Thesis on "Bates 1960"

Quoted Instructions for "Bates 1960" Assignment:

You are to write a 3-page paper. Read the article below. Answer the discussion questions after reading the article. State the question first and then continue to answer. *Do Not Use Outside Sources.*

Bates states that *****˜it is required by definition that a single individual occupy only one position in the structure of a group:*****

Question

1.Is it an accurate statement in educational settings?

2.Consider, for instance, the case of a teacher who views himself/herself as a facilitator who collaborates with his or her students to create knowledge.

Bates 1960

Sociologists have developed separate theoretical approaches to the study of institutions, organizations, and communities. These separateness of the conceptual schemes used in dealing with these three related types of social phenomena has resulted in part from internal specialization within the field of sociology and in part from the lack of concepts at a lower order of abstraction, which can be applied equally as well, to all three sorts of phenomena. It will be the purpose of this paper to outline some propositions concerning the structure of complex social systems in general, and by applying these ideas to be concepts of institutions, organizations, and communities seeking common ground for analysis. In two previous papers the author has outlined an approach to the study of social structures by redefining the concepts norms, role, position, and group. This scheme departs only slightly from common usage and will not be detailed here. The main point of departure from tradition is in the relationship conceived to exist among these concepts, perfectly with reference to social roles. In this paper of the following definition of terms will be a hereto. First, norms are defined as commonly held behavior expectations. Roles are defined as a set of norms, which relate to behavior of position occupant in certain kinds of situations. Positions in turn are defined as sets of roles, which occur at a point in social space. The relationship conceived to exist among the concepts of norms, roles, and positions. In using these lower order concepts to define group structure, it is necessary to adhere to several principles. First it is required by definition that a single individual occupy only one position in the structure of a group. It is further require that is such a position be reciprocally related to every other position in the group structure. Conversely, any position withstands in a reciprocal relationship to ball positions in a group structure itself, by definition, a part of that structure. Reciprocality is defined as such a relationship existing among the norms composing tools that the performance of one is contingent upon the performance of the other. Hence, the norms comprising one role are said to imply and require the norms composing the other role. It is with the concept of the reciprocality between roles that we must work in order to achieve the purpose of this paper.

The structure of social groups from one point of view consist of a set of social positions joined in a single structure by a web of reciprocal world relations. As we have already pointed out reciprocality between rules mean that the performance of one row implies and requires the performance of the other. In the structure of the family, the performance of the father-husbands provider role implies and requires the performance of the wife-mothers dependent role. Similarly, the performance of a father teacher-socializer role requires the performance of the son*****s pupil-cultural neophyte role. We might save more eventually that the reciprocality it is a function of the fact that the rights implied by one role requires the duties implied by the other. So far we have simply review of the usual definition of reciprocality . There are two facts about this concept as it is commonly used however of which we should take particular note. First, reciprocality in the usual sense involves the relationship between two separate positions in the structure of a single group. Second the occupants of the two positions are always two different actors. If we are to conceive of the structure of a multiple group system in terms of the position, role, and norm concepts as defined above certain modifications must be made in the conventional way of defining reciprocality . Let us begin by defining a multiple group system as a plurality consisting of two or more groups which are linked to each other by a matrix of related roles. If we are to conceive of the multiple group system in these terms and at the same time it here to our earlier proposition that a group structure consists of a set of actors occupied positions which are recent book called to every other position in the structure of the group, and that a group can include no position nor position occupant which is not thus related, which are presented with a logical problem. Persons one and two represent the supervisors of the groups. These two persons have reciprocal role relations. If we focus on person one, the supervisor of the welding shop we see that he occupies a position reciprocal to 2, the supervisor of the machine shop, but not to 5 and 6 . Likewise person 2 occupies a position reciprocal to 1 but not to 3 and 4. Therefore according to our definition of the group, person 1 the welding shop supervisor, cannot be a member of group 2 , the machine shop, nor can person 2, the machines shop supervisor, be a member of group 1, the welding shop. In other words simply because devise a of the welding shop interacts regularly with the supervisor of the machine shop, we are not justified in saying that he is a member of the machine shop group. Since the two supervisors play reciprocal wolves toward each other, however, they must occupy positions in the same group structure. Obviously the only way out of this dilemma is to conceive a third group as existing in the situation . In the so-called interstitial group, persons 1 and 2 the two supervisors occupy reciprocally related positions. These positions are separate and distinct from those which they occupy in the welding shop and the machine shop, respectively. In other words, these two actors occupied to positions in the structure of the multiple group system. This is a necessary conclusion if we wished to able to distinguish among the structures of the three groups. If we regard persons 1 and 2 as occupying the same position in both groups we could be unable to distinguish among the structures of the three individual groups. Let us recall now that we have defined reciprocality as consisting of such a relationship between two roles that the performance of one implies and requires performance while the other. We have further pointed out that reciprocality is usually thought of in terms of the relationship between two positions occupied by two different actors.

On the basis of these arguments we may identify two types of reciprocality and reflexive of unilateral reciprocality. The difference between the two types rests on the fact that in the first case the two positions involved are occupied by different persons and in the second case by the same person. Before going on to elaborate and expand its ideas let us examine a concrete example. Suppose as we have said the two groups involved are the people in a machine shop and any welding shop. Suppose further that one of these types of equipment being manufactured required both welding and machining. In other words, part of the process is performed on an item by the welding shop and the end it is turned over to the machine shop for finishing. In order for this process to function smoothly the supervisors of the welding shop and machine shop have to get together frequently and discussed work schedules, worked techniques, and work quality as well to coordinate the use of supplies and materials. In our terms they have to play reciprocal roles toward each other. In playing these roles the machine shop supervisor represents the machine shop and communicates for it with the supervisor of the welding shop, asked in a similar fashion for his own group. In other words the machine shop supervisor*****s position requires him to coordinate the action of his group with those of the welding shop group. He does this by interacting with the supervisor of that shop in the context of a position he occupies in what he might call a coordination group, consisting of himself and the welding shop supervisor. What he does in this group and what he does in the machine shop must be consistent and related if the total war organization is to operate smoothly. The positions he occupies in the two groups are reflexively reciprocal to each other. With this illustration let us move on to an examination of the other types of relationships between roles and positions.

In the preceding discussion we have seemed that two types of reciprocality can be identified. These two types present two kinds of structural relationships between positions each of which is a subclass of a general type of relationship. Both types of reciprocality are forms of functional interdependence between roles. By this we mean that the related roles represents specialize aspects of the same system of actions and are organized around the performance of some common function or the pursuit of some mutually sought goal. In addition these two rules stand in such a relationship to one another that the performance of one is impossible unless the other is present and performed in the same general situation. In other words they present specialize aspects of the same action system. There is another type of relationship where such exists between roles besides that of reciprocality. This relationship which defines a different type of interdependence between roles must be examined before we approach our main task of discussing the structural similarities and differences among institutions, organizations, and communities.

Conjunctive Roles: it will be agreed generally that in order for any groups or organizations to exist it must be joining to other groups and organizations in a larger system. Only societies which must be regarded as extremely complex systems of groups can survive alone. If this is true then some structural mechanisms must exist which joins the structure of one group or one organization to another. Since we have defined structure as being composed of norms, as integrated sets, form roles, and in turn form positions, it is in these concepts that we must seek this mechanism. Since we have said that groups or organizations must be drawing structure late to the other groups and organizations in order to survive, it is obvious that at least some of the norms, rules, or positions must imply behavior outside the group war organization in whose structure they are found. A concrete example of what we*****re talking about can be found in the father-husband*****s provider role in the structure of the family. In American society a man must perform roles and occupy positions in groups other than the family in order to feel his provider role in his family. Likewise it can be said that the president or owner of a manufacturing firm must occupy positions and play roles in other groups and organizations in order to fulfill his position in his firm. For example his role as financier for this organization may require him to form rolls toward a stockbroker, thinker, and certain government officials. In performing these roles he comes a member of different groups outside the group or organization in which the financier role the one requiring the behavior is located. These roles which exists within the structure of a group or organization and require behavior outside that group or organization we will call extramural roles in contrast to intramural roles which require behavior totally within the group or organization. If we look back now and examined reflexively reciprocal roles we will see that to roles involved are extramural. The shop foreman in the sheet metal shop has a role in his position, which requires him to perform behavior outside his group that*****s creating a reflexively reciprocal relationship between that role and a role he must play in another group. What we are saying now is that an exactly comparable situation might lead him to play a role and occupy a position entirely outside the structure of the Organization of which he is a member. There is an important difference in the relationship between two roles played by the same individual with an organization, and two roles played by individual, one of which is within and one outside the organization.

This type of conjunctive relationship is bilateral and consist of a relationship between two persons occupying two positions with different goals neither of which can be accomplished except in conjunction with the other. Reflexive conjunctivality which differs from the type we have just discussed is based on the occupancy up to a more positions by the same actor, when the goals toward which world behavior is directed are different. A number of organizations may be joined together by this type of relationship to form part of a community structure. For example, let us assume that in a certain society that head of a given clan or lineage dish traditionally the highest priest or leader of the sun worshiping cult. Let us assume further that the same individual is also automatically assumes the position of war chieftain if hostilities arise with a nearby tried and that in addition to this he inherits a large number of economic prerogatives. We could say therefore that in a certain family there exists a set of roles within the father-husband position which requires extramural behavior. In other words it is required that the man occupying a certain position in a given clan grouping holds certain sets of religious, political, and economic offices in his society. To the individual occupying these positions or performing these roles and in all likelihood to other people in the society these various positions are perceived as being interrelated. They cannot properly be called reciprocal says each involves membership in a different group and the pursuit of the differing goals or the performance of a different function. Furthermore, the roles could conceivably be performed separately. One does not imply and require the other in the same since as to reciprocal roles. In terms of what we have said about reciprocality, these roles and the positions of which they are parts are not specialize aspects of the same system of actions but of different systems of action.

In every society roles occur in such a relationship. For example, in our society the father-husbands provider role occurs in conjunction with occupational roles which she plays in a group outside the family. In playing the occupational roles the father-husband occupies a position and plays roles toward members of a group distinct from the family. In this workgroup that occupational roles are directed to work performance of functions or the accomplishment of goals distinct from family functions and goals. To go on one step further the occupational roles may occur in conjunction with roles as union members. The union rolls are structurally distinct from the work roles of the individual and are directed toward the performance of distinction function. Both the relationships between the father-husband provider role and his occupational role and the relationship between his occupational role and his union rules are reflexive conjunctive relationships. This discussion defines a second type of conjunctive relationship, namely, the relationship between two more roles which are played by the same actor but which are parts of different systems of action. Since they are played by the same actor they are called reflexive conjunctive roles.

Correlative Roles: steel in other type of relationship between roles needs to be defined. This is the relationship in which two roles needs to be defined. This is a relationship in which two roles serve the same purpose perform the same function for contribute to the accomplishment of a single type of goal but in which they are neither reciprocally related nor conjunctively related. In this case bold roles are related to the same function requisite but are structurally and behaviorally distinct. Examples of this type of relationship which we call correlative to indicate the fact that both are related to the same function are easily to identify. The father*****s role as socialize or the school teacher*****s role as instructor, the priest*****s role as a teacher, are all rules which will form the function of socializing initiates into the culture. Likewise the priesthood role whenever it might occur whether it be in conjunction with a church organization, a family organization, or a political unit, serves the same function. For example, the president of the US says public prayers and issues proclamations relating to religious observance, the father in the family says grace before food is taken and carries out other religious practices, the schoolteacher reads the Bible to her class and leads her pupil in prayer. In each case mentioned the person involved is playing a role related to the religious functions of society. All of the roles therefore stand in a correlative relationship to each other. No type of social system has exclusive rights to one or the other of the forms of interdependence we have mentioned. Rather, organizations, institutions and communities tend to represent blending of the different types of relationships. In analyzing social systems however one may choose to focus on one or the other for special analysis. In addition it can be said that certain forms of relationships are predominant in joining one unit to another in different types of social systems. It will be the thesis of the paper that an organization depends on reciprocality as the primary relationship, which binds one structural unit to the other, while communities depend largely on conjunctive relationships to form the bonds of structural unity. In institutions, the correlative relationship dominates as the unifying mechanism. In none of the three types of systems, however, does a single type of relationship exists alone.

At the beginning of this paper we offered a simple definition of the multiple group systems saying that such a system consists of two or more groups, which are linked to each other in a matrix of role relations. We are not able to revise the definition in light of our recent discussion. A multiple group system may now be defined as a social structure composed of tool more groups, which are linked structurally to each other by a network of reciprocal, conjunctive, or correlative role relationships. Using this definition it is possible to view an organization as one type of multiple group systems as distinguished from communities and institutions as other types of multiple group systems. Organizations can be defined initially by reference to concrete cases, as follow: armies, industrial plants, government agency, hospitals, universities, department stores. In terms of our concepts of reciprocal, conjunctive, and correlative are multi-group systems which are held together structurally by reciprocal role relations. It is to be unobserved all sold from this figure that group A and B, a machine shop and a welding shop, are joined together by their common link with group C. This common link is in the form of a reflexively reciprocal relationship which places a member of each of the original groups in a position in a new group. The characteristics that all organizations on our list of concrete cases have in common is that in each a number of groups with specialized functions pursue a common goal or perform a joint function as in the case of the welding and machine shop. Although it is conceivable that each of these groups could carry on is activities without the existence or presence of the other, this suggestion is meaningless since they represent specialized aspects of the same action process.

Not only is this true but each specific group in the structure of these organizations is related to the other specific group by a linkage of reflexively reciprocal role relations. This is an important point since as we shall see the structures of communities involves really the groups but in their case one class of group is related to another class of group. That*****s as far as any specific group in one class is concerned any group in the other class will allow fulfillment of its function or accomplishment of its goals. Organizations such as those we have listed as examples are of course much more complex and we had indicated thus far. What do we have done is to specify the minimum condition ministering for a multi-group system to recall an organization. It must consist in brief of two basic groups which pursue a common goal and which is linked to each author by a third group which owes its existence to reflexively reciprocal relationships to those original groups. Organizations typically consist of a number of sub-organizations or subsystems. Volta bilateral and reflexively reciprocal relationships can be seen. Bilateral reciprocality exist only among the positions within the group and reflexive relations between positions in different groups. But more interesting to us in this is a relationship between positions in the structure which are not linked to each other by either of these relationships. For example what can we say about the relationship between a position such as the number 20 in the paint and furnishing shop and a position such as the number 22 in the sheet metal shop, where the two positions are not occupied by actors in direct contact. If we can now conceive of the organization portrayed in the whole figure as pursuing a single general role for performing a single common function we can identify the relationship between these positions as being the type of indirect reciprocality . Both positions you to the accomplishment of the same goal in the performance of presupposes the performance of the other. In fact our example implies a sequence of role performance such that the sheet metal shop stands out sheet metal parts, trends and the symbols them, the drill press crew drills holes in them and the paint shop finishes the assembled product of the other two shops. Therefore the actors occupying positions 20 and 21 in the paint and finishing shop cannot act unless those occupying 22 and 23 in the sheet metal shop and 24 and 25 in the drill press crew, act earlier. This is the kind of serial interdependence among three groups named and the positions that form their structures. This serial interdependence is reflected structurally in the fact that a series of reflexively reciprocal roles bring together a set of directly reciprocal roles and in doing so create a situation of indirect reciprocality between of the roles and as between 20 and 22. These positions are related to each other by a chain of reciprocal relationships including both bilateral and reflexive reciprocality. Now what of the relationship between such pairs as 20 and 30, in which one position is not only in an indirect relationship with the other but in which the two are different sub-organizations within a larger organization? Here it is obvious that the performance of a specific roles assigned to 20 in the paint shop are not as closely dependent on the performance of those assigned to 30 in that casting shop as was the case in our previous example of 20 and 22. The casting shop in which 30 is located works on motors, the paint shop which contains position 20 and works one chassis. At some point in the production process the products of the two are joined by the third group, by the assembly and testing. The activities of these two groups goal on side-by-side but not in serial order. That a say in the end that their activities are collateral instead of cereal and that they are collaterally interdependent. In order to join these groups to each other by tracing the simple poll relations we much traced a half through two interstitial or coordination groups crossing three links which are reflexively reciprocal on the way up and three which are reflexively reciprocal on the way down. If we turn back to our previous example that of the relationship between positions 20 and 22 we will know that only one interstitial group and one ascending and one descending set of reflexively reciprocal relations were required to join the position in question. Thus we can now speak of different orders are reciprocal relationships. The order of such relationships may be defined as one more than the number of interstitial groups through which reciprocality passes in joining one position to another. Directly reciprocal and reflexively reciprocal relations are both first order reciprocalities. The relationship between positions 20 and 22 in second order, and that between 20 and 30 in third order. On the basis of these facts organizations may be characterized by the highest order of reciprocal relationships which exists within them. It should be noted in passing that a group is logically at first-quarter organization since in all groups all positions are related to all other positions by direct reciprocality then by definition do not, of course, involved any interstitial group in the link between any two positions. Likewise, a subgroup may be defined as a zero order of organization since it does not contain all positions in the structure of a group and therefore one cannot trace out every reciprocal relationship without considering the whole world. Returning now to ideas of cereal and collateral interdependence between the activities of groups it can be said that serially into depending groups will always contain positions, which are in gnome more than a second-quarter relation to each other. On the other hand collateral groups may exhibit any water or relationship between positions from second order to Nth order.

Communities and their structures: in contrast of social organizations which are unified in a single structure by reciprocal relationships communities are unified by conjunctive relationships. This can best be seen if we consider the units which make up the community to groups and organizations. The question is what type of links exist among various groups and organizational structures in the community which make it possible for us to speak of community structure as an entity itself. If we go back to our discussion of the conjunctive relationship it will be seen that one type of link which adjoins groups and organizations to each other in the community is bilateral conjunctive relationship. In this relationship it will be remembered a member of one group or organization must perform worlds toward a member of another group or organization in order to fulfill role expectations. The case offer in illustration above is that of the president of a manufacturing firm who must play roles toward a banker outside the manufacturing firm in order to fulfill his role within it. In the relationship between industrialists and banker, each pursues independent and sometimes conflicting objectives but pursues them together. Another example offered in the case of the housewife who must play roles toward department store clerks, grocer, and many other individuals outside the family in order to fulfill family roles. In this case the person in interaction plays roles directed toward different ends but plays roles toward each other. Reflexive conjunctivality the second major type of relationships linking structure we humans in the community, exist when he ruled that a person plays in one group implies or requires him to play a different role in the group, but when the second rule requires the actor to pursue a different goal man the original one required him to pursue. The classic example of this type of relationship is found in the case of the father husband provider role and his occupational role. In order to fulfill does provide a role the father husband is required to have an occupation for job. The occupation or job requires him to pursue work goals or objectives which are distinct from his family provider obligations and at times conflict with him. This is established a reflexively conjunctive relationship between his occupational and family provide a role in positions. In a similar fashion in man*****s occupational role may require him to join the country club, or a union, or a professional organizations were he must play roles directed toward the accomplishment of end*****s distinct from those toward which is work roles are directed. Again it is obvious that the reflexively conjunctive links together distinct groups and distinct organizations through the mechanism called having the same actor occupy positions and play roles in different groups and organizations. We can say therefore that both types of conjunctivality have the function on joining distinct groups and organizations together into larger and more complex structures labeled communities. Before going on to the subject of institutions, it should be added that in the above discussion communities have been regarded as a particular type of complex social systems. No reference has been made to a territorial basis for the community. The reason for this is that communities are regarded here as social systems which may or may not exist within the set of territorial boundaries. In order for a social system to regarded as a community it must have the structural features mentioned above and need not masterly have territorial base to any greater extent than does an organization. It should be obvious that all types of complex social structures and for that matter simple ones occupied geographic spaces, and opinion on that space for resources. It is the view of this paper that communities are no more legitimately regarded as territorial groupings that are organizations. The essential distinction between these types of systems is a structural one.

Social institutions: the concept of social institutions is of course essentially structural in character. In contrast to the concepts of groups organizations and community however it employs a different point of view toward structure. The difference is the membership and boundary questions are important in the former concepts and not only unimportant but meaningless in the latter. One made be a member of a group, organization, or community, but one can hardly be a member of an institution. This fact is a reflection on the emphasis in the institutional concept of the idea of functional similarities and the polls to functional differences. An institution consists essentially all behavior patterns related to the performance of some essential function of society. If we regard roles for moment as the most elemental form of social structure we may defined the content of an institution as consisting of all the roles found in the structure of society, which are related to the same broad function requisite. Thus all rules relating to the exercise of, control over, and disposition of how we*****ll would be classified as a part of the political institution, and those relating to sacred objects, beliefs, and behaviors would be classified as religious. Obviously certain groups and organizations the boat most of the Everest were the performance of one or the other of these functions. We can say, therefore of the certain organization of roles into positions, groups, an organization structures are primary parts of a given social institution. In the light fashion it can be said that certain roles with the structure of a position, and hints of a group or an organization, may be related to a given institution while other parts of it are not. Thus the father in a hermit to the tribe may be a priest for his family and perform a priesthood role as one of the roles involved in his family position. Others of his roles may be related to the economic institution and still others may have political significance. Looking at institutions in this way it can seem that the analytical concept use in the study of social structure it cuts across the concepts of groups, organizations, and community, and across questions of membership, boundaries, and into relationships between the units, and focuses instead on the functions performed by a behavior pattern. Sociologists have used the concept of institutions in many ways. As a concept it has a long and illustrious history considerably and to antedating the earliest formal writings labeled sociological. Throughout its history there has been a tendency to mix under the institutional labeled the idea of behavior patterns related to a particular functional area such as power, reverence, or procreation, and ideas concerning the group which performs these functions. Perhaps the best example of this kind of mixture is found in the fact that we*****ve referred to the family as an institution. Actually, it can be argued with some strength that the family is not in institution at all, but a type of group which performs multiple institutional functions some economic, some political, some religions, and some education. At the same time we interpret the family to means the institution of kinship and procreation *****“ i.e. if we think of the family not as a group but as a set of behavior patterns related to the function of providing society with members having social identities *****“ then it takes its place alongside and political and religion as one of the social institutions.

For our purpose will take the point of view that a social institution is integrated system of rules relating to the performance of a single major function in relation to a single societal requisite. Obviously if we define an institution in this fashion correlative relations are the links which bind a collection of rolls into a system with structure. We can say therefore that an institution is a system of correlated roles, positions, groups, and organizational structures. Matt writing positions, groups, organizational structures to our definition we take into account the fact of reciprocally related positions may be classified primarily as a part of a given institution. Thus the structure of the Presbyterian Church would be primarily part of the religious institution and the structure of an industrial plant part of the economic institution. It is important to note however that only the structures of the units are regarded as a part of the institution. We do not think of the individuals will occupy positions in this structures as members of his institution. Institutions are analytical, not empirical, entities, and as such represent high of four such directions than the other structural concepts discussed in this chapter. Before leaving the concept of institutions, two additional observation should be made. The first concerns the fact that rules which are related to each other in either the reciprocal or conjunctive fashions invariably contain behavior patterns which are part of the same institutional structure. This has to be true since the relationships mentioned are such that individuals are either cooperating in the performance of a joint function as in the case of reciprocality or they are cooperating in the performance of similar functions which are distinct from each other as in the case of conjunctivality. Thus for example the Father husband provider role in the family and his occupational role which are related to each other in a reflexively conjunctive fashion, are both economic roles. Her father*****s teacher*****s socializer and the son*****s pupil or cultural-neophyte roles are both educational roles. Or the bank presidents moneylender role and the factory presidents borrower role are both economic. In every case were rules are in a direction relationship to each other in the structure of the group, organization, or community, they are parts of the same institutional structure. This same thing tirelessly is not necessarily true of all of the roles played by the same actor nor all of the roles to actors play toward each other. The various roles which make up the position of an actor in a group may have different functions and be related to different institutional complexes. Thus the father husband plays economic, religious, educational, political, procreation, and all the rules toward members of the family. Because of the foregoing point the units making up institutions must be regarded as paired roles just as in the case of organizations and communities. The paired roles may stand in either reciprocal or conjunctive relationships to each other up the link between one pair and a number is correlation link. The correlation relationship is regarded as important in the discussion of social structure that not only because of its utility in dealing with institutions but also because it allows us to postulate a tendency of roles related to the performance of a given function to maintain an internal integration through strain toward consistency. What we are postulating is a kind of parsimony in social structure such that rolls which perform the same function tend to be similar in content and to be internally consistent with each other. The source of strain toward consistency is correlated roles may be found in fact that the structure of an institution consist of a network of reciprocally and conjunctively related pairs of roles which are structurally organized around the performance of a given type of function. The function itself places limits on structure used to accomplishment *****“ the in limits the means. Further limitations placed on structure by the fact that an actor who has learned how to perform a given function in one context is likely to apply the same solution to performing the function in a different contexts. By keeping roles with similar function, similar in content, social structure is kept parsimonious. Fewer norms, fewer different role definitions are required to perform the same function under such conditions. Furthermore actors are required as a consequence to learn a smaller amount of cultural content then would be true if correlated roles were permitted to bury independently of each other. In positing a strain toward consistency in correlate rules are simply saying that the structure of an institution tends to maintain an internal consistency. This is by no means a new idea in the field of sociology. The only thing which is being added here is a description of the units between which internal consistencies is maintained and a name for the type of relationship which exists between these units.

The most important type of relationship identified in this paper, as far as providing a conceptual basis for understanding community and organization immunity is concerned is the idea of reflexive social relationships, both reciprocal and conjunctive. This concept allows us on the other hand to define groups as think entities with rationally and empirically identifiable boundaries and at the same time to define the mechanisms which join groups into complex systems. The idea of the interstitial group*****s role out of this conception of the reflexive relationship and furnishes us with the definition of a type of the structural unit which on the one hand may be studied using the lower order concepts of norm, role and position, and on the other hand can be treated as a crucial structural link between the parts of complex systems. Both communities and organizations are welded into unify structures by the mechanisms of the reflexive relationship combined with the interstitial group which it creates. The distinguishing feature between the two types of complex systems is found in the goal or motivational system around which reflexive relations and consequently interstitial groups are organized. In order to round out this scheme it is necessary to note that the source of reflexive and bilateral relationships structurally is found in the character of rules themselves. Thus two types rules found in the structure of position and consequently in the structure of groups have been identified. The first type we called intramural roles, to indicate that behavior implied by these rules takes place within the group*****s boundaries. This type of role of counsel for bilateral relationships both reciprocal and conjunctive. The second type of the role we have called extramural to indicate that some rules contained totally within the structure of a group require behavior outside of the group in order for them to be realized in behavior in this way, the extramural role accounts for reflexive relationships both reciprocal and collateral. By employing the following three sets of concepts, then, it is believed that the conceptual and structural relationships both norms, roles, positions, groups, and complex systems may be defined and analyzed using a single frame of reference. The first of three sets of concepts is that of the three basic types of relationships, reciprocal, correlational, and conjunctive. The second set of concepts is the interstitial and elemental groups, which extend the idea of type of relationships and defined types of structure we units involved in the macro-organization of complex systems. The third set of concepts is that the intra and extramural roles which define the types of structural units involved in two types of relationships in the micro-organization of the same complex systems. It is believed that these three sets of concepts furnished a bridge which can be crossed between our study of structure of small groups, on the on hand, and of complex systems, on the other, at the same time they provide us with a means of studying communities, organizations, and institutions using a single frame of reference.