2. Cultural Perspectives of Social Structures

are the constraints like if I am a particular member of a particular group, will they allow me to have an orientation of homosexual or will they allow me to have equal rights for the women so, feminism, a kind of homosexuality how one see; one group see that is a kind of the rule of the group. Some group permits, some group do not permit okay so, it is a kind of law, hierarchy, kinship, race, gender that how it is viewed this is in a group, this is called grid okay.

This chunk discusses how social roles vary based on group norms and beliefs. In every social group, there are rules about what behaviors are accepted or rejected, influenced by issues such as sexual orientation and gender equality. Different groups perceive these issues in various ways, establishing a 'grid' that reflects their cultural values and constraints.

Think of a school where some clubs are very inclusive and open to all students regardless of their identity, while others may have strict rules about who can join. For instance, the Gay-Straight Alliance might welcome everyone, whereas a more traditional club may have exclusionary practices.

So, we have like low grid where everybody is equal, egalitarian state of affairs, no one is prevented to participate in any kind of activities or social role depending irrespective of their race, gender, age or so forth, everybody is considered to be equal. In other case, where extreme we have high grid panel here, we can see that people are restricted; their activities are restricted based on caste, creed, class.

This chunk introduces the concepts of 'low grid' and 'high grid' in social structures. In a low grid society, there is equality, allowing all individuals to participate freely in social roles and activities without discrimination. Conversely, a high grid society places restrictions based on factors like caste and class, often limiting participation and access based on these hierarchies.

Imagine a game of basketball where everyone can play regardless of their background – this represents a low grid scenario. Now, consider a private country club where only certain people can join based on wealth or family background – this reflects a high grid scenario.

So, group when low, it is; the networks are radical, when high it is interconnected, in case of interactions low groups are rare, high groups are frequent, boundaries of interactions among individuals in case of low group is open and in case of high group is closed, shared groups like few, high groups are many.

This section compares social interactions in low versus high grid groups. Low grid groups foster radical networks and open boundaries, promoting unique interactions. In contrast, high grid groups create frequent interactions among individuals but with closed boundaries, leading to less diversity in social engagement.

Consider a community garden where everyone can join, share ideas, and interact freely, illustrating a low grid. Now envision an exclusive social club where entry is restricted, creating a more limited and interconnected group, demonstrating a high grid.

In case of grid, when the grid is low that means in a particular group, particular community, particular society, the low and high is like horizontal and vertical, one is very hierarchical one is very equal okay, specializations; in low group it’s very little, people are all have similar kind of activities, they don’t have any specializations, in high group there is lot of specializations, lot of division of labour, people are divided, segregated.

Here, the discussion focuses on how role allocation varies within low and high grid societies. In low grid societies, there are fewer specializations, leading to a more egalitarian distribution of roles. In high grid societies, roles are highly specialized, creating divisions based on skill and status.

In a local community where everyone participates in various tasks, such as cooking and cleaning – this symbolizes a low grid society. On the other hand, in a corporate setting where employees have defined roles like marketing, finance, and human resources, representing a high grid with clear hierarchies.

And allocation of roles is like achievement what you are; what you have achieved but in case of high, it is like ascribed, what your father was, what your mother was, whatever ancestor was, you become like caste system, okay and resource allocations; in case of low grid, it is like egalitarian, everybody is equal, everybody has the same opportunity but in case your hierarchical; in high, it is hierarchical. There some elite people have better access, the other people those who don’t have they have little access or little power to accessize.

This chunk highlights the differences between allocation of roles and resources in egalitarian versus hierarchical structures. In egalitarian societies, roles are based on individual achievement, promoting equal opportunities for all. In hierarchical societies, position and privilege are often determined by lineage or class, resulting in unequal access to resources.

A merit-based scholarship system where students are rewarded based on their performance showcases an egalitarian role allocation. In contrast, a family-owned business where leadership positions are passed down through generations illustrates a hierarchical resource allocation.

For the individualist, they believe that nature is like no matter how much human disturb it, it will; they can handle it, nature can handle it, it is super-powerful, so for your own well-being, for your own achievement for your own success, you can utilize the nature as much as you wish and okay, this myth of nature shows that there is no need for control or cooperations, people are free to use the nature.

In this chunk, the viewpoint of individualist cultures regarding nature and risk is explained. Individualists tend to see nature as resilient and believe they can exploit it for their success without any immediate consequences, leading to a lack of collective responsibility for environmental stewardship.

Think of an entrepreneur who sees a forest as a resource for logging profits, believing that nature can regenerate. However, this perspective might lead to over-exploitation, showing a disregard for long-term environmental health.

In case of egalitarian which is kind of they see that actually the it’s very opposite of the individualistic any, they think that that nature is very vulnerable, any little mistake nature will come crashing down okay, like a ball balanced on a hill, if we just touch it, it will fall so, we need lot of control, lot of control okay and cooperation is necessary to protect yourself from that kind of threat okay.

This chunk contrasts the egalitarian view on nature with the individualistic perspective. Egalitarian cultures see nature as fragile and in need of careful management and collaboration among individuals to prevent ecological disasters, highlighting a deep-seated concern for collective wellbeing.

Consider a community group working together to clean and protect a local river. They believe that without careful management and cooperation, pollution could rapidly destroy their shared resource, emphasizing their commitment to protecting their environment.

--