Most of sociologists in establishing social types applied chiefly the general scheme of social relations. For example, Tonnies' “Gemeinschaft” and “Gesellschaft, ” Durkheim's “solidalite mecanique” and “solidalite organique, ” Gierke's “Herrschaft” and “Genossenschaft” etc.Although on may find sociologists' tentatives done from the point of view of social structure, they seized only its partial structure and regarded it as its whale structure or its elemental structure dogmatically. Consequently, it is in urgent need for us to establish social types based on the concept of social structure made precise sociologically in the strict sense of the term. This paper is a contribution to make precise the concept of social structure in relation to social types. According to Radcliffe-Brown, the social structure is in the first place the network of social relations of person to person, and is in the second place the differentiation of individuals and of classes by their social role or the differential social positions. Definitions of Redfield, Linton and Parsons are nearly parallel to the definition of Radcliffe-Brown. In short, the concept of social structure by these Anglo-Saxson savants is presented as the double construction that puts the notion of position of role “made on the basis of an interest in ego as a composite of action units relavant to various collectivities” on the micro-structure notion of social relations made “on the basis of interest in ego as an action system per us.” However, I centered on the concept of role that is “the point of contact between the system of action of the individual actor and the social system, ” though the composite of micro-social elements enters in the explication of social structure concept. The concept of role explicates the social structure directly in relation to the microsociety. And then the role defined by these savants supposed the system and could not be explained withont relation to the cultural pattern on the institution. This fact led them to the emphasis on the stability of social structure. Of course, Radchiffe-Brown and Parsons paid attention ot its changing phase. Radchiffe-Brown set up “actual structure” in opposition to “structural form”, and parsons said if theory is good theory, there is no reason whatever to belive that it will not be equally applicable to problems of change and to those of process within a stabilized system. But neither of them could clarify the positive sense of social change. It was only Merton that succeeded to throw light upon the positive meaning of change in social structure, to a certain extent, by the application of notions of “dysfunction” and “latent function.” But, the social structure is dynamic in itself and is a perpetual movement of structuration and distructuration. If so, the social structure will have no need, says Gurvitch, of a special functional analysis, entia non sunt multiplicanda. Gurvitch's definition of social structure is presented in “Determinismes Sociaux et Liberte Humaine” and La Vocation Actuelle de la Sociologie (2ed.). Ultimately, he considers the social structure as the dialectic of act and its works. Such elemental terms by which we can explain the social structure as multiple hierarchies, equiliblium, collective consciousness, culturall armature and movement of structuration -distructuration- restructuration will be derived from above.