Talk:Social order

i personally think that social order is a vital asset to the world as internationally. it is cruical that order be purposed in society clearly because of the ever on going prejudice as emerging out of this as race wars, social order is initially assisted by 'birth culture' i.e family roles in an infant....if this is practiced social order will be a long standing fundamental soliditory inviting principle in the world today lol ^ Is that some sort of joke? lol!

it was bad

In English, the term "social order" refers to the ordering of classes in a society based on some systematic principle, i.e. the feudal social order, etc. and this was conflated with the concept of order as opposed to disorder. For this reason, I removed the last paragraph. Lycurgus 17:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you provide a source for this definition of "social order"? Given the social theorists cited in the article, your usage seems overly limited and I would suggest that your removal of that paragraph somewhat premature. Eyedubya 23:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes I can but more to the point, the article should be sectioned to disambiguate the equivocation. Will do if nobody else does. There are two distinct senses of the term as I've noted above though of course the one is a generalization of the other. To be clear the 2 distinct usages are reflected in the use/non-use of an article or characterizing adjective, e.g. as in 'The Shogunate was a feudal social order that controlled Japan for 400 years' vs. 'Law and order has been a mantra of those on the right whose primary concern is maintaining social order' . Lycurgus 05:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree, the article needs development of just this kind. Go right ahead. Eyedubya 11:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the article should be sectioned to reflect the two meanings. However, to the extent that this article is part of the Sociology WikiProject I think that the order/disorder sense should be emphasized. In sociology and especially in sociological theory, the term social order is primarily used in the order/disorder sense. "Theories of Social Order" by Michael Hechter and Christine Horne (2003) is a recent text book that takes this sense of social order to organize an entire course in sociological theory. I am not aware of current research that uses the other sense of "order", although I am happy to learn of such work. --Htw3 18:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article is tagged as original research. Could anyone pinpoint which part of this article is suspected as original research?--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't tag it, but I suspect that, since there are very few references in this article, it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumthingweird (talk • contribs) 09:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

welll u still did not anwer my question so u beta do something cause thhis website is not working at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.250.207 (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Adjusted indent, no discussion since above and I take it the OR below hasn't made it into the article so removing the tag. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

There should maybe be non-original research on the links between social order and religion, since it is a favourite among conservatives to claim that the two are deeply related, notably with the expression Christian social order. [1] ADM (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Order needs to be controlled to exist. Chaos theory has proved this one wrong. Must say that the nuance between social order (a top down concept as it's used in this article) and social stability (note that society is a living system, any valid stability must be dynamic, a static stability is opressive and/or unhealthy to a living system). These comments on views of social stability are fundamental to understanding the mishaps of our history, an elite with a false world view is desperatly attempting to apply static systems logic to a dynamic system.
• Class tensions stem from different sets of values. There's a whole world of littirature about class strugles , and the idea of domination and privilege are generaly put foward to explain the tensions. In fact many argue that the differences in values have evolved to defend privilege and power rather than the contrary.
• Likewise, and despite the scholastic efforts of Thomas Schelling, "when all individuals pursue their own preferences, the outcome is segregation rather than integration," is founded on an innocent view of social structure in which people evolve in a non presuraized system. That is simply not the case. It could more correctly be said that a population under exterior stress will tend to segregate if left to auto-structure itself without internal principles of authority. This can be explained as being a defense mechanisme as it's much more difficult for an exterior force to exploit a highly fragmented society that functions at high levels of loyalty.
  

Must say that the root of this misunderstanding lies in the idea that self-interest is at odds with social and human interest. In fact this is the case in oppressive societies that enforce social injustice as a norm, but the more societies are just the more it becomes evident that self-interest and social-interest collaborate for the common good and social stability.

I must admit that I don't give sources for all that I advance here, but when I have the time I will look them up. These include university papers, books and articles, only I've read about this over years so it'll be hard to find the precise references. It's very important that this article be connected to biological research on population dynamics as well, the very core of the concept of social order is to be found there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogs-end-saloon (talk • contribs) 15:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply