Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Social Institutions
Social institutions have been variously defined. Ball (2004), for example, defines them as a structure of behavioural and interrelationship arrangements that are profoundly knitted as well as durable. Such institutions operate throughout the world. For Hodgson (2007:2), social institutions are “systems of established and prevalent social rules that structure social interactions” while Rawls (1999) sees social institutions as the systematic way of operating norms in a sustainable society. In view of this current research, the characterisation of social institutions as hypothesised by Turner (1997:6) was settled on.
“a social institution is a complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of social structures and organizing relatively stable patterns of human activity with respect to fundamental problems in producing life-sustaining resources, in reproducing individuals, and in sustaining viable societal structures within a given environment”.
Implicit in various definitions is that social institutions regulate the activity or action of people through their regulative personality. They control the behaviour of people within essential domains of the social order. For example, the household is considered to be the most basic social institution that carries out social reproduction and socialization of children (Demaine 2003), while institutions within the domain of education and teaching safeguard the communication, nurturing of understanding, capabilities as well as dedicated abilities (van Eijck and Visser 2012). On the other hand, institutions within the labour market and the economy are responsible for the production as well as distribution of goods and services (van Eijck and Visser 2012). Institutions within the domain of law, governance and politics are responsible for the sustainment of society (Byers and Fitzpatrick 2011; Miller 2001; van Eijck and Visser 2012). From the perspective of sociology, social institutions are human organizations that are established on standardized patterns of rules. There are three major explanations of civil institutions within the sociological viewpoint: the functionalist paradigms, neo-institutionalist perspectives and Marxist-inspired conflict-oriented explanations (Miller 2001; van Eijck and Visser 2012).
Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons were the chief proponents of the functionalist perspectives. Functionalist viewpoints stress the significance of social institutions with regard to sustenance of social structures (van Eijck and Visser 2012). Social assimilation is exclusively attainable as much as social institutions deliver basic roles. These basic roles may be classified into three: (i) social institutions that direct people in the social relations and role expectations of their daily activities; (ii) social institutions that control the allocation of rewards as well as the allocation of positions of authority to appropriate people; (iii) and social institutions by ways of beliefs that sustain the value tenets and framework of the meaning of social organisations (van Eijck and Visser 2012).
Conflict hypothesis (Coser 1967), unlike the functionalist perspectives maintains that conflicts as well as prejudice are deep-rooted in modern societies. As such, social institutions do not function fairly well for all members of the social order. Given this viewpoint, social institutions are perceived as tools for the attainment of authority and dominion and assist the balance of existing prejudices (van Eijck and Visser 2012).
Neo-institutionalist theory (DiMaggio 1998), on the other hand, contends that social institutions are crucial for the enforcement of action routines. In ever more intricate settings, social institutions relieve people and make their social settings more probable. Regulated action routines oftentimes stay unchallenged, and people accept or carry them out as adaptions to the conditional and role assumptions of their social setting. In this regard, social institutions can back up people’s costs and assets, as well as assist them in working out difficulties in their normal lives. In view of this, an essential feature in the running of social institutions is the presence of trust as well as candidness (van Eijck and Visser 2012).
Conceptualising Indigenous Social Institutions
In conceptualising indigenous social institutions, two differences are important. First, informal social institutions should be singled out from formal social institutions. The differences amid these forms of institutions have been hypothesised in many ways. A commonly given dissimilarity is state-societal. Formal social institutions are created with the aim of governing human behavior; for instance, courts, legislatures, constitutions and laws. In contrast, informal social institutions are those that are not designed to enforce or regulate human conduct but often end up doing so. Examples of informal institutions are social groups, kinship groups, and other societal rules (Hamilton-Hart 2000; Helmke and Levitsky 2004; Palmer 2003).
Formal social institutions are procedures that are publicly established because they are entrenched as well as made known through methods that are generally recognised as legitimate. In contrast, informal social institutions are communally shared rules, usually unwritten, that are created, communicated, and enforced outside of officially sanctioned channels (Helmke and Levitsky 2004; Taylor 1992). Informal social institutions are socially shared regulations, normally unrecorded, which are handed down and established outside of officially approved methods (Helmke and Levitsky 2004; Taylor 1992). Good examples of informal social institutions are village-wife associations, elders’ councils, traditions, morals, customs, kinship structures, family, norms, conventional knowledge or ideologies, and religion (Helmke and Levitsky 2004).
The varieties informal social institutions otherwise referred to as indigenous which are probed in this study may be construed as customary or conventional social institutions made up of local people. The word indigenous is maintained in this research in order to situate the research in the direction of the broader research on indigenous or traditional social institutions Indigenous social institutions are self-identified social groups as well as networks typified by distinctive customs, values, beliefs, and social-, economic- and political systems. These institutions have a close connection with the land and natural resources in general in their locality (Appiah-Opoku 1997; Offe 1996). Indigenous social associations signify well-known native community structures of power and other phenomena derived from the socio-cultural and past practices of a particular culture (Appiah-Opoku 1997; Nigatu, Eden and Ansha 2013). They stem from indigenous culture, are firmly rooted in history and are differently referred to as “informal-“, “local-“, “pre-existing-“, or “traditional institutions” (Matowanyika 1991; Nigatu, Eden and Ansha 2013). Indigenous social institutions are habitually located at local or village level and their operations reflect the knowledge and experiences of their people. They are easily distinguished from non-indigenous institutions (see Table 3.1). The latter is established through powers external to a particular neighbourhood or group and has practical as well as fundamental provisions that are fairly standard (Uphoff 1986). Non-indigenous social institutions also operate at national and international levels and replicate a definite representation of development pursued by Western industrialised societies throughout recent centuries (Appiah-Opoku 1997; Giarelli 1996).
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Statement of the problem
1.3 Study objectives
1.4 Rationale for the study
1.5 Conceptual Framework
1.6 Structure of the thesis
1.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Study design
2.3 Study areas
2.5 Data collection instrument
2.6 Data collection
2.7 Data Analysis
2.8 Ethical considerations
2.9 Location of the researcher
2.10 Summary and Conclusion
CHAPTER THREE: ROLES OF INDIGENOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Social Institutions
3.3 Conceptualising Indigenous Social Institutions
3.4 Types of Indigenous Social Institutions
3.5 The Role of Indigenous Social Institutions
3.6 Indigenous Social Institutions in Nigeria
3.7 Indigenous social institutions in contemporary Nigeria: Types and feature
3.8 Roles of indigenous social institutions in contemporary Nigeria
3.9 Highlight of main points and gaps in the literature
3.10 Conclusion
CHAPTER FOUR: PROFILE AND MEMBERSHIP PATTERNS OF OLDER PEOPLE IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Profile of members of indigenous community associations
4.3 Discussions and conclusion
4.4. Conclusion
CHAPTER FIVE: THE ELDERLY AND THEIR ASSOCIATIONAL EXPERIENCES
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Conceptualising benefits
5.3 Benefits and disadvantages for age-grade association members
5.4 Benefits and disadvantages for village-wife association members
5.5 Benefits and disadvantages for Umuada association members
5.6 Benefits and disadvantages for elder’s council members
5.7 Discussion
CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Contribution to knowledge
6.3 Implications of study findings for theory
6.4 Recommendations
6.5 Areas for further research
6.6 Conclusions
REFERENCES
