about me

School of UPSC

SOCIOLOGY
NOTES
Entire Syllabus covered at

PAPER
one place
Comprehensive, structured &
concise notes

1
Highly exam oriented Notes

Total Pages : 576

Prepared By:

school of upsc
Visit Our Website
www.schoolofupsc.com
 Fundamentals of Sociology
Table of Contents:
Sociology: The Discipline ..................................................................................... 6
Modernity and social changes in Europe and the emergence of Sociology. ..... 6
Scope of the subject and comparison with other social sciences...................... 28
Sociology and common sense. .............................................................................. 42
Sociology as a Science ....................................................................................... 48
Science, scientific method and critique. ............................................................... 48
Major theoretical strands of research methodology. ......................................... 54
Positivism and its critique. ..................................................................................... 64
Fact value and objectivity. ...................................................................................... 67
Non-positivist methodologies. ............................................................................... 76
Research Methods and Analysis....................................................................... 85
Qualitative and quantitative methods. ................................................................. 85
Techniques of data collection. ............................................................................... 88
Variables, sampling, hypothesis, reliability and validity. ..................................117
Sociological Thinkers....................................................................................... 133
Karl Marx – Historical materialism, mode of production, alienation, class
struggle. .............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.33
Emile Durkheim – Division of labour, social fact, suicide, religion and society
.................................................................................................................................170
Max Weber – Social action, ideal types, authority, bureaucracy, protestant ethic
and the spirit of capitalism. ..................................................................................200
Talcolt Parsons –Social system, pattern variables. ............................................236
Robert K. Merton –Latent and manifest functions, conformity and deviance,
reference groups. ..................................................................................................254
Mead –Self and identity ........................................................................................269
Stratification and Mobility.............................................................................. 277
Concepts –equality, inequality, hierarchy, exclusion,poverty and deprivation.
.................................................................................................................................277
Theories of social stratification –Structural func tionalist theory, Marxist theory,
Weberian theory. ...................................................................................................292
 Dimensions –Social stratification of class, status groups, gender, ethnicity and
race. ........................................................................................................................308
Social mobility –open and closed systems, types of mobility, sources and causes
of mobility. .............................................................................................................325
Works and Economic Life ................................................................................ 334
Social organization of work in different types of society –slave society, feudal
society, industrial capitalist society. ....................................................................334
Formal and informal organization of work. .......................................................352
Labour and society. ...............................................................................................362
Politics and Society .......................................................................................... 366
Sociological theories of power. ............................................................................366
Power elite, bureaucracy, pressure groups and political parties. ...................378
Nation, state, citizenship, democracy, civil society, ideology. ..........................402
Protest, agitation, social movements, collective action, revolution. ...............441
Religion and Society ........................................................................................ 455
Sociological theories of religion. .........................................................................455
Types of religious practices: animism, monism, pluralism, sects, cults. .........463
Religion in modern society: religion and science, secularization, religious
revivalism, fundamentalism. ................................................................................474
Systems of Kinship........................................................................................... 493
Family, household, marriage. ..............................................................................493
Types and forms of family. ...................................................................................509
Lineage and descent. ............................................................................................516
Patriarchy and sexual division of labour. ...........................................................519
Contemporary trends. ..........................................................................................526
Social Change in Modern Society ................................................................... 541
Sociological theories of social change. ...............................................................541
Development and dependency............................................................................556
Agents of social change. .......................................................................................563
Education and social change. ..............................................................................567
Science, technology and social change. .............................................................570
 Sociology Optional Syllabus
Sociology Optional Syllabus: Paper-1
Fundamentals of Sociology
Sociology: The Discipline

• Modernity and social changes in Europe and the emergence of Sociology.

• Scope of the subject and comparison with other social sciences.
• Sociology and common sense.

Sociology as a Science

• Science, scientific method and critique.

• Major theoretical strands of research methodology.
• Positivism and its critique.
• Fact value and objectivity.
• Non-positivist methodologies

Research Methods and Analysis

• Qualitative and quantitative methods.

• Techniques of data collection.
• Variables, sampling, hypothesis, reliability and validity.

Sociological Thinkers

• Karl Marx – Historical materialism, mode of production, alienation, class struggle.

• Emile Durkhteim – Division of labour, social fact, suicide, religion and society.
• Max Weber – Social action, ideal types, authority, bureaucracy, protestant ethic and
the spirit of capitalism.
• Talcolt Parsons – Social system, pattern variables.
• Robert K. Merton – Latent and manifest functions, conformity and deviance,
reference groups.
• Mead – Self and identity.

Stratification and Mobility

• Concepts – equality, inequality, hierarchy, exclusion, poverty and deprivation.

• Theories of social stratification – Structural func tionalist theory, Marxist theory,
Weberian theory.
• Dimensions – Social stratification of class, status groups, gender, ethnicity and race.
• Social mobility – open and closed systems, types of mobility, sources and causes of
mobility.

1
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
Works and Economic Life

• Social organization of work in different types of society – slave society, feudal society,
industrial capitalist society.
• Formal and informal organization of work.
• Labour and society.

Politics and Society

• Sociological theories of power.

• Power elite, bureaucracy, pressure groups and political parties.
• Nation, state, citizenship, democracy, civil society, ideology.
• Protest, agitation, social movements, collective action, revolution.

Religion and Society

• Sociological theories of religion.

• Types of religious practices: animism, monism, pluralism, sects, cults.
• Religion in modern society: religion and science, secularization, religious revivalism,
fundamentalism.

Systems of Kinship

• Family, household, marriage.

• Types and forms of family.
• Lineage and descent.
• Patriarchy and sexual division of labour.
• Contemporary trends.

Social Change in Modern Society

• Sociological theories of social change.

• Development and dependency.
• Agents of social change.
• Education and social change.
• Science, technology and social change.

Sociology Optional Syllabus: Paper-2

1. Introducing Indian Society:
Perspectives on the study of Indian society,

• Indology (GS. Ghurye).

• Structural functionalism (M N Srinivas).
2
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 • Marxist sociology (A R Desai).

Impact of colonial rule on Indian society

• The social background of Indian nationalism.

• Modernization of Indian tradition.
• Protests and movements during the colonial period.
• Social reforms.

2. Social Structure
Rural and Agrarian Social Structure

• The idea of Indian village and village studies.

• Agrarian social structure – evolution of land tenure system, land reforms.

Caste System

• Perspectives on the study of caste systems: GS Ghurye, M N Srinivas, Louis Dumont,

Andre Beteille.
• Features of the caste system.
• Untouchability – forms and perspectives.

Tribal communities in India

• Definitional problems.
• Geographical spread.
• Colonial policies and tribes.
• Issues of integration and autonomy.

Social Classes in India

• Agrarian class structure.

• Industrial class structure.
• Middle classes in India.

Systems of Kinship in India

• Lineage and descent in India.

• Types of kinship systems.
• Family and marriage in India.
• Household dimensions of the family.

Religion and Society

• Religious communities in India.

• Problems of religious minorities.
3
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 • Patriarchy, entitlements and sexual division of labour

3. Social Changes in India

Visions of Social Change in India

• The idea of development planning and mixed economy.

• Constitution, law and social change.
• Education and social change.

Rural and Agrarian transformation in India

• Programmes of rural development, Community Development Programme,

cooperatives, poverty alleviation schemes.
• Green revolution and social change.
• Changing modes of production in Indian agriculture.
• Problems of rural labour, bondage, migration.

Industrialization and Urbanisation in India

• Evolution of modern industry in India.

• Growth of urban settlements in India.
• Working-class: structure, growth, class mobilization.
• The informal sector, child labour.
• Slums and deprivation in urban areas.

Politics and Society

• Nation, democracy and citizenship.

• Political parties, pressure groups , social and political elite.
• Regionalism and decentralization of power.
• Secularization

Social Movements in Modern India

• Peasants and farmers movements.

• Women’s movement.
• Backward classes & Dalit movement.
• Environmental movements.
• Ethnicity and Identity movements.

Population Dynamics

• Population size, growth, composition and distribution.

• Components of population growth: birth, death, migration.
• Population policy and family planning.
• Emerging issues: ageing, sex ratios, child and infant mortality, reproductive health.
4
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
Challenges of Social Transformation

• Crisis of development: displacement, environmental problems, and sustainability.

• Poverty, deprivation and inequalities.
• Violence against women.
• Caste conflicts.
• Ethnic conflicts, communalism, religious revivalism.
• Illiteracy and disparities in education.

5
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 1. Sociology: The Discipline

Modernity and Social Changes in Europe and

Emergence of Sociology
Modernity And Modernization
Modernity is associated with the sweeping changes that took place in the society-
particularly social, economic and cultural changes.

Modernity involves values and norms that are universal in nature. This is the outcome
of the Process of Modernization. It represents substantial break with traditional society.

Modernization is an idea before it is a process. As it is an idea, there is no agreement

among social scientists on its meaning and interpretation. The concept of modernization
emerged as an explanation of how Western countries/ societies developed through
enlightenment, industrialisation and capitalism.

According to this approach, modernization depends primarily on introduction of

technology and the knowledge required making use of it. Besides, several social and
political prerequisites have been identified to make modernization possible. Some of these
prerequisites are:

• Inventions and Discoveries & Innovation.

• Industrialization and urbanization.
• Capitalism
• Free Market
• Optimism
• The search for absolute knowledge in science, technology, society and politics.
• The idea that gaining knowledge of the true self was the only foundation for all
other knowledge.
• Rationality.
• Increased levels of education.
• Development of mass media.
• Accessible transport and communication.
• Democratic political institutions.
• More urban and mobile population.
• Nuclear family in place of extended family.
• Complex division of labour.
• Declining public influence of religion, and;

6
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 • Developed markets for exchange of goods and services in place of traditional ways
of meeting such needs.

Modernization is, thus, supposed to be the result of the presence of these prerequisites in
the social system.

THINKERS ON MODERNITY
Karl Marx’s concern with modernity was in terms of production relations. It was the
objective of the capitalist class to increase its production. More production means more
profit. Capitalism, for him, was ultimately profiteering. Marx, therefore, argued that for
capitalism everything is a commodity. Dance, drama, literature, religion, in fact, everything
in society is a commodity. It is manufactured and sold in the market.

Max Weber scans a huge literature on domination, religion and other wider areas of life
and comes to the conclusion that rationality is the pervading theme, which characterises
human actions. He has, therefore, defined modernity as rationality. For him, in one word,
modernity is synonymous with rationality.

Emile Durkheim had a very intimate encounter with industrialization and urbanization.
He was scared of the impact of modernization. His studies of modern society brought out
very interesting and exciting data. He was a functionalist. He very strongly believed in
the cohesion of society. For him, society is above everything else. It is par excellence. It is
God. Despite all this, society is never static

Ferdinand Tonnies characterized key characteristics of simple and modern societies with
the German words Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Gemeinschaft means human
community, and Tonnies said that a sense of community characterizes simple societies,
where family , kin, and community ties are quite strong. As societies grew and
industrialized and as people moved to cities, Tonnies said, social ties
weakened and became more impersonal. Tonnies called this situation
a Gesellschaft and found it dismaying.

George Simmel is seen as investigating modernity primarily in two major interrelated

sites: the city and the money economy. The city is where modernity is concentrated or
intensified, whereas the money economy involves the diffusion of modernity, its
extension. Thus, for Simmel, modernity consists of city life and the diffusion of money.

MODERNITY AND SOCIAL CHANGES IN EUROPE

The Emergence of Sociology as a scientific Discipline is traced to the period of European
History characterised by tremendous Social, Political, Economic and Cultural
changes. These changes were result of Modernity embodied in French revolution and
Industrial Revolution influenced by Commercial Revolution and Scientific
Revolution. Modernity received ideological content from these revolutions. These
revolutions came up with IDEOLOGY OF PROFITEERING, MASS PRODUCTION-NEW

7
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
MARKETS, DESIRE FOR BUILDING CAPITAL EMPIRES IN OTHER COUNTRIES AND
INDUSTRIALISM-DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, RATIONALITY, CAPITALISM AND
PROGRESS. This period of Modernity and change in European society is known
as ENLIGHTENMENT PERIOD. It embodies the spirit of new awakening in the French
philosophers of the Eighteenth century.

THE ENLIGHTENMENT PERIOD

The roots of the ideas developed by the early sociologists are grounded in the social
conditions that prevailed in Europe. The emergence of sociology as a scientific discipline
can be traced to that period of European history, which saw such tremendous social,
political and economic changes as embodied in the French Revolution and the
Industrial Revolution.

The Enlightenment Period marked a radical change from the traditional thinking of
feudal Europe. It introduced the new way of thinking and looking at reality. Individuals
started questioning each and every aspect of life and nothing was considered
sacrosanct – from the church to the state to the authority of the monarch and so on.

The roots of the ideas, such as THE BELIEF THAT BOTH NATURE AND SOCIETY CAN BE
STUDIED SCIENTIFICALLY, THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE ESSENTIALLY RATIONAL AND
THAT A SOCIETY BUILT ON RATIONAL PRINCIPLES WILL MAKE HUMAN BEINGS REALISE
THEIR INFINITE POTENTIALS, CAN BE TRACED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE AND
COMMERCE IN EUROPE. THE NEW OUTLOOK DEVELOPED AS A RESULT OF THE
COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION AND THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION AND CRYSTALLIZED
DURING THE FRENCH AND THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS GAVE BIRTH TO SOCIOLOGY
AS A DISCIPLINE.

OLD EUROPE was traditional. Land was central to its economic system. There were owners
of land, the feudal lords and the peasants who worked on the lands. The classes were
distinct and clearly demarcated. Religion formed the corner stone of society. The religious
heads decided what was moral, what was not. Family and kinship were central to the lives
of the people. Monarchy was firmly rooted in society. The king was believed to be divinely
ordained to rule over his people.

THE NEW EUROPE ushered in by the two Revolutions, the French and the industrial,
challenged each and every central feature of old Europe Classes.

THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION AND MODERNITY &SOCIAL CHANGE IN EUROPE

• The “Commercial Revolution” refers to a series of events between 1450 to
approximately 1800. These events signaled to a shift from the largely subsistence
and stagnant economy of medieval Europe to a more dynamic and worldwide
system.
• The Commercial Revolution in this sense, signified the expansion of trade and
commerce that took place from the fifteenth century onwards. It was of such a large
8
,www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 scale and organised manner that we call it a Revolution. This expansion was as a
result of the initiative taken by certain European countries to develop and
consolidate their economic and political power. These countries were Portugal,
Spain, Holland and England.
• Europe’s trade with the Oriental or Eastern countries like India and China was
transacted by land routes. The northern Italian cities of Venice and Genoa were the
major centers of trade. The result of the Italian monopoly was that the prices of
goods like spices and silks imported from the East were extremely high. Portugal and
Spain therefore, wanted to discover a route to the Orient that would be independent
of Italian control.
• THUS BEGAN A SHIFT FROM LAND ROUTES TO SEA-ROUTES. The Portuguese were
the
pioneers in adventurous navigation and exploration, you probably know of the
historic voyage of Vasco da Gama who, in 1498 landed on the Indian coast after
having sailed around the southern tip of Africa. Christopher Columbus, an Italian
under the patronage of the Spanish King and Queen, set sail for India.
However, he landed on the shores of North America. This accidental discovery of
America was to prove very beneficial to Spain. It laid the foundations of what was to
become a Spanish empire in America. Britain, France and Holland soon followed
Spain and Portugal. The parts of India and Africa, Malacca, the Spice Islands, West
Indies and South America came under the economic control of Spain, Portugal,
England, France and Holland. Commerce expanded into a world enterprise. The
monopoly of the Italian cities was destroyed.
• EUROPEAN MARKETS WERE FLOODED WITH NEW COMMODITIES; SPICES AND
TEXTILES FROM THE EAST, TOBACCO FROM NORTH AMERICA, COCOA,
CHOCOLATE AND QUININE FROM SOUTH AMERICA, IVORY AND, ABOVE ALL,
HUMAN SLAVES FROM AFRICA. With the discovery of the Americas, the range of
trade widened. Formerly, the items sought for were spices and cloth, later, gold and
silver were added to the list. As the Commercial Revolution progressed, the position
of Portugal and Spain declined. England, Holland and France came to dominate
Europe and the world.
• EXPANSION OF BANKING: One of the important features of the Commercial
Revolution was the growth of banking. Credit facilities were expanded, making it
easy for merchants all over Europe to do business. The “cheque” was invented in the
eighteenth century. Paper money came to replace gold and silver coins.
• GROWTH OF COMPANIES: As trade and commerce expanded, new kinds of business
organizations had to be devised to cope with this growth. “Regulated companies”
arose in the 16th century. These were associations of merchants who bonded
together to cooperate for a common venture. “Joint-stock” companies emerged in
the 17th century. In this set-up, shares of capital were distributed to a large number
of investors. Some of these were also “chartered companies”, their governments gave
them a charter or a contract which guaranteed them a monopoly of the trade in a
particular region. Examples of these companies include the British East India
Company and the Dutch East India Company.
• RISE OF A NEW CLASS: As hinted at earlier in this section, one of the most distinctive
characteristics of this period was the rise of the middle class to economic power. By

9
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 the end of the 17th century, the middle class had become an influential group in
nearly every western European country. It included merchants, bankers, ship-owners
and investors. Their power, at this stage, was mainly economic. But later in the unit,
we shall see how they became politically powerful in the 19th century.

STRENGTHENING OF MONARCHY: This period saw the strengthening of monarchy, THE

DECLINE OF THE CHURCH AND THE RISE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS. It marked the beginning
of the process of “Europeanisation”, which was to reach a peak with colonialism.

THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION AND MODERNITY &SOCIAL CHANGE IN EUROPE

• Europe produced a “scientific revolution” in the Renaissance period of fourteenth to
sixteenth century A.D. The impact of the scientific revolution was crucial not just in
changing material life, but also people’s ideas about Nature and Society.
• Science does not develop independent of society, rather, it develops in response
to human needs e.g. various vaccines were not developed just out of the blue, but
out of the necessity to cure diseases.
• APART FROM INFLUENCING THE PHYSICAL OR MATERIAL LIFE OF SOCIETY,
SCIENCE IS INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH IDEAS. The general intellectual
atmosphere existing in society influences the development of science. Similarly,
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN SCIENCE CAN CHANGE THE ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS IN
OTHER AREAS AS WELL. It is important to keep this fact in mind.
• The emergence of sociology in Europe owes a great deal to the ideas and
discoveries contributed by science

Science in the Medieval Period & The Renaissance period:

• MEDIEVAL SOCIETY was characterized by the feudal system. The Church was the
epicenter of power authority and learning. Learning was mostly of the religious
variety. Nothing could challenge the ‘dogmas’ or rigid beliefs of the Church. New,
daring ideas could not flower in such an atmosphere. Thus the development of
science was restricted mainly to improvements in techniques of production.
• THE ‘RENAISSANCE’ PERIOD saw the beginning of the ‘Scientific Revolution’. It
marked an area of
description and criticism in the field of science. IT WAS A CLEAR BREAK FROM
THE PAST, A CHALLENGE TO OLD AUTHORITY.
• Art, literature and science all flourished. A scientific approach to Nature and the
human body became prevalent. We can see this in the paintings of that period,
which explored the smallest details of Nature and the human body. In the field of
Medicine, dissection the human body became acceptable. Doctors and physiologists
directly observed how the human body was constructed. The fields of anatomy,
physiology and pathology thus benefited greatly. In the field of chemistry, a general
theory of chemistry was developed. Chemical processes like oxidation, reduction,
distillation, amalgamation etc. were studied. In the field of navigation and
astronomy, Vasco da Gama reached the Indian shores in 1498, Columbus discovered

10
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 America in 1492. Remember, this was the era of expansion of trade and the
beginnings of colonialism. A strong interest in astronomy, important for successful
navigation also grew.
• The first major break from the entire system of ancient thought came with the
work of the Dutchman, Nicholas Copernicus. It was generally believed that the
earth was fixed or stationary and the sun and other heavenly bodies moved around it.
(This is known as a ‘geocentric’ theory.) Copernicus however thought otherwise. With
the help of detailed explanations, he demonstrated that the earth moved around a
fixed sun. (This is a ‘heliocentric’ theory.) The work of Copernicus is considered
revolutionary because it drastically altered patterns of thought about the universe.
Human being was not at the center of the universe, but a small part of a vast system.
• In a nutshell, science in the Renaissance period was marked by a new attitude
towards man and nature. Natural objects became the subject of close observation
and experiment. The Copernican revolution shattered the very foundations on which
the old world rested.
• Other Post-Renaissance Developments: The work of physicists and mathematicians
like Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and subsequently, Sir Isaac
Newton (1642-1727) revolutionized science. It brought to the forefront THE
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD. Old ideas were challenged and alternatives were
suggested. If these alternative ideas could be proved and repeatedly verified and
checked out, they were accepted. If not, new solutions were sought. SCIENTIFIC
METHODS THUS CAME TO BE REGARDED AS THE MOST ACCURATE, THE MOST
OBJECTIVE. (The use of the ‘scientific method’ to study society was recommended by
pioneer sociologists).
• DISSECTION OF THE HUMAN BODY HELPED PEOPLE GAIN A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF ITS WORKING. Circulation of blood was discovered by William
Harvey (1578-1657). This led to a lot of rethinking. The human organism came to be
viewed in terms of interrelated parts and interconnected
systems. This had its impact on social thought of Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, to
name a few.
• The British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published the Origin of Species
in 1859. It was based on the observations made whilst traveling for five years all over
the world. Darwin put forward the theory that various living organisms compete for
the limited resources the earth has to offer. Thus “survival of the fittest” is the natural
law. Some species evolve or develop certain traits, which make their survival possible,
other species die out. Darwin studied ‘human evolution’, tracing it in his work,
Descent of Man (1863). He traced the origins of the human species to some ape-like
ancestors, which, over the centuries, evolved into modern human beings.
• This book created an uproar. It was believed that ‘God’ made humans “in his own
image” and conservatives were not willing to accept that they were descended
from the monkey. Darwin’s evolutionary theory did, however, gain wide
acceptance. It was applied to the social world by evolutionary’ thinkers, notably
Herbert Spencer. Not just organisms, but societies were seen as constantly
‘evolving’ or developing from a lower to a higher stage.

11
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND MODERNITY &SOCIAL CHANGE IN EUROPE
The French Revolution, which erupted in 1789 marked a turning point in the history of
human struggle for freedom and equality. It put an end to the age of feudalism and
ushered in a new order of society. This revolution brought about far reaching changes in
not only French society but in societies throughout Europe. Even countries in other
continents such as, India, were influenced by the ideas generated during this revolution.
Ideas like liberty, fraternity and equality, which now form a part of the preamble to the
Constitution of India, owe their origin to the French Revolution.

Social Aspect of French Society: Division into Feudal Estates: The French society was
divided into feudal ‘estates’. The structure of the feudal French society comprised the
‘Three Estates’. Estates are defined as a system of stratification found in feudal European
societies whereby one section or estate is distinguished from the other in terms of status,
privileges and restrictions accorded to that estate.

• The First Estate consisted of the clergy, which was stratified into higher clergy, such
as the cardinal, the archbishops, the bishops and the abbots. They lived a life of
luxury and gave very little attention to religion. In fact, some of them preferred the
life of politics to religion. They spent much of their time in wasteful activities like
drinking, gambling, etc. In comparison to the higher clergy, the lower parish priests
were over worked and poverty-stricken.
• The Second Estate consisted of the nobility. There were two kinds of nobles, the
nobles of the sword and the nobles of the robe. The nobles of the sword were big
landlords. They were the protectors of the people in principle but in reality they led a
life of a parasite, living off the hard work of the peasants. They led the life of pomp
and show and were nothing more than ‘high born wastrels’; that is, they spent
extravagantly and did not work themselves. They can be compared to the erstwhile
zamindars in India. The nobles of the robe were nobles not by birth by title. They
were the magistrates and judges. Among these nobles, some were very progressive
and liberal as they had moved in their positions from common citizens who
belonged to the third estate.
• The Third Estate comprised the rest of the society and included the peasants, the
merchants, the artisans, and others. There was a vast difference between the
condition of the peasants and that of the clergy and the nobility. The peasants
worked day and night but were overloaded with so many taxes that they lived a
hand to mouth existence. They produced the food on which the whole society
depended. Yet they could barely survive due to failure of any kind of protection from
the government. The King, in order to maintain the good will of the other two
estates, the clergy and the nobility, continued to exploit the poor. The poor peasants
had no power against him. While the clergy and the nobility kept on pampering and
flattering the King.

As compared to the peasants, the condition of the middle classes, also known as the
bourgeoisie comparising the merchants, bankers, lawyers, manufacturers, etc. was much
better. These classes too belonged to the third estate. But the poverty of the state, which

12
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
led to a price rise during 1720-1789, instead of adversely affecting them, helped them. They
derived profit from this rise and the fact that French trade had improved enormously also
helped the commercial classes to a great extent. Thus, this class was rich and secure. But it
had no social prestige as compared with the high prestige of the members of the first and
the second estates. In spite of controlling trade, industries, banking etc. the bourgeoisie
had no power to influence the court or administration. The other two estates looked them
down upon and the King paid very little attention to them. Thus, gaining political power
became a necessity for them.

The clergy and the nobility both constituted only two per cent of the population but they
owned about 35 percent of the land. The peasants who formed 80 per cent of the
population owned only 30 per cent of the land. The first two estates paid almost no taxes
to the government. The peasantry, on the other hand, was burdened with taxes of various
kinds. It paid taxes to the Church, the feudal lord, taxed in the form of income tax, poll tax,
and land tax to the state. Thus, the peasants had become much burdened and poverty
stricken at this time. They were virtually carrying the burden of the first two estates on their
shoulders. On top of it all the prices had generally risen by about 65 per cent during the
period, 1720-1789.

THE POLITICAL ASPECTS OF THE FRENCH SOCIETY: Like in all absolute monarchies, the
theory of the Divine Right of King was followed in France too. For about 200 years the
Kings of the Bourbon dynasty ruled France. Under the rule of the King, the ordinary people
had no personal rights. They only served the King and his nobles in various capacities. The
King’s word was law and no trials were required to arrest a person on the King’s orders.
Laws too were different in different regions giving rise to confusion and arbitrariness. There
was no distinction between the income of the state and the income of the King.

THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRENCH SOCIETY: The kings of France, from Louis XIV
onwards, fought costly wars, which ruined the country, and when Louis XIV died in 1715,
France had become bankrupt. Louis XV instead of recovering from this ruin kept on
borrowing money from bankers. His famous
sentence, “After me the deluge” describes the kind of financial crisis that France was facing.
Louis XVI, a very weak and ineffective king, inherited the ruin of a bankrupt government.
His wife, Queen Marie Antoinette, known for her expensive habits, is famous for her reply,
which she gave to the poor, hungry people of France who came to her asking for bread.
She told the people that, ‘if you don’t have bread, eat cake’.

13
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE:
France, like some other European countries during the eighteenth century, had entered the
age of reason and rationalism. Some of the major philosophers, whose ideas influenced the
French people, were rationalists who believed that all true things could be proved by
reason. Some of these thinkers were, Montesquieu (1689-1755), Locke (1632-1704), Voltaire
(1694-1778), and Rousseau (1712-1778).

MONTESQUIEU IN HIS BOOK, THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW, held that there should not be
concentration of authority, such as executive, legislative, and juridical, at one place. He
believed in the theory of the separation of powers and the liberty of the individual. LOCKE,
AN ENGLISHMAN, advocated that every individual has certain rights, which cannot be
taken by any authority. These rights were

1. right to live,
2. right to property, and
3. the right to personal freedom.

He also believed that any ruler who took away these rights from his people should be
removed from the seat of power and replaced by another ruler who is able to protect these
rights.

VOLTAIRE, A FRENCH PHILOSOPHER, advocated religious toleration and freedom of

speech. He also stood for the rights of individuals, for freedom of speech and expression.
ROUSSEAU WROTE IN HIS BOOK, The Social Contract, that the people of a country have

14
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
the right to choose their sovereign. He believed that people can develop their personalities
best only under a government which is of their own choice.

THE MAJOR IDEAS OF THESE AND SEVERAL OTHER INTELLECTUALS STRUCK THE
IMAGINATION OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE. Also some of them who had served in the French
army, which was sent to assist the Americans in their War of Independence from British
imperialism, came back with the ideas of equality of individuals and their right to choose
their own government. The French middle class was deeply affected by these ideas of
liberty and equality.

MAJOR CHANGES AFTER FRENCH REVOLUTION: French Revolution changed the political
structure of European society and replaced the age of feudalism by heralding the arrival of
democracy. There were many significant themes, which arose due to the impact of this
Revolution, which have been the focus of interest of the early sociologists. These significant
themes included the transformation of property, the social disorder, caused by the change
in the political structure and its impact on the economic structure. A new class of power
holders emerged – the bourgeoisie. In order to understand more about these themes, we
need to learn the details of the Industrial Revolution.

THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND MODERNITY &SOCIAL CHANGE IN EUROPE

The Industrial Revolution began around 1760 A.D. in England. It brought about great
changes in the social and economic life of the people first in England, then in the other
countries of Europe and later in other continents. In Europe, especially England, the
discovery of new territories, explorations, growth of trade and commerce and the
consequent growth of towns brought about an increase in demand for goods. Earlier
goods (i.e. consumer items like cloth, etc.) were produced at domestic levels. This means
that there existed a domestic system of production. With increased demand, goods were
to be produced on a large-scale.

During Industrial Revolution, new tools and techniques were invented, which could
produce goods on a largescale. During 1760-1830 A.D., a series of inventions in tools and
techniques and organization of production took place and it gave rise to the factory system
of production. Thus, a change in economy from feudal to capitalist system of production
developed. Subsequently, there emerged a class of capitalists, which controlled the new
system of production. Due to this revolution society moved from the old age of hand-made
goods to the new age of machine- made goods. This shift heralded the emergence of
Industrial Revolution.

ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT MECHANICAL INVENTIONS, which led to a quicker and better
method of production in various industries, was the Spinning Jenny, invented in 1767 by
James Hargreaves, an English weaver. It was a simple machine rectangular in shape. It had
a series of spindles, which cold be turned by a single wheel. In 1769, Arkwright, an English
barber, invented another tool, which was named after the name of its inventor and called
Arkwright’s Water Fame. This Water Frame was so large that it could not be kept in one’s
home and a special building was required to set it up. Thus on account of this it is said that

15
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
he was responsible for introducing the factory system. Another invention called “the Mule”
was by Samuel Crompton in 1779 in England. There were several other inventions, which all
contributed to the industrial growth of European society.

WITH THE CHANGE IN THE ECONOMY OF SOCIETY SEVERAL SOCIAL CHANGES

FOLLOWED. As CAPITALISM became more and more complex, THE DEVELOPMENTS OF
BANKS, INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND FINANCE CORPORATIONS TOOK PLACE. NEW
CLASS OF INDUSTRIAL WORKERS, MANAGERS, CAPITALISTS EMERGED. THE PEASANTS
IN THE NEW INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY FOUND THEMSELVES WITH THOUSANDS OF OTHER
PEOPLE LIKE THEMSELVES, WINDING COTTON IN A TEXTILE MILL. Instead of the famous
countryside they found themselves in unhygienic living conditions.

WITH THE INCREASE IN PRODUCTION, POPULATION STARTED INCREASING. RISE OF

POPULATION LED TO THE INCREASED RATE OF URBANISATION. THE INDUSTRIAL CITIES
GREW RAPIDLY. IN THE INDUSTRIAL CITIES SOCIO-ECONOMIC DISPARITIES WERE VERY
WIDE. The factory workers were involved in repetitive and boring work, the result of which
they could not enjoy. In Marxist terms the worker became alienated from the product of
his/ her labour. City life in the industrial society became an altogether a different way of life.

THESE CHANGES MOVED BOTH CONSERVATIVE AND RADICAL THINKERS. The

conservatives feared that such conditions would lead to chaos and disorder. The radicals
like Engels felt that the factory workers would initiate social transformation. Though the
judgement of values differed, social thinkers of the time were agreed upon the epoch-
making impact of the Industrial Revolution. They also agreed upon THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE NEW WORKING CLASS. The history of the period from 1811 to 1850 further indicates
that this class increasingly agitated for their rights.

The significant themes of the Industrial Revolution, which concerned the early sociologists,
were as given below.

• THE CONDITION OF LABOUR: A new population earning their livelihood by working

in the factories arose. In the early years this working class lived in poverty and squalor.
They were socially deprived. At the same time they were indispensable in the new
industrial system. This made them a powerful social force. Sociologists recognized
that the poverty of this class of workers is not natural poverty but social poverty. Thus
the working class became during the nineteenth century the subject of both moral
and analytical concern.
• THE TRANSFORMATION OF PROPERTY: The traditional emphasis on land lost its
value while money or capital became important during the Industrial Revolution. The
investment in new industrial system came to be recognised. The feudal landlords
became less significant while the new capitalists gained power. Many of these new
capitalists were the erstwhile landlords. Property was one of the central issues that
were raised in the French Revolution too. Its influence on the social order is
considerable. Property is related to economic privileges, social status and political
power. A change in the property system involves a change in the fundamental

16
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 character of society. Sociologists have grappled with the question of property and its
impact on social stratification since the days of Marx, Tocqueville, Taine and Weber.
• THE INDUSTRIAL CITY, I.E. URBANISM: Urbanization was a necessary corollary of the
Industrial Revolution. Industries grew and along with it grew great cluster of
populations, the modern towns and cities. Cities were present in ancient period too,
such as Rome, Athens, etc. but the new cities, such as Manchester in England,
famous for its textile, were different in nature. Ancient cities were known as
repositories of civilised graces and virtues while the new cities were known as
repositories of misery and inhumanity. It was these aspects of the new cities, which
concerned the early sociologists.
• TECHNOLOGY AND THE FACTORY SYSTEM: Technology and the factory system has
been the subject of countless writings in the nineteenth century. Both the
conservative and radical thinkers realised that the two systems would alter human
life for all times to come.
• RURAL –URBAN MIGRATION: The impact of technology and factory system led to
large-scale migration of people to the cities.
• FAMILY RELATIONS: Women and children joined the work force in the factories.
Family structure and interactional relations changed.
• OCCUPATIONAL RELATION: The siren of the factory seemed to rule peoples’ life. The
machine rather than man seemed to dominate work. As mentioned earlier the
relation between the labourers and the products of their labour changed. They
worked for their wages. The product was the child of everybody and of the machine
in particular. The owner of the factory owned it. Life and work became
depersonalised. Marx saw a form of enslavement in the machine and a manifestation
of alienation of labour. Social scientists, felt that men and women had grown
mechanical in heart, as well as in hand due to the industrial system of production.

CHANGE IN INTELLECTUAL ORIENTATIONS IN EUROPE

Sociology emerged as a response to the forces of change, which took place during
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe. The ideas, which are discussed again and
again in early sociological writings, are thus essentially ideas of that period.

The thinkers of the Enlightenment of eighteenth century affected much of the early
sociology. The Enlightenment appears as the most appropriate point of departure in the
study of the origins of sociological theory, for various reasons including those mentioned
below.

1. A scientific approach to the study of society dates back to the tradition of

Enlightenment. The eighteenth century thinkers began more consistently than any
of their predecessors to study the human conditions in a scientific way using the
methods of the natural sciences. They consciously applied scientific principles of
analysis to the study of human beings and their nature and society.
2. The eighteenth century thinkers upheld reason as a measure to judge social
institutions and their suitability for human nature. Human beings, according to them,

17
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 are essentially rational and this rationality can lead them to freedom of thought and
action.
3. The eighteenth century thinkers believed that human beings are capable of attaining
perfection. By criticising and changing social institutions they can create for
themselves even greater degrees of freedom, which, in turn would enable them
increasingly to actualise the potentially creative powers.
4. In the early part of the nineteenth century the philosophy of history became an
important intellectual influence. The basic assumption of this philosophy was that
society must have progressed through a series of steps from a simple to complex
stage. We may briefly assess the contributions of the philosophy of history to
sociology as having been, on the philosophical side, the notions of development and
progress. On the scientific side, it has given the concepts of historical periods and
social types. The social thinkers who developed the philosophy of history such as
Abbe Saint Pierre, and Giambattista, were concerned with the whole of society and
not merely the political, or the economic, or the cultural aspects. Later the
contributions of Comte, Spencer, Marx and many others reflected the impact of the
loss of this intellectual trend in their sociological writings.
5. The influence of the philosophy of history was further reinforced by the biological
theory of evolution. Sociology moved towards an evolutionary approach, seeking to
identify and account for the
principal stages in social evolution. It tended to be modeled on biology, as is evident
from the widely diffused conception of society as an organism, and from the
attempts to formulate general terms of social evolution. Herbert Spencer and
Durkheim are good example of this kind of writing.
6. Social survey forms an important element in modern sociology. It emerged due to
two reasons, one was the growing conviction that the methods of the natural
sciences should and could be extended to the study of human affairs; that human
phenomenon could be classified and measured. The other was the concern with
poverty (‘the social problem’), following the recognition that poverty was not natural
but social. The social survey is one of the principal methods of sociological inquiry.
The basic assumption, which underlines this method, is that through the knowledge
of the social conditions one can arrive at solutions to solve the social problems
prevalent in society.

THESE EXTENSIVE CHANGES BROUGHT ABOUT BY ABOVE MENTIONED FACTORS

INVOLVED,
MOREOVER, A MAJOR PARADOX.

• These changes brought a new society with great productive potential and more
sophisticated and complex ways of living.
• While, at the same time generatated extensive disruptions in traditional patterns of
life and relationships as well as creating new problems of overcrowded and
unpleasant urban conditions, poverty and unemployment. Sociology as a distinct
discipline emerged against the background of these intellectual and material
changes in the second half of the nineteenth century. In Other words to understand
the complexity brought by modernity, and to formulate rules for better society early

18
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 sociologists stressed the adoption of a scientific method of Investigation to the
Society.

• The early sociologists were greatly influenced by the changes in a pattern of

life which they saw going on around them as industrialization proceeded, and
they were often deeply disturbed by what they saw. It is important to stress at
this point that these early sociologists were not intensely ‘radical’ individuals, but
rather could frequently be more accurately labeled as ‘conservatives’ made
uneasy by the changes they were observing in the society. Nevertheless, they
were greatly concerned with the idea of obtaining exact knowledge of the
workings of society, and, living . There was profound impact of Scientific
revolution on these early sociologists. They thought the natural science methods
to the study of society might produce similar advances in understanding of
society. Thus, from the very beginning, there was a great emphasise on the need
to analyse social life scientifically.
• Auguste Comte, the ‘founder’ of Sociology, stressed the adoption of a scientific
method of analyzing society so that we might improve society through a
thorough understanding of it. He summed up his approach in his famous
phrase ‘To know, to predict, to control.’ This early emphasis on
the ‘scientific’ analysis of social life was to have (and still has) considerable
implications for the subsequent development of the discipline. The credit for
having established sociology into an independent and a separate science and to
obtain for sociology a respectable position in the family of social sciences goes
to Comte and Spencer. Both of them championed the cause of sociology. In
addition to Comte and Spencer, other thinkers such as Durkheim, Marx and
Weber also took a leading role in making sociology as science. Hence these five
thinkers are often called the ”pioneers” or “founding fathers of sociology”.

Early European Sociologist:

Auguste Comte [1798 – 1857)

1. Auguste Comte, the French Philosopher, is traditionally considered the “Father of

Sociology”. Comte who invented the term “Sociology” was the first man to
distinguish the subject-matter of sociology from all the other sciences. He worked
out in a series of books, a general approach to the study of society. Comte is regarded
as the “Father of sociology” not because of any significant contributions to the
science as such, but because of the great influence he had upon it.
2. Comte introduced the word “sociology” for the first time in his famous
work “Positive Philosophy” at about 1839. The term “Sociology” is derived from the
Latin word Socius, meaning companion or associate, and the Greek word logos,
meaning study or science. Thus, the etymological meaning of sociology is the science
of society. He defined sociology as the science of social phenomena “subject to
natural and invariable laws, the discovery of which is the object investigation.”
3. Comte devoted his main efforts to an inquiry into the nature of human knowledge
and tried to classify all knowledge and to analyse the methods of achieving it. He
19
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 concentrated his efforts to determine the nature of human society and the laws and
principles underlying its growth and development. He also laboured to establish the
methods to be employed in studying social phenomena.
4. Comte believed that the sciences follow one another in a definite and logical order
and that all inquiry goes through certain stages (namely, the theological, the
metaphysical and the ‘positive or scientific or empirical). Finally, they arrive at the
last or scientific stage or as he called the positive stage. In the positive
stage, objective observation is substituted for speculation. Social phenomena like
physical phenomena, he maintained, can be studied objectively by making use of the
positive method. He thought that it was time for inquiries into social problems and
social phenomena to enter into this last stage. So, he recommended that the study of
society be called the science of society. i.e. ‘sociology ‘.
5. Comte proposed sociology to be studied in two main parts: the social statics and the
social dynamics. These two concepts represent a basic division in the subject-matter
of sociology. The ‘social statics’ deals with the major institutions of society such as
family, economy or polity. Sociology is conceived of as the study of interrelations
between such institutions. In the words of Comte, “the statistical study of sociology
consists, the investigations of laws of action and reaction of different parts of the
social system”. He argued that the parts of a society cannot be studied
separately, “as if they had an independent existence”.
6. ‘Social dynamic’s focuses on whole societies as the unit of analysis and reveals how
they developed and changed through time. “We must remember that the laws of
social dynamics are most recognisable when they relate to the largest
societies”, he said. Comte was convinced that all societies moved through certain
fixed stages of development and that progressed towards ever increasing perfection.
He felt that the comparative study of societies as “wholes” was major subject for
sociological analysis.

Contributions of Comte to the Development of Sociology as a Science:

1. Comte gave to ‘sociology’ its name and laid its foundation so that it could develop
into an independent and a separate science.
2. Comte’s insistence on ‘positive approach, objectivity and scientific
attitude’ contributed to the progress of social sciences in general.
3. Comte, through his “Law of Three Stages” clearly established the close association
between ‘intellectual evolution and social progress’.
4. Comte’s ‘classification of sciences’ drives home the fact that ‘sociology depends
heavily on the achievements of other sciences’. The ‘interdisciplinary approach’ of
the modern times is in tune with the Cometian view.
5. Comte gave maximum ‘importance to the scientific method’· He criticized the
attitude of the armchair social philosophers and stressed the need to follow the
method of science.
6. Comte divided the study of sociology into two broad areas: ‘social statics” and “social
dynamics”. Present day sociologists have retained them in the form of ‘social
structure and function’ and ‘social change and progress’.

20
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 7. Comte had argued that sociology was not just a “pure” science, but
an ‘applied’ science also. He believed that sociology should help to solve the
problems of society. This insistence on the practical aspect of sociology led to the
development of various applied fields of sociology such as “social work“, “social
welfare”, etc.
8. Comte also contributed to the development of theoretical sociology.
9. Comte upheld the’ moral order’ in the society. The importance which he: attached to
morality highly impressed, the later writers such, as Arnold Toynbee and Pitrim A.
Sorokin.
10. Comte’s famous books ‘Positive Philosophy’ and, “Positive Polity” are memorable
contributions to the development of sociological literature.

Harriet Martineau (1802–1876):

1. Harriet Martineau grew up in England. In 1853, she translated Comte’s six-volume

Positive Philosophy into English and condensed it into two volumes, thus introducing
sociology to England. Martineau made her own contribution to sociology with
Society in America, one of the first and most thorough sociological treatises on
American social life and one of the first to compare the system of social stratification
in Europe to that in America. She took sociology from the realm of ideas to the arena
of practice in How to Observe Manners and Morals, published in 1838 and one of the
first books to focus on sociological research methods.
2. Although Martineau introduced sociology to England, it was Herbert Spencer’s
controversial application of sociology that gained attention and support from
wealthy industrialists and government officials in England and throughout Europe.

Herbert Spencer [1820 – 1903]

1. Observing the negative aspects of the Industrial Revolution in England—the struggle,

competition, and violence—Herbert Spencer developed a theoretical approach to
understanding society that relied on evolutionary doctrine.
2. To explain both social structure and social changes, he used an organic analogy that
compared society to a living organism made up of interdependent parts— ideas that
ultimately contributed to the structural functionalist perspective in sociology. Using
the phrase “survival of the fittest” even before Charles Darwin’s landmark On the
Origin of Species ([1859] 1964) was published, Spencer’s social Darwinism concluded
that the evolution of society and the survival of those within it were directly linked to
their ability to adapt to changing conditions.
3. According to Spencer, a free and competitive marketplace without governmental
interference was essential so that the best and the brightest would succeed and, in
turn, help build a stronger economy and society.
4. Spencer opposed welfare or any other means of helping the weak or the poor,
believing that such efforts would weaken society in the long term by helping the
“unfit” to survive. These ideas appealed to wealthy industrialists and government
officials, who used Spencer’s theory to scientifically support policies and practices

21
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 that helped them maintain their wealth, power, and prestige at the expense of those
less fortunate.
5. His three volumes of “Principles of Sociology”, published in 1877 were the first
systematic study devoted mainly to the sociological analysis. He was much more
precise than Comte in specifying the topics or special fields of sociology.
6. According to Spencer, the fields of sociology are: the family, politics, religion, social
control and industry or work. He also mentioned the sociological study of as
associations, communities, the division of labour, social differentiation, and
stratification, the sociology of knowledge and of science, and the study of arts and
aesthetics.
7. Spencer stressed the obligation of sociology to deal with the inter-relations between
the different elements of society, to give an account of how the parts influence the
whole and are in turn reacted upon. He insisted that sociology should take the
whole society as its unit for analysis. He maintained that the parts of society were not
arranged unsystematically. The parts bore some constant relation and this made
society as such a meaningful ‘entity’, a fit subject for scientific inquiry.

KARL MARX (1818 – 1883)

1. Marx was trained in history, economics, and philosophy, but his ideas reflect
sociological thinking. Observing the same social conditions as Spencer, he drew
very different conclusions about their origins. Marx declared that the unequal
distribution of wealth, power, and other limited resources in society was not the
result of “natural laws,” but was caused by social forces—specifically, the exploitation
of one social class by another. He insisted that social structure and the political and
economic institutions that people took for granted were not the result of natural
evolution or social consensus but reflected the opposed interests of different social
Classes.
2. Marx believed that society consisted of two basic social classes: the “haves” and
the “have-nots.” According to Marx’s viewpoint, the bourgeoisie (haves), the powerful
ruling class, had assumed power not because they were the “fittest,” but because
they owned and controlled the means of production. He believed the bourgeoisie
used deception, fraud, and violence to usurp the production of the proletariat (have-
nots), or working class, whose labor created most of society’s goods—and hence, its
profits.
3. Marx was not a detached social observer but an outspoken social critic. He
concluded that a slow, natural evolutionary process would not bring about
necessary social changes. Rather, his analysis called for a major social revolution in
which the proletariat would rise up, forcibly overthrow the bourgeoisie, and form a
new, classless society.
4. In such a society, Marx wrote, everyone would contribute according to his or her
abilities and receive from society based on need. Marx’s focus on social conflict
was unsettling to many—especially those whom he described as the bourgeoisie.
They were relieved when Émile Durkheim’s more palatable social analysis emerged
and shifted the focus of sociology back to a more conservative approach called
functionalism.
22
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
EMILE DURKHEIM (1858-1917)

1. Unlike Marx, who focused on social conflict, French sociologist Émile Durkheim
was primarily concerned with social order. He believed that social solidarity, or the
social bonds developed by individuals to their society, created social order. Durkheim
believed that social solidarity could be categorized into two types: mechanical
solidarity, the type found in simple rural societies based on tradition and unity,
and organic solidarity, which was found in urban societies and was based more on a
complex division of labor and formal organizations.
2. One of Durkheim’s most important contributions to sociology was his study
Suicide ([1897] 1951), which demonstrated that abstract sociological theories can be
applied to a very real social problem. More important, it showed that suicide,
believed to be a private, individualized, and personal act, can best be explained from
a sociological viewpoint.
3. By looking at suicide rates instead of individual suicides, Durkheim linked suicide
to social integration—the extent to which individuals feel they are a meaningful
part of society. Those with the strongest social bonds are less likely to commit
suicide than those who are less meaningfully integrated and have weaker social
bonds. For example, his data demonstrated that married people had lower suicide
rates than those who were single or divorced; people in the workforce had lower
rates than those who were unemployed; and church members had lower rates than
non-members. Moreover, those religions that promote the strongest social bonds
among their members (e.g., Catholicism and Judaism) had much lower suicide rates
than less structured religions (e.g., Protestantism). Today, over a century later, these
patterns in suicide, and others discerned by Durkheim’s early study, still persist.

MAX WEBER (1864-1920)

1. Max Weber, a contemporary of Durkheim, was concerned that many sociologists,

especially his fellow German, Karl Marx, allowed their personal values to influence
their theories and research. Weber insisted that sociologists should be value-free—
analyzing what society is, rather than what they think it should be.Weber did not
advocate a cold, impersonal approach to sociology, however; he argued that
understanding the meaning of social interaction requires Verstehen, an empathetic
and introspective analysis of the interaction. In other words, Weber believed that
researchers should avoid their personal biases and put themselves in the place of
those they study, to understand better how they experience the world and society’s
impact on them.
2. One of Weber’s most important contributions to sociology was his concept of the
ideal type, a conceptual model or typology constructed from the direct
observation of a number of specific cases and representing the essential qualities
found in those cases. By ideal type, Weber was referring to a generalization based on
many specific examples, not implying that something was necessarily desirable. For
example, Weber used bureaucracy as an ideal type to analyze and explain the
increasing rationalization and depersonalization that is part of formal

23
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 organizations.Weber contended that to maximize efficiency, formal organizations,
such as private businesses, educational institutions, and governmental agencies, had
become and would continue to become increasingly bureaucratic. Although Weber
contended that bureaucracy as an ideal type represented the most rational and
efficient organizational strategy, he also warned of its depersonalizing and
dehumanizing aspects

Contributions of These Four Pioneers of Sociology in Common

These “four founding fathers” – Comte, Spencer, Durkheim and Weber-it seems, agreed
upon the proper subjectmatter of Sociology.

1. All of them urged the sociologists to study a wide range of institutions from the
family to the state.
2. They agreed that a unique subject-matter for sociology is found in the
interrelations among different institutions.
3. They came to the common consensus on the opinion that society as a whole can be
taken as a distinctive unit of sociological analysis. They assigned sociology the task
of explaining wherein and why societies are alike or different.
4. They insisted that sociology should focus on ‘social acts’ or ‘social
relationships’ regardless of their institutional setting. This view was most clearly
expressed by Weber

Story of Spread and Popularity of Sociology (IN USA & Other Societies)
1. Although we have located the beginnings of Sociology in Western Europe in the
second half of the nineteenth century, its development and acceptance as an
academic discipline was not a uniform process. The early classical works in
Sociology of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were produced in
France and Germany, with Emile Durkheim in France and Karl Marx and Max
Weber in Germany as the outstanding figures. The works of these ‘classical’
sociologists still occupy a position of profound importance in contemporary
theoretical debates. Sociology developed markedly in the USA too, and received
more wide spread acceptance there than in Britain. In many ways of USA till early in
this century was ideal sociological material – a rapidly expanding and industrializing,
cosmopolitan, immigrant-based society that was experiencing a wide range of social
changes. Transplanted to U.S. soil, sociology first took root at the University of Kansas
in 1890, at the University of Chicago in 1892, and at Atlanta University (then an all-
black school) in 1897. From there, sociology spread rapidly throughout North
America, jumping from four instructors offering courses in 1880 to 225 instructors
and 59 sociology departments just 20 years later.
2. The University of Chicago initially dominated North American sociology. Albion
Small (1854–1926), who founded this department, also launched the American
Journal of Sociology and was its editor from 1895 to 1925.

24
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 3. As in Europe, the onset of rapid industrialization and urbanization, and
accompanying social problems, gave impetus to the development of sociology in the
United States. American sociologists built on and expanded the theories and ideas of
the European founders of sociology.
4. Lester F. Ward (1841–1913) Lester Ward is often considered the first systematic
American sociologist. He attempted to synthesize the major theoretical ideas of
Comte and Spencer and differentiated between what he called pure sociology—the
study of society in an effort to understand and explain the natural laws that govern
its evolution— and applied sociology, which uses sociological principles, social ideals,
and ethical considerations to improve society. The distinctions between these two
areas of sociology are still made today.
5. Jane Addams: Of the many early sociologists who combined the role of sociologist
with that of social reformer, none was as successful as Jane Addams (1860–1935), who
was a member of the American Sociological Society from its founding in 1895. Like
Harriet Martineau, Addams, too, came from a background of wealth and privilege.
She attended the Women’s Medical College of Philadelphia, but dropped out
because of illness (Addams 1910/1981). On a trip to Europe, Addams saw the work
being done to help London’s poor. The memory wouldn’t leave her, she said, and she
decided to work for social justice. In 1889, Addams cofounded Hull-House with Ellen
Gates Starr. Located in Chicago’s notorious slums, Hull House was open to people
who needed refuge—to immigrants, the sick, the aged, the poor. Sociologists from
the nearby University of Chicago were frequent visitors at Hull-House. With her
piercing insights into the exploitation of workers and the adjustment of immigrants
to city life, Addams strove to bridge the gap between the powerful and the
powerless. She co-founded the American Civil Liberties Union and campaigned for
the eight-hour work day and for laws against child labor. She wrote books on poverty,
democracy, and peace. Adams’ writings and efforts at social reform were so
outstanding that in 1931, she was a co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace. She and
Emily Greene Balch are the only sociologists to have won this coveted award.
6. Margaret Sanger (1883–1966): Another notable social reformer, Margaret Sanger
applied sociological theories to problems of population, health, and women’s rights.
After watching a poor working woman die from a self-induced abortion, she began
publishing Woman Rebel, a journal aimed at raising the consciousness of working-
class women. Her articles covered topics ranging from personal hygiene, venereal
disease, and birth control to social revolution.
7. William E. B. Dubois (1868–1963): E. B. Du Bois (1868–1963). After earning a bachelor’s
degree from Fisk University, Du Bois became the first African American to earn a
doctorate at Harvard. He then studied at the University of Berlin, where he attended
lectures by Max Weber. After teaching Greek and Latin at Wilberforce University, in
1897 Du Bois moved to Atlanta University to teach sociology and do research. He
remained there for most of his career.
• It is difficult to grasp how racist society was at this time. As Du Bois passed a
butcher shop in Georgia one day, he saw the fingers of a lynching victim
displayed in the window. When Du Bois went to national meetings of the
American Sociological Society, restaurants and hotels would not allow him to
eat or room with the white sociologists. How times have changed. Today,

25
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 sociologists would not only boycott such establishments, but also refuse to
hold meetings in that state. At that time, however, racism, like sexism,
prevailed throughout society, rendering it mostly invisible to white sociologists.
Du Bois eventually became such an outspoken critic of racism that the U.S.
State Department, fearing he would criticize the United States, refused to issue
him a passport (Du Bois 1968).
• Each year between 1896 and 1914, Du Bois published a book on relations
between African Americans and whites. Not content to collect and interpret
objective data, Du Bois, along with Jane Addams and others from Hull-House
was one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) (Deegan 1988). Continuing to battle racism both as a
sociologist and as a journalist, Du Bois eventually embraced revolutionary
Marxism. At age 93, dismayed that so little improvement had been made in
race relations, he moved to Ghana, where he is buried (Stark 1989).
• In his writings, Du Bois pointed out that some successful African Americans
were breaking their ties with other African Americans in order to win
acceptance by whites. This, he said, weakened the African American
community by depriving it of their influence.
8. Talcott Parsons and C. Wright Mills: Contrasting Views: Like Du Bois and Addams,
many early North American sociologists saw society or parts of it, as corrupt and in
need of reform. During the 1920s and 1930s, for example, Robert Park and Ernest
Burgess (1921) not only studied crime, drug addiction, juvenile delinquency, and
prostitution but also offered suggestions for how to alleviate these social problems.
As the emphasis shifted from social reform to objective analyses, the abstract models
of society developed by sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902–1979) influenced a
generation of sociologists. These models of how the parts of society work together
harmoniously did nothing to stimulate social activism. Another sociologist, C. Wright
Mills (1916–1962), deplored such theoretical abstractions. Trying to push the
pendulum the other way, he urged sociologists to get back to social reform. In his
writings, he warned that the nation faced an imminent threat to freedom—the
coalescing of interests of a power elite, the top leaders of business, politics, and the
military. The precedent-shaking 1960s and 1970s that followed Mills’ death sparked
interest in social activism among a new generation of sociologists.

As an established discipline, however, Sociology is a relatively new arrival on the academic

scene, and the real expansion in its popularity has occurred in the postwar period. We
can point to some factors that have influenced this expansion.

• In the Post-war period there has developed a rather more critical awareness of
how societies operate. Very few people accept their societies unthinking. They see
that alongside many technological and social advances that have been made so far,
there still exist problem areas like over-population, poverty and crime.
• Alongside this, there has developed an increasing concern with social reform and
the reordering of society, accompanied by the belief that in order to make such
reforms effective knowledge about society and its members is needed.

26
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 • There has also developed an increasing awareness of other societies and ways of
life because of better systems of communications in travel and the mass media.
• Increasingly, it has been claimed that people who work in government, industry,
the social services etc ought to have some sort of specialist knowledge of
society on the grounds that they will be better equipped to meet the demands of
their work.
• Emergence of new nation states was accompanied with rapid modernization–
Therefore there was inncreasing awareness among these societies that they need
to understand social life scientifically in order to ease the process of nation
building. As a result, during and since the 1960’s, sociology degree courses have
increased considerably, Sociology has found its way into schools, sociologists have
been increasingly recognized and consulted by various organizations, from national
government downwards, in research programmes, policy, planning etc. and some
sociologists have also found fame in the national media.

27
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 Scope of the Subject and Comparison with other
Social Sciences
The scope of sociological study is extremely wide. It can focus its analysis on
interactions between teachers and students, between two friends or family members
etc. It can likewise focus on national issues such as unemployment or caste conflict or the
effect of state policies on forest rights of the tribal population or rural indebtedness. Or
examine global social processes such as: the impact of new flexible labour regulations on
the working class; or that of the electronic media on the young: or the entry of foreign
universities on the education system of the country. What defines the discipline of
sociology is not just what it studies (i.e. family or trade unions or villages) but how it studies
a chosen field. There has been a great deal of controversy regarding the subject matter of
sociology. Sociologists of different schools differ in their views.

Specialistic or Formalistic School: As has been said before, according to the formalistic
school the subject matter of Sociology consists of forms of social relationships. These
sociologists want to keep the scope of sociology distinct from other social sciences.
They regard sociology as pure and independent.

• According to George Simmel sociology should confine its study to formal behavior
instead of studying actual bahaviour. Sociology stands in such a relation with other
sciences as is the relation holding between the physical sciences and geometry.
Geometry studies the spatial forms and relations of objects, not their content. In the
same way sociology, too, in its scope comprehends the forms of social relationships
and activities, not the relationships themselves. Sociology is a specific social science
which describes, classifies, analyses and delineates the forms of social relationships,
the process of socialization and social organization, etc. In this way, the scope of
sociology apprehends the forms of human relationships or forms of social processes.
Simmel has mentioned some subtle forms in these various form e.g. competition,
domination, imitation, division of labour, subordination, etc.
• Small’s opinion: According to Small, Sociology does not undertake to study all the
activities of society. Every science has a delimited scope. The scope of sociology is
the study of the genetic forms of social relationships, bahaviour and activities, etc.
• Vier Kandt’s opinion: it has been said by Vier Kandt that sociology can be a definite
science only when it abstains from a historic study of concrete societies. According to
him sociology studies the irreducible categories of science. These irreducible
categories are the ultimate forms of mental relationships like love, hatred,
cooperation, competition, etc. In this way the scope of sociology is the study of the
ultimate forms of mental or psychic relationships.
• Max Weber’s contention: According to Max Weber the scope of sociology consists in
the interpretation of social behavior. Social behavior is that which is related, by the
intention of interpreter, to the bahaviour of others and is determined by it.
Sociological laws are those empirically established generalizations of social behavior
whose meaning can be determined or which can be obtained.

28
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 • The View of Von Wiese: According to Von Wiese, the scope of sociology is the study
of forms of social relationships.
• Tonnies’ opinion: Tonnies has supported the idea of pure sociology. He has
differentiated between society and community on the basis of forms of relationships.
In this way, according to the specialistic school, sociology studies one specific aspect
of social relationships and bahaviour, viz. their forms, and its scope is limited to them.

Criticism of Formalistic School.

In criticism the following arguments have been advanced against Formalistic School:

• Other Sciences also study forms of Social Relationships: It does not appear to be an
altogether correct assertion when sociologists belonging to the formalistic school
contend that sociology alone studies the forms of social relationships. Sociology is
not the only science which studies the forms of social relationships. The study of
International law includes, of necessity, the study of such social relationships as
conflict, war, opposition, agreement, contact etc. Political science delineates
sovereignty and other social relationships.
• The conception of Pure Sociology is impractical: The specialistic or formalistic
school has conceived of pure sociology and has also much literature concerning it
but none of the sociologists has been able to make any pure sociology. Actually, no
science can be studied in complete isolation from the other sciences. The
conception of a pure sociology is not practical.
• Forms of Social Relationships differ from the forms of Geometry: According to the
formalistic school, the relation which sociology bears to other sciences is comparable
to the relation between geometry and physics. But in making this comparison, sight
has been lost of the incongruity between the forms of geometry and those of social
relationships. The forms of geometry have a definite spatial shape but the social
relationships are devoid of any such shape.
• Separated from the Concrete Relations, Abstract forms cannot be studied: The
formalistic school of thought has made an absolute distinction between abstract
forms and concrete contents and has limited the study of sociology to merely
abstract forms. But actually abstract forms cannot be studied in complete separation
from concrete contents. In concrete life, how can competition, conflict, hatred and
love, etc, be studied without knowing their concrete contents? Actually, social forms
cannot be abstracted from the content at all, since social forms keep on changing as
the contents change, and the contents are continuously changing. In the words of
Sorokin, “We may fill a glass with wine, water or sugar without changing its form,
but we cannot conceive of a social institution whose form would not change when
its members change.”
• Formalistic School has extremely Narrowed the scope of Sociology: When the
forms cannot be studied in abstraction from the concrete relationships sociology will
have to widen its scope to apprehend concrete relationships, bahaviour and
activities. The formalistic school has extremely narrowed and confined the scope of
sociology. Besides studying the general forms of social relationships, sociology will
have also to study the contents in social life.

29
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
Synthetic School
• As against the Formalistic school the synthetic school wants to make sociology a
synthesis of the social sciences or a general science. Modern sociologists, among
them Durkheim, Hobhouse and Sorokin, subscribe to this point of view. According
to this opinion, sociology is the science of sciences and all the sciences are
included in its scope, it synthesizes all of them. In this way, according to the
synthetic school, the scope of sociology is encyclopedic and synoptic. According to
this contention, all the aspects of social life are inter-related; hence the study of one
aspect cannot suffice to understand the entire fact. Without studying the principles
in concrete social life, their study becomes dull and purposeless.
• For this reason sociology should symmetrically study social life as a whole. This
opinion contributes to the creation of a general and systematic sociology.
• Pointing to the ill effects of the specialistic viewpoint, which are reflected in
geographical, biological and economic determinism, these sociologists have advised
to make sociology comprehensive and wide. In the words of Motwani, “Sociology
thus seeks to see life full and see it whole.”

There is Unity of Data but difference in View point among different social sciences:
• Society is the subject matter of all social sciences but they all study it from
different view points and in specific areas. In economics, the study from the
economic view point concerns men’s activities pertaining to economic welfare and
wealth. In political science, authority, government, etc., are studied from the political
view point. Social psychology studies man’s behavior in groups.
• The scope of sociology differs from each of these sciences because it studies social
relationships. But the study in this sphere necessitates a study of all these sciences.
In studying any social phenomenon, it is necessary to contemplate upon all its
aspects. Suppose that you want to analyse and study the causes of family
disorganization from the sociological view point, and then you will have to seek the
assistance of economics, history, psychology and other sciences. In this way, the
scope of sociology includes the subject matter of all other sciences and it is studied
from the sociological view point with the help of the other special sciences. The
scope of sociology is further distinguished from other sciences in respect of its
different viewpoints. In the words of Green, “The focus of attention upon social
relationships makes sociology a distinctive field, however clearly allied to certain
others it may seem to be.” To quote Bennett and Tumin, “no other discipline states
or claims that its primary datum is that of the social aggregation of men.”

Comparison of Sociology with other social sciences

• Sociology is one of a group of social sciences, which also includes anthropology,
economics, political science and history. The divisions among the various social
sciences are not clear cut, and all share a certain range of common interests,

30
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 concepts and methods. It is therefore very important to understand that the
distinctions of the disciplines are to some extent arbitrary and should not be seen in
a straitjacket fashion. To differentiate the social sciences would be to exaggerate the
differences and gloss over the similarities. Furthermore feminist theories have also
shown the greater need of interdisciplinary approach. For instance how would a
political scientist or economist study gender roles and their implications for politics
or the economy without sociology of the family or gender division of labour.

Sociology and Economics

• Economics is the study of production and distribution of goods and services. The
classical economic approach dealt almost exclusively with the inter-relations of pure
economic variables: the relations of price demand and supply, money flows, output
and input ratios, and the like.
• The focus of traditional economics has been on a narrow understanding of
‘economic activity’, namely the allocation of scarce goods and services within a
society.
• Economists who are influenced by a political economy approach seek to understand
economic activity in a broader framework of ownership of and relationship to means
of production. The objective of the dominant trend in economic analysis was
however to formulate precise laws of economic behavior:
• The sociological approach looks at economic behavior in a broader context of social
norms, values, practices and interests. The corporate sector managers are aware of
this. The large investment in the advertisement industry is directly linked to the need
to reshape lifestyles and consumption patterns. Trends within economics such as
feminist economics seek to broaden the focus, drawing in gender as a central
organizing principle of society. For instance they would look at how work in the
home is linked to productivity outside.
• The defined scope of economics has helped in facilitating its development as a
highly focused, coherent discipline. Sociologists often envy the economists for the
precision of their terminology and the exactness of their measures. And the ability to
translate the results of their theoretical work into practical suggestions having major
implications for public policy.
• Yet economist’s predictive abilities often suffer precisely because of their neglect of
individual behavior, cultural norms and institutional resistance which sociologists
study. Pierre Bourdieu wrote in 1998, “A true economic science would look at all
the costs of the economy not only at the costs that corporations are concerned
with, but also at crimes, suicides, and so on. We need to put forward an economics
of happiness, which would take note of all the profits, individual and collective,
material and symbolic, associated with activity (such as security), and also the
material and symbolic costs associated with inactivity or precarious employment
(for example consumption of medicines: France holds the world record for the use
of tranquilizers)”.
• Sociology unlike economics usually does not provide technical solutions. But it
encourages a questioning and critical perspective. This helps questioning of basic
assumptions. And thereby facilitates a discussion of not just the technical means
31
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 towards a given goal, but also about the social desirability of a goal itself. Recent
trends have seen a resurgence of economic sociology perhaps because of both this
wider and critical perspective of sociology.
• Sociology provides clearer or more adequate understanding of a social situation than
existed before. This can be either on the level of factual knowledge, or through
gaining an improved grasp of why something is happening (in other words, by
means of theoretical understanding).
• However, attempts have been made to link the two disciplines with each other. One
extreme position has been adopted by Marxists. According to whom the
understanding of the super structure consisting of various social institutions can
never be complete, unless seen in the context of economic substructure. Thus
economic behavior of man is viewed as a key to understand social behavior of man
or economics is given precedence over sociology. On the other hand sociologists
have criticized the economic theory as being reductionist in nature and according to
them the economist’s conception of man ignores the role of various social factors
which influence the economic behavior.
• Various sociologists have tried of show that economics cannot be an entirely
autonomous science. For e.g. A. Lowie in his book ‘Economics and Sociology’ has
examined the lists of pure economics and discovers two sociological principles
which underline a classical laws of the market: ‘The economic man” and
“competition or mobility of the factors of production”. Similarly, Max Weber’s
‘Wirtscharaft and Gesellschaft’ is the classical attempt to bring some of the concepts
of economic theory within the frame work of general sociology. The recent work by
Talcott Parsons and N.J. Smelser attempts on Weberian lines but, in a more
ambitious way, to show economic theory as a part of general sociological theory. In
fact, according to Parsons economic behavior can never be understood adequately if
it is divorced from the social milieu.
• Of late, the interactions between two disciplines have been on the increase. For
example, numerous sociological studies have directly concerned themselves with
problems of economic theory; the recent example is Barbara Cotton’s book “The
social Foundations of Wage Policy” which attempts a sociological analysis of the
determinants of wags and salary differentials in Britain. Other such examples are to
be found in the works of Thorstein Veblen and J.K. Galbraith. Further, there are
sociological works concerned with general features of economic systems. This is
particularly so in the study of problems of economic development in the developing
countries. One of the famous works of this kind has been that of ‘dependency
theorists’. Thus it can be said that increasingly the two disciplines are coming closer.

Sociology and Political science

As in the case of economics, there is an increased interaction of methods and approaches
between sociology and political science.

32
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 • Conventional political science was focused primarily on two elements: political
theory and government administration. Neither branch involves extensive contact
with political behavior. The theory part usually focuses on the ideas about
government from Plato to Marx while courses on administration generally deal with
the formal structure of government rather than its actual operation.
• Sociology is devoted to the study of all aspects of society, whereas conventional
political science restricted itself mainly to the study of power as embodied in formal
organization.
• Sociology stresses the interrelationships between sets of institutions including
government, whereas political science tends to turn attention towards the processes
within the government.

However, sociology long shared similar interests of research with political science.

• Sociologists like Max Weber worked in what can be termed as political sociology. The
focus of political sociology has been increasingly on the actual study of political
behavior.
• Even in the recent Indian elections one has seen the extensive study of political
patterns of voting. Studies have also been conducted in membership of political
organizations, process of decision-making in organizations, sociological reasons for
support of political parties, the role of gender in politics, etc.
• According to Marx, political institutions and behavior are closely linked with the
economic system and social classes. Provoked by this thinking some thinkers, by the
end of the 19th century, pursued the matter in more details like studies of political
parties, elite voting behavior, bureaucracy and political ideologies, as in the political
sociology of Michels, Weber and Pareto.

By then, another development occurred in America Known as the behavioural approach to

political phenomena. This was initiated by the University of Chicago. In the thirties,
attempts were made by various scholars to create a scientific discipline of behavioural
politics although now a day this attempt stands discredited.

In one more area, however, there has become a close relationship between these social
sciences is the field of explanatory schemes and models. Both functionalism and social
system have been adopted into politics. It is interesting to note that there is a renewal of
interest in Marxist sociological ideas because of revolutions in developing countries, as can
be seen. The forces at work and the changes that are taking place in peasant tribal or caste
societies belong more to the sphere of sociologists and anthropologists rather than to that
of the political scientist. Moreover, the fields into which Michels, Max Weber and Pareto led
Sociology by the end of the 19th century are still being pursued. A new feature of these
studies is that they are comparative.

Conclusion:
It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish political science form political sociology.
There are a number of Marxist studies having Marxist-socialist ideas as their hypothesis.

33
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
Also as modern state is increasingly getting involved in providing welfare amenities,
sociological slant to political activity and political thinking is gaining more and more
acceptance.

Sociology and History

“Sociology without History is rootless and History without Sociology is fruitless”

1. Historians almost as a rule study the past, sociologists are more interested in the
contemporary or recent past.
2. Historians earlier were content to delineate the actual events, to establish how things
actually happened, while in sociology the focus was to seek to establish causal
relationships.
3. History studies concrete details while the sociologists are more likely to abstract from
concrete reality, categorise and generalize. Historians today are equally involved in
doing sociological methods and concepts in their analysis i.e. Social History.
4. Conventional history has been about the history of kings and war. The history of less
glamorous or exciting events as changes in land relations or gender relations within
the family have traditionally been less studied by historians but formed the core area
of the sociologist’s interest.
5. According to Radcliff Brown “sociology is nomothetic, while history is idiographic”.
In other words, sociologists produce generalizations while historians describe unique
events. This distinction hold true for traditional narrative history, but is only partly
true for modern historiography. There are works for serious historians which abound
in generalizations while sometimes sociologists have concerned themselves with the
study of unique event. An example of the former is R.H. Tawny’s work “Religion and
the Rise of Capitalism”, Weber’s thesis “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism”. “The Polish Peasant” by Thomas and Zelencki consist of mere description
of a peasant family, and therefore, is idiographic as any historical study can be.
6. Further, historical accounts for phenomena like industrial revolution are quite
general in nature and have served as source of data for sociological studies.
7. Inspite of those similarities the differences remain. History is primarily concerned
with the past and essentially tries to account for change over time while the main
focus of sociology, continues to be to search for recruitment patterns and to build
generalizations. However, given such works like Weber’s ‘Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism’ and Pitrim Sorokin’s ‘Social and Cultural Dynamics’, the line for
demarcation between history and sociology is becoming increasingly blurred. Yet
H.R. Trevor-Roper has tried to make a weak distinction by stating that historian is
concerned with the interplay between personality and massive social forces and that
the sociologist is largely concerned with these social forces themselves. However, it is
becoming increasingly clear that historiography and sociology cannot be radically
separated. They deal with the same subject matter; viz. men living in societies
sometimes from the same point of view and the trends indicate that the two shall
continue to borrow from each other extensively.

34
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
Today, however, history is far more sociological and social history is the stuff of history. It
looks at social patterns, gender relations, mores, customs and important institutions other
than the acts of rulers, wars and monarchy. It has been well said that “Sociology without
History is rootless and History without Sociology is fruitless”

Sociology and Psychology

1. Psychology is often defined as the science of behavior. It involves itself primarily with
the individual. It is interested in her/his intelligence and learning, motivations and
memory nervous system and reaction time, hopes and fears.
2. Social psychology, which serves as a bridge between psychology and sociology,
maintains a primary interest in the individual but concerns itself with the way in
which the individual behaves in social groups collectively with other individuals.
3. Sociology attempts to understand behavior as it is organized in society that is the
way in which personality is shaped by different aspects of society. For instance,
economic and political system, their family and kinship structure, their culture,
norms and values. It is interesting to recall that Durkheim who sought to establish a
clear scope and method for sociology in his well-known study of suicide left out
individual intentions of those who commit or try to commit suicide in favour of
statistics concerning various social characteristics of these individuals.
4. J.S. Mill believed that a general social science could not be considered firmly
established, until its inductively established generalizations, can be shown to be also
logically deducible from laws of mind. Thus, he clearly sought to establish primacy of
psychology over all other social sciences. Durkheim on the other hand, made a
radical distinction between the phenomena studied by sociology and psychology
respectively. Sociology was to study social facts defined as being external to
individual mind and exercising the coercive action upon them. The explanation of
social facts could only be in terms of other social facts, not in terms of psychological
facts. “Society is not simply an aggregate of individuals; it is a system formed by their
association and represents a specific level of reality possessing its own
characteristics”. Thus sociology and psychology are totally separate disciplines.
Though, an extreme interpretation of Durkheim might lead to the conclusion that
most psychology is social psychology.
5. Thus the views of Mill and Durkheim represent two extreme vies. Most sociologists
however have adopted various intermediate positions. According to Ginsberg, “many
sociological generalizations can be more firmly established by being related to
general psychological laws. Similarly S. F. Nadal argued that some problems posed
by social enquiry can be illuminated by a move to lower levels of analysis, viz
psychology and biology. German scholars like Dilthey and Max Weber etc., came to
believe that sociological explanations can be further enriched if an attempt is made
to understand social behavior in terms of underlying meanings. Such understanding
was conceived in terms of ‘common senses psychology but neither Dilthey nor

35
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 Weber was opposed to the development of a scientific psychology in the broad
sense and Weber was even sympathetic to some of Freud’s ideas.
6. Similarly the interdependence of sociology and psychology for the study of human
behavior has also been emphasized in the work psychologists belonging to post
Freudian School especially Karen Horney and Erich Fromm. The influence of society
in moulding individual behavior is given still greater prominence. Fromm’s concept
of social character is intended precisely to relate individual psychological
characterization to the characteristics of a particular social group of social system.
Inspite of such recognition of complementarities between sociology and psychology,
divergence persists between the two. The divergence between sociology and
psychology can be illustrated from various studies. In the study of conflict and war
there have been mutually exclusive sociological and psychological explanations.
Similarly in the studies of social stratification and political behavior the two
disciplines have remained divergent.
7. According to Bottomore, in almost every field of enquiry it can be shown that
psychology and sociology continue for the most part and two separate universes of
study. However, some attempts have been made to bring them together in one of
the most valuable works is of Gerth and Mills. According to them, the study of social
psychology is an inter-play between individual character and social structure and it
can be approached wither from the side of sociology or from the side for biology.
They have even suggested the concept of role to bridge the gap between the two
sciences. Social role represents a meeting point of the individual organism and the
social structure and it is used as a central concept and social structure in the same
terms.

Conclusion:
Yet, inspite of these efforts sociology and psychology continue to offer alternate accounts
for behavior, and if they are to be brought closer together, it will be necessary to work out
more rigorously the conceptual and theoretical links between them.

Sociology and Philosophy

1. Modern philosophy and sociology came into existence during one time period to
explain the social crisis of Europe in the 19th century. Sociology aimed, to begin with,
to provide a social doctrine that would guide social policy. This aim has now been
abandoned. Even then some links exist between sociology and philosophy. First,
there is a philosophy of sociology in the same sense as a philosophy of science: that is
an examination of the methods, concepts and arguments used in sociology.
2. There is a close relationship between sociology and moral & social philosophy. The
subject-matter of sociology is human social behavior as guided by values. Moral and
social philosophy studies values and the sociologists study values and human
valuation as facts. On occasions, the sociologist is made to distinguish between fact

36
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 and value. It is only by some training that social philosophy becomes competent to
distinguish between fact and value.
3. it can be said that the study of sociology leads to philosophical quest. Durkheim
thought that sociology has to necessarily contribute to a renewal of philosophical
questions. This made him indulge in some epistemological discussions, a branch of
philosophy. Karl Mannheim argued that sociology of knowledge had implications for
philosophy. Both of them thought that sociology can make a direct contribution to
philosophy. But this is an incorrect approach. Philosophy is the basis of the sociology
of knowledge not vice versa.
4. It can also be said here that while sociology leads on to philosophical reflections,
much of it also begins there. Sociological research will become trivial if it ignores the
larger problems of social life which are coordinated in philosophical world-views and
in social doctrines. The stimulating character of early Marxism in social research was
to a great extent due to the fact the Marxism was not only a sociological theory but
also philosophical base was helpful for social research. Active participation in social
movement and commitment to a social doctrine helped Beatrice Webb in her social
research.

Conclusion:
In brief, although each social science, including philosophy, has its own specific area of
study, there is a growing collaboration and faster cross fertilization among them. The unity
of social science is best conceived as a unity of methods and of conceptual segments but
not as a universal history.

Sociology and Social Anthropology

Anthropology in most countries incorporates archaeology, physical anthropology,
cultural history, many branches of linguistics and the study of all aspects of life in
“simple societies”.

1. Our concern here is with social anthropology and cultural anthropology for it is
that which is close to the study of sociology. Sociology is deemed to be the study of
modern, complex societies while social anthropology was deemed to be the study
of simple societies.
2. As we saw earlier, each discipline has its own history or biography. Social
anthropology developed in the west at a time when western-trained social
anthropologists studied non-European societies often thought of as exotic, barbaric
and uncivilized. This unequal relationship between those who studied and those
who were studied, remarked upon too often earlier. But times have changed and we
have the erstwhile ‘natives’ be they Indians or Sudanese, Nagas or Santhals, who now
speak and write about their own societies.
3. In terms of the method of study, social anthropologists developed a preference of
functionalist approach and filed work as the main technique of data collection.

37
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 Functionalist approach proved suitable for social anthropologists because the tribal
and agrarian societies of Asia and Africa hardly underwent any social change. Field
work as a method of data collection was considerable because most of these
societies lacked historical records and could be directly observed as functioning
whole due to their small size
4. On the other hand sociology continues to be dominated by the historical approach,
as can be seen in the works of L.T. Hobhouse, Max Weber and even Marxian scholars.
However, the post-colonial period witnessed a new trend towards the convergence
of the two disciplines. One major factor responsible for this approchment between
sociology and social anthropology has been the rise of new nation states which, as a
result of the process of nation building have acquired a dualistic character. They have
come to acquire the features of both modern industrial societies as well as
traditional small scale societies. Therefore the study of these “Developing Societies”
requires the use of both sociological as well as social anthropological approach.
5. The anthropologists of the past documented the details of simple societies
apparently in a neutral scientific fashion. In practice they were constantly comparing
those societies with the model of the western modern societies as a benchmark.
6. Other changes have also redefined the nature of sociology and social anthropology.
Modernity as we saw led to a process whereby the smallest village was impacted by
global processes. The most obvious example is colonialism. The most remote village
of India under British colonialism saw its land laws and administration change, its
revenue extraction alters, its manufacturing industries collapsed. Contemporary
global processes have further accentuated this shrinking of the globe. The
assumption of studying a simple society was that it was bounded. We know this is
not so today.
7. The traditional study of simple, non-literate societies by social anthropology had a
pervasive influence on the content and the subject matter of the discipline. Social
anthropology tended to study society (simple societies) in all their aspects, as wholes.
In so far as they specialized, it was on the basis of area as for example the Andaman
Islands, the Nuers or Melanesia.
8. Sociologists study complex societies and would therefore often focus on parts of
society like the bureaucracy or religion or caste or a process such as social mobility.
9. Social anthropology was characterized by long field work tradition, living in the
community studied and using ethnographic research methods. Sociologists have
often relied on survey method and quantitative data using statistics and the
questionnaire mode.
10. Today the distinction between a simple society and a complex one itself needs major
rethinking. India itself is a complex mix of tradition and modernity, of the village and
the city, of caste and tribe, of class and community. Villages exists in the heart of the
capital city of Delhi. Call centres serve European and American clients from different
towns of the country.
11. Indian sociology has been far more eclectic in borrowing from both traditions. Indian
sociologists often studied Indian societies that were both part of and not of one’s
own culture. It could also be dealing with both complex differentiated societies of
urban modern India as well as the study of tribes in a holistic fashion.

38
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 12. It had been feared that with the decline of simple societies, social anthropology
would lose its specificity and merge with sociology. However, there have been
fruitful interchanges between the two disciplines and today often methods and
techniques are drawn from both. There have been anthropological studies of the
state and globalization, which are very different from the traditional subject matter
of social anthropology. On the other hand, sociology too has been using quantitative
and qualitative techniques, macro and micro approaches for studying the
complexities of modern societies. For in India, sociology and social anthropology
have had a very close relationship.
13. Besides this, the diffusion of Marxist approach in social anthropology, as a result of
the works of Block, Sodden and Godlier, etc. have acted as a bridge between the
disciplines. On the other hand even sociologists working modern industrial
societies like America have increasingly started to rely upon the methods of social
anthropology. For example, the works of Talcott Parsons and R.K. Merton are
attempts towards an adaptation of functionalist approach to study industrial
societies and William Whyte has adopted participant observation for the study of
modern industrial society. Thus the disciplines are increasingly merging into each
other.

Importance Of Sociology
1. Sociology makes a scientific study of society: Prior to the emergence of sociology
the study of society was carried on in an unscientific manner and society had never
been the central concern of any science. It is through the study of sociology that the
truly scientific study of the society has been possible. Sociology because of its bearing
upon many of the problems of the present world has assumed such a great
importance that it is considered to be the best approach to all the social sciences.
2. Sociology studies role of the institutions in the development of the individuals: It
is through sociology that scientific study of the great social institutions and the
relation of the individual to each is being made. The home and family ,the school and
educaton,the church and religion, the state and government ,industry and work ,the
community and association, these are institutions through which society functions.
Sociology studies these institutions and their role in the development of the
individual and suggests suitable measures for restrengthening them with a view to
enable them to serve the individual better.
3. Study of sociology is indispensable for understanding and planning of
society: Society is a complex phenomenon with a multitude of intricacies. It is
impossible to understand and solve its numerous problems without support of
sociology. It is rightly said that we cannot understand and mend society without any
knowledge of its mechanism and construction. Without the investigation carried out
by sociology no real effective social planning would be possible. It helps us to
determine the most efficient means for reaching the goals agreed upon. A certain

39
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 amount of knowledge about society is necessary before any social policies can be
carried out.
4. Sociology is of great importance in the solution of social problems: The present
world is suffering from many problems which can be solved through scientific study
of the society. It is the task of sociology to study the social problems through the
methods of scientific research and to find out solution to them. The scientific study
of human affairs will ultimately provide the body of knowledge and principles that
will enable us to control the conditions of social life and improve them.
5. Sociology has drawn our attention to the intrinsic worth and dignity of
man: Sociology has been instrumental in changing our attitude towards human
beings. In a specialized society we are all limited as to the amount of the whole
organization and culture that we can experience directly. We can hardly know the
people of other areas intimately. In order to have insight into and appreciation of the
motives by which others live and the conditions under which they exist a knowledge
of sociology is essential.
6. Sociology has changed our outlook with regard to the problems of crime etc:It is
through the study of sociology that our whole outlook on various aspects of crime
has change. The criminals are now treated as human beings suffering from mental
deficiencies and efforts are accordingly made to rehabilitate them as useful
members of the society.
7. Sociology has made great contribution to enrich human culture: Human culture
has been made richer by the contribution of sociology. The social phenomenon is
now understood in the light of scientific knowledge and enquiry. According to Lowie
most of us harbor the comfortable delusion that our way of doing things is the only
sensible if not only possible one. Sociology has given us training to have rational
approach to questions concerning oneself, one’s religion,customs,morals and
institutions. It has further taught us to be objective, critical and dispassionate. It
enables man to have better understanding both of himself and of others. By
comparative study of societies and groups other than his existence ,his life becomes
richer and fuller than it would otherwise be. Sociology also impresses upon us the
necessity of overcoming narrow personal prejudices, ambitions and class hatred.
8. Sociology is of great importance in the solution of international problems: The
progress made by physical sciences has brought the nations of the world nearer to
each other. But in the social field the world has been left behind by the revolutionary
progress of the science. The world is divided politically giving rise to stress and
conflict. Men have failed to bring in peace. Sociology can help us in understanding
the underlying causes and tensions.
9. The value of sociology lies in the fact that it keeps us update on modern
situations: It contributes to making good citizens and finding solutions to the
community problems. It adds to the knowledge of the society. It helps the individual
find his relation to society. The study of social phenomena and of the ways and
means of promoting what Giddens calls social adequacy is one of the most urgent
needs of the modern society. Sociology has a strong appeal to all types of mind
through its direct bearing upon many of the initial problems of the present world.

40
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 41
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 Sociology and Common-Sense Knowledge
1. Sociological knowledge is different from theological and philosophical
observations. Likewise sociology is different from common sense observation.
• Many a time we make certain statements which we have not to prove that
they are true. They are based either on common sense or on practical
observations and experiences on social life, though sometimes they may be
based on wisdom too. However, often they are based on ignorance, prejudices
and mistaken interpretation.
• Common sense knowledge, based on the accumulated
experiences, prejudices and beliefs of the people, is often contradictory and
inconsistent. On the other hand, scientific observations are based on
verifiable evidence or systematic body of proof that can be cited. For
example, some common sense statements may be quoted here: man is more
intelligent than women; married people remain happier than single people;
highcaste people are more talented than low-caste people.
……..Contrary to this, the scientific research or scientific inquiry finds that
woman is as intelligent as man; there is no association between happiness and
remaining married or unmarried by a person; caste does not determine
individual’s efficiency.
2. Common sense observations result in widespread ignorance and rejection of a
sociological perspective when people think about human behavior.
3. Common-sense perspectives predominate in people’s minds. They may, for
instance, employ a biological perspective in attempting to explain family and marital
arrangements; women rear children because they have a maternal instinct
(biologically determined) for this task. Similarly, they may use pseudo-psychological
perspective in explaining suicide (people commit suicide when they are mentally
unbalanced), or a moralistic perspective in explaining crime (Criminals are people
who have not developed a conscience regulating their actions). Because ordinary
people are more familiar with these kinds of common-sense perspectives in their
everyday lives a sociological approach does not come easily to them.
4. Common sense observation is further compounded by a deeply held commitment
to the idea that we are all individuals, unique beings with our own special qualities,
which sociologists deny.
5. Sociology, however, insists on a willingness to reject what is obvious common-sense,
natural and to go beneath the surface for understanding of the world.
6. As Berger puts it: “The fascination of Sociology lies in the fact that its perspective
makes us see in a new light the very world in which we have lived all our lives. It
can be said that the first wisdom of Sociology is that things are not what they
seem”.
7. Sociologists emphasise, that what is ‘commonsense’ or ‘natural’ may be by no
means universal or eternal, but is frequently relative to particular societies or to
particular periods in time.

42
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 • The common-sense view of differences in behaviour between men and
women in the family in our society tends to assume that because there are
biological and physiological differences between men and women, certain
aspects of their behavior are therefore ‘natural’. For example, it is often argued
that it is common sense and natural that women will engage in child-rearing
and domestic tasks and that men will make sexual advances and will work
outside the home.
• Mead’s study of New Guinea, ‘Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive
Societies’, revealed the partiality of such common-sense interpretations of
behavior pattern. Among the Apache, she found very few ‘natural
differences’ in men’s and women’s behavior with neither sex exhibiting
aggression: Women did the heavy carrying (Men stayed at home with their
wives during and after child birth, ‘sharing’ the pain and strain. Among the
Munduracco, both sexes were aggressive, children were treated brutally by
both parents and lovemaking was rather like a pitched battle. Among the
Tchambuli, yet further variation occurred: men adorned themselves, gossiped,
made things for trade, while women selected their partners, made the sexual
advances, did all the trade, and were the more aggressive sex. Obviously, we
cannot explain these very striking variations in behavior via biology, since
the people in the various societies were all the same biologically.
• To the Hopi Indians of North America it is ‘common-sense’ view that rain-
clouds are Gods and must therefore be made happy through exhibiting Rain
dance. This is a view not entirely consistent with that of the Meteorological
office. The essential point, then, is that one person’s common sense is
somebody else’s nonsense and there are many examples of sociological and
anthropological investigation questioning and exploding many common-
sense notions about behavior. Although the use of everyday common-sense
beliefs is, usually not only unsystematic and inadequate but also often
contradictory.
• The common sense explanations are generally based on what may be called
‘naturalistic’ and/or individualistic explanation. A naturalistic explanation for
behavior rests on the assumption that one can really identify ‘natural’ reasons
for behavior. An individualistic explanation of some event or phenomenon
assumes that the event can be readily understood and explained solely
through reference to the behavior of the individuals involved in it. There is no
attempt to understand or explain the phenomenon in terms of wider social
forces. A naturalistic explanation of behavior rests on the assumptions that
one can readily identify ‘natural’ (or sometimes ‘God-given’) reasons for
behavior. For example, it is only natural, that two people should fall in love, get
married, live together, and raise a family. Such explanations are rejected as
inadequate by the sociologist. The individualistic explanation is rejected
because it does not recognize the importance of wider social forces acting on
the individual that he or she cannot control. The naturalistic explanation is
rejected because it fails to recognize that behavior patterns are not primarily
biologically determined but rather reflect social conventions learned by
individuals as members of social groups, or, more generally, society.

43
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 8. Sociology thus breaks away from both common sense observations and ideas as
well as from philosophical thought. It does not always or even generally lead to
spectacular results. But meaningful and unsuspected connections can be reached
only by sitting through masses of connections
• Great advances in sociological knowledge have been made, generally
incrementally and only rarely by a dramatic breakthrough. Sociology has
a body of concepts, methods and data, no matter how loosely
coordinated. This cannot be substituted by common sense. Common sense is
unreflective since it does not question its own origins. Or in other words it
does not ask itself: “Why do I hold this view?”
• The sociologist must be ready to ask of any of our beliefs, about ourselves-no
matter how cherished–“is this really so?” The systematic and questioning
approach of sociology is derived from a broader tradition of scientific
investigation. This emphasis on scientific procedures can be understood only
if we go back in time. And understand the context or social situation with
which the sociological perspective merged as sociology was greatly influenced
by the great developments in modern science.

How is sociological study different from the common sense?

1. Take any average person, we find that in the process of growing up, he has come to
arrive at a “theory” on almost all aspects of social life. He has a theory of good and
bad of marriage and family, city and country life, of making money or of joining
politics. Can such a theoretician be called a sociologist? Well, in a way Yes! He is an
amateur sociologist of sorts but no more. Unless we’re ready to call a stargazer an
astronomer, a peasant an agronomist and tribal living in a forest, a botanist.
2. Thus a common sense-based view of social life is not sociology. This holds true even
if sometimes we find that statement based on the folk wisdom come remarkably
close to sociological theories. For example, “give the dog a bad name and it will get
blamed for lot many things”. It is a piece of folk wisdom that does convey the
essence of Howard backer’s “Labelling Theory of Deviance” which says that a
person’s behavioural patterns is likely to be influenced by the types of labels given
to him. Go on calling somebody a vandal and it is quite likely that he might live up to
his reputation.
3. However, we need not be on the defensive about the special status of Sociology as
a specialized body of knowledge. Simply because even lay man tend to explore the
areas, which sociologists also do. What distinguishes Sociology from a common
sense is not an exclusive phenomena to explore but a different way to look at the
phenomena which others also can look at though not in the same way.

To repeat, sociology is essentially a special way of looking at the elements of social

life. This special way of looking at things is what makes sociology a systematic study. It is
important to identify the elements that are special to sociologist’s way of looking at things,
which are as follows:

44
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 • Sociology approaches social life from the “man – in – society” standpoint. It conveys
the dualistic and apparently paradoxical conception of social life. It means that
inclusive collectivity viz. society and its members exist in a relationship of
interdependence in which on one hand man are viewed as shaped by their groups
and group heritage on the other hand, individuals are viewed as creators of their
common society and culture. Illustrations of both these conceptions of social reality
can be seen in our earlier description of the elements of social life. We mentioned
that people behave in society as status occupants and by virtue of their behaviour
gets constrained by the need to conform to the role expectations. These role
expectations are defined by the norms of the society that are essential for collective
living. Further, while enacting this definite behaviour, people use symbols that are
collectively shared.
• The social behaviour is impossible without the knowledge of various aspects of
culture, namely values, norms, belief through socialisation. Thereby society gets
implanted in man and shapes his behaviour. Now this illustrates the first aspect
namely, “society creates man”. Evidence of second aspect of sociologists conception
of social life, that is, “Man Creates Society” can be found in our understanding of
social behaviour in terms of meanings ascribed by the individuals which form basis
for motives that underlie social action.
• Now these meanings and motives of the individual may differ from those commonly
shared by the group and therefore may lead to deviant behaviour on the part of
individuals that in turn may change the behaviour of the whole group. Christ, Lenin,
Gandhi was such individuals who could change their societies. Even the lesser
individuals do it to lesser extent.
• Sociology has a special and irrelevant attitudes towards social life Peter L
Berger has called it a “debunking attitudes towards world taking four granted”. In
his profession sociologists is a sceptic who refuses to accept the self – evident,
common sense-based view of the world at its face value, rather he makes a
deliberate attempt to go beyond the “visual” and the “apparent” to look for
the hidden patterns, implicit meanings, underlying causes and unintended
consequences.
• Sociologists work is to peep into people’s life and he does it with a passion to look
behind closed doors. In fact a popular textbook writer has noted that, an adolescent
who takes special delight in peeping into places, otherwise prohibited by norms of
decency, has the making of a perfect sociologists only he can retain the voyeuristic
curiosity throughout his professional career and directe it into all spheres of social
life.
• Illustrations of this debunking attitude can be found in the works of two great
sociologists and is nowhere more evident than in the study of religion, the most
venerated institution in the society. We can look at the views of Emily Durkheim and
Karl Marx who have made pioneering contributions to the growth of sociology. In
spite of the differences in their views on the role of religion both were alike in their
almost blasphemous views on religion.
• While discussing the consequences of religion for social life, Durkheim said that
the sociologists must distinguish between what believers thinks and what actually
happens. People might believe that by worshipping God together, they might be

45
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 given health, prosperity or wealth, but according to Durkheim what actually results
from such collective worships is increased social cohesiveness. According to him
religious beliefs including those related to the idea of God or any other sacred
objects are symbolic representations of the society. Thus by worshipping God one is
worshipping society.
• Now this makes a drastic break from the official view of religion. For example, the
Christians belief is “God created man in his own image” while Durkheim was saying
that “Society created God in its own image”. Same debunking attitude is found
more conspicuously by Karl Marx’s critique of religion. For him, religion in spite of its
past appearance and noble intentions is one of the instruments of exploitations of
the poor by the rich. It acts like a painkiller creating false sense of satisfaction among
the poor and therefore rendering them insensitive to the real cause of misery.
• These examples illustrate that the concern of sociological investigation is to
penetrate beyond the surface view of social life and seek explanations in terms of
underlying causes, meanings or unintended consequences of various social
phenomena. The reason due to which the sociologists are not contended with the
generally accepted view of social life can be traced to the circumstances of
sociology’s birth.
• Sociology was born in times of turmoil, when Europe was in the throes of
transition. The ancient regimes with their divinely obtain things, anointed Queen’s,
and noble courtiers had been destroyed by commoners like Napoleon and the world
of industrial bourgeoisie had taken its place. The trouble with the new world was
that though it was essentially a man-made world, yet it seemed to be perpetually
going out of control of its makers. Here, lay the cause of discontentment and
therefore the quest to know the world better by looking beyond the obvious. Hence
the rise of organised scepticism that became the hallmark of Sociology.
• Another important feature of Sociology’s way of looking at things is that it
approaches social life with the help of definite methods. Sociology being a late
comer, had the advantage of gaining from the experience of other branches of
knowledge in devising the methods of enquiry. But at the same time it had to face
the limitation of having to apply these methods to study the most complex of all
phenomena namely, human behaviour.

Conclusion:
• Thus, a statement made on common sense basis may be just a guess, a hunch, or a
haphazard way of saying something, generally based on ignorance, bias, prejudice or
mistaken interpretation, though occasionally it may be wise, true, and a useful bit of
knowledge. At one time, common sense statements might have preserved folk
wisdom but today, scientific method has become a common way of seeking truths
about our social world.
• Sociology has a special and irreverent attitude towards social life.
1. Peter L Berger has called it a “debunking attitude towards world taken for
granted.”

46
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 2. Durkheim “Common sense perceptions are prejudices which can mar the
scientific study of social world”
3. Alfred Schutz – organized, typified stocks of taken for granted knowledge and
generally not questioned.
4. Garfinkel – common sense produces a sense of organization and coherence
because people draw on implicit rules of how to carry on CSK through
socialization, individual experience, others’ experience.
• Three dimensions of culture have been distinguished :
1. Cognitive: This refers to how we learn to process what we hear or see, so as to
give it meaning dentifying the ring of a cell-phone as ours, recognizing the
cartoon of a politician).
2. Normative: This refers to rules of conduct (not opening other people’s letters,
performing rituals at death).
3. Material: This includes any activity made possible by means of materials.
Materials also include tools or machines. Examples include internet ‘chatting’,
using rice-flour paste to design kolam on floors.

Explanation of Poverty by Common sense

• People are poor because they are afraid of work, come from ‘problem families’ are
unable to budget properly, suffer from low intelligence and shiftlessness.

Explanation of Poverty by Sociologically

• Contemporary poverty is caused by the structure of inequality in class society and is

experienced by those who suffer from chronic irregularity of work and low wages.

47
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 2. Sociology as a Science
Science Scientific Method and Critique
Science is “a systematized body of knowledge”. An essential feature of scientific
knowledge is that it is based upon ‘sensory observation or empirical data’. Next, the
information acquired through sensory observation has been made meaningful and
manageable. Thus science tries to arrive at ‘law like explanatory generalizations’. For the
purpose of acquiring empirical data and for processing them into law like statements
science relies on a ‘method’. The basic elements of SCIENTIFIC METHOD are:

• Observation of an event that stimulates thinking.

• Defining or classifying the terms or events being considered.
• Formulating the research issue or hypothesis.
• Generating a theory or proposition – a general statement that serves as a potential
answer to the research question.
• Creating a research design in order to test whether the theory or proposition is valid.
• Collecting data-working through the research design to make observations.
• Analyzing the data
• Making conclusions and evaluating the theory

The earliest sciences to grow were physical and natural sciences. Due to their success in
exploring the physical and natural world and in being able to arrive at near universal laws,
they came to be viewed as models for other sciences to emulate.

Physical and natural sciences try to rely on measurement and quantification of data.
Quantification brings in exactitude and makes precise comparisons possible. Sociology,
being a late comer was also influenced and developed under the shadow of these positive
sciences. Early sociologists conceived Sociology as a positive science. For example,
influenced by biology, Herbert Spencer viewed society as an organism like entity; a
unified whole made up of interconnected parts. He advocated methods of positive
sciences to be used for the study of social phenomena.

Even Durkheim regarded Sociology to be a positive science. According to him social facts
constitute the subject matter of Sociology. He defined social facts in such a way that they
were amenable to sensory observation and exploratory generalization about them could
be made by using positive science methods. Subsequently, Radcliffe-Brown, Malinowski
and even Parsons continue to view Sociology as a positive science and so did most of the
Chicago School sociologists.

“Scientific Method is a systematic and objective attempt to study a problem for the
purpose of deriving general principles”. Robert Burns describes it as “a systematic
investigation to find solutions to a problem”. The investigation is guided by previously

48
www.lotusarise.com
collected information. Man’s knowledge grows by studying what is already known and
revising past knowledge in the light of new findings.

• While talking of research, sometimes we talk of empirical (scientific) research and

sometimes of library research, historical research, social research, and so
on. Empirical research involves observation of facts or interaction with
people. Library research is done in library situation. Historical research is the study of
history (e.g., functioning of caste system in different periods of history) or
biographical research (e.g., research into the life and times of Mahatma Gandhi).
Social research is a research that focuses on the study of human groups or the
processes of social interaction. Scientific research is building of knowledge through
collection of empirically verifiable facts. The term ‘verifiable’ here mans “which can
be checked by others for accuracy”
• Royce A. Singleton and Bruce C. Straits have said that “scientific social research
consists of the process of formulating and seeking answers to questions about the
social world”. For example, why do husbands batter their wives? Why do people
take drugs? What are the consequences of population explosion? And so on.
Similarly, the issues of inquiry may be of rural poverty, urban slums, youth crime,
political corruption, exploitation of the weak, environmental pollution, and the
like. To answer these questions, social scientists have devised basic guidelines,
principles and techniques. Scientific sociological research, broadly speaking, is
concerned with discovering, organizing and developing systematic reliable
knowledge about society or social life, social action, social behaviour, social relations,
social groups (like families, castes, tribes, communities, etc.), social organizations (like
social, religious, political, business, etc.), and social systems and social structures.
• Theodorson and Theodorson have maintained that scientific method is “building
of a body of scientific knowledge through observation, experimentation,
generalization and verification”. Their contention is that scientific inquiry develops
knowledge experienced through the senses, i.e., which is based on empirical
evidence. According to Manheim, scientific research involves a method
characterized by objectivity, accuracy and systematization. Objectivity eliminates
biases in fact-collection and interpretation: Accuracy makes sure that things are
exactly as described. Systematization aims at consistency and comprehension.
• The assumption is that any statement pertaining to any social phenomenon made
on the basis of scientific inquiry can be accepted as true and meaningful, if it is
empirically verifiable. Thus, individual’s idiosyncratic observations not shared by all
scientists are not regarded as ‘scientific facts’. For example, a statement that “skilled
workers are more undisciplined than non-skilled workers” lacks empirical validity;
hence no one will accept it as a ‘scientific fact’. But, if a statement is given that “the
important cause of child’s delinquent behaviour is a disorganized family”, it will be
taken as scientific, considering it a proposition which has been found valid in a
number of studies. “About whom” the facts will be collected in a scientific inquiry will
depend upon the ‘focus of the discipline’ to which the researcher belongs. If the
researcher is a sociologist, he will collect facts about social phenomena or social
world.

49
www.lotusarise.com
 • Although scientific research method depends on the collection of empirical facts,
yet facts alone do not constitute a science. For meaningful understanding facts
must be ordered in some fashion, analysed, generalized, and related to other facts.
Thus, theory construction is a vital part of the scientific inquiry. Since facts
collected and findings evolved through the scientific method are interrelated with
the previous findings of other scholars or earlier theories, scientific knowledge is a
cumulative process.
• The scientific method could either be an inductive method or the deductive
method. Inductive method involves establishing generalizations, i.e., building
generalizations inferred from specific facts, or drawing particular principles from
general instances, while Deductive method involves testing generalizations, i.e., it is
the process of reasoning from general principles to particular instances.

Characteristics of Scientific Research

Horton and Hunt have given following characteristics of scientific method :

1. Verifiable evidence, i.e., factual observations which other observers can see and
check.
2. Accuracy, i.e., describing what really exists. It means truth or correctness of a
statement or describing things exactly as they are and avoiding jumping to
unwarranted conclusions either by exaggeration or fantasizing.
3. Precision, i.e., making it as exact as necessary, or giving exact number or
measurement. Instead of saying, “I interviewed a large number of people”, one says, “I
interviewed 493 persons”. Instead of saying, “most of the people were against family
planning”, one says, “seventy-two per cent people were against family planning”.
Thus, in scientific precision, one avoids colorful literature and vague meanings. How
much precision is needed in social science will depend upon what the situation
requires.
4. Systematization, i.e., attempting to find all the relevant data, or collecting data in a
systematic and organized way so that the conclusions drawn are reliable. Data based
on casual recollections are generally incomplete and give unreliable judgments and
conclusions.
5. Objectivity, i.e., being free from all biases and vested interests. It means, observation
is unaffected by the observer’s values, beliefs and preferences to the extent possible
and he is able to see and accept facts as they are, not as he might wish them to be.
The researcher remains detached from his emotions, prejudices and needs, and
guards his biases.
6. Recording, i.e., jotting down complete details as quickly as possible. Since human
memory is falliable, all data collected are recorded. Researcher will not depend on
the recalled facts but will analyse the problem on the basis of the recorded data.
Conclusions based on recalled unrecorded data are not trust worthy.
7. Controlling conditions, i.e., controlling all variables except one and then attempting
to examine what happens when that variable is varied. This is the basic technique in
all scientific experimentation-allowing one variable to vary while holding all other
variables constant. Unless all variables except one have been controlled, we cannot

50
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 be sure which variable has produced the results. Though a physical scientist is able to
control as many variables as he wishes in an experiment he conducts in the
laboratory but a social scientist cannot control all variables as he wishes. He functions
under many constraints.
8. Training investigators, i.e., imparting necessary knowledge to investigators to make
them understand what to look for, how to interpret it and avoid inaccurate data
collection. When some remarkable observations are reported, the scientist first tries
to know what is the observer’s level of education, training and sophistication. Does he
really understand facts he reports? The scientists are always impressed by
authenticated reports.

Major Steps in Scientific Research

According to Theodorson and Theodorson, scientific method involves the following steps
:

1. The problem is defined.

2. The problem is stated in terms of a particular theoretical framework and related to
relevant findings of previous research.
3. A hypothesis (or hypotheses) relating to the problem is devised, utilizing previously
accepted theoretical principles.
4. The procedure to be used in gathering data to test the hypothesis is determined.
5. The data regathered.
6. The data are analysed to determine if the hypothesis is verified or rejected.
7. Finally, The conclusions of the study are related to the original body of
theory, which is modified
in accordance with the new findings.

Kenneth D. Baily has delineated five stages of social research :

1. Choosing the research problem and stating the hypotheses;

2. Formulating the research design;
3. Gathering the data;
4. Analyzing the data; and
5. Interpreting the results so as to test the hypotheses

Horton and Hunt have pointed out eight steps in scientific research or scientific method
of investigation:

1. Define the problem, which is worth studying through the methods of science.
2. Review literature, so that errors of other research scholars may not be repeated.
3. Formulate the hypothesis, i.e., propositions which can be tested.
4. Plan the research design, i.e., outlining the process as to how, what and where the
data is to be collected, processed and analysed.

51
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 5. Collect the data, i.e., actual collection of facts and information in accordance with
the research design. Sometimes it may become necessary to change the design to
meet some unforeseen difficulty.
6. Analyse the data, i.e., classify, tabulate and compare the data, making whatever tests
are necessary to get the results.
7. Draw conclusions, i.e., whether the original hypothesis is found true or false and is
confirmed or rejected, or are the results inconclusive? What has the research added
to our knowledge? What implications have it for sociological theory? What new
questions have been posed for further research?
8. Replicate the study. Though the above-mentioned seven steps complete a single
research study but research findings are confirmed by replication. Only after several
researches can the research conclusions be accepted as generally true.

The important uses of scientific research in Sociology are:

1. It improves decision-making;
2. It reduces uncertainty;
3. It enables adopting new strategies;
4. It helps in planning for the future; and
5. It helps in ascertaining trends.

It is because of this value of scientific research that today many sociologists are engaged in
research some on full-time basis and some on part-time basis. Many university teachers
divide their time between teaching and research. The funds for research are provided by
the UGC, UCSSR, UNICEF, Ministry of Welfare and Justice, Government of India, World Bank.

The scientific inquiry should not be conducted when availability of adequate data is
doubtful, there is time constraint, cost (of inquiry) is higher than value, and no tactical
decisions need to be made.

Critique Proposition:
However, the attempts to build Sociology as a positive science were criticized by Non
Positivist and Anti-Positivist. Critics have raised many questions regarding this.
Following are some of the main limitations which come in the way of Sociology being a
Positive Science:

1. Problem of Experimentation: Experimentation is crucial in scientific observation to

establish precise relationships between different variables. However,
experimentation is only rarely possible in Sociology. The limitations are both practical
and ethical. It is practically not possible to control human behaviour in a laboratory
like situation and it is even ethnically undesirable to treat humans like guinea and
pigs. However, experimentation is not essential feature of a science. There are mature
sciences like astronomy where experiments cannot be conducted. Thus inability to

52
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 conduct experiments does not automatically disqualify Sociology from being a
science.
2. Problem of Quantification: Although some aspects of sociological phenomena can
be quantified using statistical methods. But, a large part of it is essentially qualitative
in nature and hence are not amendable to quantitative techniques. Even, the
attempts of Neo-positivist to apply quantitative techniques to sociological
phenomena have met with little success.
3. Problem of Generalization: Sociologists have not being successful in arriving at law-
like generalizations through their studies. The reason for this failure lies in the very
nature of the subject matter of Sociology. Human behaviour does not follow
recurrent patterns like physical objects. Man is volitional by nature and human
volition plays an important role in shaping human behaviour. Quite often some of
the human behaviour is unique and unrepeatable, further more due to inability carry
out experimentation, precise causal relations cannot be established. At best
sociologists can establish statistical correlations. The generalizations which
sociologist make are often in the nature of statements, representing trends of
tendency statements.
4. Problem of Objectivity : Objectivity refers to a frame of mind whereby the personal
prejudices and predilections of the scientists do not contaminate the collection and
analysis of data. However, it has been found that objectivity is a near impossibility in
sociological research. At best the sociologist can try to minimize subjectivity.

53
www.lotusarise.com
 Major Theoretical Strands in Research
Methodology

Facts never interpret themselves. To make sense out of life, we use our common sense. That
is, to understand our experiences (our “facts”), we place them into a framework of more-or-
less related ideas. Sociologists do this, too, but they place their observations into a
conceptual framework called a theory. A theory is a general statement about how some
parts of the world fit together and how they work. It is an explanation of how two or more
“facts” are related to one another.

Functionalism
1. The central idea of functional analysis is that society is a whole unit, made up of
interrelated parts that work together. Functional analysis (also known as
functionalism and structural functionalism) is rooted in the origins of sociology.
Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer viewed society as a kind of living organism. Just
as a person or animal has organs that function together, they wrote, so does society.
And like an organism, if society is to function smoothly, its parts must work together
in harmony.
2. Emile Durkheim also viewed society as being composed of many parts, each with its
own function. When all the parts of society fulfill their functions, society is in a
“normal” state. If they do not fulfill their functions, society is in an “abnormal” or
“pathological” state. To understand society, then, functionalists say that we need to
look at both structure (how the parts of a society fit together to make the whole) and
function (what each part does, how it contributes to society).
3. Robert Merton and Functionalism. Robert Merton (1910–2003) dismissed the organic
analogy, but he did maintain the essence of functionalism—the image of society as a
whole composed of parts that work together. Merton used the term functions to
refer to the beneficial consequences of people’s actions: Functions help keep a group
(society, social system) in balance. In contrast, dysfunctions are consequences that
harm a society: They undermine a system’s equilibrium.
4. Functions can be either manifest or latent. If an action is intended to help some part
of a system, it is a manifest function. For example, suppose that government officials
become concerned about our low rate of childbirth. Congress offers a $10,000 bonus
for every child born to a married couple. The intention, or manifest function, of the
bonus is to increase childbearing within the family unit. Merton pointed out that
people’s actions can also have latent functions; that is, they can have unintended
consequences that help a system adjust. Let’s suppose that the bonus works. As the
birth rate jumps, so does the sale of diapers and baby furniture. Because the benefits
to these businesses were not the intended consequences, they are latent functions of
the bonus.

54
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 5. Of course, human actions can also hurt a system. Because such consequences usually
are unintended, Merton called them latent dysfunctions. Let’s assume that the
government has failed to specify a “stopping point” with regard to its bonus system.
To collect more bonuses, some people keep on having children. The more children
they have, however, the more they need the next bonus to survive. Large families
become common, and poverty increases. Welfare is reinstated, taxes jump, and the
nation erupts in protest. Because these results were not intended and because they
harmed the social system, they would be latent dysfunctions of the bonus program.
6. In Sum: From the perspective of functional analysis, society is a functioning unit, with
each part related to the whole. Whenever we examine a smaller part, we need to
look for its functions and dysfunctions to see how it is related to the larger unit. This
basic approach can be applied to any social group, whether an entire society, a
college, or even a group as small as a family.

Criticisms of Functionalism
1. The conflict theorists regard the functionalist approach as Utopian in nature and
emphasize the need to study conflict in systems of stratification as a universal, all
pervasive and an omnipresent phenomena.
2. The conflict theorists say that all societies are characterized by some degree of
constraint, disagreement, uncertainty, control dysfunctional and coercions that can’t
be ignored.
3. However, unlike the functionalists, the conflict theorists do say that, conflict leads to
stability and consensus in society.
4. It becomes important to study also the nature of consensus and equilibrium in a
given system with conflict.

Marxism(Conflict Perspectives)
1. The conflict perspective views society as composed of diverse groups with conflicting
values and interests. In any society, these groups have differential access to wealth,
power, and prestige. The most important aspects of the conflict perspective are the
Marxian approach, which focuses on economic determinism and the importance of
social class, and the neoconflict approach, which focuses on differential power and
authority.
2. The Marxian Approach to Conflict: The theoretical roots of the conflict perspective
can be traced to Karl Marx. Often, the values and interests of different groups conflict
with one another. According to Marx, these conflicts are determined by economics
and are based on social class, and the struggle between the different values and
interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is inevitable. When these battles
occur, the dominant group attempts to force its values and ideology on less powerful
groups. The result is the domination and exploitation of the masses (the proletariat)
by the rich and powerful members of society (the bourgeoisie). The conflict
55
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 perspective is not solely Marxist sociology, however; today conflict theorists often
take a neoconflict approach.
3. The Neoconflict Approach: Social conflict can be viewed as a necessary and even
functional social process. From this perspective, conflict necessitates negotiation and
compromise; hence it can produce order and a reaffirmation of the social structure.
In a diverse nation like the United States, conflict between racial, ethnic, religious,
age, gender, and political groups is inevitable but not necessarily destructive. For
example, attempts to balance the national budget have typically been thwarted by
bickering over what areas of the budget should be increased and which should be
cut.
4. Those dependent on Medicare and Social Security resist cuts to those programs and
would rather see cuts in, for example, the defence budget or federal aid to tobacco
growers. Meanwhile, Pentagon officials and cigarette manufacturers are not about to
sit back and allow legislators to balance the budget at their expense. Both sides
employ powerful lobbyists to persuade legislators to vote for their relative interests.
These political and ideological quarrels are marked by compromises or tradeoffs that
may not satisfy either group but also do not allow one interest to totally dominate
the other. When society is confronted by an external threat, these internal conflicts
may decrease, for, as is often said, nothing unites a group like a common enemy.
From this perspective, conflict is dysfunctional only if it threatens one or more of
society’s core values.
5. Neoconflict theorists also contend that class conflict in industrialized countries is
not so much a struggle over the means of production (as Marx argued) but rather a
result of the unequal distribution of authority For example, the differing power and
prestige of college professors and students sometimes lead to tension and conflict
between the two groups that has nothing to do with the ownership of property or
the means of production. This version of the conflict perspective focuses on
differences in power and authority and the exploitation of some groups by other,
more powerful groups. A good example of this approach can be seen in the work of
C.Wright Mills.
6. C. Wright Mills and the “Power Elite” C.Wright Mills promoted the conflict
perspective for analyzing the distribution of power and authority in the United
States. In The Power Elite (1956), he contended that post–World War II U.S. society
was dominated by a powerful military, industrial, and political elite that shaped
foreign and domestic policy for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful class. His
approach focused on historical and structural analyses of class conflict and the uses
of ideology for domination.

Symbolic Interactionism (Interactionism)

The symbolic interactionist perspective views social meaning as arising through the
process of social interaction. Contemporary symbolic interactionism rests on three basic
premises:

56
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 • Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that they attach to
Them.
• These meanings are derived from, or arise out of, social interaction with others.
• These meanings may be changed or modified through the processes of interaction
and interpretation.

1. Symbols in Everyday Life. Without symbols, our social life would be no more
sophisticated than that of animals. For example, without symbols we would have no
aunts or uncles, employers or teachers—or even brothers and sisters. This sounds
strange, but it is symbols that define our relationships. There would still be
reproduction, of course, but no symbols to tell us how we are related to whom. We
would not know to whom we owe respect and obligations, or from whom we can
expect privileges—the essence of human relationships.
2. Look at it like this: If you think of someone as your aunt or uncle, you behave one way,
but if you think of that person as a boyfriend or girlfriend, you behave quite
differently. It is the symbol that
tells you how you are related to others—and how you should act toward them.
3. Let’s make this a little less abstract. Consider this example: Suppose that you have
fallen head over heels in love. Finally, after what seems forever, it is the night
before your wedding. As you are contemplating tomorrow’s bliss, your mother
comes to you in tears. Sobbing, she tells you that she had a child before she
married your father, a child that she gave up for adoption. Breaking down, she
says that she has just discovered that the person you are going to marry is this
child. You can see how the symbol will change overnight—and your behavior, too! It is
not only relationships that depend on symbols to exist, but even society itself.
Without symbols, we could not coordinate our actions with those of others. We could
not make plans for a future day, time, and place. Unable to specify times, materials,
sizes, or goals, we could not build bridges and highways. Without symbols, there
would be no movies or musical instruments. We would have no hospitals, no
government, no religion.
4. Proponents of this perspective, often referred to as the interactionist perspective,
engage in microlevel analysis, which focuses on the day-to-day interactions of
individuals and groups in specific social situations. Three major concepts important
for understanding this theoretical approach include meaningful symbols, the
definition of the situation, and the looking-glass self. In addition, two important types
of theoretical analysis fit within the interactionist perspective: dramaturgical analysis
and the labelling approach.
5. Meaningful Symbols: George H. Mead (1863–1931) insisted that the ongoing process
of social interaction and the creating, defining, and redefining of meaningful symbols
make society possible. Meaningful symbols are sounds, objects, colors, and events
that represent something other than themselves and are critical for understanding
social interaction. Language is one of the most important and powerful meaningful
symbols humans have created, because it allows us to communicate through the
shared meaning of words.
6. Definition of the Situation: Definition of the situation refers to the idea that “if
[people] define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas and

57
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 Thomas, 1928:572). Simply put, people define social reality through a process of give
and- take interaction. Once a definition is established, it shapes all further
interactions. For example, have you ever decided that you were “in love” with
someone? If so, how did that change the way you interacted with that person?
Conversely, what happens when a married couple decides they are no longer in love?
If they define their marriage as meaningless or decide they have irreconcilable
differences, how does that affect their relationship? Is a marriage likely to survive if
both partners have defined it as “over”?
7. The Looking-Glass Self : The looking-glass self refers to the idea that an individual’s
self-concept is largely a reflection of how he or she is perceived by other members of
society (Cooley, [1902] 1922). Society is used as a mirror to reflect a feeling of selfpride,
self-doubt, self-worth, or self-loathing. These important elements of symbolic
interactionism contribute to socialization and the process of becoming human as we
establish our personal and social identities.
8. Dramaturgical Analysis: A useful theoretical framework within symbolic
interactionism, dramaturgical analysis, uses the analogy of the theatre to analyze
social behavior. In this approach, people are viewed as actors occupying roles as they
play out life’s drama. In real life, people do not passively accept others’ definitions of
the situation nor the social identities assigned to them. Rather, they take an active
part in the drama, manipulating the interaction to present themselves in the most
positive light. Thus, people often use impression management to communicate
favorable impressions of themselves (Goffman, 1959).
9. The Labeling Approach: Another theoretical viewpoint within symbolic
interactionism is the labeling approach, which contends that people attach various
labels to certain behaviors, individuals, and groups that become part of their social
identity and shape others’ attitudes about and responses to them. For example, in
Outsiders, Howard Becker (1963) explored the fascinating world of jazz musicians
and how their non-traditional music, penchant for marijuana, and open racial
integration during the 1950s led mainstream Americans to label them “deviant.” The
influence of the Chicago School and symbolic interactionism waned in the late
1950s, when a faction of sociologists argued that its approach was too dependent on
ethnographic studies, personal observations, interviews, and subjective
interpretations. Insisting that sociology must be more scientific, or at least, as Comte
had envisioned, more positivistic, this group believed that sociology should rely more
heavily on quantifiable data, facts, figures, and statistics. This led to the development
of the Iowa School of symbolic interaction and also fueled a revival of structural
functionalism.

Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism (Interactionism)

1. Interactionists have often been accused of examining human interaction in a
vacuum. They have tended to focus on small-scale face to face interaction with
little concern for its historical or social settings(Marxian Criticism).
2. They have concentrated on particular situations and encounters with little reference
to the historical events which led up to them or the wider social framework in which

58
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 they occur. Since these factors influence the particular interaction situation, the
scant attention they have received has been regarded as a serious omission.
3. While symbolic interactionism provides a corrective to the excesses of societal
determinism, many critics have argued that it has gone too far in this direction.
Though they claim that action is not determined by structural norms, interactionists
do admit the presence of such norms. However, they tend to take them as given
rather than explaining their origin.
4. As William Skidmore comments, the interactionists largely fail to explain ‘why
people consistently choose to act in given ways in certain situations, instead of in all
the other ways they might possibly have acted’. In stressing the flexibility and
freedom of human action the interactionists tend to downplay the constraints on
action. In Skidmore’s view this is due to the fact that ‘interactionism consistently
fails to give an account of social structure’. In other words it fails to adequately
explain how standardized normative behaviour comes about and why members of
society are motivated to act in terms of social norms.
5. Similar criticism has been made with reference to what many see as the failure of
interactionists to explain the source of the meanings to which they attach such
importance. Critics argue that such meanings are not spontaneously created in
interaction situations. Instead they are systematically generated by the social
structure.
6. Marxists have argued that the meanings which operate in face to face interaction
situations are largely the product of class relationships. From this viewpoint,
interactionists have failed to explain the most significant thing about meanings: the
source of their origin.
7. Interactionism is a distinctly American branch of sociology and to some this partly
explains its shortcomings. Thus Leon Shaskolsky has argued that interactionism is
largely a reflection of the cultural ideals of American society. He claims that ‘
interactionism has its roots deeply imbedded in the cultural environment of
American life, and its interpretation of society is, in a sense, a “looking glass” image of
what that society purports to be’. Thus the emphasis on liberty, freedom and
individuality in interactionism can be seen in part as a reflection of America’s view of
itself.

Phenomenology
• Phenomenological perspectives in sociology argue that the subject matter of the
social and natural sciences is fundamentally different. As a result the methods
and assumptions of the natural sciences are inappropriate to the study of man.
• The natural sciences deal with matter. To understand and explain the behaviour of
matter it is sufficient to observe it from the outside. Atoms and molecules do not
have consciousness. They do not have meanings and purposes which direct their
behaviour. Matter simply reacts ‘unconsciously’ to external stimuli; in scientific
language it behaves. As a result the natural scientist is able to observe, measure,

59
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 and impose an external logic on that behaviour in order to explain it. He has no
need to explore the internal logic of the consciousness of matter simply because it
does not exist.
1. Unlike matter, man has consciousness-thoughts, feelings, meanings,
intentions and an awareness of being. Because of this, his actions are
meaningful; he defines situations and gives meaning to his actions and those
of others. As a result, he does not merely react to external stimuli, he does not
simply behave, he acts. For Example, imagine the response of early man to
fire caused by volcanoes or spontaneous combustion. He did not simply
react in a uniform manner to the experience of heat. He attached a range of
meanings to it and these meanings directed his actions. For example he
defined fire as a means of warmth and used it to heat his dwellings; as a means
of defence and used it to ward off wild animals; and as a means of
transforming substances and employed it for cooking and hardening the
points of wooden spears. Man does not just react to fire; he acts upon it in
terms of the meanings he gives to it.
2. If action stems from subjective meanings, it follows that the sociologist
must discover those meanings in order to understand action. He cannot
simply observe action from the outside and impose an external logic upon it.
He must interpret the internal logic which directs the actions of the actor.
3. Max Weber was one of the first sociologists to outline this perspective in
detail. He argued that sociological explanations of action should begin
with ‘the observation and theoretical interpretation of the subjective “states
of minds” of actors’.

Analysis of Phenomenology
1. As the previous section indicated, interactionism adopts a similar approach with
particular emphasis on the process of interaction. While positivists emphasize facts
and cause and effect relationships, interactionists emphasize insight and
understanding. Since it is not possible to get inside the heads of actors, the discovery
of meaning must be based on interpretation and intuition. For this reason objective
measurement is not possible and the exactitude of the natural sciences cannot be
duplicated. Since meanings are constantly negotiated in ongoing interaction
processes it is not possible to establish simple cause and effect relationships. Thus
some sociologist argues that sociology is limited to an interpretation of social
action and phenomenological approaches are sometimes referred to as
‘interpretive sociology’.
2. A number of sociologists have argued that the positivist approach has produced a
distorted picture of social life. They see it as tending to portray man as a passive
responder to external stimuli rather than an active creator of his own society. Man is
pictured as reacting to various forces and pressures to economic infrastructures and
the requirements of social systems.
3. Peter Berger argues that society has often been viewed as a puppet theatre with its
members portrayed as ‘little puppets jumping about on the ends of their invisible
strings, cheerfully acting out the parts that have been assigned to them’. Society
60
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 instills values, norms and roles, and men dutifully respond like puppets on a
string. However, from a phenomenological perspective man does not merely react
and respond to an external society, he is not simply acted upon, he acts. In his
interaction with others he creates his own meanings and constructs his own
reality and therefore directs his own actions.

Ethnomethodology
1. Roughly translated, ethnomethodology means the study of the methods used by
people. It is concerned with examining the methods and procedures employed by
members of society to construct, account for and give meaning to their social
world.
2. Ethnomethodologists draw heavily on the European tradition of
phenomenological philosophy and in particular acknowledge a debt to the ideas
of the philosopher-sociologist Alfred Schutz.
3. Many Ethnomethodologists begin with the assumption that society exists only in
so far as members perceive its existence. With this emphasis on member’s views
of social reality, ethnomethodology is generally regarded as a phenomenological
approach. Ethnomethodology is a developing perspective which contains a
diversity of viewpoints.
4. One of the major concerns of sociology is the explanation of social order. From the
results of numerous investigations it appears that social life is ordered and regular
and that social action is systematic and patterned. Typically the sociologist has
assumed that social order has an objective reality.
5. Ethnomethodologists either suspend or abandon the belief that an actual or
objective social order
exists. Instead they proceed from the assumption that social life appears orderly to
members of society.
6. Thus in the eyes of members their everyday activities seem ordered and systematic
but this order is not necessarily due to the intrinsic nature or inherent qualities of the
social world. In other words it may not actually exist. Rather it may simply appear to
exist because of the way members perceive and interpret social reality. Social order
therefore becomes a convenient fiction, an appearance of order constructed by
members of society. This appearance allows the social world to be described and
explained and so made knowable, reasonable, understandable and ‘accountable’ to
its members.
7. The methods and accounting procedures used by members for creating a sense of
order form the subject matter of ethnomethodological enquiry. Zimmerman and
Wieder state that the ethnomethodologist is ‘concerned with how members of
society go about the task of seeing, describing and explaining order in the world in
which they live’.
8. Ethnomethodologists are highly critical of other branches of sociology. They argue
that ‘conventional’ sociologists have misunderstood the nature of social reality. They

61
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 have treated the social world as if it had an objective reality which is independent of
members’ accounts and interpretations. Thus they have regarded aspects of the
social world such as suicide and crime as facts with an existence of their own. They
have then attempted to provide explanations for these ‘facts’. By
contrast, ethnomethodologist argues that the social world consists of nothing
more than the constructs, interpretations and accounts of its members. The job of
the sociologist is therefore to explain the methods and accounting procedures
which members employ to construct their social world. According to
Ethnomethodologists, this is the very job that mainstream sociology has failed to do.
9. Ethnomethodologist sees little difference between conventional sociologists and
the man in the street. They argue that the methods employed by sociologists in their
research are basically similar to those used by members of society in their everyday
lives. Members employing the documentary method are constantly theorizing,
drawing relationships between activities and making the social world appear orderly
and systematic. They then treat the social world as if it had an objective reality
separate from themselves.
10. Ethnomethodologists argue that the procedures of conventional sociologists are
essentially similar. They employ the documentary method, theorize and draw
relationships and construct a picture of an orderly and systematic social system. They
operate reflexively like any other member of society. Thus when a functionalist sees
behaviour as an expression of an underlying pattern of shared values, he also used
instances of that behaviour as evidence for the existence of the pattern. By means of
their accounting procedures members construct a picture of society. In this sense the
man in the street is his own sociologist. Ethnomethodologists see little to choose
between the pictures of society which he creates and those provided by
conventional sociologists.

Critique to Ethnomethodology:
1. Ethnomethodology has labeled as conventional or ‘folk’ sociology. Its critics have
argued that the members who populate the kind of society portrayed by
Ethnomethodologists appear to lack any motives and goals.
2. As Anthony Giddens remarks, there is little reference to ‘the pursuance of practical
goals or interests’. There is little indication in the writings of Ethnomethodologists as
to why people want to behave or are made to behave in particular ways. Nor is there
much consideration of the nature of power in the social world and the possible
effects of differences in power on members behaviour.
3. As Gouldner notes, ‘The process by which social reality becomes defined and
established is not viewed by Garfinkel as entailing a process of struggle among
competing groups’ definitions of reality, and the outcome, the common sense
conception of the world, is not seen as having been shaped by institutionally
protected power differences’.
4. Critics have argued that Ethnomethodologists have failed to give due
consideration to the fact that members’ accounting procedures are conducted
within a system of social relationships involving differences in power. Many
Ethnomethodo-logists appear to dismiss everything which is not recognized and
62
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 accounted for by members of society. They imply that if members do not recognize
the existence of objects and events, they are unaffected by them. But as John H.
Goldthorpe pointedly remarks in his criticism of ethnomethodology, ‘If for instance, it
is bombs and napalm that are zooming down, members do not have to be oriented
towards them in any particular way, or at all, in order to be killed by them’. Clearly
members do not have to recognize certain constraints in order for their behaviour to
be affected by them. As Goldthorpe notes, with reference to the above example,
death ‘limits interaction in a fairly decisive way’. Finally, the Ethnomethodologists’
criticism of mainstream sociology can be redirected to themselves.
5. As Giddens remarks, ‘any ethnomethodo-logical account must display the same
characteristics as it claims to discern in the accounts of lay actors’.
Ethnomethodologists’ accounting procedures therefore become a topic for study
like those of conventional sociologists or any other member of society. In theory the
process of accounting for accounts is never ending. Carried to its extreme, the
ethnomethodological position implies that nothing is every knowable. Whatever its
shortcomings, however, ethnomethodology asks interesting questions.

63
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 Positivism and Its Critique
Many of the founding fathers of sociology believed that it would be possible to create a
science of society based on the same principles and procedures as the natural sciences
such as chemistry and biology. This approach is known as positivism. Auguste Comte
(1798-1857), who is credited with inventing the term sociology and regarded as one of
the founders of the discipline, maintained that the application of the methods and
assumptions of the natural sciences would produce a ‘positive science of society’. He
believed that this would reveal that the evolution of society followed ‘invariable laws’. It
would show that the behaviour of man was governed by principles of cause and effect
which were just as invariable as the behaviour of matter, the subject of the natural
sciences.

The positivist approach makes the following assumptions:

1. The behaviour of man, like the behaviour of matter, can be objectively

measured. Just as the behaviour of matter can be quantified by measures such as
weight, temperature and pressure, methods of “objective measurement” can be
devised for human behaviour. Such measurement is essential to explain behaviour.
For example, in order to explain the reaction of a particular chemical to heat, it is
necessary to provide exact measurements of temperature, weight and so on.
2. With the aid of such measurements it will be possible to accurately observe the
behaviour of matter and produce a statement of cause and effect. This statement
might read A+B=C where A is a quantity of matter, B a degree of heat and C a volume
of gas. Once it has been shown that the matter in question always reacts in the same
way under fixed conditions, a theory can be devised to explain its behaviour.
3. From a positivist viewpoint such methods and assumptions are applicable to
human behaviour. Observations of behaviour based on objective measurement will
make it possible to produce statements of cause and effect. Theories may then be
devised to explain observed behaviour.

The positivist approach in sociology places particular emphasis on behaviour that can
be directly observed. It argues that factors which are not directly observable, such as
meanings, feelings and purposes, are not particularly important and can be misleading. For
example, if the majority of adult members of society enter into marriage and produce
children, these facts can be observed and quantified. They therefore form reliable data.
However, the range of meanings that members of society give to these activities, their
purposes for marriage and procreation are not directly observable. Even if they could be
accurately measured, they may well divert attention from the real cause of behaviour. One
individual may believe he entered marriage because he was lonely, another because he
was in love, a third because it was the ‘thing to do’ and a fourth because he wished to
produce offspring. Reliance on this type of data for explanation assumes that individuals
know the reasons for marriage. This can
obscure the real cause of their behaviour.

64
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
The positivists’ emphasis on observable ‘facts’ is due largely to the belief that human
behaviour can be explained in much the same way as the behaviour of matter. Natural
scientists do not inquire into the meanings and purposes of matter for the obvious reason
of their absence. Atoms and molecules do not act in terms of meanings; they simply react
to external stimuli. Thus if heat, an external stimulus, is applied to matter, that matter will
react. The job of the natural scientist is to observe, measure, and then explain that reaction.
The positivist approach to human social behaviour applies a similar logic. Men react to
external stimuli and their behaviour can be explained in terms of this reaction. For example
Man and Women enter into marriage and produce children in response to the demands of
society. Society requires such behaviour for its survival and its members simply respond to
this requirement. The meanings and purposes they attach to this behaviour are largely
inconsequential.

Systems theory in sociology adopts a positivist approach. Once behaviour is seen as a

response to some external stimulus, such as economic forces or the requirements of the
social system, the methods and assumptions of the natural sciences appear appropriate to
the study of man.

Marxism has often been regarded as a positivist approach since it can be argued that it
sees human behaviour as a reaction to the stimulus of the economic infrastructure.

Functionalism has been viewed in a similar light. The behaviour of members of society
an be seen as a response to the functional prerequisites of the social system.

The study of society and social phenomena till the middle of the nineteenth century was
made mostly on the basis of speculation, logic, theological thinking and rational
analysis. August Comte, a French philosopher, described these methods inadequate and
insufficient in the study of social life. In 1848, he proposed positive method in the field of
social research. He maintained that social phenomena should be studied not through
logic or theological principles or metaphysical theories but rather in society itself and in
the structure of social relations. For example, he explained poverty in terms of the social
forces that dominate society. He described this method of study as scientific. Comte
considered scientific method, called positivism, as the most appropriate tool of social
research. This new methodology rejected speculation and philosophical approach and
focused on gathering of empirical data and became positivistic methodology, using similar
methods as employed by natural sciences. By the 1930s, positivism came to flourish in the
USA and gradually other countries also followed the trend.

Critique to Positivism:
• Comte’s positivism was criticized both from within and outside the positivist
domain. Within positivism, a branch called logical positivism was developed in early
twentieth century which claimed that science is both logical and also based on
observable facts and that the truth of any statement lies in its verification through
sensory experience.

65
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 • Out side positivism developed schools of thought like symbolic interactionism,
phenomenology and ethnomethodology, etc. These schools questioned the
positivist methodology and its perception of social reality.
• But Positivism came to be accepted more in the 1950s and 1960s onwards by the
academics. Today some writers refer to the emergence of a new stage of research,
the post-empiricist research marked by the notion that the scientific method is
not the only source of knowledge, truth and validity. Thus, today, sociological
methodology is no longer based on positivist methodology as in the past but it has
become a body of diverse methods and techniques, all of which are perceived as
valid and legitimate in social research.

66
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
 Fact Value and Objectivity
Fact and theory
There is an intricate relation between theory and fact. The popular understanding of this
relationship obscures more than it illuminates. They are generally conceived as direct
opposites. Theory is confused with speculation and theory remains speculation until it is
proved. When this proof is made, theory becomes fact. Facts are thought to be definite,
certain, without question and their meaning to be self-evident.

Science is thought to be concerned with facts alone. Theory is supposed to be realm of

philosophers. Scientific theory is therefore thought to be merely summation of facts that
have been accumulated upon a given subject.

However if we observe the way scientists actually do research, it becomes clear

1. Theory and fact are not diametrically opposed but inextricably intertwined.
2. The theory is not speculation.
3. Scientists are very much concerned with both theory and facts.

A fact is regarded as an empirically verifiable observation. A theory refers to the relationship

between facts or to the ordering of them in some meaningful way. Facts of science are the
product of observations that are not random but meaningful, i.e., theoretically relevant.
Therefore we cannot think of facts and theory as being opposed rather they are
interrelated in many complex ways. The development of science can be considered as a
constant interplay between theory and fact.

Theory is a tool of science in these ways;

1. It defines the major orientation of a science, by defining the kinds of data that are to
be abstracted.
2. It offers a conceptual scheme by which the relevant phenomena are systematized,
classified and
3. interrelated.
4. It summarizes facts into empirical generalizations and systems of generalizations.
5. It predicts facts and
6. It points to gaps in our knowledge.

On the other hand, facts are also productive of theory in these ways :

1. Facts help to initiate theories.

2. They lead to the reformulation of existing theory.
3. They cause rejection of theories that do not fit the facts.
4. They change the focus and orientation of theory and
5. They clarify and redefine theory.

67
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
There is interplay between theory and fact. Although popular opinion thinks of theory as
being opposed to fact since theory is mere speculation, observation of what scientists
actually do suggests that fact and theory stimulate each other. The growth of science is
seen is seen in new facts and new theory. Facts take their ultimate meaning from the
theories which summarize them, classify them, predict them, point them out and define
them.

However theory may direct the scientific process, facts in turn play a significant role in the
development of theory. New and anomalous facts may initiate new theories. New
observations lead to the rejection and reformulation of existing theory or may demand that
we redefine our theories. Concepts which had seemed definite in meaning are clarified by
the specific facts relating to them. The sociologist must accept the responsibilities of the
scientists who must see fact in theory and theory in fact. This is more difficult than
philosophic speculation about reality or the collection of superficial certainties but it leads
more surely to the achievement of scientific truth about social behavior.

In the light of above limitations, it is hard to admit that Sociology can be a positive
science. Certain sociologists like Max Weber have questioned the very idea that Sociology
can ever be a positive science. According to him social reality is qualitatively different
from physical and natural reality. Thus the subject matter of social science is
qualitatively different from that of physical and natural sciences.

Social sciences study the human behaviour which is guided by meanings and motives, and
any attempt to study human behaviour would be incomplete unless it takes into account
these meanings and motives. Thus Weber finds use of positive science methods alone as
inadequate for the study of human behaviour in society. According to him they must be
supplemented with additional methods especially relevant to social sciences like the
Verstehen approach and ideal type.

Further, the limitations that are encountered in the study of social phenomena are
inherent in the very subject matter of Sociology and do not. In fact, even matured
sciences like physics encountered similar problems because of the nature of the subject
matter, the exactitude of microphysics is lost when we study the behaviour of sub-atomic
particles and sometimes even predictability is not possible as can be seen from
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle. Thus Sociology is a science since it fulfill the basic
requirements of the science viz. it has perspective, a consensus with regard to subject
matter and a set of methods to explore the subject matter, it may not be called a positive
science but it is definitely a social science.

There are two views about the “Value neutrality and objectivity” in scientific
investigation.

One that science and scientists can be value-free other that science and researchers
cannot be valuefree. Weber accepts the former position. He thinks that if a researcher
separates his daily life from his professional role, he can be free of biases. On the other
hand, Gouldner believes that “value-free science is a myth, though it is desirable”.

68
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
Manheim says: “Value-free research is a desirable goal towards which social scientists
can strive without any necessary expectation of actually attaining it”. This becomes
possible when the social scientists remains careful in choosing the problem of research
and states what he finds, i.e. follows data wherever they lead, regardless of how much the
conclusions may please or displease him or the research consumer.

The term ‘value’ here does not have an economic connotation. Value is an abstract
generalized principle of behaviour expressed in concrete form in social norms to which
the members of a group feel a strong commitment. ‘Scientific inquiry/investigation
presents facts as they are; while a scientist has a moral responsibility of giving findings
without any biases and prejudices, motivation for a scientist in conducting research is
curiosity, developing theory and interest in change.

• According to Mills and Wordsworth:

1. Objectivity is unattainable,
2. Some standpoint or value judgment is necessary for solving social problems,
3. Our socialization is based on values which direct our thinking and action,
4. Disclosing bias or personal belief is less dangerous than pretending to be value
free, and
5. Social sciences are normative.

Apart from studying what it is, they should also be concerned with what ought to be.

• Radical critics claim that behind a façade of objectivity and neutrality, some social
scientists compromise their research talents in the support of the interests of the
funding agencies. Frederichs has even gone to the extent of saying that these
unethical scientists have even supported racism, militarism and other forms’ of
oppression.
• But some scholars like Horton and Bouma, referring particularly to sociological
research is of the opinion that the issue whether sociological research has been
widely corrupted in this manner (of supporting even oppression) may be debated.
• Becker has said that it is indisputable that problems of bias and partisanship and
present in all research and that research findings are often helpful to the interests of
some people and damaging to other people.

Sociology as a value-free science

The subject matter of sociology is human behavior in society. All social behavior is guided
by values. Thus the study of social behavior can never be value-free if value freedom is
interpreted in the sense of absence of values because values of the society under
investigation form a part of the social facts to be studied by sociology. Moreover social
research is in itself a type of social behavior and is guided by the value of search for true
knowledge. Then what is meant as clarified by Max Weber value-free sociology means that

69
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
the sociologist while carrying social research must confine called value relevance. Thus the
values can operate at three levels:

• At the level of philological interpretation.

• At the level of ethical interpretation in assigning value to an object of enquiry.
• At the level of rational interpretation in which the sociologists seeks the meaningful
relationship between phenomena in terms of causal analysis. The point of value
interpretation is to establish the value towards which an activity is directed.

Sociologists should observe value neutrality while conducting social research. It means that
he should exclude ideological or non -scientific assumption from research. He should not
make evaluative judgment about empirical evidence. Value judgment should be restricted
to sociologists’ area of technical competence. He should make his own values open and
clear and refrain from advocating particular values. Value neutrality enables the social
scientists to fulfill the basic value of scientific enquiry that is search for true knowledge.

Thus sociology being a science cherishes the goal of value neutrality. According to Alvin
Gouldner value-free principle did enhance the autonomy of sociology where it could
steadily pursue basic problems rather than journalistically react to passing events and
allowed it more freedom to pursue questions uninteresting either to the respectable or to
the rebellious. It made sociology freer as Comte had wanted it to be -to pursue all its own
theoretical implications. Value free principle did contribute to the intellectual growth and
emancipation of the enterprise.Value-free doctrine enhanced freedom from moral
compulsiveness; it permitted a partial escape from the parochial prescriptions of the
sociologists’ local or native culture. Effective internalization of the value-free principle has
always encouraged at least a temporary suspension of the moralizing reflexes built into the
sociologist by his own society. The value-free doctrine has a paradoxical potentiality; it
might enable men to make better value judgments rather than none. It could encourage a
habit of mind that might help men in discriminating between their punitive drives and
their ethical sentiments.

However in practice it has been extremely difficult to fulfill this goal of value neutrality.
Values creep in various stages in sociological research. According to Gunnar Myrdal total
value neutrality is impossible. ‘Chaos does not organize itself into cosmos. We need view
points.’ Thus in order to carry out social research viewpoints are needed which form the
basis of hypothesis which enables the social scientists to collect empirical data. These
viewpoints involve valuations and also while formulating the hypothesis. Thus a sociologist
has to be value frank and should make the values which have got incorporated in the
choice of the topic of the research of the formulation of hypothesis clear and explicit at the
very outset in the research. The value-free doctrine is useful both to those who want to
escape from the world and to those who want to escape into it. They think of sociology as a
way of getting ahead in the world by providing them with neutral techniques that may be
sold on the open market to any buyer. The belief that it is not the business of sociologist to
make value judgments is taken by some to mean that the market on which they can vend
their skills is unlimited. Some sociologists have had no hesitation about doing market
research designed to sell more cigarettes although well aware of the implications of recent

70
www.SchoolofUPSC.com
cancer research. According to Gouldner the value-free doctrine from Weber’s standpoint is
an effort to compromise two of the deepest traditions of the western thought, reason and
faith but that his arbitration seeks to safeguard the romantic residue in modern man. Like
Freud, Weber never really believed in an enduring peace or in a final resolution of this
conflict. What he did was to seek a truce through the segregation of the contenders by
allowing each to dominate in different spheres of life.

Problems of objectivity
1. Objectivity is a goal of scientific investigation. Sociology also being a science aspires
for the goal objectivity. Objectivity is a frame of mind so that personal prejudices,
preferences or predilections of the social scientists do not contaminate the collection
of analysis of data. Thus scientific investigations should be free from prejudices of
race, color, religion, sex or ideological biases.
2. The need of objectivity in sociological research has been emphasized by all
important sociologists. For example Durkheim in the Rules of the Sociological
Method stated that social facts must be treated as things and all preconceived
notions about social facts must be abandoned. Even Max Weber emphasized the
need of objectivity when he said that sociology must be value free. According to
Radcliff Brown the social scientist must abandon or transcend his ethnocentric and
egocentric biases while carrying out researches. Similarly Malinowski advocated
cultural relativism while anthropological field work in order to ensure objectivity.
3. However objectivity continues to be an elusive goal at the practical level. In fact one
school of thought represented by Gunnar Myrdal states that total objectivity is an
illusion which can never be achieved. Because all research is guided by certain
viewpoints and view points involve subjectivity.Myrdal suggested that the basic
viewpoints should be made clear. Further he felt that subjectivity creeps in at various
stages in the course of sociological research. Merton believes that the very choice of
topic is influenced by personal preferences and ideological biases of the researcher.
4. Besides personal preferences the ideological biases acquired in the course of
education and training has a bearing on the choice of the topic of research. The
impact of ideological biases on social-research can be very far-reaching as seen from
the study of Tepostalan village in Mexico. Robert Redfield studied it with
functionalist perspective and concluded that there exists total harmony between
various groups in the village while Oscar Lewis studied this village at almost the same
time from Marxist perspective and found that the society was conflict ridden.
Subjectivity can also creep in at the time of formulation of hypotheses. Normally
hypotheses are deduced from existing body of theory. All sociological theories are
produced by and limited to particular groups whose viewpoints and interests they
represent. Thus formulation of hypotheses will automatically introduce a bias in the
sociological research. The third stage at which subjectivity creeps in the course of
research is that of collection of empirical data. No technique of data collection is
perfect. Each technique may lead to subjectivity in one way or the other. In case of

71
www.SchoolofUPSC.com