164 THE SOCIAL COMPONENTS

SOCIAL RELATIVISM

Many studies of social structure have been made by sociologists and
anthropologists. In some of these studies the whole of a society as it
exists at a given time is surveyed, and an attempt is made to record the
various interdependent elements, component parts, and major systems
of that society. An inclusive study of a primitive tribe or village or an
American rural community, small town, or city would fall into this
category. Before these studies become meaningful they must, however,
be compared; and data derived from them must be correlated. In other
studies some one structural element or some one major system is ab-
stracted from the social whole for more rigorous and detailed examina-
tion. An opinionnaire survey of American racial attitudes or a study
of the American class system would be of this type. Data from this type
of study become meaningful only when the relations of the structural
element to other structural elements are determined. Underlying both
procedures by which data are rendered meaningful is the basic concept
of social relativism.

Function vs. Form.—The concept of social relativism hinges upon the
distinction between the form and the function of structural elements.1
The importance of this distinction arises from the fact that similar func-
tions may be accomplished by different practices and component sys-
tems, while the same practice or component system may function in
different ways. The relation between form and function is not, that is to
say, a constant one.

The distinction between form and function can be simply illustrated
by the different greeting practices, elements of the organizational sys-
tems, that appear in different societies. In premodern China men greeted
each other by bowing slightly and pressing the hands together; a cen-
tury ago in Europe gentlemen lifted their hats to one another; in con-
temporary America they shake hands. In each instance the function of
the structural element (the indication of friendliness) is the same, al-
though the form (the specific action) is different.

It is evident that the function of any particular practice—bowing, hat
lifting, or handshaking—depends entirely upon the context in which the
practice appears and varies as the context varies. In contemporary Amer-
ica the hanidshake functions toward the establishment and maintenance of
harmonious relations between men. In premodern China the same practice
would no doubt have led to misunderstanding, embarrassment, and in

1 The most explicit statement of this distinction is to be found in B. Malinowski,
The Dynamics of Culture Change (Chap. IV, The Functional Theory of Culture,
Yale University Press, New Haven, 1943). See also R. Benedict, Patterns of Culture
(Houghton MifHin, Boston, 1934); and B. Malinowsld, A Scientific Theory of Cul-
ture (University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1944).