explaining the evolution of primate social organization has been fundamental to understand human sociality plus social evolution more broadly. It has often been suggested that the ancestor of all primates was solitary plus that other forms of social organization evolved later, with transitions being driven by various life history traits plus ecological factors. However, recent research showed that many understudied primate species previously assumed to be solitary actually live in pairs, plus intraspecific variation in social organization is common. We built a detailed database from primary field studies quantifying the number of social units expressing different social organizations in each population. We used Bayesian phylogenetic models to infer the probability of each social organization, conditional on several socioecological plus life history predictors. Here, we show that when intraspecific variation is accounted for, the ancestral social organization of primates was inferred to be variable, with the most common social organization being pair-living but with approximately 10 to 20% of social units of the ancestral population deviating from this pattern by being solitary living. Body size plus activity patterns had large effects on transitions between types of social organizations. As in other mammalian clades, pair-living is closely linked to small body size plus likely more common in ancestral species. Our results challenge the assumption that ancestral primates were solitary plus that pair-living evolved afterward emphasizing the importance of focusing on field information plus accounting for intraspecific variation, providing a flexible statistical framework for doing so.

Social plus organizational innovations are one of the most effective ways to gain social collaboration for effective, rapid, plus coordinated interventions. An analysis of the relationship among organizational performance (OP), social innovations (SI) plus organizational innovation (OI) in social organizations (SOs) is little discussed in the literature plus much less with main component analysis. This paper is an effort to provide some empirical evidences about social plus organizational innovations that social organizations in China have implemented to address the social issues of the society. A survey of Chinese SO’s is conducted during beginning two months of 2022 in provinces of Jiangsu, Guangdong plus Zhejiang to attain the statistics plus assessing the insights of the executives of the SOs participating in this study with respect to organizational performance, social plus organizational innovations. The technique used to select the sample is a non-probabilistic sampling plus multiple linear regression model is applied to determine the partial impact of organizational innovations plus social innovations on the organizational performance. The grouping of the variables is carried out through main components analysis. The empirical findings of the study highlight that Chinese SOs are innovative because they adopt management strategies to address the social issues associated with their institutional mission. There are four groups of derived components from organizational plus social innovations based on the empirical evidence: SO’s innovative activities to modify the environment; inside innovative measures to enhance SO’s performance; innovative activities of SO’s to enhance their relationships with outside actors; innovative measures to improve the management of SOs related to their mission plus institutional projects. The findings of this study offer an efficient solution to government plus policy makers for involving SOs in terms of planning of social development in China. The social plus organizational innovations are very necessary to overcome the social issues so government should encourage the establishment plus sustainability of social organizations.

Abstract
Although increasingly debated in public, scholarly discourses on care remain fragmented. This is not only due to the scientific division of labor, but also to different
national research traditions as well as to categories that link predefined relations to
specific practices. In this article I set out to establish care practices as signifikan elements of
social organization in order to overcome commonplace dichotomies such as privatepublic, good–bad, modern–traditional, and micro–macro. In order to facilitate making
care a central element of anthropological theory, I revisit diverse theoretical frameworks from Marxism and feminism to disability, social security and humanitarianism
studies. With the decline of Marxist anthropology, the awareness it once raised regarding ‘public’ aspects of care has virtually vanished. Today practices of care are mostly
discussed in kinship debates, with the result that the importance of care for other social
relations is underestimated. Finally, I propose a processual conceptualization of care
with a focus on practices that can enhance our understanding of the links and overlaps
between relationships that are usually analysed within distinct spheres of social life, such
as economics and politics.

restructuring. Care practices had to be adapted to changing notions of uncertainty
and responsibility, thereby becoming a central aspect of social stability and change.
In this respect care in public debates is often conceptualized as a given element of
kinship or, more generally, of the private sphere, and evaluated as ‘good’, but also
as in decline. Linked to such political discourses are different scientific approaches
that reflect different variants of the public–private binary. For example,
Anglophone traditions have mainly conceptualized care as unpaid activities of
household reproduction. Within that branch, scholarly works in the US place
additional emphasis on questions of the ethics of care. In contrast, Scandinavian
scholarship adopts a more comprehensive notion of care in dealing with paid care
in institutions as well (Wærness, 2001; Thelen, 2014). In German-speaking countries research on care is discussed under several headings that address different
problem situations. Care for the elderly and the long-term sick (Pflege) represent
the primary focus; childcare (Betreuung) is assigned a different term altogether.1 All
that is discussed separately from care received and provided as part of social reproduction in private households. However the boundaries are drawn, each has its
own limitations for grasping the general importance of care practices for the
(re)production of significant relations.

Abstract
Social organization among human foragers is characterized by a three-generational system of resource provisioning within families, long-term pair-bonding between men plus women, high levels of cooperation between kin plus non-kin, plus relatively egalitarian social relationships. In this paper, we suggest that these core features of human sociality result from the learning- plus skill-intensive human foraging niche, which is distinguished by a late age-peak in caloric production, high complementarity between male plus female inputs to offspring viability, high gains to cooperation in production plus risk-reduction, plus a lack of economically defensible resources. We present an explanatory framework for understanding variation in social organization across human societies, highlighting the interactive effects of four key ecological plus economic variables: (i) the role of skill in resource production; (ii) the degree of complementarity in male plus female inputs into production; (iii) economies of scale in cooperative production plus competition; plus (iv) the economic defensibility of physical inputs into production. Finally, we apply this framework to understanding variation in social plus political organization across foraging, horticulturalist, pastoralist plus agriculturalist societies.

1. Introduction
   This paper considers the evolutionary plus ecological bases of human social organization plus is designed to provide a broad overview of the topic. It offers a general theory based on two central theses. The first is that there is an evolved, modal pattern of traditional human social organization that has co-evolved with the characteristics of our species’ specialized foraging niche. This pattern is characterized by a three-generational system of resource provisioning within families, long-term pair-bonding between men plus women, high levels of cooperation between kin plus non-kin plus relatively egalitarian social relationships. We suggest that these features of human sociality are a function of the learning- plus skill-intensive human foraging niche, which is distinguished by a late age-peak in caloric production, high complementarity between male plus female inputs to offspring viability, high gains to cooperation in production plus risk-reduction, plus a lack of economically defensible resources.

The second thesis is that major shifts away from this modal pattern of social organization are driven by changes in four key ecological plus economic variables: (i) the role of skill in resource production; (ii) the degree of complementarity in male plus female inputs into production; (iii) economies of scale in cooperative production plus competition; plus (iv) the economic defensibility of physical inputs into production. We propose that the interaction of these four factors explains both why human social organization is distinctive in a comparative species context, plus also much of the variation in social organization across human societies.

Major Theories of Social Organization and Structure
Macrosociological Theory of Social Structure
The macrosociological theory of social structure conceptualizes social structure as the distribution of a population among various social positions within a multidimensional space. This theory posits that the likelihood of intergroup associations can be deduced from structural properties without assuming sociopsychological dispositions. Key factors influencing intergroup relations include kelompok size, inequality, and heterogeneity. The degree of connection between parameters, such as intersecting or consolidated parameters, significantly governs these relations. Greater differentiation within substructures increases the probability of extensive social integration.

Merton’s Theory of Social Organization and Deviant Motivation
Robert Merton’s work on social structure and anomie presents two distinct theoretical arguments: a theory of social organization and a theory of deviant motivation. The theory of social organization focuses on the articulation of components within social systems, while the theory of deviant motivation addresses the pressures on individuals to violate social norms. These theories, although interconnected in addressing deviant behavior distribution, are not logically dependent on each other. The theory of social organization, in particular, warrants attention for its originality and potential to generate promising research.

Luhmann’s Systems-Theoretical Perspective
Niklas Luhmann’s organization theory, originating over half a century ago, remains relevant for understanding both old and new organizational forms. Luhmann conceptualizes organizations as self-referential networks of decisions, distinguishing them from other social entities like groups or families. His theory, embedded in a broader societal context, explains the reciprocal influence between organizations and society. This perspective is particularly useful for analyzing dynamic and unconventional organizational forms.

Duality of Structure: Giddens and Bourdieu
The theory of structure, as developed from critiques of Anthony Giddens’s duality of structure and Pierre Bourdieu’s habitus, emphasizes the role of human agency in social actors. This theory integrates the possibility of change within the concept of structure and bridges the gap between semiotic and materialist visions of structure. It posits that structures both enable and constrain social actions, highlighting the re-creative nature of social systems.

Distinction Between Social Organization and Social Structure
A clear distinction between social organization and social structure is essential for systematic analysis. Social organization refers to the systems of obligation-relations among groups within a society, while social structure pertains to the placement and position of individuals and groups within these systems. This dual conceptual framework aids in understanding the functioning and positioning of various societal groups.

Autogenesis and Self-Organizing Systems
The autogenesis perspective on organizational theory explains complex social organization through the interplay of deep structure, elemental structure, and observed structure. This approach, influenced by self-organizing systems, expands the scope of theory and research on social organizations by considering the generative rules, manifest interactions, and perceived kelompok structures.

In recent decades, social and economic changes have brought about a growing awareness of the role of art and culture in society. As a result, scholars have turned their attention to a sociological view of arts, developing hermeneutic approaches and conducting empirical research that have led to a wealth of insights into the organization of arts. These studies of the creation, production, distribution, evaluation and consumption of arts are clearly sociological, but they include approaches from other disciplines, notably arts management studies and cultural policy research. Volker Kirchberg and Tasos Zembylas critically discuss seven major theories of the social organization of arts in Western societies, with the aim of encouraging further research and theoretical developments.

»This important book on the social organisation of the arts provides an engaging tour through key theoretical perspectives and is packed with insights that will shape scholarship. The combination of arts sociology, arts-focused organisational studies, and social theory, looked at with an interdisciplinary lens, is unique, making a major contribution to the field.« (Victoria D. Alexander, Professor of Sociology and Arts Management, Goldsmiths, University of London)

»Sociological research on the arts has generated a wealth of descriptive findings over the past several decades as well as some powerful theoretical insights, without much focus on either cumulation or synthesis. The current volume is a welcome intervention, providing a panoptically comprehensive overview of this field with admirable clarity and astute critical judgment.« (Paul DiMaggio, Professor of Sociology, New York University)

»This well-written and fascinating book of the social organisation of arts is a must-read for scholars, practitioners and students. It’s not only suitable for sociologists, but also for arts managers, art historians and beyond, I couldn’t put it down. This book sets a benchmark for research to come in the context of the arts, its organisations and the networks that sustain relationships.«
(Ruth Rentschler, Professor in Arts and Cultural Leadership, University of South Australia)

»The Social Organization of Arts assembles and explains the three most influential theoretical constructs for the study of art worlds, fields or systems. It also covers the dominating approaches for understanding what it is that is actually produced, distributed and consumed in music, literature, the visual and the performing arts. There exists hardly a more concise, up-to-date treatment of this expanding field of research.« (Michael Hutter, Professor emeritus, Berlin Social Science Center)

»A welcome addition to the literature on an important area: the social organization of arts. Based on a knowledgeable discussion of renowned theories, this compendium discusses conceptual tools useful to build-up meaningful empirical research while being sensitive to the complex, flexible, contingent and unpredictable dynamics of artistic organizations.« (Marie Buscatto, Professor of Sociology, University of Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne)

»The Social Organization of Arts masterfully displays both the centrality of the arts to society and sociological theorizing, as well as the centrality of sociological theory to understanding the production and organisation of the arts and their impact on society. Whether one looks at the arts from a societal perspective or society from the perspective of the arts, this book is an essential guide.« (Chris Mathieu, Associate Professor of Sociology, Lund University and Chair of the European Sociological Association’s Research Network on The Sociology of the Arts)

Abstract
In this chapter, we compile ecological plus behavioral data on tent-making bats to determine if the variation in social behavior observed in this kelompok may be explained by any of the components of their roosting ecology. Results suggest that most of the variation in the social behavior within plus among species may be explained by the quality, abundance, plus distribution of roosting resources, such that larger, scarcer, plus clumped roosts are typically occupied by more individuals. The abundance of tent-roosts may also influence kelompok cohesion in most species, as very abundant resources apparently facilitate roost switching, plus individuals that change roosts are often also more likely to change roost partners. In addition, the harem-like composition of roosting groups observed in most tent-making bats may be largely influenced by the role of males during tent construction plus defense. We argue that collection of further ecological plus behavioral data, coupled with more quantitative analyses, is needed for additional generalizations to be drawn.
Introduction
Most mammals use shelters on a daily or seasonal basis. Some species use preexisting structures, such as tree cavities, caves, plus rock crevices, to provide protection from the sun, rain, or predators. Other species modify their environment in nontrivial ways to construct dens, nests, or burrows, which provide their occupants with a multitude of advantages. For example, among the approximately 1116 documented bat species, 30 are known to modify existing structures into shelters, or roosts, which provide not only protection from predators plus inclement weather, but also sites for mating, caring for young, grooming, plus feeding. Some of these modified structures include termite plus ant nests, root masses, stems, plus leaves (Kunz plus Lumsden, 2003). Plant-modifying bats often alter the appearance of leaves, roots, plus stems so that the resulting structure resembles a tent, plus are thus referred to as tent-roosting or tent-making bats. However, not all plant-roosting bats alter the appearance of leaves or other plant structures in such a manner, nor do they exclusively use tents for roosting.
Tent-roosting bats comprise a polyphyletic kelompok of both New plus Old World origins. In the Paleotropics, at least six species from two families are known to modify plants into tents: Balionycteris maculata, Cynopterus horsfieldii, C. brachyotis Forest, C. brachyotis Sunda, plus C. sphinx, from the family Pteropodidae, plus Scotophilus kuhlii, from the family Vespertilionidae (Balasingh et al., 1995, Bhat & Kunz, 1995, Campbell et al., 2004, Campbell et al., 2006b, Hodgkison et al., 2003, Rickart et al., 1989, Tan et al., 1997). In the Neotropics, the seven genera plus 18 species known to construct or use tents belong to a single family, Phyllostomidae (reviewed in Kunz & Lumsden, 2003, Rodríguez-Herrera et al., 2007b, Muñoz-Romo & Herrera, 2003). Notwithstanding their diversity plus separate evolutionary origins, tent-roosting species exhibit many convergences in their morphology plus ecology. First, most species are relatively small for their family. Pteropodid tent-making bats (i.e., Balionycteris plus Cynopterus) have a body mass that ranges between 10 g plus 60 g, representing the lower range of body masses for Pteropodidae (10–1500 g). Tent-roosting phyllostomids are also mostly comprised of small-bodied species (4–21 g), with a few exceptions (Artibeus jamaicensis plus A. lituratus: 30–70 g), as the body masses for the entire family range between 4 g plus 235 g. Tent-roosting bats also share great similarities in their diet, as most of them, except S. kuhlii, feed primarily on fruits (Bumrungsri et al., 2007, Rodríguez-Herrera et al., 2007b, Tan et al., 1998). They also modify leaves in a remarkably similar fashion, perhaps as a result of design constraints imposed by leaf size plus shape, number plus pattern of leaf veins, the position of petioles, plus the number of stems (Kunz et al., 1994).