Social Living

Recipes

A person is born in a society that is already existing. Even before birth there is already the social world. Each person is born in a specific family, a specific neighborhood or village, a specific country. Nobody chooses the circumstances of birth. Each of us is born in a place that already has its social ways. Each of us is born in a place where people work, relate with each other, speak a language, have ways of preparing food and wearing clothes, have musical forms, etc.

Society is experienced as having fixed ways and patterns. Every member of that society is born into those fixed patterns and continues to live within the fixed patterns. A person grows up from childhood and is made to be participant of the fixed ways of society. This participation is sometimes called “socialization”. As the word indicates, a person is made part of society. We might have our parents and elders, teachers in school, bosses in the workplace and they form us with skills and ways of behaving so that we can participate within society.

In our class we will often use the word “recipe” (Alfred Schutz). The word is borrowed from what we do when we cook. In cooking there are specified ingredients and specified preparations. In other words there are “recipes” for this or that type of cooking. If a recipe is not followed we are not sure what we are eating. Now this word can help us understand our social life. For us, in our class, we say that a recipe is a fixed social pattern which everyone in the social group follows. In a society notice that there are recipes for boys and girls in the family or school. There are recipes for proper dress wear. There are recipes for relating with older people. There are recipes for managing age. Look at a clear example. For a society when a young lady reaches a certain age she will have to consider getting married. It is recipe for that society.

Recipes are very helpful. They are “ready-made”. A person born in a society is made to fit-in the recipes of the society. There are already many ready-made patterns of behaving and acting in the social world. A person does not have to experiment and explore how to live in society. Recipes eliminate the trouble of starting something and exploring if it is right or wrong. Recipes are there already.

Recipes also make people feel “at home” in their social setting. People are not lost and ignorant of how to live in that society. They simply have to follow the recipes. They are socialized into the recipes.

Recipes also make people feel that they belong to each other. Every member of a society follow the same recipes. Everyone shares the common recipes. People feel that they are together; they are bonded by their social recipes. Individual members can move around, live, work, relax without much difficulties inside the common surrounding social world.

Let us try to observe this experience a bit more. Each of us is born in a social world with recipes. We note that the recipes have existed long before the person’s birth. So each of us experiences entering into a social world with recipes each of us did not make. We experience this very strong inside the family. When we come to school we also experience this a lot. As we move around the social world we really feel that we are in a world with many fixed patterns.

Voluntary groups

But then we also involve ourselves with “voluntary groups”. In a voluntary group we have to make recipes! We do not experience a totally ready-made social world. As the word itself indicates, we voluntarily enter into relationships and we start making recipes and create bonding. Take the example of getting married.

In getting married the man and the woman will have to build their relationship. They have to make their fixed patterns.

Yet a voluntary group is not completely independent of the fixed social recipes. When a man and a woman get married, yes they will have to fix their relationship and create patterns for themselves and their household. But they still assume that they are under the social practice of marriage with its legal features. There is still the social recipe for marriage and the couple did not create this.

Look at the voluntary groups we may have had in our own lives. We make friends, for example. We voluntarily choose who will be our friends. But the relationship is also characterized by social recipes for friendship. We might organize a club, say a sports club. This is a voluntary group. But even a club is characterized by social recipes. Yes we voluntarily define and redefine our relationships but we have to consider the general recipe settings.

Notice then that even if we act in voluntary ways and bond in voluntary ways, we are still under a fixed social world with fixed social recipes. We can look at our very personal lives and our very intimate relationships. No matter how personal and intimate we get we still live in a social setting. The fact that we have to speak a language is already proof of how we are “so inside” society.

Our social world is really complex today. We really experience this blending of fixed social recipes and voluntary bonding. We make friends. We join clubs. We link with associations. We enter into relationships in which we have to also create bonding and start recipes. In fact more and more today we experience the possibility of more voluntary relationships. How do we manage living in this complexity?       

The "local" and the "foreigner"

People who belong to another social group--let us say "foreigners" (or "outsiders" [Schutz]) do not exactly share the same recipes as the "locals" (or "insiders" [Schutz]). Of course two social groups can have many features in common (like two regions in a same country). But two groups can also be very different in many ways (like a European nation and a Polynesian nation). If members of one group start living in the locality of another group the locals may have difficulties understanding the foreigners. The locals have recipes that are so habitual, automatic and unquestioned. When they see the foreigners they notice that the foreigners do not follow the local recipes. The foreigners behave quite contrary to the "expected" (local) recipes. A resistance can build up towards the foreigners.
Foreigners may also feel a resistance towards the locals. Foreigners have their own recipes which for them are also habitual, automatically done and unquestioned. Locals may wonder why the foreigners behave in a different manner while foreigners may wonder why locals behave in a different manner. Of course, in many instances, groups living together may be more tolerant of each other. They might even adjust well towards each other. But we know of how many prejudices and biases also arise; some groups strongly reject each other. In other cases a local group will look down on itself and start emulating the foreign group.  Social scientists speak of "ethnocentrism" and even "xenocentrism".
Consider a foreigner coming to a place and settling there--for long or for short. For the foreigner the recipes of the locals are not all so obvious and clear. The local recipes are unfamiliar. The history of the locals is not the history of the foreigner; the foreigner may be attached to a different set of ancestors. The foreigner, in the eyes of the locals, is now a "newcomer" without a history.
The foreigner might try to "socialize" within the new place but still using recipes from home. The local recipes are not ready-made for the foreigner. The foreigner, up to this point, may be an observer of the locals, an observer and not yet a full participant. The foreigner needs to know how to act and behave according to the approved patterns of the locals, but the foreigner is still groping. This can be quite difficult.
Of course a lot depends on how deep the foreigner wants to participate in the local life. A lot depends also on how dependent the foreigner is on the resources of the locals. While being an apprentice, the foreigner has to keep a distance from local recipes to learn. The foreigner cannot just jump in. (The experience of participating in joke making can be an example. What is funny for the foreigner may be insulting to the locals.) Trial and error will have to be done over time. (Learning the local language is one example. Learning to appreciate the local dishes is also another example. Moving from a "high context" society to a "low context" society [Hall] can also be an example.)
At this point the foreigner cannot just apply the recipes from home and yet cannot fully plunge into the recipes of the locals. The foreigner is in-between. Adaptation may take time.
While the foreigner is learning to socialize in the new place many things of the locals remain puzzling. How far can the foreigner absorb--and trust--the recipes of the locals? The foreigner is still working with imagination and guess-work. The local recipes do not yet appear habitual, automatic and unquestioned. The foreigner still has questions regarding the local recipes. The foreigner then appears as a "distant participant" in the eyes of the locals. This can lead the locals to interpret the foreigner as "lacking loyalty" to the ways of the locals. The foreigner does not look like fully compliant with what is so obvious for the locals. Again this can lead to prejudices and biases towards the foreigner.
At what point is the foreigner already "at home" and sufficiently participating in the new place? At what point will the locals take the foreigner as "one of us" already?

Language

A bit part of what each of us knows do not come from personal and private experiences. A big part of what we know comes from parents, elders, teachers, etc. We learn recipes that are already present long before our birth. One of the most evident example is language. Before a person is born in a society people have already been speaking the language there. The newborn child enters into a society that is already speaking a language. The child does not have to create a new language; the child enters into (is socialized) into the language of that society.
Language may be something written in a dictionary. There are many words of the language recorded in the dictionary. But really, the dictionary does not reallt tell us the whole language. People do not speak like walking dictionaries. Words in a dictionary can be translated to other languages. But the language people use in daily life can hardly be fully translated into another language. We know this experience. When we try to translate certain expressions we use in our language to, say, English, we feel that whatever translation made is not "hitting the mark". Daily life speaking is really different from dictionary listing.
A dictionary can give a definition of a word; a definition can be in a few sentences. But note well how we speak and note well the meanings we give to the words we utter daily. A word or an expression can be filled with so many meanings that overflow. The dictionary does not capture the wealth of meanings. Some words and phrases we use can even have emotional colors. (Just think of how "pork-barrel" is understood today. It resonates with different meanings.) For a good example of richly meaningful language, let us look into the poetry of each of our countries. There is a level of language which really cannot be strictly translated into another language and cannot be fully encapsulated by a dictionary.
Yet let us admit that there is also the dictionary level of language. The different words and phrases may still be recorded in a dictionary. These might even be translated to another language. (Think of what Charles de Foucauld did with documenting the Touareg language of North Africa.)
Now, in each social group there are smaller groups with specific languages. For example in the military the soldiers coin terms and phrases proper to military use. The soldiers have "their own" language, in a way. They have words and phrases for military use. Think of scientists who have their specific languages. Think of people in business, people in computer programming, etc.
Much of what is in language is also an influence from history, notably from the history of the local literature. When locals speak they might be plugging in words and phrases taken from their literature (and arts). Of course this may happen quite automatically. In a Christian society people might, from time to time, plug in ideas from the Bible. In an Islamic society people might plug in ideas from the Koran.
Let us look at the different levels of knowledge (Schutz).
There is the level that is purely private. We might say that it is "mine". It is not shared with anyone else. We see this in our use of marks. When reading a book a person might stop and leave a bookmark to remind that person where to return to in the next reading. That is up to the person. The person might want to use a piece of carton, a piece of paper or a leaf from a tree. The person might just fold a page. It is all up to the parson--it is private to the person. So this level of language is private and it relies on the personal use of someone--the meaning is up to that person.
In nature there are events that make us conclude cause and effect. If we see smoke we might conclude there is fire. If we see thick clouds we might conclude that it will rain. There are events in nature and what they "mean" do not depend on us. This time it is not up to the person. Something is really going on out there in the environment and the person makes the connections. Maybe the connections are not accurate and can even be wrong. A person might think that a running nose is due to a fever but maybe it is due to an allergy. But the point is, here we rely on what is out there. Maybe this is not yet language-communication but it is already independent of each of us.
Finally there is the language-proper level. Here we use "signs". A sign means something to the person expressing it. It is derived from a person. A sign always refers back to an expression of someone.  In other words, someone wants to say something and uses a sign.
On the road we see road signs. Meeting someone we ask for a direction and the person uses the sign of a pointing finger. A parent might want to show gratitude to a child and make a huge smile. These are signs. They are made to express--they communicate.
Notice how different this is from natural events like smoke and fire. Smoke is not intended to "mean" anything for nature. There is a causal connection between the fire and the smoke. But smoke can be a sign if, for example during election for a Pope, the smoke is used to mean something.
Uttering words and phrases is a way of using signs. Writing a text is a way of using signs. Making gestures can be a way of using signs. Note that there is always the form of saying something by someone--a person. There is communication involved.
In daily life we might not pay attention to this anymore. We are flooded with signs everywhere from the spoken language to the written texts to the drawings and illustrations in shops, TV, videos, etc. As we use the computer we are face with so many signs--just think of the keyboard. We click on icons which are also signs. Signs are everywhere. Communication is everywhere.
Notice then that signs are not just means of expression they are also means of interpretation. If we do not understand the keys in a computer keyboard, how can we use it? If we do not understand the sign posted on a public toilet door, imagine what we might do. In other words we must also understand and interpret correctly the signs around us.
We are flooded with systems of signs. The written text of a book is a whole sign system. To communicate--express and interpret--we must be very at home with the system. We need to be formed in it. As children we were formed to speak and understand a system of language.
Without this formation we cannot participate in society. Society has it recipes, yes, and the recipes are embodied in language. We might now know who started all this--who started the recipes and the language. It does not matter in daily life. What is important is that we are formed into the communication system of signs.

Objective meaning

For a specific social group there are recipes and language that are communicable and understandable for the members of that society. Members of that society accept and follow, without much questioning, the fixed ways of the society. This is what we mean here by "objective". What is objective does not depend on an individual's choices and changes. Whether the individual agrees or not, accepts or not, a recipe and a language are fixed and observed by society. So for us in this class we say that a recipe and a language are objective when people in a society observe them and follow them and live according to their prescriptions.
We need this level of objectivity. Imagine if a word means different meanings for each person, society will be chaotic. Somehow all members of society express and understand "objectively"--according to the ways of that society.
But this does not exclude our own personal and even private meanings and behavior. An objective sign may be used for personal reasons. Take the example of cursing with a pointed finger. Objectively, in a society, for example, that raising of the finger is taken as an insult and is a curse. It is a "bad" gesture. That is the objective meaning for that society. But maybe a person will use the gesture to express charm or to express a joke. The gesture may objectively mean "bad sign" but it is used, in a specific instance, to be a joke and does not include insult or harm.
In daily life this happens a lot. We use the objective signs and add our own personal meanings to them. Signs have objective meanings that members of society understand. But a person might want to use a sign to express a personal meaning within a specific situation. (Just think of the "smiley sign" we sometimes add to our electronic messages.)

Interests and relevance

In the course of a day we are filled with interests. As soon as we wake up, say, in the morning we start organizing ourselves according to interests. Some things are very relevant at a particular moment while other things are not. We pay close attention to certain things while we forgo attention to other things. Take the example of making a cup of coffee for breakfast. What is most important at that moment? There is of course the coffee and there is hot water. There is the importance of having a cup. Maybe connected to that is the relevance of sitting at a table. Maybe still connected to that is the piece of bread. Still connected to that may be the newspaper. Of course the newspaper is not so directly relevant to making the coffee but there are people who like to read the papers while they have their morning coffee. For them the two are more or less connected and relevant to each other. As they prepare their coffee they pick up the newspaper and lay it on the table. Let us go farther from the activity of making coffee. What about the traffic conditions in the city? What about the weather? To an extent these are not that relevant to coffee making, not for this particular moment. What about molecular biology and philosophical metaphysics? They probably really have nothing to do with making coffee this morning. Notice then that somehow an organization or a structuring is made at each moment of the day.
So a person wakes up and makes coffee, takes a shower, moves to take a ride to work, starts working, takes a break, returns to work and later starts moving back home. There is a lot of structuring going on, a lot of shifting of interests and relevance. At each particular moment the person organizes things from what is most relevant to what is least relevant. At work the person is constantly shifting relevance. But playing football is completely irrelevant; it has nothing to do with the work. Maybe on weekends the person plays football with neighborhood friends; during that time relevance will again be structured. Very likely the relevance of what the person does at work is, during a football game, really irrelevant.
During the structuring and re-structuring of relevance a person might choose and decide on what will be relevant. So while making coffee a person might not feel the need to have the water very hot and maybe the person does not want very strong coffee. That is the person's own choice. That is "up to the person". But notice that at the same time there are elements that are not of the person's choices. The bitterness of the coffee and the rate of time of heating the coffee may be quite beyond the person's own choices. The bitterness of the coffee depends on how it is manufactured and on what type of coffee. The rate of heating time depends on the stove. These are not anymore things initiated by the person. When that same person goes to work the person may be deciding on the pace of work; so maybe at this moment he or she would prefer to go slow and take it easy. But there is the presence of the boss and there is the demand of production to meet. These elements do not arise from the choice of the person working. In the midst of the choice to work hard or to take it easy, there are things that the worker needs to face too--elements that are already there independent of the decisions of the person working. 
As we structure our interests and relevance we make choices and decisions within a given world that already exists and is fixed. We move around in daily life making our initiatives but we do that in an existing world.

"Typification" (Schutz)

Remember what we said about "objectivity". It is what people in a society accept altogether. it is what has become common for people in that society. Members of that society accept and follow, without much questioning, their fixed ways. What is objective is not private to an individual alone. Objectivity is social. Recipes are objective social patterns. Let us look at recipes from a new angle which we shall call as "typification" (Schutz; see Weber).
Our experiences are characterized by naming things and people and events. We call this animal "dog", that tree as "mango tree", that person as "old man" or "uncle", that work as "manual work" and that walk as "very tiring". We many not know everything about the things and people we encounter yet we name them. We give an "accent of belief" in them--we believe they are real and true elements of daily life. We "conclude" about what they are even if we do not have full details about them. 
This animal here is a dog and I call it dog. What breed is it? I do not know. Who owns it? I do not know. What is the anatomy? I do not know. Yet I conclude it is "a dog". Together with this conclusion are certain expectations about the dog. I am sure it says "bowow", it wags its tail when pleased, it gets hungry, it can bite, etc. How much do I need to know about the animal? Maybe in daily life it is enough to be familiar with it. Again, there is no need to deepen knowledge of details about this animal. In general and as far as my interest is--as far as relevant details allow--I conclude that it is a "dog".
If we stop for a while and really observe our experiences, we may be surprised to see how unique each and every experience can be. I see this animal on the street this morning and then I see it again this afternoon. My experience this morning may not exactly be the same as this afternoon. This morning it was bright and shiny and the sun was really beating down. Well, this afternoon it is cloudy and bit humid. So the color of the dog this morning was brighter than its color this afternoon. Yet, I conclude: it is the same dog. 
Just look at our experiences and see how unique they are. A friend of long ago shows up and I relate with my friend and I conclude that she is "the same friend". Actually over the years she gained many experiences and lessons in her life and she is not exactly the very same person today. Yet, notice how "concluding" happens: she is the same person I knew before. 
In daily life we make many conclusions about things and people and events. We conclude about and we give names to our experiences. As we do this, notice how we "trust" our conclusions. We will discuss this notion of "trust" later.
We might use what is commonly said today, "we put them in boxes". We box-in our experiences. Even if they can be very unique and ever changing experiences we still "freeze" them in boxes. We do not feel the need to focus on the unique differences nor on the very many details involved. It is enough that they are put in more or less well-made "boxes". We "typify" them--put them in categories and types. Later we will discuss the role of relevance in doing this.
But right now do we not notice that this itself is recipe living? In social recipes we put many things in boxes: we box-in people, we box-in age roles, we box-in sex roles, we box-in career paths, etc. In a country there might be different regions each having a language or dialect different from the rest. Is it not often that people from a specific region box-in, typify, people from other regions? The northern people are "thrifty" while those from the south are "lazy". At times people in a country emulate so much people from another country, a case of "xeno-centrism". In a country financial assistance of extended family members may be an obligation and it is typified. In another country this assistance might not be obligatory at all.
Observe that as we typify our experiences we arrange our types according to relevance or interests. This animal I see in the street is a dog and I see not further need to know more. In my typifying the animal I might include conclusions like it is a "possibly harmful animal" and "it escaped from its owner". Do I need to know more and say more? No. What my type concludes is enough. My familiarity is enough, I do not need to go further. For example, the dog's breed and anatomy do not serve as relevant information. So my type "dog" is marked by what I say is relevant and what I say is "enough" is the way I structure my relevance.
In society we see this happening. Social typifications are organized according to social relevance. What social members consider as relevant marks the features of their typifications. An over admiration for foreigners has its relevance structures. A discrimination against certain regions has its relevance structures. The classification of what career is "better" has its relevance structures. The idea that at a certain age one must get married has its relevance structures. Let us try to point how relevance is operating here.
One reason why we box-in our experiences is because we have routine, daily problems and we want to have routine solutions for them. We do not want to complicate life, do we? For all relevant purposes this animal in the street is "dog" and, we might add, "possibly can bite". Anatomy and breed do not enter as relevant features of the type "dog". I need to be careful about the presence of a stray animal so my type is limited to this. I organize my typification according to this routine case. Becoming an expert of the animal kingdom is not within the scope of daily routine and is not a routine problem. Hence my type "dog" does not include the scientific details about the animal.
Another reason why we box-in our experiences is because we have roles to play in society. We behave according to those roles. A child is expected to behave this and that way. A lady is expected to act this or that way. A policeman is expected to act in this or that way. A priest is expected to act in this or that way. So we box-in these many aspects of daily life--we typify them according to the expected roles they play in society.
Another reason why we typify experiences is to guide our relationships with each other. We conform to what is important and relevant for everyone in the social group. We can deviate but we must consider what people take as important. We enter the "importance" boxes. Consider the ways of being polite in a social group. Maybe for a social group it is typical for a teenager to be very polite to elders. A young person then is guided by this whenever he or she is with an elderly.
Notice then what is very relevant for people when living in recipe life--with types. Notice what is relevant to everyone. Life has to be standardized. There are standards--rules, mores and norms--that guide (and propel) society. Typification is a way of standardizing. All the unique differences and massive details are tapered off so that there are common, boxed, ways of living. We live according to what is "enough" for the social group. Do we need to go further than what is "enough"? There is no need. So long was we stay within the standards and so long as we live standardized there is no need to go further. What we have is enough.
Later we will discuss one important area of social life in which knowledge is "distributed". Although there is a tapering of information and details for a standardized social living each social member deepens access to particular information. Hence we find "experts" and "specialists" in society. This, again, will be a discussion later on. Right now let us simply say that social life is standardized.
We really do not have to live like this strictly. Many say, for example, that one must "think out of the box". But can we really live out of a box? Can we really be out of any box? If we move out of a box, where do we go?
Boxing-in experiences is part of recipe living: we typify our experiences. Now the typifications we do are quite social. Inter-regional typing for example is very social. People name their experiences and they typify their surrounding world. Each person born into a social group with its network of typifications is socialized into this network. It is "objective" in as much as it is what "everyone in the social group" does.
Ok, it is true that we have our private lives too. We can do things privately and in very unique ways. We can, in principle, live as we want. We might want to look for new horizons of living and we might want to do alternative living. Fine. But no matter how private we want to be we still live within a social world and there are standards still to obey. Our private interests cannot just rule over social relevance. Somewhere along the way we need to align ourselves with social interests and social boxes. Typification precisely plays this role of tapering off the over-personalized and over-privatized ways. Everyone is expected to be in a common way of standard living. Everyone must still live inside the social box.
Sociologists have topics about social control and deviance. We have an idea now of what those topics could mean.

Our acting in the Social World

We are familiar with daydreaming and imagining things. Our fantasies can run in many directions. Yet while doing the fantasies we cannot say that "something is happening". We make no decisions and we make no definite goals regarding our fantasies.
But then when we try to solve a mathematical problem in the head we can say that we are already "doing something". A decision is made: "I will solve this problem". Maybe it is all in the head but still there is already a decision made. Action involves decision making.
More often often our actions are done bodily. We walk to a place, we ride a bus, we write, we talk, we hammer nails, we cook food, etc. We have specific plans and goals to accomplish and we decide on making them happen. Of course we may not always succeed. My plan to serve a delicious dish turns out to be a catastrophe to my guests. But the point is, as we go through our actions we try to fulfill goals.
Each person has in mind goals and plans. There are immediate goals and there are long term goals. There are even goals people make for their whole lives. What do people really have inside their heads? What exactly do they want? What exactly are their goals? If we look closely enough we have to admit that we do not really know completely what each person has in mind as goals. We might conjecture. Watching a lady rush to riding a bus I might conclude that she wants to be at work at the right hour. But how sure am I with that conclusion? What exactly is going on in her mind? What does she intend with her running to the bus? Do I see her goals not just for today but for her whole lifetime? That person herself is in the best position to know her goals and plans. The observer can guess, conjecture, make conclusions. Yet each person is the author of his or her actions. Observes stay from a distance.
But of course there can be more accuracy in knowing the circumstances that lead a person to act. An observer can look into the given conditions of a person. A psychotherapist does this by delving into the past histories of the client. The psychotherapist can find out, to quite an accurate point, the circumstances that make the client behave in this or that way.
Circumstances can be accessible to both the observer and the person acting. Both can look back and check. But during the course of acting only the person acting has full access to the plans of the action. An observer cannot fully see what is the goal set by the person doing the action.
In society, in principle, each person lives a private and personal life. In principle nobody can fully see what is going on in the head of anybody else. Each person maneuvers through the web of relationships and facts. Within the setting of a social world each person weaves his or her own personal story.
Yet we notice one common fact: we all seem to be doing the same things and same actions. It is "recipe". A school child preparing for school goes through the actions of wearing the school uniform just like so many other children. It is "recipe" for school children. A mother prepares the evening meal and goes through the actions of cooking a common cultural dish just like so many other mothers at home. It is "recipe" for all household mothers. A young man reaching a certain age goes through the actions of seeking a career path just like so many other young men. It is "recipe" for all college graduates. A young lady reaching a certain age goes through the action of getting married just like so many other women. It is "recipe" for all late teen or young adult ladies.
Although we really are private persons our actions show that we do things just as everybody else in society does. Somehow we do not look as private and personal as we say. We tend to be more like our social recipes rather than be so unique and original.
We are within a social world and our social world is marked by the successful actions people have done in the past--and continue doing now. Although we can, in principle, do things in our own very private and very original ways we have gotten into the habit of doing what everybody else does. It is "recipe". We have seen that the actions of people have passed the test of time. We have seen our own actions having passed the test of time. So why live "outside the box" when what we and social members do are already proven practical, successful and very feasible. All actions are quite familiar so why explore the unfamiliar? (We will discuss the possibility of social change later.)
Within the context of social living even as we try to live personal lives we still "hook on" the typical and common ways of doing things. Somehow we drop the unique, original and personal and we live just like everybody else does. We "economize" on our actions by following what has already passed the test of time. Our lives tend to be lived in routine ways.
Hence what do we notice? There is a general routine of actions for the day, for the week, for the year...even for a lifetime. All social members move and act together towards a common, general life-plan. To use our terminology above, there is a "recipe" way of living for members of society.

Culture

Let us pause for a while and consider this word which we have not used so far. The word is "culture". We are fragile humans. We really need one another. It is quite impossible to live in complete isolation from others. Just imagine never being raised by a family or by any human. Just imagine never learning a language and never knowing how to use tools. Just imagine never having any share in social recipes!
We really rely on what so many contribute in social life. People in the past have done many things--tools, technology, politics, education, the arts, etc. What they have done are transmitted over time. We inherit their recipes for living.
We continue to live according to those recipes. Somehow social life is not chaotic; social life has a form of stability. We can locate ourselves in society and know where we belong. Culture is what social members have made for the stability of social life. People adapt to their environment and culture is what makes them adapt. Over time this success in adaptation is passed on from generation to generation.
We might be very critical of our societies and this is valid. We do have questions about how we live our social lives especially today. But no matter how critical we get we cannot deny the fact that we still need to live in some form of social stability. We do not opt for anarchy and complete chaos. In fact a complete chaos is not real. No matter how unstable a society can get there is a minimum of stability. Culture will always be present.
We usually associate culture with song and dance and food preparation. We associate culture with the style of wear of each social group. These are, indeed, "cultural". But culture is more than just these. These are included within culture. As we just said above, culture is people's way of adapting to the environment--adapting to life--and securing stability in that adaptation. To have that stability people transmit they actions and successes to coming generations. Thus culture is also a matter of stability over time, from generation to generation.

The presence of other people: what actually happens?

At this point we need to look closer into our social relationships and have an idea of what is going, what are the "mechanics" in relationships.