EXAMINING A SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

Examining a Social Organization

Examining a Social Organization

Introduction

Researchers of social organizations have developed a number of classificatory schemes based on the defining features of associations, such as the associations' size, internal structure, level of outside control, social function, source of support, geographic location, and membership characteristics (Thomas, 2005). Since all these criteria have proved useful for the study of various aspects of voluntarism, none of them can be viewed as definitive.

Discussion

Perhaps due to its simplicity and flexibility, the most enduring and widely employed typology is Putnam (2006) distinction between expressive and instrumental associations. The primary function of expressive organizations is the facilitation of interaction between members. Hence, participation in such organizations is an end in itself. In contrast, the primary manifest function of instrumental associations is the exertion of influence over specific social conditions. Thus, participation in these organizations is a means to particular extra organizational ends. Since many associations do not fit neatly into either of these two categories, Thomas (2005) combined them to form a third association type: Instrumental-expressive associations place equal priority on both these dimensions.

Many typologies developed over the past three decades have built on Gordon and Babchuk's original scheme. For instance, Whyte (2003) distinguish between utilitarian, normative, and normative-utilitarian associations; Wilson (2004) employs the categories of total voluntary, instrumental, and expressive associations, while Putnam (2006) classify voluntary action as self-oriented or community oriented.

The other common approach to classifying associations focuses on their substantive sphere of activity. For example, Thomas (2005) distinguish organizations related to economic activities from those related to community or domestic affairs, while Putnam (2006) lists 14 “functionally specialized” types: “labor unions, churches and sects, social movement organizations, political parties, professional societies, business and trade associations, fraternal and sororal organizations, recreational clubs, civic service associations, philanthropies, social welfare councils, communes, cooperatives, and neighborhood” (p. 2). This approach closely resembles industry classifications used by economists and policy-makers. In fact, Putnam (2006) categories overlap with Thomas (2005) typology of the nonprofit sector, which includes the following fields of activity: culture, education, health, social services, environment, development, civic and advocacy, philanthropy, international, religious, business and professional, unions, and others.

None of the above classificatory approaches provide a perfect representation of the functioning of actual social organizations; each one reduces these complex social phenomena to simplistic and often overlapping ideal types. Nevertheless, these typologies provide convenient and useful conceptual tools for examining various properties of a myriad of diverse organizations. Hence, each typology must be evaluated in light of specific research questions and appropriate empirical evidence. For instance, Whyte (2003) divides social organizations into local and cosmopolitan, regardless of their function or purpose. This is an entirely reasonable decision in the context of his study, which examines the relationship between association membership and geographical mobility.

Socioeconomic Status and Labor Market Variables

Most SES indicators are found to positively affect rates of voluntary participation. This is particularly true for occupational status and education (Lynd, 2003). Some researchers have also observed that specific job characteristics and not just occupational ...