Logical structure of institutionalized relationship

The ability to form institutional relations is universal across our species. A culturally socialized individual could intuitively recognize the logic of the structural relationship between positions and roles, duties and capabilities for every complex social phenomenon. Institutional thinking that lies at the core of human orientation in the social world implies unity of generative operations for calculation of logical structure underlying any social relationship. From this point of view, it makes sense to talk about the system that covers a maximum range of situations with minimum rules: minimum basic generative operations to derive the logical structure of a wide range of institutionalized relationships. One of such basic generative operations is binary operation merge that recursively combines components in one structure. This article offers, as a heuristic model, alternative binary operations that generate the logical structure of institutionalized relationships universally: symmetric-pair and asymmetric-pair compositions of atomic elements. The proposed heuristic approach is based on a compositional comparison of possible structures that can be generated by simple binary operations on a finite set of elements. Simple binary operations, asymmetry and pair, allow deriving the logical structure of social relations universally such that the entire inference process can be described by a small set of procedures. Social relationship logic is intuitively recognized by the culturally socialized individual as a conclusion regarding deontic power and normative characters of relationship (rights, obligations, requirements) that based on the relational positions of structural elements (social categories, statuses, nomenclatures).

Keywords

social institution; institutional thinking; cognitive sociology; social anthropology; social structure; generative logic

Received

08.11.2022

Publication date

09.11.2022

Number of characters

26298

Cite

GOST	Gvozdikov D. Logical structure of institutionalized relationship // Chelovek – 2022. – V. 33. – Issue 5 C. 77-91 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://chelovek-journal.ru/S023620070022793-9-1 (circulation date: 04.05.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S023620070022793-9
MLA	Gvozdikov, Denis "Logical structure of institutionalized relationship." Chelovek 33.5 (2022):77-91. DOI: 10.31857/S023620070022793-9
APA	Gvozdikov D. (2022). Logical structure of institutionalized relationship. Chelovek 33(5), pp.77-91 DOI: 10.31857/S023620070022793-9

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 358

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Shmerlina I.A. Ponyatie «social'nyj institut»: analiz issledovatel'skih podhodov [The Concept of “Social Institution”: Analysis of Research Approaches]. Sociological Journal. 2008. N 4. P. 53–69.

2. Aydinonat N.E., Ylikoski P. Three Conceptions of a Theory of Institutions. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 2018. Vol. 48. Issue 6. P. 235–54. DOI: 10.1177/0048393118798619

3. Barth F. Analytical dimensions in comparison of social organizations. American Anthropologist. New Series. 1972. Vol. 74. N ½ Feb. – Apr. P .207–220.

4. Bondarenko D.M. Social Institutions and Basic Principles of Societal Organization. The Evolution of Social Institutions: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Ed. by: Bondarenko D. M., Kowalewski S. A., Small D.B. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020.

5. Chomsky N. The UCLA lectures (April 29 – May 2, 2019). URL: lingbuzz/005485 (accessed 08.08.2021).

6. Collin F. Social Reality. London, New York: Routledge, 1997.

7. Collins C. ‘Merge (X,Y) = {X,Y}’. Labels and Roots. Eds. Bauke L., Andreas Blümel A. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 2017. P. 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501502118-003

8. Dequech D. Cognitive and Cultural Embeddedness: Combining Institutional Economics and Economic Sociology. Journal of Economic Issues. 2003. Vol. 37 (2). P. 461–470.

9. Giddens A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1986.

10. Lee R.B. The Dobe Ju/’hoansi. 4th Edition. Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2013. URL: https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/The-Dobe-Ju-hoansi-by-Richard-B.-Lee.pdf (accessed 08.02.2021).

11. Radcliffe-Brown A.R. Structure and Function in Primitive Society, Essays and Addresses. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952.

12. Read D. Kinship, Formal Models of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Edition. Ed. by: Wright D.J. 2015. Vol. 13. P. 53–60. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.43114-4 (accessed 08.08.2021).

13. Read D. et al. An Algebraic Account of the American Kinship Terminology. Current Anthropology. 1984. Vol. 25. N 4. P. 417–449.

14. Read D.W. A New Approach to Forming a Typology of Kinship Terminology Systems: From Morgan and Murdock to the Present. Structure and Dynamics. 2013. Vol 6 (1). URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/SD961017982 (accessed 18.08.2021).

15. Searle J. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford, University Press, 2010.

16. Searle J. Social Ontology: Some Basic Principles. Anthropological Theory. 2006. Vol. 6. Issue 1. P.12–29.

17. Searle J. The Construction of Social Reality. New York, 1995.

18. Seumas M. Social Institutions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. by: Zalta E.N. 2019. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/social-institutions/ (accessed 08.08.2021).

19. Barth F. Analytical dimensions in comparison of social organizations. American Anthropologist. New Series.1972. Vol. 74. No. ½ Feb. – Apr.p. 207–220.

20. Bondarenko D. M. Social Institutions and Basic Principles of Societal Organization.The Evolution of Social Institutions: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, eds. Bondarenko D. M., Kowalewski S. A., Small D.B. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020.

21. Chomsky N. The UCLA lectures (April 29 – May 2, 2019). URL: lingbuzz/005485 (Accessed 08.08.2021.)

22. Collin F. Social reality. London, New York: Routledge, 1997.

23. Collins C. ‘Merge(X,Y) = {X,Y}’. Labels and Roots, eds. Bauke l., Andreas Blümel A. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2017. P. 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501502118-003

24. Dequech D. Cognitive and Cultural Embeddedness: Combining Institutional Economics and Economic Sociology. Journal of Economic Issues. 2003. Vol 37 (2). P. 461–470.

25. Giddens A. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity press, 1986.

26. Lee R.B. The Dobe Ju/’hoansi. 4th edition. Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2013. URL: https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/The-Dobe-Ju-hoansi-by-Richard-B.-Lee.pdf (Accessed 08.02.2021.)

27. Radcliffe-Brown A.R. Structure and Function in Primitive Society, Essays and Addresses. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952.

28. Read D. Kinship. Formal Models of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition Vol 13. Ed. Wright D.J. Oxford: Elsevier, 2015. P. 53–60. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.43114-4 (Accessed 08.08.2021)

29. Read D., et al. An Algebraic Account of the American Kinship Terminology. Current Anthropology. 1984. Vol. 25. N 4. P. 417–449.

30. Read, D. W. A New Approach to Forming a Typology of Kinship Terminology Systems: From Morgan and Murdock to the Present. Structure and Dynamics. 2013. Vol 6(1). URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/SD961017982 (Accessed 18.08.2021)

31. Searle J. Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford, University press, 2010.

32. Searle J. Social Ontology: Some basic principles. Anthropological Theory. 2006. Vol 6. Issue 1. P.12–29.

33. Searle J. The Construction of Social Reality. New York, 1995.

34. Seumas M. Social Institutions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Zalta E.N. 2019. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/social-institutions/ (Accessed 08.08.2021.)