Month: April 2025

Abstract: The concept of social organization provides an important framework for understanding families in the
context of communities and focuses our attention on norms, networks, and associated processes that typify community life. We discuss the significance of community for understanding family outcomes, discuss challenges in defining community context, define social organization and feature several of its associated components and their
linkages, and assess research designs that inform the study of social organization. We conclude by suggesting implications for theory (elaborating social organization community processes), research (incorporating designs and measures that reflect collective processes), and practice (maximizing effects generated by informal and resmi networks
in communities).

Community context factors, including transactions
with other families and institutions, are significant
elements in understanding and strengthening families. The work of family science scholars increasingly
recognizes that families are surrounded by community forces that influence both their everyday life
experiences and their individual and collective life trajectories. Teachman and Crowder (2002) evidence
a central aim of exploiting rather than simply trying
to control contextual noise in family functioning
models. Sprey (2000) notes that layered approaches
to human sociability provide a level of understanding
otherwise unattained, and Scanzoni (2001) calls
for a ‘‘reconnection’’—linking households and communities via small household social support networks
at the neighborhood level.
Family life practitioners are finding increasing
leverage in strengthening families through communitycentered interventions. These interventions range
from the community-building efforts of Family
Service America to strengthen families (Sviridoff &
Ryan, 1997) to the promotion of community capacity
in the U.S. Air Force as a strategy for preventing
family violence (Bowen, Martin, & Nelson, 2002).
Family program professionals increasingly are working with community members as allies in support
of families and are mobilizing families to exert
greater control over their own lives (Chaskin, Brown,
Venkatesh, & Vidal, 2001; Doherty & Carroll,
2002). Turner (1998) contends that practitioners are
rediscovering the ‘‘Holy Grail’’ of community,
and Sampson (2002) uses the term elixir when describing the promise some see in community-oriented
interventions.
Community context should have a more prominent place in thinking about families. However,
greater elaboration is needed in the conceptualization and measurement of community-level processes
as independent variables in family research.

Humans operate in groups that are oftentimes nested in multilayered collectives such as work units within departments plus companies, neighborhoods within cities, plus regions within nation states. With psychological science mostly focusing on proximate reasons for individuals to bergabung existing groups plus how existing groups function, we still poorly understand why groups form ex nihilo, how groups evolve into complex multilayered social structures, plus what explains fission–fusion dynamics. Here we address kelompok formation plus the evolution of social organization at both the proximate plus ultimate level of analysis. Building on models of fitness interdependence plus cooperation, we propose that socioecologies can create positive interdependencies among strangers plus pave the way for the formation of stable coalitions plus groups through reciprocity plus reputation-based partner selection. Such groups are marked by in-group bounded, parochial cooperation together with an array of social institutions for managing the commons, allowing groups to scale in size plus complexity while avoiding the breakdown of cooperation. Our analysis reveals how distinct kelompok cultures can endogenously emerge from reciprocal cooperation, shows that social identification plus kelompok commitment are likely consequences rather than causes of kelompok cooperation, plus explains when intergroup relations gravitate toward peaceful coexistence, integration, or conflict.
As for many other social species, kelompok living provides Homo sapiens with levels of safety plus prosperity that individuals can hardly achieve in isolation (Ostrom, 1998). Groups may contain as few as three individuals or as many as hundreds, can exist for a few hours or bind its members for most of their lifetime, plus can be simpel or exceedingly complex in their social organization. Regardless of their form plus raison d’etre, individuals benefit from well-functioning groups plus can be hurt—both mentally plus physically—when their groups function poorly plus disintegrate. Accordingly, psychological science has extensively addressed (a) what motivates individuals to bergabung existing groups plus prevents them from being excluded (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Williams, 2000), (b) what allows existing groups to work plus perform (De Dreu et al., 2008; Faber et al., 2017; Ilgen et al., 2005), plus (c) what makes kelompok members cooperate plus resist the temptation to free ride on the public goods provided by others (Van Dijk & De Dreu, 2021; Van Lange et al., 2013).
What remains largely unaddressed in psychological science is how groups emerge plus self-organize their internal dynamics plus external relations: How do groups form ex nihilo, plus how do groups evolve from simpel to sometimes complex plus multilayered collectives, such as fraternities within student societies, work units within companies, plus neighborhoods within cities? Here we fill this gap plus trace the evolution of human social organization to a succinct set of psychologically plausible behavioral mechanisms. Doing so scaffolds theory plus research on existing groups plus collectives, sheds new light on the origins plus functions of well-documented phenomena such as homophily plus kelompok identification, plus reveals parochial prosociality as a cause of kelompok disintegration plus intergroup conflict.

Qualitative accounts of anthropologists indicate that social structure plays an important role in how resources are shared in society. But quantitative evidence measuring the impacts of social organization on financial ties plus transfers has been lacking.

In a paper in the American Economic Review, authors Jacob Moscona plus Awa Ambra Seck helped to fill that gap. They found that in East Africa, cash transfer policies had very different effects in cultures organized by kinship ties compared to cultures organized around age groups.

The findings suggest that social organization has a deep impact on how resources spread through economies plus ultimately shape inequality.

Jacob Moscona recently spoke with Tyler Smith about the difference between kin-based societies plus age-based societies plus how they affect development policies.

The edited highlights of that conversation are below, plus the full interview can be heard using the podcast player. Tyler Smith: What are age sets, plus how are age-based societies organized?

Jacob Moscona: Let me say a word about kin-based societies, because I think that’s useful to establish before thinking about how age-based societies differ. What we call kin-based societies in the paper are societies that I think most people are more used to. They are groups where individual family relationships are really important in life, such as your relationships with your parents, your siblings, or your grandparents. When you need support because you’ve had a bad year, you need a loan, or something else happens, you tend to turn to people in that family or in that extended family. Now that’s really different from groups with age sets where the most important social groupings are members of what they call the same age set or age group, which are people of the same age who are often initiated into adulthood at the same time plus form really strong bonds together over the course of their lives. In these societies that are organized in this way, it’s often the members of your age cohort that you might turn to for support, perhaps instead of members of your own family. By our own estimates, hundreds of millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa alone are members of societies that could be characterized as age-based societies where these age-based groupings are actually the main social grup that individuals belong to.

Smith: You are studying these structures in developing countries where there might be some differences. Are there any special considerations for these kin-based societies that you think our listeners should keep in mind?

Moscona: The example of a grandparent helping a grandchild is the kind of relationship that we study directly in this paper. Among these kin-based societies, there are these really strong intergenerational links where different generations are helping each other out. On average, I would say there’s probably more of a role in these kin-based groups that we study of the more extended family of people being closer to first cousins plus second cousins, plus members of the extended family living closer together plus those relationships being more a part of everyday life.

Smith: You studied several different policy experiments in Kenya plus Uganda. Can you give an overview of the policies you’re looking at here plus why you chose them?

Moscona: The distinction between kin-based plus age-based societies is not common in economics. The idea that these age-based structures really matter isn’t something that economists are comfortable with or familiar with. We really wanted to provide concrete plus convincing evidence that this mattered. To do that, we turn to the first experiment in the paper, which is a reanalysis of a randomized cash transfer program that took place in northern Kenya that was a component of a larger cash transfer program called the Hunger Safety Net Program. They decided to do a randomized controlled trial for part of this program. What was useful to us is that this randomized controlled trial took place in a region where there were both groups organized around kin plus groups where age sets were really prominent. So we could understand the relative importance of these two forms of social structure in the context of the same experiment.

We present a new approach to the investigation of human influences on environmental change that explicitly adds consideration of social organization. This approach identifies social organization as an influence on the environment that is mandiri of population size, affluence, plus technology. The framework we present also identifies population events, such as births, that are likely to influence environmental outcomes beyond the consequences of population size. The theoretical framework we construct explains that explicit attention to social organization is necessary for micro-level investigation of the population-environment relationship because social organization influences both. We use newly available longitudinal, multilevel, mixed-method measures of local land use changes, local population dynamics, plus social organization from the Nepalese Himalayas to provide empirical tests of this new framework. These tests reveal that measures of change in social organization are strongly associated with measures of change in land use, plus that the association is mandiri of common measures of population size, affluence, plus technology. Also, local birth events shape local land use changes plus key proximate determinants of land use change. Together the empirical results demonstrate key new scientific opportunities arising from the approach we present.

Because degradation of the natural environment is believed to have potentially broad consequences for humanity, ranging from international warming to depletion of key resources to reduced quality of life, it has become the subject of increasingly intense research over recent decades. This is just as true in the social sciences as in the natural, biological plus physical sciences. The social sciences have been particularly concerned with the consequences of social organization plus social actions on levels of environmental degradation – areas in which sociology has a great deal to offer in terms of both theory plus method (Foster 1999; Stern, Dietz, Ruttan, Socolow plus Sweeney 1997; York, Rosa, plus Dietz 2002)1. The central objective of this paper is to identify the areas in which sociological theories plus methods are likely to produce advances in research on the environment plus illustrate this potential with a specific case study. Our illustration links together social organization of the local context, population dynamics, consumption behaviors, plus land use/land cover dynamics.

Theoretically, five key principles now common in many areas of sociological reasoning are likely to prove particularly fruitful for research on the environment. These principles begin with a focus on the investigation of micro-level associations to inform our understanding of macro-level trends. Building on this principle, four other key principles can be used to guide reasoning regarding micro-level associations with environmental change. One of these is the construction of context-specific hypotheses regarding micro-level associations. A second is attention to the proximate determinants of specific environmental outcomes through which other more theoretically-interesting or policy-relevant factors affect these outcomes. A third is the explicit consideration of reciprocal causation, in which an environmental outcome of interest may also influence the factors (such as population) that we believe shape that environmental outcome. The last principle is direct attention to the social organization of human groups in addition to the simple size plus affluence of those groups. Our theoretical aim is to combine these five principles into a framework for the study of land use change to illustrate their potential to advance research on the environment.

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.