What Is Sociology?

Author; Alex Inkeles

 The subject matter of
sociology

Three paths are available for delineating the subject

matter of sociology

 Historical- “what did the founding fathers say?”

 Empirical- “what are contemporary sociologists
doing?”
 Analytical- “what does reason suggest?”
Founding fathers of
sociology
August Comte

Divided sociology into two main

parts;

 Social statics
 Social dynamics
Just as in biology it is useful to separate anatomy from
physiology, so it is desirable to make a distinction in
sociology between statics and dynamics. "The
distinction is not between two classes of facts, but
between two aspects of theory. It corresponds with
the double conception of order and progress: for
order consists . . . in a permanent harmony among
the conditions of social existence, and progress
consists in social development." Order and Progress,
statics and dynamics, are hence always correlative
to each other
In order to supplement his theory of stages, Comte set
out to investigate the foundations of social stability.
"The statical study of sociology consists in the
investigation of the laws of action and reaction of the
different parts of the social system--apart, for the
occasion, from the fundamental movement which is
always gradually modifying them." It studies the
balance of mutual relations of elements within a
social whole. There must always be a "spontaneous
harmony between the whole and the parts of the
social system." When such harmony is lacking, we
are confronted by a pathological case
When Comte deals with the components of a social system,
he emphatically refuses to see individuals as elementary
parts. "The scientific spirit forbids us to regard society as
composes of individuals. The true social unit is the
family--reduced, if necessary, to the elementary couple
which forms its basis. . . Families become tribes and
tribes become nations." A social science that takes as its
point of departure the needs and propensities of
individuals is bound to fail. In particular, it is erroneous to
derive man's social tendencies, "which are now proved to
be inherent in his nature," from utilitarian considerations.
In the early ages of humanity the individual advantages of
association were doubtful. "It is thus evident that the
social state would never have existed if its rise had
depended on a conviction of its individual utility."
To Comte, the study of social statics, that is, of the conditions
and preconditions of social order, was inevitably linked to the
study of social dynamics, which he equated with human
progress and evolution. Though he failed to specify this link
and to show how it operated concretely, he reiterated this
position in programmatic form. Despite the fact that it
seemed desirable for methodological and heuristic purposes
to separate the study of statics and dynamics, in empirical
reality they were correlative. Functional and evolutionary
analyses, far from contradicting each other, were in effect
complementary.
Methods of Inquiry

What then are the resources upon which sociology can draw when it sets
itself the task of explaining the laws of progress and of social order?
They are, first of all, the same that have been used so successfully in
the natural sciences: observation, experimentation, and comparison.

Observation does not mean the unguided quest for miscellaneous facts.
"But for the guidance of a preparatory theory," the observer would not
know what facts to look at." "No social fact can have any scientific
meaning till it is connected with some other social fact" by a
preliminary theory. Hence, observation can come into its own only
when it is subordinated to the statical and dynamic laws of
phenomena. But within these limits it remains indispensable.
The second scientific method of investigation, experimentation, is only partly
applicable in the social sciences. Direct experimentation is not feasible in the
human world. But "experimentation takes place whenever the regular course
of the phenomenon is interfered with in any determinate manner. . . .
Pathological cases are the true scientific equivalent of pure experimentation."
Disturbances in the social body are "analogous to diseases in the individual
organism," and so the study of the pathological gives, as it were, privileged
access to an understanding of the normal.

The scientific method of inquiry of central importance to the sociologist is

comparison, above all, because it "performs the great service of casting out
the . . . spirit [of absolutism]." Comparisons of human with animal societies will
give up precious clues to "the first germs of the social relations" and to the
borderlines between the human and the animal
Herbert Spencer

According to him the fields of sociology are;

 Family
 Politics
 Religion
 Industry
But acc. To him sociology is not
restricted to study of these elements
alone but also deals with how these
parts affect the whole and in the
process transform or get transformed.
Spencer's emphasis that changes in structure cannot occur without changes in
functions and that increases in size of social units necessarily bring in their
wake progressive differentiations in social activities. Indeed, much of
Spencer's discussion of social institutions and their changes is expressed in
functional terms. In these analyses Spencer's point of departure is always
the search for the functions subserved by a particular item under analysis.
"To understand how an organization originated and developed, it is requisite
to understand the need subserved at the outset and afterwards." Spencer
analyzed social institutions in relation to the general matrix in which they
were variously embedded. He expressed the conviction "that what, relative
to our thoughts and sentiments, were arrangements impracticable." He
warned against the common error of regarding customs that appeared
strange and repugnant by contemporary standards as being of no value to
particular societies. "Instead of passing over as of no account or else
regarding as purely mischievous, the superstitions of primitive man, we must
inquire what part they play in social evolution."
Emile Durkheim

He spoke of sociology as a “science of societies”

and emphasized the importance of analyzing
the relationships among institutions and
between them and their setting.

He asserted that there is a close kinship

between the social facts – the facts of religion,
law, moral ideas and economics.
To Durkheim, men were creatures whose desires were unlimited. Unlike other
animals, they are not satisfied when their biological needs are fulfilled. "The
more one has, the more one wants, since satisfactions received only stimulate
instead of filling needs."

Desires can only be held in check by external controls, that is, by societal
control. Society imposes limits on human desires and constitutes "a regulative
force [which] must play the same role for moral needs which the organism plays
for physical needs.

When social regulations break down, the controlling influence of society on

individual propensities is no longer effective and individuals are left to their own
devices. Such a state of affairs Durkheim calls anomie, a term that refers to a
condition of relative normlessness in a whole society or in some of its
component groups. Anomie does not refer to a state of mind, but to a property of
the social structure. It characterizes a condition in which individual desires are
no longer regulated by common norms and where, as a consequence,
individuals are left without moral guidance in the pursuit of their goals
Durkheim argued that economic affluence, by stimulating human desires,
carries with it dangers of anomic conditions because it "deceives us into
believing that we depend on ourselves only," while "poverty protects against
suicide because it is a restraint in itself."

Since the realization of human desires depends upon the resources at

hand, the poor are restrained, and hence less prone to suffer from anomie
by virtue of the fact that they possess but limited resources. "The less one
has the less he is tempted to extend the range of his needs indefinitely .
only two kinds of positive solidarity which are distinguishable by the following
qualities:
1. The first binds the individual directly to society without any intermediary. In the
second, he depends upon society, because he depends upon the parts of which it is
composed.
2. Society is not seen in the same aspect in the two cases. In the first, what we call
society is a more or less organized totality of beliefs and sentiments common to all
the members of the group: this is the collective type. On the other hand, the society
in which we are solidary in the second instance is a system of different, special
functions which definite relations unite. These two societies really make up only one.
They are two aspects of one and the same reality, but none the less they must be
distinguished.
The first can be strong only if the ideas and tendencies common to all the members of
the society are greater in number and intensity than those which pertain personally to
each member. It is as much stronger as the excess is more considerable. But what
makes our personality is how much of our own individual qualities we have, what
distinguishes us from others. This solidarity can grow only in inverse ratio to
personality.

There are in each of us, as we have said, two consciences: one which is common to
our group in its entirety, which, consequently, is not ourself, but society living and
acting within us; the other, on the contrary, represents that in us which is personal and
distinct, that which makes us an individual. Solidarity which comes from likenesses is
at its maximum when the collective conscience completely envelops our whole
conscience and coincides in all points with it. But, at that moment, our individuality is
nil. It can be born only if the community takes smaller toll of us. There are, here, two
contrary forces, one centripetal, the other centrifugal, which cannot flourish at the
same time. We cannot, at one and the same time, develop ourselves in two opposite
senses. If we have a lively desire to think and act for ourselves, we cannot be strongly
inclined to think and act as others do. If our ideal is to present a singular and personal
appearance, we do not want to resemble everybody else. Moreover, at the moment
when this solidarity exercises its force, our personality vanishes, as our definition
permits us to say, for we are no longer ourselves, but the collective life.
 What is Social Fact?
It is commonly used to designate almost all the phenomena that occur within
society, however little social interest of some generality they present. Yet under
this heading there is, so to speak, no human occurrence that cannot be called
social. Every individual drinks, sleeps, eats, or employs his reason, and society
has every interest in seeing that these functions are regularly exercised.

If therefore these facts were social ones, sociology would possess no subject
matter peculiarly its own, and its domain would be confused with that of biology
and psychology.

However, in reality there is in every society a clearly determined group of

phenomena separable, because of their distinct characteristics, from those that
form the subject matter of other sciences of nature.
While most criminologists treated crime as a pathological phenomenon and
sought psychological causes in the mind of the criminal, Durkheim saw crime as
normal in terms of its occurrence, and even as having positive social functions in
terms of its consequences. Crime was normal in that no society could enforce
total conformity to its injunctions, and if society could, it would be so repressive
as to leave no leeway for the social contributions of individuals.

Deviance from the norms of society is necessary if society is to remain flexible

and open to change and new adaptations. "Where crime exists, collective
sentiments are sufficiently flexible to take on a new form, and crime sometimes
helps to determine the form they will take. How many times, indeed, it is only an
anticipation of future morality--a step toward what will be." But in addition to such
direct consequences of crime, Durkheim identified indirect functions that are no
less important. A criminal act, Durkheim reasoned, elicits negative sanctions in
the community by arousing collective sentiments against the infringement of the
norm. Hence i has the unanticipated consequence of strengthening normative
consensus in the common weal. "Crime brings together upright consciences and
concentrates them
 Durkheim distinguished between types of suicide according to the relation of the
actor to his society. When men become "detached from society," when they are
thrown upon their own devices and loosen the bonds that previously had tied them
to their fellow, they are prone to egoistic, or individualistic, suicide.

When the normative regulations surrounding individual conduct are relaxed and
hence fail to curb and guide human propensities, men are susceptible to
succumbing to anomic suicide. To put the matter differently, when the restraints of
structural integration, as exemplified in the operation of organic solidarity, fail to
operate, men become prone to egoistic suicide; when the collective conscience
weakens, men fall victim to anomic suicide.
In addition to egoistic and anomic types of suicide, Durkheim refers to
altruistic and fatalistic suicide. The latter is touched upon only briefly in
his work, but the former is of great importance for an understanding of
Durkheim's general approach. Altruistic suicide refers to cases in which
suicide can be accounted for by overly strong regulation of individuals,
as opposed to lack of regulation. Durkheim argues in effect that the
relation of suicide rates to social regulation is curvilinear--high rates
being associated with both excessive individuation and excessive
regulation. In the case of excessive regulation, the demands of society
are so great that suicide varies directly rather than inversely with the
degree of integration
Max Weber

“Sociology is a science which attempts the

interpretive understanding of social actions
in order thereby to arrive at a casual
explanation of its course and effects.”
 Types of Authority
Weber's discussion of authority relations--why men claim authority, and feel
they have a legitimate right to expect willing obedience to their command--
illustrates his use of the ideal type as an analytical tool and his classification
of types of social action.

Weber distinguished three main modes of claiming legitimacy. Authority may

be based on rational grounds and anchored in impersonal rules that have
been legally enacted or contractually established. This type is rational-legal
authority, which has increasingly come to characterize hierarchical relations
in modern society.

Traditional authority, on the other hand, which predominates in pre-modern

societies, is based on belief in the sanctity of tradition, of "the eternal
yesterday." It is not codified in impersonal rules but inheres in particular
persons who may either inherit it or be invested with it by a higher authority.

Charismatic authority, finally, rests on the appeal of leaders who claim

allegiance because of their extraordinary virtuosity, whether ethical, heroic, or
religious.
THE SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM
Sociology as the study of
society

Sociology need not be study of any one

part, it may be the study of whole i.e.
“sociology may be a special
discipline which takes society as a
unit of analysis.”
Its purpose would then be to discover
how the institutions that make up a
society are related to one another in
different social systems.
 Such a study of sociology would
have at least two main
divisions;
one concerned with
 Internal differentiation
Other with
 External differentiation
Sociology as a study of
institutions

Durkheim said
“sociology can be defined as the
science of institutions”.
Sociology as the study of social
relationships
Sociology and related
disciplines
 Economics
“it is the study of production of goods
and services.”
Political science
it consists of two parts- political theory
and government administration
History
it seeks to establish the sequence
in which the events occurred.
Psychology
It is the science of mind or of
mental encompasses.
Anthropology
It incorporates archaeology,
physical anthropology, cultural
history and the study of all aspects
of life of primitive man
everywhere.
Social order, disorder and
change

“sociology is the study of social

order, meaning thereby, the
underlying regularity of human
social behavior.”
The concept of order includes the
efforts to attain it and departures
from it.
Models of society in sociological
analysis

Evolutionary model
Each society passes through a fixed and
limited number of stages in a given
sequence.
The organismic model –(structural-
functionalism)
social life persists because societies find
means (structures) whereby they fulfill the
needs (functions) which are either pre-
conditions or consequences of organized
social life.
Equilibrium vs. conflict model

The physical science model

Conceptions of man in
sociological analysis
 Sociologists more often see man in terms of his social drives.
They emphasize his desire and need for affiliation and
companionship, his dependence on others for co-operation
and assistanceship, his interest in extending his personally
limited resources and power through group action
Man values others and seeks to relate himself to them. He is
seen as committed to mutual adaptations and adjustments to
attain not only his individual and private ends but also the
communal and public goals which he has internalized and
made his own.
The minimum requirements of
human social life

“If social life is to persist, what

conditions must be met by the society?”
There are three requirements for that
 Adaptation to external environment,
physical and human
 Adaptation to man’s bio-social nature
 Adaptation to the need of collective
living
Units of social organization

The basic elements of social

organization are identified as
 Institution
 Community
 Society
From folkways to institutions

 Folkways (customs)
Specialized and standardized ways
of doing things common to those
sharing a particular culture. They are
an aggregation of “social acts”.
 Role
a cluster of customary ways of
doing things is designated a role.
 Status
when a role becomes highly specialized and
a certain name or title is designated for it,
then a social position is created and the
term “status” is applied to such positions.
 Institutions
A complex structure of roles organized
around some central activity.
There are four types of institutions
 Political institutions
 Economic institutions
 Expressive integrative institutions
 Kinship institutions

A set of institutions constitutes a social system.

Society
It constitutes the largest unit with which
sociology is concerned
Stratification and mobility

It refers to the distinction between

individuals by ranking them on some
scale of value expressing the prestige or
respect in which each person is held.

The sociological attack on the problem

of stratification seeks answers to a
series of questions
What is the structure of stratification in each
group?
i.e. how many classes are there, what are there
characteristics in terms of income, occupation and
prestige and how large each class is?

What should be the basis of measuring

stratification?
Two types of measures have been identified
“Objective measures”- assign weight to amount of
income, possessions, education a man has.
“Subjective Measures”- depend on the feelings a man has
for the class he belongs to and also the opinion which
others have about where they would place a given person
in a class of hierarchy.
What are the relations between any set of men who
share some common position?

What are the rates of social mobility?

It can be computed within the lifespan of a man or
between generations of fathers and sons.
India mainly has had a closed system of
stratification i.e. there has been very little upward
mobility whereas U.s.A. has had an open system of
stratification.