This is because no man can survive successfully in an environment alone. There shall inevitably be more individuals around him from the same species for him to live in a manner conforming to the definition of a social group, if not a society. Here the concept of mutual; regards, norms and values if very important. Relations, where may be defined as a rather subjective or relative term with reference to human understand, but it shall have to given some limits when we are discussing social structure. Relations can be very simply taken as appreciating and realizing the social norms in their very basic context. These relations, in even more simpler terms can possibly be linked to common sense. But then again, this shall vary greatly from culture to culture, and within that, from community to community. "One important task we face in attempting to understand the persons around us, is that of determining their present moods, group communication and feelings" (Barn et al, 1980).
No matter how close people are, or how much they are in the same band width of thought processes, the ultimate recipe for rationalizing a social situation can never be the same; even for the same person. As was mentioned earlier, relations are the concept that involves actualizing with the prevalent norms. A very intelligent person is less likely to conform to the demands and ways of a group as compared to a person with optimal intelligence. Similarly, being mature does not necessarily confirm the presence of rationalistic and pragmatic frame of reference.
Coleman believes that "Orthodox conceptions of relations are evidently internally deficient and inadequate for explaining human interaction" (2003). This extrapolates upon the conception that relations are a much more intricate and subjective entity than we might think it to be. Human relations in the social arena are very diversified and complex. In such a condition, when one attempts to define relations, let alone practice it, there are various question would require answering. Primarily, rationalization can be understood in terms of internalization of reality as is perceived by the individual.
Relations, in all, have the basic role of presenting the concerned individual as an acceptable individual in a social circle. Similarly, people who lack the frequent display of this trait are less acceptable in a wider context; they are expected to be more volatile in their reactions, and therefore less dependable. It is hence only understandable why such people are end up having difficulty in maintaining multiple and healthy social connections to their own good. In consequence, a greater display of relations warrants greater social acceptance. A person who is able to manage and nurture group communication of relations can therefore be termed as a socially successful individual.
Relations where can be a real feather in the crown in social representation of oneself, can also lead to certain unwanted statures of being. Simply put, when a person feels that his reaction to an issue is rationalistic in its context, it may well be possible that the population at large in his respective society may not be able to appreciate it as a rational response. What may be rational for a person may be taken