Talk:Social relation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Social relation, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

I think the introductory definition of social relation is too waffly. When I wrote an article on "social relations", I tried to be very specific about what social relations are. User:Jurriaan

Waffly is a bit unprecise. If you refer to the this, it was much less specific. The first para stated there is no agreed on definition. Wikipedia:Lead clearly states that The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic. I believe the current definition is all right - I took it from referenced Piotr Sztompka's book. The first section goes deeper into the discussion of the meaning. Of coures, you should be bold and rewrite/improve this if you have a better vision. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Society

Should there not be talk of society when dealing with social relations, as well as socialization processes? 160.36.192.34 18:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely social relations are about how two or more people relate to each other (duh)

You have this heading "types" of social relations but I don't see any recognisable types. Archetypical ones I would recognise are:

1. individualistic reciprocal network where each person has a one-to-one relationship with each other - and those people don't have any relationship with each other. What a person does affects only the people immediately connected. The internet is like that. It's the naive economist's model.

2. hierarchical where there is a chain of command and correspondingly of loyalty. Represent with a pyramid diagram - what one person does affects the person above and the persons below. This is every organisation that runs anything. This is what the internet tries to escape from.

3. egalitarian group where everyone is connected to everyone else and so what one person does affects everyone. This is Wikipedia in principle. It is standard sect structure.

4. isolated people who have to live and intermingle but aren't meaningfully connected because they don't trust each other and hence don't affect each other - Banfield's southern Italy. Many a bunch of barflies.

5. autonomous people who don't need anyone and who decline to be connected by choice (disdain, aloofness, higher reality). A hermit, recluse, the Brahman, Buddhism, are examples.

In sum these are five types whose social relations are characterised by attitudes and behaviours which are to, respectively: interact, intervene, interfere, intermingle and withdraw.

Anyway this is my idea of what "social relations" means. 150.203.2.85 08:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Why you are encouraged to be bold and update the article, please remember that Wikipedia is no place for original research.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)