Month: April 2025

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).