Sociology

Modernity and Social Changes in Europe and Emergence of Sociology

Modernity refers to a distinct period in human history marked by a shift toward scientific reasoning, as opposed to metaphysical or supernatural beliefs.

It emphasizes individualism, industrialization, technological progress, and the rejection of certain traditional values.

In sociology, modernity describes the era characterized by significant scientific, technological, and socioeconomic transformations, which began in Europe around 1650 and continued until roughly 1950.

The modern era in Europe and the emergence of modernity were shaped by the following key events:

The Renaissance

The Renaissance was a vibrant period of cultural, artistic, political, and economic revival in Europe, following the Middle Ages.
Spanning roughly from the 14th to the 17th century, it fostered the rediscovery of classical philosophy, literature, and art.
This era saw the flourishing of some of the most influential thinkers, writers, statesmen, scientists, and artists in history, while global exploration introduced Europe to new lands and cultures, expanding its commercial horizons.
The Renaissance is widely recognized for bridging the Middle Ages and the modern world.

Changes during the Renaissance

Visual Art- Art, literature, and science thrived, with a focus on studying nature and the human body scientifically. Paintings from this time often showcased detailed depictions of both.
Medicine- Dissecting human bodies became acceptable, allowing doctors to study how the body was built. This led to major progress in anatomy, physiology, and pathology.
Chemistry – A general theory of chemistry emerged, with studies focusing on chemical processes like oxidation, reduction, distillation, and amalgamation.
Navigation and Astronomy- This period saw major exploration milestones, with Vasco da Gama reaching India in 1498 and Columbus discovering America in 1492. It was an era of expanding trade and early colonialism. Interest in astronomy also grew, as it played a crucial role in successful navigation.
The Copernican Revolution – Nicholas Copernicus, a Dutchman, made the first significant break from ancient beliefs. At the time, people believed the Earth was fixed, with the sun and planets revolving around it (the “geocentric” theory). Copernicus challenged this by showing that the Earth actually moves around a fixed sun (the “heliocentric” theory).

Science during the Renaissance adopted a new approach to studying both man and nature. Natural objects were closely observed and experimented on. This period emphasized humanism, modern ideas, and encouraged intellectual growth, rationalism, empiricism, and a focus on change.

The Enlightenment

The Enlightenment was an intellectual movement, primarily centred in France and Britain, lasting from the 1680s to 1789.
This period was influenced by earlier writers and scientists like Galileo (Italian), Newton (English), Francis Bacon (English, 1561-1626), and René Descartes (French, 1596-1650), who explored the natural world and systems of thought.
Key Enlightenment figures include Hobbes, Locke, Diderot, Montesquieu, and Rousseau, with the French writers known as the philosophes.
These thinkers were often religious sceptics, political reformers, cultural critics, historians, and social theorists.
Enlightenment writings had a profound impact on politics and the rise of sociology.
Enlightenment ideas heavily influenced the political and social changes of the time. The revolutionary slogans “liberty, equality, fraternity” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” reflect the political ideals rooted in Enlightenment thought.

In the 18th century, Europe entered the Age of Reason and Rationalism, influenced by major philosophers like Montesquieu, Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill.

Montesquieu: In his book “The Spirit of the Laws”, he argued against concentrating power in one place and advocated for the “separation of powers” among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to protect individual liberty.
John Locke: This English philosopher believed every person has certain “inalienable rights”, including the right to life, property, and personal freedom. He argued that rulers who violate these rights should be removed and replaced by those who protect them.
Voltaire: A French philosopher, Voltaire championed “religious tolerance” and “freedom of speech”, emphasizing individual rights and expression.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: In “The Social Contract”, Rousseau stated that people have the right to choose their government. He believed individuals can best develop their personalities under a government of their own choosing.
Mary Wollstonecraft: She was an English author and feminist, best known for her influential book, “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman” (1792), embraced the idea of the “rational, self-determining individual”. She argued that women are not naturally different from men; rather, the differences arise from “socially constructed gender roles”. She believed that women, like men, are rational beings and deserve equal opportunities to develop their reasoning and moral skills.

This period marked a significant change in people’s thinking, leading society to adopt a more pragmatic approach

Changes during the Enlightenment in Europe:

Promotion of Reason: Emphasized reason and scientific thinking over tradition and superstition.
Human Rights: Advocated for individual rights and freedoms, influencing modern human rights movements.
Political Change: Inspired revolutions, such as the American and French Revolutions, leading to the decline of monarchies and the rise of democratic governments.
Secularism: Reduced the power of religious institutions and promoted secular governance.
Social Reform: Encouraged social changes, including the abolition of slavery and the push for gender equality.
Educational Expansion: Increased emphasis on education and literacy, leading to the establishment of public education systems.
Cultural Development: Influenced art, literature, and philosophy, fostering a culture of critical thinking and debate.
Scientific Advancements: Laid the groundwork for modern scientific inquiry and innovation.

These results significantly shaped modern European society and thought.

The French Revolution

The French Revolution (1789-1799) was a period of profound social, political, and economic upheaval in France.
It marked the end of absolute monarchy, the rise of republicanism, and the establishment of democratic ideals.
Characterized by radical changes, the revolution sought to eliminate the inequalities of the feudal system and promote the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Causes of the French Revolution

Social Inequality: French society was divided into three estates:

First Estate: Clergy, enjoying privileges and exemptions from taxes.
Second Estate: Nobility, who held significant power and wealth.
Third Estate: Common people, including peasants and the bourgeoisie, who bore the burden of taxation without political representation.

Economic Hardship: France faced severe financial problems due to:

Debt from wars, including involvement in the American Revolution.
Poor harvests leading to food shortages and rising bread prices.
High taxation on the Third Estate, leading to widespread discontent.

Enlightenment Ideas: Enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau, Voltaire, and Montesquieu promoted ideas of democracy, individual rights, and social contracts, challenging traditional authority and inspiring revolutionary thought.
Weak Leadership: King Louis XVI’s indecisiveness and inability to resolve financial crises weakened the monarchy’s authority and credibility.
Estates-General: The convening of the Estates-General in 1789 to address the financial crisis led to demands for more political representation, ultimately igniting revolutionary fervor.

Changes during the French Revolution

End of Monarchy: The revolution led to the execution of King Louis XVI in 1793 and the establishment of the First French Republic.
Rise of Radicalism: The revolution saw the emergence of radical factions, such as the Jacobins, and the Reign of Terror, during which thousands were executed, including political opponents.
Social Changes: The feudal system was abolished, and various social reforms were implemented, including the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which emphasized individual rights and equality.
Rise of Napoleon: The chaos following the revolution paved the way for Napoleon Bonaparte’s rise to power, leading to the establishment of the Napoleonic Empire.
Influence on Other Revolutions: The French Revolution inspired other movements for change around the world, promoting ideas of democracy, nationalism, and human rights.

French Revolution was a pivotal event that reshaped France and had lasting impacts on the world, establishing principles that continue to influence modern democratic societies.

The Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution began around 1760 AD in England and marked the foundation of modern industry. Spanning the late 18th and early 19th centuries, it brought significant material and social changes, primarily through the rise of industrialization and capitalism.

This period saw the birth of the factory system, which transformed production methods, led to the emergence of a middle class, and dismantled the feudal estates. While these developments resulted in various positive outcomes, such as increased productivity and economic growth, they also brought about numerous negative consequences.

In Europe, particularly in England, the discovery of new territories and the growth of trade and commerce led to an increased demand for goods. Previously, consumer items like cloth were produced through a domestic system, meaning they were made at home. However, with the rising demand, there was a need for large-scale production.

This shift brought significant changes to the social and economic lives of people, starting in England and eventually spreading to other European countries and later to other continents.

Changes during the Industrial Revolution:

Labor Conditions: A new working class emerged, reliant on factory jobs, often living in poverty and harsh conditions. This social deprivation made them a significant social force.
Recognition of Poverty: Sociologists identified the poverty faced by these workers as a result of social structures rather than being a natural condition, making the working class a focal point of moral and analytical concern in the 19th century.
Property Transformation: Capital became crucial during the Industrial Revolution, with investments in the new industrial system gaining recognition. The influence of feudal landlords waned as new capitalists, many of whom were former landlords, rose to power.
Urbanization: This period saw rapid urbanization, which was accompanied by increasing poverty and rising crime rates.
Technological Advancements: Innovations in technology led to the development of the factory system.
Social Condition Surveys: Increased interest in assessing social conditions through systematic surveys.
Nuclear Family Emergence: The traditional family structure shifted towards the emergence of the nuclear family.
Colonialism: The Industrial Revolution fuelled the expansion of colonialism as nations sought resources and markets for their industrial products.

Conservationist’s reaction to modernity

The most extreme form of opposition to modernity was from French catholic counter-revolutionary philosophy as represented by the ideas of Louis de bonald and Joseph de Maistre.
They saw these developments as disturbing characters to the peace and harmony of the society. They believed God had created society; people shouldn’t tamper with it and try to change the holy creation.
Bonald opposed anything that undermined traditional institutions such as patriarchy, the Monarchy, the monogamous family and the Church. Believed religion as a useful and necessary component of social life.
They saw French Revolution and Industrial revolution as disruptive forces. The conservatives tend to emphasize on old social order. Changes were seen as a threat not only to society and its components, but also to the individuals in it.
They saw modern changes such as industrialization, urbanization and bureaucratization as causing disorganizing effects. These changes were viewed with fear and anxiety. Finally, conservatives supported the existence of a hierarchical system in the society.

Critical analysis of modernity

Modernity is form of ideas, kind of perceptions and pattern of beliefs. Those who fall in love with modernity celebrate it; those people can’t adapt to changes feel as victim and criticize it.
Modernity brings political unity and economic freedom. All philosophers and rational thinkers celebrated modernity for its achievements.
Emile Durkheim stated that every society which changed from agrarian to industrial economy had its own problems. An anomie will be created in the society and it must be rectified by society itself.
Karl Marx welcomes the change in society, but he accused that the fruits of modernity and its outcomes were enjoyed by one class and made other class to suffer.
Augustus Comte, father of sociology believed in scientific study of social pattern, that is positivism. By using this positivism, he believed society can repair its problems.
Max Weber also believed that, by using standard scientific methods, the scepticism of modernity can be cleaned out. Modernity is now a fully grown man. It can’t be turned as child. But we can cure the problems of society through the methods of sociology.

How these Social Changes led to emergence of Sociology?

Modernity significantly affected the social, economic, and political lives of people. Initially viewed positively, its negative consequences soon became evident.

Social Dislocation: Rapid urbanization led to the breakdown of traditional communities and social structures.
Inequality: Economic changes resulted in stark disparities between different social classes, particularly between the wealthy elite and the working class.
Environmental Degradation: Industrialization contributed to pollution, deforestation, and depletion of natural resources.
Alienation: Individuals often felt disconnected from their work, society, and even themselves, as factory work became repetitive and dehumanizing.
Consumerism: A focus on material goods fostered a culture of consumerism, leading to overconsumption and waste.
Loss of Cultural Heritage: Traditional practices and values were often disregarded or lost in the pursuit of modernization and progress.
Mental Health Issues: Increased stress and anxiety levels arose from rapid societal changes and the pressures of modern life.
Political Instability: Modernity often led to upheaval, revolutions, and conflicts as groups struggled for power and rights.
Exploitation of Labor: The emergence of factories often resulted in poor working conditions, long hours, and exploitation of workers, including children.
Erosion of Community Bonds: A focus on individualism weakened communal ties and social solidarity, leading to isolation through Divorce and Breakups.

These challenges posed by modernity spurred the development of new intellectual ideas.
Existing disciplines were unable to address the emerging questions, leading to the creation of a new field known as sociology.
Arising from its specific context, sociology was often referred to as the “science of the new industrial society.”
While there was a general context for sociology’s emergence across Europe, France provided a unique socio-political backdrop, particularly influenced by the upheaval caused by the French Revolution.
Intellectuals like Saint Simon, Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, and Émile Durkheim contributed foundational ideas to the discipline, seeking to understand the causes and consequences of these new societal changes.
Simon initially referred to this field as social physics, while Comte was the first to coin the term sociology.
Following Comte’s lead, Spencer introduced the concept of “social evolution,” akin to biological evolution.
Durkheim’s efforts were instrumental in establishing sociology as the first academic department in France and Europe, solidifying its distinct status.
This emerging discipline required a subject matter, data, perspectives, and methods. Influenced by the popularity of the natural sciences, sociology explored new scientific and rational methods.
The “State of the Poor” report marked the first scientific survey in Europe, revealing that poverty is a social, rather than a natural, phenomenon.

The factual foundation for sociology was supported by existing historical records, while early theoretical perspectives were shaped by Comte, Spencer, and Durkheim. Hence Sociology emerged as a discipline to address the profound changes in the Society.

Previous Year Questions

How had Enlightenment contributed to the emergence of Sociology? (2015)
Discuss the historical antecedents of the emergence of Sociology as a discipline (2019)
How did the intellectual forces lead to the emergence of Sociology? Discuss (2020)
Europe was the first and the only place where modernity emerged. Comment (2021)
What aspects of Enlightenment do you think paved way for the emergence of Sociology? Elaborate (2022)
Sociology is the product of European Enlightenment and Renaissance. Critically examine this statement. (2024)

Important Keywords

Modernity, The Renaissance, The Enlightenment, The French Revolution, The Industrial Revolution, Urbanization, Emergence of Sociology, Saint Simon, Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, and Émile Durkheim, Social Changes, Monarchy, Vasco da Gama, Columbus, Louis de bonald, Joseph de Maistre and Individualism.

Scope of Sociology

The term Sociology was coined by Auguste Comte, a French philosopher, in 1839.
The teaching of sociology as a separate discipline started in 1876 in the United States, in 1889 in France, in 1907 in Great Britain, after World War I in Poland and India, in 1925 in Egypt and Mexico, and in 1947 in Sweden.
Sociology is the youngest of all the Social Sciences.
The word Sociology is derived from the Latin word ‘societies’ meaning ‘society’ and the Greek word ‘logos’ are meaning ‘study or science’.
The etymological meaning of ‘sociology’ is thus the ‘science of society’.
It can focus its analysis on interactions between teachers and students, between two friends or family members as well as it can also focus on national issues like unemployment, caste conflict, 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 labor 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.

Two Main Schools of Thought Regarding the Scope of Sociology

The Formalistic School	The Synthetic School
The Formalistic school wants to keep the scope of sociology distinct from other social sciences.	The synthetic school wants to make sociology a synthesis of the social sciences or a general science.
They regard sociology as pure and independent.	According to the synthetic school, the scope of sociology is encyclopedic and synoptic.

Specialistic or Formalistic School

The name is so because sociology is a special science to study society.
George Simmel is the supporter.
Society has form and content – according to him and there can be no society without form and content and they can be separated i.e. form and content. He says sociology only studies the form but not the content.
- Competition – social studies the factor, result and this is the form the area of competition is the content and it is not studied.
Sociology does not study the content because there are other social sciences which study the contents.
- By him Tables 3 types of glass of similar forms fill them with different types of content but this does not change the form of the glass. Then now you take one glass and fill it by 3 different liquids one by one. Now the form does not change and the content too does not change and therefore these forms and contents can be separated.
Similarly, sociology studies the form and if there is a change in the content there is no change in the form and thus in the study.

Thinker’s view about Specialistic or Formalistic School

Simmel’s view

According to Simmel, the distinction between Sociology and other special sciences is that it deals with the same topics as they from a different angle—from the angle of different modes of social relationships.
Social relationships, such as competition, subordination, division of labour etc. are exemplified in different spheres of social life such as economic, the political and even the religious, moral or artistic but the business of Sociology is to disentangle these forms of social relationships and to study them in abstraction.
Thus, according to Simmel, Sociology is a specific social science which describes, classifies, analyses and delineates the forms of social relationships.

Max Weber’s view

Max Weber also makes out a definite field for Sociology.
According to him, the aim of Sociology is to interpret or understand social behaviour.
But social behaviour does not cover the whole field of human relations. Indeed, not all human inter-actions are social.
For instance, a collision between two cyclists is in itself merely a natural phenomenon, but their efforts to avoid each other or the language they use after the event constitute true social behaviour.
Sociology is thus, according to him, concerned with the analysis and classification of types of social relationships.

Von Wiese’s view

According to Von Wiese, the scope of Sociology is the study of forms of social relationships.
He has divided these social relationships into many kinds.

Vierkandt’s view

He defined social as, Social is the study of the ultimate form of mental and psychic relationship which link one to another’.
He gives important to emotional relationship.

Tonnie’s view

He believes Sociology to be pure science. He said that Sociology is pure and independent.
He divided society into two groups 1. Society and 2. Community.
He said society is urban society whereas community is rural society and in Sociological terms he called it as Gescelschaft and Gescelschaft.

Criticism of Specialistic or Formalistic School

Sociology is a science and it’s new in origin and so not a pure science.
A. Sorokin says that it isn’t necessary to say it is a science and not correct to study scientifically.
What is Society? There are difference aspects in society ans all these combined make society. These different social sciences are studied in different ways or by other social sciences. These social sciences are specialized in studying these aspects.
George Simmel separated forms from content but this too is not correct. It may be correct in other sciences such as the physical sciences. If the form changes the content also changes. There is a difference in the ideas of the supporters of this group or school.

Synthetic school

The school of thought believes that sociology should study society as a whole and not confine itself to the study of only limited social problems.

The synthetic school wants to make sociology a synthesis of the social sciences or a general science, Durkheim, Hob-house and Sorokin subscribe to this view.

Thinker’s view about Synthetic school

Durkheim’s view

“Sociology is a science of collective representation”. He believes in the collection of people in society.
When there is collection there must be wider scope for collective representation there must be majority of people hence it will be social facts.
Since it has a social fact, they are instrumental in guiding and controlling the behavior of society. (Those collective symbols accepted by the majority and what they say become social facts. These will help).
These social facts will later become a part of society. When we study a collective representation the whole picture of society comes before us.

Sorokin’s view

“Sociology is the generalizing science”. He is the profounder of systematic study.
In his book ‘contemporary sociology’ he observes that social is a general science.
It studies the general characteristics of the society of the relationship of social and non-social phenomena.
He constructs a formula to describe his theory.

Sociology- a, b, c
Economics – a, b, c, d, e, f
Political Science – a, b, c, g, h, i
Religion – a, b, c, L, M, N
Constitutional – a, b, c, n, y, Z A, b, c, are found in all social sciences.

Hobhouse’s view

“Social is the synthesis of various social sciences”. He means social is a general study which studies society as a whole from all aspects i.e. the combination of all social sciences – Sociologist must pursue his study from a particular part of society (social friend).
When he studies thus, he must interconnect his result with the results arrived from other social sciences and then he should interpret society as a whole.

Ginsberg’s view

Ginsberg has summed up the chief functions of sociology as follows.

Firstly, Sociology seeks to provide a classification of types and forms of social relationships especially of those which have come to be defined institutions and associations.
Secondly, it tries to determine the relation between different parts of factors of social life, for example, the economic and political, the moral and the religious, the moral and the legal, the intellectual and the social elements.
Thirdly, it endeavours to disentangle the fundamental conditions of social change and persistence and to discover sociological principles governing social life.

Thus, the scope of Sociology is very wide. It is a general science but it is also a special science. As a matter of fact, the subject matter of all social sciences is society. What distinguishes them from one another is their viewpoint.

Thus, economics studies society from an economic viewpoint; political science studies it from political viewpoint while history is a study of society from a historical point of view Sociology alone studies social relationships and society itself.

MacIver correctly remarks, what distinguishes each from each is the selective interest.

Green also remarks, “The focus of attention upon relationships makes Sociology a distinctive field, however closely allied to certain others it may be.”

Sociology studies all the various aspects of society such as social traditions, social processes, social morphology, social control, social pathology, effect of extra-social elements upon social relationships etc.

Actually, it is neither possible nor essential to delimit the scope of sociology because, this would be, as Sprott put it, “A brave attempt to confine an enormous mass of slippery material into a relatively simple system of pigeon holes.”

Changing nature of Scope of Sociology

The scope of sociology has evolved significantly from its origins in the 19th century, shaped by changing social realities.

Initially, sociology focused on understanding large-scale social structures, such as industrialization, capitalism, and social order.

Early thinkers like Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim emphasized macro-level phenomena, seeking universal laws to explain societal stability and progress.

By the mid-20th century, sociology expanded its scope, influenced by structural functionalism and symbolic interactionism.

Talcott Parsons’ functionalism viewed society as a system of interdependent parts, while micro-level theories like symbolic interactionism explored everyday interactions and meaning-making.

The discipline also began to specialize, with subfields such as rural and urban sociology, demography, and education.

In the post-1960s era, sociology shifted towards critical perspectives, including Marxism, feminism, and critical race theory, emphasizing power, inequality, and social justice.

This period marked the study of race, gender, class, and sexuality, reflecting the rise of social movements.

The late 20th century brought globalization and postmodernism, challenging traditional boundaries and focusing on transnational phenomena, cultural identities, and global inequalities.

Sociology increasingly addressed global migration, environmental issues, and the impact of neoliberal capitalism.

In the 21st century, the digital revolution expanded the scope further, introducing digital sociology. This field explores how technology, social media, and algorithms shape human interaction, identity, and power structures.

Contemporary sociology is also more interdisciplinary, engaging with fields like environmental science and political economy, while emphasizing decolonization and the inclusion of non-Western perspectives.

Hence sociology’s scope has grown to include both macro- and micro-level analyses, integrating diverse, global, and digital phenomena that reflect the complexities of the modern world.

Previous Year Questions

Sociology is pre-eminently study of modern societies. Discuss (2016)
In the context of globalisation, has the scope of sociology been changing in India? Comment. (2020)

Important Keywords

Auguste Comte, Specialistic or Formalistic School, George Simmel, Max Weber, Von Wiese, P.A. Sorokin, Synthetic school, Durkheim, Hobhouse, Ginsberg, MacIver, Changing nature, Talcott Parsons, Rural and Urban sociology, Globalization and Postmodernism, Digital Sociology.

Sociology and Common Sense

Commonsense knowledge is the routine knowledge people have of their everyday world and activities.

The common-sense explanations are generally based on what may be called ‘naturalistic’ and/or individualistic explanation based on taken for granted knowledge.

Sociology has its tryst with common sense since long time and it has been accused of being no more than common sense right from its birth.

Example: “Women are more emotional than men”.

Thinkers’ view:

- Andre Beteille: Sociological knowledge tends to be general, if not universal, on the other hand commonsense knowledge is particular and localised.
- Durkheim: Sociology must break free of the prejudice of commonsense perceptions before it can produce scientific knowledge of the social world.
- Marxists: Most commonsense knowledge is ideological or at least very limited in its understanding of the world.
- Anthony Giddens: Sociological knowledge also becomes part of common-sense knowledge sometimes. For example – sociological research into marital breakdown has led people to believe that marriage is a risky proposition.

Relationship between Common Sense and Sociology

Sociology draws a great deal from commonsense as the former touches the everyday experiences of lay persons. As a result, there is a tendency to use one in place of the other.
Sociological knowledge tends to be general, if not universal, on the other hand commonsense knowledge is particular and localised.
Commonsense is not only localised it is also unreflective since it does not question its own origin and presuppositions.
Further, sociology also helps us to show that commonsense is highly variable.
Sociology helps us to understand a society and this could be deepened and broadened by systematic comparison between one society with other whereas commonsense is not in a position to reach such an understanding. This becomes possible because sociology makes use of its tools and techniques for systematic investigation of the object while commonsense involves preconception, which is rejected by sociology.
Commonsense easily constructs imaginary social arrangements which is utopian whereas sociology is anti-utopian in its central preoccupation with the disjunction between ideal and reality in human societies.
Sociology is also anti-fatalistic in its orientation. It does not accept the particular constraints taken for granted by commonsense as eternal or immutable. It provides a clearer awareness than commonsense of the range of alternatives that have been or may be devised for the attainment of broadly the same ends.
Sociology is further value neutral and free of all forms of biases and value judgements but commonsense is often a source of biases and errors.
Commonsense knowledge is the routine knowledge people have of their everyday world and activities.

Different sociological approaches adopt different attitudes to commonsense knowledge.

The Commonsense concept is central to Alfred Schutz’s phenomenological sociology, where it refers to organized and typified stocks of taken for granted knowledge upon which activities are based and that in the natural attitude are not questioned.
For ethnomethodologists commonsense or tacit knowledge is a constant achievement in which people draw on implicit rules of how to carry on and which produce a sense of organisation and coherence.
For symbolic interactionists and other interpretive sociologists there is a less rigorous analysis of commonsense knowledge, but the central aim of sociology is seen as explicating and elaborating people’s conceptions of the social world
For Durkheim sociology must break free of the prejudice of commonsense perceptions before it can produce scientific knowledge of the social world.
For Marxists much commonsense knowledge is ideological or at least very limited in its understanding of the world. Therefore, to begin with we should see the difference between knowledge derived from commonsense and those having origin in sociological research and systematic methods.

How Common-sense aids Sociology?

Common sense aids sociologists in forming hypotheses: For instance, common sense might suggest that individuals from rural areas are more community-oriented. Sociologists can use this assumption to investigate social bonds in rural vs. urban settings, which can either validate or challenge the hypothesis.

Common sense provides foundational ideas for sociological research: For example, the stereotype that people with higher education are less likely to commit crimes can be a starting point for research. Sociologists might explore crime rates in relation to education levels to test this belief.

It also enriches sociology by questioning its findings: If common sense suggests that men are naturally better suited for leadership roles, but sociological research concludes that leadership is influenced more by socialization and opportunity than by gender, this contradiction can spur further investigation into gender roles and leadership.

Hegel argues that philosophy evolves from everyday experience, making every individual a social theorist: A worker who perceives the wage gap as unfair might not have formal training in sociology but is, in a sense, theorizing about class inequality based on lived experiences—an insight sociology can later formalize and study.
The relationship between common sense and sociology is fluid and can be mutually reinforcing: Common sense may lead to assumptions like “technology isolates people.” Sociological studies may either confirm this (showing increased loneliness with social media use) or challenge it (finding that technology enhances certain social connections), thus refining both sociological theory and common-sense beliefs.

Differences between Common sense and Sociology

Common sense	Sociology
Common sense generally takes cues from what appears on surface	Sociology looks for inter-connections and root causes which may not be apparent
Common sense uses conjectures and stereotypical beliefs	Sociology uses reason and logic
Common sense is based upon assumptions	Sociology is based upon evidences
Common sense is intuitive	Sociological knowledge is objective
Common sense promotes status-quo	Sociological knowledge is change oriented
Common sense based on personal judgements	Sociology is based on data, methods
Common sense knowledge may be very personal and two persons may draw different conclusion of a same event based on their own common sense	Sociological knowledge results into generalization and even theory building

Explanation of	Common Sense	Sociological
Poverty	People are poor because they are afraid of work, come from `problem families' are unable to budget properly, suffer from low intelligence and shiftlessness.	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.

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.

Previous Year Questions

Is Sociology common sense? Give reasons in support of your argument (2016)

The focal point of Sociology rests on interaction. How do you distinguish it from common sense? (2018)

How is Sociology related to common sense (2021)

Do you think that common sense is the starting point of social research? What are its advantages & limitations? Explain (2023)

Important Keywords

Commonsense, Routine Knowledge, Sociology, Granted Knowledge, Andre Beteille, Durkheim, Anthony Giddens, Everyday Experiences, Localised, Unreflective, Anti-utopian, Anti-fatalistic, Value neutral, Phenomenological sociology, Ethnomethodologists, Symbolic interactionists, Hypothesis, Status-quo and Starting point of social research.

Sociology and Anthropology

Sociology

Sociology is the study of social life, exploring the social causes and effects of human behaviour.

As C. Wright Mills puts it, sociology seeks out the “public issues” that shape “private troubles.” Unlike common perceptions of human behaviour, sociology relies on systematic, scientific methods of inquiry and critically examines widely accepted beliefs about the social world.

Sociological thinking involves closely analysing society, often revealing that things are not as they initially appear.

For instance, a sociologist views unemployment not as an individual’s personal issue, but as a result of the interplay between economic, political, and social forces that influence job availability and access.

Anthropology

Anthropology is a comprehensive and holistic study of humanity, encompassing subfields such as archaeology, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology and linguistic anthropology.

Anthropologists examine human beings through a broad, comparative lens, exploring human experiences across different times and places, both past and present.

Cultural anthropologists focus on studying various cultures, including their own and those that are different, by immersing themselves in the culture to gain an insider’s perspective.

Social anthropology emerged in the West during a period when Western-trained anthropologists primarily studied non-European societies, which were often regarded as exotic, barbaric, or uncivilized.

This unequal dynamic between the observers and the observed was frequently noted in earlier times.

However, the situation has evolved, and today, former “natives”—whether Indian, Sudanese, Naga, or Santhal—now have the opportunity to speak and write about their own societies.

Differences between Sociology and Anthropology

Sociology	Anthropology
It deals with modern, civilized and complex societies.	It deals with primitive, uncivilised and simple societies.
It studies small as well as large societies.	It usually studies only small societies.
Sociologists use census, survey and questionnaire techniques.	Anthropologists use participant observation and ethno- methodology.
It gives importance in analysing the quantitative data.	It gives importance in analysing qualitative data.
Its scope is narrow as it studies social relationships.	Its scope is wide as it studies cultural and biological aspects.
The primary subfields of sociology consist of Social Organization, Sociological Social Psychology, Social Change, and Criminology.	The main subfields of anthropology are Cultural Anthropology, Linguistic Anthropology, Biological/Physical Anthropology, and Archaeology.
Important concepts in sociology encompass social structure, social function, conflict, social class, culture, and socialization.	Important concepts in anthropology include culture, cultural relativism, ethnocentrism, cultural evolution, cultural adaptation, thick description, and ethnography.

Similarities between Sociology and Anthropology

Study of Human Societies and Behavior: Both anthropology and sociology examine how societies are formed, function, and evolve over time. They analyze how individuals and groups interact within these societies, considering the effects of these interactions on human relationships, societal dynamics, and social change. Both fields also explore societal roles, statuses, and shared behaviors, assessing their impact on human relations and social development.
Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Both disciplines employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Qualitative approaches, such as in-depth observations, interviews, and document analysis, offer deep insights into human and social behavior. Meanwhile, quantitative methods, including surveys and statistical analyses, provide measurements of broader social phenomena and patterns of behavior.
Analysis of Culture and Social Structures: Both anthropology and sociology extensively investigate culture, focusing on customs, rituals, norms, and the social orders that guide societies. They study how cultural factors influence, and are influenced by, societal structures and systems, paying particular attention to power dynamics, role differentiation, and the evolution of social institutions. These disciplines seek to understand how culture and social structures interact to shape human experiences and societal organization.
Interest in Norms, Values, and Beliefs: Anthropologists and sociologists are deeply invested in studying norms (socially accepted behaviors), values (what a society considers important), and beliefs (shared views about the world). They view these social constructs as dynamic and adaptable, changing over time, across different cultures, and in various contexts. By examining these shifts, both disciplines aim to understand how societies function and evolve.
Consideration of Individual and Collective Behaviors: Both anthropology and sociology provide valuable insights into individual behaviors and collective actions within societies. They seek to explore the intricate relationships between personal choices and social contexts, examining the range from individual micro-level behaviors to the actions of larger social groups. This dual focus helps illuminate how individual decisions are influenced by and, in turn, shape broader societal dynamics.
Interdisciplinary Research: Sociology and anthropology often work alongside other disciplines to explore complex social phenomena from various viewpoints. This interdisciplinary approach enables a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of human society and culture.

The relationship between sociology and anthropology is marked by both notable similarities and distinct differences. Both disciplines share a mutual interest in exploring human society, culture, and behavior, but they approach these topics from different perspectives and employ unique methodologies.

By appreciating the unique contributions of each discipline, along with their areas of overlap and collaboration, we can develop a richer and more nuanced understanding of the complexities of human social life.

The ongoing dialogue and exchange between sociology and anthropology are likely to provide valuable insights into the nature of human society and culture, enhancing our comprehension of contemporary social issues and the wider human experience.

Previous Year Questions

Discuss the nature of Sociology. Highlight its relationship with Social Anthropology (2024)

Important Keywords

Wright Mills, Study of humanity, Archaeology, Physical anthropology, Cultural anthropology, Linguistic anthropology, Social anthropology, Indian, Sudanese, Naga, Santhal, Social Organization, Sociological Social Psychology, Social Change, and Criminology, Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, Norms, Values, and Beliefs and Interdisciplinary Research.

Sociology and History

Sociology

Sociology is a social science that studies human societies, their interactions, and the processes that preserve and change them. It does this by examining the dynamics of constituent parts of societies such as institutions, communities, populations, and gender, racial, or age groups.

Sociology also studies social status or stratification, social movements, and social change, as well as societal disorder in the form of crime, deviance, and revolution.

History

History is a narration of the events which have happened among mankind, including an account of the rise and fall of nations, as well as of other great changes which have affected the political and social condition of the human race.

According to Radcliff Brown “sociology is nomothetic, while history is idiographic”.

In other words, sociologists produce generalizations while historians describe unique events.

An example for this claim are 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 Znaniecki consist of mere description of a peasant family, and therefore, is idiographic as any historical study can be.

Goldthorpe argues that history and sociology are two significantly different intellectual enterprises. He concludes that it is wrong to conclude to consider sociology and history as one. History in no sense is a natural science like sociology. It does not seek colourless units. It is said that history interprets whereas natural science explains.

Differences between Sociology and History

Sociology	History
Sociology is a social science that studies human societies, their interactions, and the processes that preserve and change them.	History is a narration of the events which have happened among mankind, including an account of the rise and fall of nations, as well as of other great changes which have affected the political and social condition of the human race.
Sociology is interested in studying the present social phenomenon.	History is interested in studying the past phenomenon.
Sociology is an analytical science.	History is a descriptive science.
Sociology is abstract in nature	History is concrete in nature.
Sociology is generalising science.	History is individualising science.
Sociologists believe their understanding transcends space-time dimension.	Historians emphasise their findings as time–space localised.

Interrelations between Sociology and History

Sociologists often refer to history to explain social changes, developments and changing face of society over period of time. Similarly, history also needs social aspects (sociological concepts) to explain past.
Social change is a reality. It has to happen. History shows mirror or truer way to analyse it with respect to time and space. History, in fact, said to be the constant reminder of the fact that change, even though permanent, is irregular and unpredictable.
History thus provides a frame of reference and contextual tool to examine and analyse change carefully.
Both sociology and history thus depend on each other to take complete stoke of reality.
Sociology is also concerned with the study of historical developments of society. Sociologist studies ancients or old traditions, culture, growth of civilisations, groups and institutions through historical analysis and interpretations.
The development of sociological theories is traced in 19th and 20th century historical developments at the level of philosophy, epistemology and progressive thinking.
Specifically, sociological theories have been product of intellectual, social, cultural and political climate within which they were developed. For instance, enlightenment was a period of remarkable intellectual development

Historical sociology

Historical sociology is a branch or sub-discipline of sociology. It emerged, during the twentieth century, primarily as a result of intersection between sociology and history.
Historical sociology as a sub-field of sociology is likely to make two major contributions to the discipline.
Firstly, it can fruitfully historicise sociological analysis helping to situate any sociological analysis historically.
Secondly, it will help to draw on important social issues which critically required historical analysis but somehow avoided or remain neglected in sociological analysis.
Sociologists often talk of the, ‘context’, while studying or explaining society in terms of its structure, functions and changes.
Here, time and space are two important factors which inherit and explain the contextual aspects of social reality. Time is crucial factors in explaining the evolution of social reality as social realities get shaped over period of time.
Since, history take care of factors such as time or periodical evolution of societies, it essentially helps sociologist to study society in much more systematic fashion.
It helps sociologists in providing rationale to articulate present status and developmental trajectory of a society.
Various sociologists such as Comte in his law of three stages, Spencer in his analysis of evolution of societies, Weber in his elaboration of ideal types and growth of city, and Marx in his analysis of class conflict and social changes, have used historical dimension in their sociological analysis.
Hence, history and sociology are closely related to each other. However, we may also note that both the disciplines differ in their nature and approaches, nevertheless intersect or criss-cross each other on many points.
Resultantly, historical sociology emerged as an off- shoot such intersection between the two disciplines.

Historical sociology as an outcome of intersection of the both the disciplines have emerged. It is also described that the historical sociology as branch of sociology has critically contributed to the growth of an interdisciplinary scholarship. Many sociologists, from the beginning of sociology as major discipline, such as Marx, Weber, Durkheim, later on Castells, Amin, Frank, Blaut as discussed, have elaborately contributed in this field. In nutshell, both sociology and history, though being two different disciplines in the domain
of social sciences, are very much closely interrelated and supplements each other’s field of studies.

Previous Year Questions

Discuss the relevance of historical method in the study of society (2015)

Important Keywords

History, Sociology, Institutions, Communities, Populations, Gender, Racial, Age groups, Radcliff Brown, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Thomas, Znaniecki, Goldthorpe, Analytical and Descriptive science, Concrete, Abstract, time–space and Historical sociology.

Sociology and Psychology

Sociology

The term sociology was coined by Auguste Comte, who is called the father of Sociology. Sociology is concerned with the study of human relationships and the society. It is believed that relationships develop when individuals come in close contact with other and interaction takes place between them. This leads to the formation of social groups and complex relationships among these groups develop as result of constant interaction.

Hence, it can be said that social self and individual self are two parts of the same coin. Given this, scholars have attempted to define and explain the subject matter of sociology. One of the founding fathers of sociology, Auguste Comte divided the subject matter of sociology into the study of social static and social dynamic.

The static was concerned with the study of how the parts of the societies inter-relate, the dynamic was to focus on whole societies as the unit of analysis and to show how they developed and changed through time.

According to Emile Durkheim sociology is the study of social facts. Sociology can be defined as the scientific study of human life, social relations, social groups and every aspect of the society as a whole. The scope of sociology is very wide, ranging from the analysis of the everyday interaction between individuals on the street to the investigation and comparison of societies across the globe.

Psychology

The term psychology is derived from two Greek words; Psyche means “soul or breath” and Logos means “knowledge or study” (study or investigation of something).

Psychology developed as an independent academic discipline in 1879, when a German Professor named Wilhelm Wundt established the first laboratory for psychology at the University of Leipzig in Germany. Initially, psychology was defined as ‘science of consciousness’.

In the simple words, we can define psychology as the systematic study of human behavior and experience. According to Baron (1990), psychology is the science of behaviour and cognitive processes. Psychology emphasizes on the process that occurs inside the individual’s mind such as perception, cognition, emotion, and consequence of these process on the social environment.

Thinker’s view

S. Mill: Argued for the primacy of psychology over other social sciences, believing that all social laws are derived from the laws of the mind.
Sigmund Freud: Suggested that sociology is essentially an extension of social psychology, linking societal behavior to psychological principles.
Émile Durkheim: Made a clear distinction between sociology and psychology, viewing them as studying different types of phenomena.
Ginsberg: Claimed that many social structures and organizations could be better understood by relating them to general psychological laws.
Max Weber: Believed that sociological explanations are enriched by understanding social behavior in terms of the underlying meanings individuals assign to their actions.

Differences between Sociology and Psychology

Sociology	Psychology
Sociology is the study of individual as well as of society.	Psychology is the study of personality.
Subject matter of sociology includes family, individual, power, etc.	Subject matter of psychology includes sympathy, imitations and passions.
Sociology is a general study of society and has a wider scope.	The scope of psychology is limited and focused on man’s mental activities.
The view that sociology is a science is often debated.	Psychology has more scope of experimentation.
Sociology helps one to see the world through the prism of different communities and cultures.	Psychology helps one to see the world through the lens of different individuals having different behaviours.
Sociology can help a person build a career in human resources, social research and justice related analysis.	Learning psychology can help building a career in criminal justice, public administration and social services, forensics, clinical psychology, marriage counselling, solving problems associated with addiction and substance abuse etc.

Link between Sociology and Psychology

Sociology and psychology together form the core of the social sciences. Right from their inception as separate academic disciplines, sociology and psychology have studied different aspects of human life.

Most of the other species, work on instincts in the physical environment for their survival. While the survival of humans depends upon the learned behaviour patterns. An instinct involves a genetically programmed directive which informs behaviour in a particular way. It also involves specific instruction to perform a particular action (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008).

For instance, birds have instincts to build nests and members of particular species are programmed to build a nest in a particular style and pattern. Unlike this, the human mind is influenced by the social culture, customs, norms, and values. It through socialization that humans learn specific behaviour patterns to suit them best in the physical environment. Humans process the information provided by the social context to make sense of their living conditions. Sociology’s basic unit of analysis is the social system such as family, social groups, cultures etc.

The main subject matter of psychology is to study human mind to analyses attitude, behaviour emotions, perceptions and values which lead to the formation of individual personality living in the social environment.

While sociology deals with the study of the social environment, social collectives which include family, communities and other social institutions psychology deals with the individual.

For instance, while studying group dynamism, sociologist and psychologist initially share common interest in various types of groups, and their structures which are affected by the degree of cooperation, cohesion, conflict, information flow, the power of decision making and status hierarchies. This initial similarity of interest, takes on different focus, both the disciplines use different theoretical positions to explain the group phenomena.

Social Psychology

There is constant interaction between the intra-individual and social context and both influence each other mutually.

Social psychology could be defined as the study of the “interface between these two sets of phenomena, the nature and cause of human social behaviour”.

G.W Allport defines social psychology with its emphasis on “the thought, feeling, and behaviour of individual as shaped by actual, imagined, or implied the presence of others”.

A few other definitions of social psychology are as follows: Social Psychology is the discipline that explores in an in-depth manner the various aspects of social interaction.

Baron and Byrne (2007) define social psychology as the scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior in social situations.

To sum up we can say that social psychology is the systematic study of people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviour in the social context.

Inter-disciplinary Approach to Social Psychology

The definition given by Allport suggests that the roots of social psychology are embedded in sociology as well as psychology.

Scholars such as Cook, Fine, and House (1995), Delamater (2006) are of the view that social psychology essentially includes analysis and synthesis of major works in the field of sociology and psychology hence, it is interdisciplinary in nature.

The main subject matter of social psychology is the study of the individual in the social context. In other words, the mind, self and society are the subject matters of social psychology.

There are many sociological and psychological perspectives used in social psychology to explain and understand the constant influence of human and society on each other.

Depending upon the approach, purpose, and focus of the study social psychology could be is further divided into sociological social psychology and psychological social psychology.

It is very difficult to make clear distinctions between the two, as social psychology tends to draw from both the disciplines of sociology and psychology.

The cognitive social psychology or the social cognition is an approach that investigates how information is processed and stored.

According to Thoits “information is stored as prototypes, schemas, and the like; information processing includes attending to cues, retrieving from memory, and making judgments, inferences and predictions about oneself and others.”

In this approach, cognition is seen as social because it originates from the social experience and bears consequence on the interpersonal behaviour. Sociological social psychology concentrates on the mass psyche, the psychology of classes and the elements of group mentality such as customs, moral and traditions. In other words, it focuses on small group dynamics.

Important Keywords

History, Sociology, Institutions, Communities, Populations, Gender, Racial, Age groups, Radcliff Brown, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Thomas, Znaniecki, Goldthorpe, Analytical and Descriptive science, Concrete, Abstract, time–space and Historical sociology.

Sociology and Economy

Sociology

Sociology focuses of organization of social relationships and attempts to analyse the dynamics of organized patterns of social relations and social behaviour. One can say that primarily it tries to answer three basic questions.

Firstly, how and why societies emerge?

Secondly how and why societies persist?

And how and why societies change?

Most of the sociologists agree on the following

The major concern of sociology is with the analysis of human social behaviour and relationships.
Sociology gives attention to the study of primary social institutions such as family and maintenance of social order.
Sociology focuses on evolution, transformation and functioning of social life.
Sociology deals with social process such as co-operation and competition, accommodation and assimilation, social conflict, communication in society, social differentiation and social stratification.

Sociology has its own methodology and is based on empirical data collection and inductive reasoning but also has deductive aspects at the level of generalizations.

Economics

Economics is a social science that deals with human wants and their satisfaction. Classical economics assumes that people have unlimited wants and the resources to satisfy these wants are limited. They are always engaged in work to secure the things they need for the satisfaction of their wants.

The farmer in the field, the worker in the factory, the clerk in the office, and the teacher in the school are all at work.

The basic question that arises here is:

Why different people undertake these activities?

The answer is that they are working to earn income with which they satisfy their wants. People have multiple wants to satisfy. People’s multiple wants include basic needs such as food, cloth, shelter and other needs like better education, better health facilities etc.

According to one perspective it is assumed that there is no limit for human wants, it is insatiable. When one wants get satisfied, another want automatically takes place and so on in an endless succession. Hence, we say that it is impossible to satisfy one’s wanted.

People earn money by doing some work or activity and they use this money to satisfy their wants.

Economics is about the conversion of raw material into usable good, called production. The use of these goods called consumption and the distribution of resources in society.

Thus, human activities have two common aspects; first, we are all engaged in providing for our needs, and secondly, needs vary for different goods and services. This action of acquiring resources and spending is called economic activity.

Seligman says, the starting point of all economic activity is the existence of human wants. Wants give rise to efforts and efforts secure satisfaction. The things which directly satisfy human wants are called consumption goods.

A few consumption goods like air, sunshine, etc. are abundant. They are available at free cost. But most of goods are scarce. They are available only by paying a price.

And, therefore, they are called economic goods. They do not exist in sufficient quantity to satisfy all wants.

Thinker’s view

Robbins: “Economics is a social science which studies human behaviour in relation to his unlimited ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.” It largely focuses on the activities of man such as production, consumption, distribution and exchange. It also studies the structure and functions of different economic organizations like banks, markets etc.
C. Pigou: “Economics studies that part of social welfare which can be brought directly or indirectly into relationship with the measuring rod of money.”
John Stuart Mill: He defines the subject of economics as “The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, in so far as those phenomena are not modified by the pursuit of any other object.”
Alfred Marshall: “Economics is the study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the use and attainment of material requisites of well-being.”
Max Weber: He defines sociology as “The science which attempts the interpretative understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its cause and effects.”
Morris Ginsberg: “In the broadest sense, sociology is the study of human interactions and inter-relations, their conditions and consequences”.

Differences between Sociology and Economics

Sociology	Economics
Sociology primarily studies about society and social relationships.	Economics studies about wealth and choice.
Sociology emerged as a science of society very recently.	Economics is comparatively an older science.
Sociology is considered as an abstract science.	Economics is considered as a concrete science in the domain of social sciences.
Sociology generally deals with all aspects of social science.	Economics deals specific aspects of social science.
Sociology has a very wide scope.	Economics scope is very limited.
Sociology is concerned with the social activities of individuals.	Economics is concerned with their economic activities.
Society is studied as a unit of study in Sociology.	Individual is taken as a unit of study in economics.

Similarities between Sociology and Economics

Both Sociology and Economics are branches of social science that focus on the study of human development and behaviour.
Both disciplines use scientific methods to investigate and analyse their respective fields.
Economics and Sociology are interdependent; while Economics focuses on the economic aspects of human life, it is inherently linked to social activities.
Likewise, Sociology, which studies social beings, is significantly influenced by economic factors.
Economics is regarded as a branch of social science, and historically, it has been considered a sub-discipline of Sociology.

Economic Sociology

According to Britannica encyclopaedia, economic sociology is the application of sociological methods to understand the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services.

Economic sociology is particularly attentive to the relationships between economic activity, the rest of society, and changes in the institutions that contextualize and condition economic activity.

One can see the roots of economic sociology in the classical philosophical and social science tradition; however, it emerged as a systematic academic subdivision of sociology in less than a century ago.

After it became an academic sub discipline of its parent discipline, it has made remarkable contribution in analysing society from an economic perspective.

If we closely observe, we can find out that the birth of economic sociology in the writings of Karl Marx.

Smelser, N.J and Swedberg. R says that the first use of the term economic sociology seems to have been in 1879, when it appears in a work by British economist W. Stanley Jevons ([1879] 1965).

The term was taken over by the sociologists and appears, for example, in the works of Durkheim and Weber during the years 1890–1920.

It is also during these decades that classical economic sociology is born, as exemplified by such works as The Division of Labor in Society (1893) by Durkheim, The Philosophy of Money (1900) by Simmel, and Economy and Society (produced 1908-20) by Weber.

These classics of economic sociology are remarkable for the following characteristics.

First, Weber and others shared the sense that they were pioneers, building up a type of analysis that had not existed before.

Second, they focused on the most fundamental questions of the field: What is the role of the economy in society? How does the sociological analysis of the economy differ from that of the economists? What is an economic action? To this should be added that the classical figures were preoccupied with understanding capitalism and its impact on society — “the great transformation” that it had brought about.

Contemporary Economic Sociology

In the recent times, especially after 1980’s, economic sociology experienced a remarkable revival. Few sociologists, who were doing rigorous research on the relationship between market and society, contributed a flurry of articles on the networks of market and society, which eventually lead to the revival of economic sociology into an important subfield of sociology.

The main contributor of 1980’s was Mark Granovetter, who emphasized on the embeddedness of economic action in concrete social relations.

In the article Economic Institutions as social constructions, Granovetter argues that institutions are actually congealed social networks, and, because economic action mostly takes place in these networks, social scientists must consider interpersonal relationships while studying economy.

He further argues that in the contemporary economic sociology markets are considered as networks of producers watching each other and trying carve out niches.

Hence, we can say that such networks are the core area of concern in the contemporary economic sociology.

Karl Polanyi is another renowned contributor to economic sociology, argued that the birth of the free market was an institutional transformation necessarily promoted by the state. This got a general acceptance in the domain of economic sociology.

Origin of New Economic Sociology

Convert. B and Heilbron. J in their article ‘Where Did the New Economic Sociology Come From’ provides a detailed account of the emergence of new economic sociology.

They argue that the new economic sociology obtained its scientific legitimacy by bringing together two promising new currents: network analysis and neo-institutionalism, along with a more marginal cultural mode of analysis. This has led to the “new economic sociology,” to become one of the liveliest subfields of sociology.

Important Keywords

Sociology, Economics, Social Process, Classical economics, Production, A.C. Pigou, John Stuart Mill, Alfred Marshall, Morris Ginsberg, Economic sociology, Division of Labor in Society, The Philosophy of Money, Economy and Society, Contemporary Economic Sociology, Mark Granovetter, Karl Polanyi and New Economic Sociology.

Sociology and Political Science

Sociology

Sociology is devoted to the study of all aspects of society. Sociology stresses the interrelationships between sets of institutions including government.

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.

Political science

Political science is generally defined as a scientific study of state, government and politics. The concept of politics is central to political science. In fact, sometimes both are used interchangeably.

In general, politics is also defined as a process whereby people form, preserve and modify general rules which govern their lives. Such processes generally involve both cooperation and conflict.

Politics as an art of governance is thus engaged with the issues of public affair, conflict, multiple decisions making, compromises and consensus at different levels and, thus, essentially delineating concerns related to power and distribution of resources.

Now, let us look at some of the meanings attached to the word politics:

Firstly, politics is often considered as an art of government. The word politics is derived from the word, ‘polis’ which literally means, ‘the city state’. In this context, politics or political science is often referred to affairs of polis- means the concerns or the matters related to state and its affairs. Political science as an academic discipline has largely adopted this definition of politics or political science.

Secondly, Politics primarily deals with public affairs, but its scope extends beyond just the study of government or state. It involves both public institutions like the police, army, and courts, which serve society as a whole, and private institutions like families and businesses, which focus on individual needs and interests.

Thirdly, Politics is often defined by its focus on compromise, decision-making, and consensus. It deals with resolving conflicts through negotiation, dialogue, and arbitration, rather than relying solely on force. Scholars call politics “the art of the possible” because it aims to find peaceful solutions. Politics also involves the distribution of power and resources to ensure a smoothly functioning society.

Lastly, Politics is often linked to power and influence. Scholars see it as central to all social activities, both formal and informal, at various levels—family, groups, organizations, and global society. Politics revolves around power, the ability to influence others, and the struggle for limited resources. Political science studies this power, governance, and state structure. Like sociology, political science seeks to impart knowledge, not practical political training. Over time, political science has adopted an interdisciplinary approach, borrowing from fields like sociology, broadening its scope and methods. Understanding this shift helps in appreciating the connection between sociology and political science.

Thinker’s view

Lipset: It is said that the disciplines of sociology and political science are closely interwoven in their analysis of power, authority structures, administration and governance.
According to Jain and Doshi (1974), when vocabulary of political science is translated into the vocabulary of sociological analysis it is then what we call political sociology.

Similarities Between Sociology with Political Science

Firstly, political science relies heavily upon sociology for its basic theories and methods. For example, in mid-20th century Michigen social psychologists and Parsonians at Harward significantly shaped political science agendas in political behaviour and political development respectively.

Secondly, focal specialities in both the discipline borrowed from similar third-party disciplines such as economics, history, anthropology and psychology.

Thirdly, a large number of scholars such as Marx, Weber, Gramsci, Pareto, Parsons and Mosca, etc. equally have contributed to the growth and development of both the disciplines.

Relationship Between Sociology with Political Science

It may be noted that given the changing societal need and aspirations in contemporary globalised world an interdisciplinary approach is necessary to understand social problems and find answers to the problems of modern society.

Sociology is often defined as scientific study of society. We may also note that society is nothing but a complex network of various groups, institutions, communities, associations, people and their everyday life activities.

Politics and power dynamics forms integral to all of these conceptions of human lives. Notably, polity or political formations has always been the essential components of any human society.

In modern times, no society can be imagined without polity, political institutions or, so to say, any form of political life. State and governance are basic to any society both in terms of its function, development and meeting essential needs of social life such as law and order, security and development.

Sociology too essentially reflects on status of social world with a focus on social issues and on the condition of human society, the network of social relationships in an increasingly globalised interconnected world, the growing variety of political traditions, caste and politics, ethnicity, cultural background, economic conditions and linguistic affiliations.

Sociology examines various aspects of political behaviour with special focus on their social implications. This in fact indicates deeper intersection between sociology and political science.

However, both the disciplines differ in their approach. Political scientists investigate into rise, fall and changes of governments and their leaders whereas sociologists see governments as social institutions, political behaviour as outcome of social dynamics and leadership as social phenomena having multifarious implications for social developments.

Both sociology and political science intersect at multitude of points and provide a broader analysis of the social reality.

Thus, the similarities, between the two, are well appreciated by scholars. However, both the disciplines have differences too which also need to be critically assessed.

Sociologist most importantly talk of interaction system, be it within groups, institutions or organisations, whereas political science talk about control mechanism within such groups or organisations.

Hence, the frame of reference or perspectives of sociology and political science differ. The former primarily concerned about interactionist views, whereas later focuses on power structure, order and control mechanisms. Scholars argued that when sociological perspective of interaction system is applied to the analysis of political phenomena it tends to become political sociology.

It is in this sense that we can say that Almond Coleman’s ‘The Politics of Developing Areas (1960)’ and Rajni Kothari’s ‘Politics in India (1970)’ are earlier examples of growing political Sociology.

Resultantly, political sociology which is basically an outcome of intersection between sociology and political science, is relatively a newer branch of sociology, studies various political intuitions, associations, organisations, interest groups and multitude of power dynamics in society.

Political sociology, which we would elaborate in the subsequent section in this unit, also studies interest groups, political parties, administrative and bureaucratic behaviour, social legislations, state policies, reforms and political ideologies as its areas of the study.

Differences between Sociology and Political Science

Sociology	Political Science
Sociology is a science of Society.	Political Science is a science of state and government.
Sociology studies all kinds of society, organised or unorganised.	Political science studies only politically organised bodies.
Sociology has a wider scope.	Political science has a narrow scope.
Sociology studies man as fundamentally social animal.	Political science studies man as fundamentally political animal.
Sociology follows its own methods in addition to usage of scientific methods.	Political science focuses on human relationship characterised by politics.
Sociology is comparatively younger science.	Political science is comparatively older science.

Political sociology

Political sociology often sees as a new, growing and burgeoning sub-field within the discipline of sociology. It is considered as a connecting bridge between sociology and political science.

Sociologists see two-way relationships between the two. Both have a give and take relationship. Various other scholars see political sociology as a marriage between sociology and political science which studies and brings critically important and newer areas as mentioned earlier which touches both sociology and political science, but could not be adequately studied by either one.

Political sociology as a sub-field develops in an attempt to overcome lacuna of behaviouralism, which emerge in 1960s in political science, by correcting its overemphasis on psychological explanation of human behaviour.

Political sociology essentially looks into social determinants, social context and more importantly an organic interconnection between politics and society to unpack social aspects of politics and its processes. It is actually in this sense that structures of society and social organs of politics became primary units of analysis in the discipline of political sociology.

Furthermore, the application of sociological tools of analysis to the political phenomena has added to our understanding of political behaviour.

This cross-bordering of both the disciplines has not only led to develop political sociology as crucial sub-field but both the disciplines have refined themselves, added to their reservoir of concepts and widen their themes and issues and applications to understand and analyse social reality embedded into human society.

Areas of research in this domain include analysis of functioning of public agencies, groups and family as an agent of socialisation. Certain other areas such as voting behaviour, political ecology and political community reflect upon themes of political functioning.

It is actually political processes through which conception of political membership, allegiance, ideological contestations, value orientation of the groups and identities are formed and transformed, and added to the growing maturity of political sociology as an intellectual discipline.

Anthony Giddens’s social theory on international relations and European studies, Weber’s analysis of spheres of life and Bourdieu’s analysis of politics like any other areas of social activity such as education and economics etc are some of the examples indicating the trajectory of growth of the discipline.

Previous Year Questions

Discuss the relationship between sociology and political science. (2023)

Important Keywords

Sociology, Art of Governance, Political science, Jain and Doshi, Michigen Social Psychologists, Parsonians, Marx, Weber, Gramsci, Pareto, Parsons, Mosca, Frame of Reference or Perspectives, Rajni Kothari, Social theory on international relations, Lacuna of Behaviouralism and Agent of Socialisation.

Sociology as a Science

Science

Science is a body of systematic knowledge and based on reason and evidence.
Science is “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws”.
It refers to the application of objective methods of investigation, reasoning and logic to develop a body of knowledge about given phenomena.
Martha Nussbaum – Sociology is useful science because it solves problems of society.
August Comte and Durkheim – Sociology is science because it adopts scientific method.

Characteristics of Science

Objectivity: It is one of the core characteristics of science. It refers to the practice of observing, collecting, and analyzing facts without letting personal biases, emotions, or subjective opinions interfere with the process. This ensures that scientific knowledge is based on facts and evidence rather than individual beliefs or preferences.

Example: When measuring the temperature of a solution in a chemistry experiment, a scientist uses a thermometer with precise, standardized units (Celsius or Fahrenheit) to ensure objective and repeatable results. This guarantees that anyone conducting the same experiment will get the same measurement, independent of personal factors.

Verifiability: Verifiability refers to the idea that scientific knowledge or claims can be tested, verified, and confirmed by independent experiments or observations. A statement or hypothesis is only scientific if it can be subject to verification. Example: Theory of Evolution Darwin’s theory of natural selection is verifiable through observations and fossil records. Over time, biological evidence has been collected through fossil discoveries, genetic research, and the study of animal behavior, all of which verify aspects of the theory.

Empiricism: It is the philosophical concept that knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience—meaning observations, experiments, and evidence gathered through the senses (sight, touch, hearing, etc.) are the foundation of all scientific knowledge. This approach contrasts with relying solely on theory, speculation, or tradition.

Example: By observing craters and mountains on the moon through his telescope, Galileo gathered empirical data that refuted the long-held belief of a perfectly smooth moon, advancing scientific understanding of astronomy.

Experimentation: It is a core component of the scientific method, involving controlled procedures to test hypotheses, gather data, and observe outcomes. Through experiments, scientists manipulate variables to investigate causal relationships or confirm or refute a theory.
Gregor Mendel conducted experiments with pea plants to understand how traits are inherited. By cross-breeding different varieties of peas, Mendel manipulated specific traits like flower color and seed shape to observe how they were passed down through generations.

Reliability: It refers to the consistency and repeatability of a scientific experiment, test, or measurement. If a method or result is reliable, repeating the experiment under the same conditions should yield the same results. Reliability is crucial for building trust in scientific findings and ensuring that results are not due to chance or isolated factors.

Example: If a student takes the SAT (a standardized test) twice under similar conditions (within a short time frame, without significant external changes), the scores should be quite similar, demonstrating the test’s reliability. If the scores fluctuate drastically, the test may be considered unreliable.

Validity refers to the accuracy of a method or experiment in measuring what it is intended to measure. A valid test or experiment accurately reflects the reality or concept being studied, ensuring the results are meaningful and relevant.
Example: In educational testing, if a math test is designed to measure a student’s arithmetic skills, the questions must focus on arithmetic. If it contains irrelevant content (e.g., language skills), it lacks validity. A valid test of arithmetic will yield accurate insights into the student’s math ability, without being influenced by unrelated factors.

Predictability: It refers to the ability of scientific theories or models to accurately forecast future events or behaviors based on established principles and evidence. A reliable scientific theory allows researchers to make predictions that can be tested and validated through observation and experimentation.
Example: Meteorologists use atmospheric data and models to predict weather patterns. By analyzing factors like temperature, humidity, and wind speed, they can make accurate forecasts.

Is Sociology a Science?

Yes, Sociology is a Science

Use of Scientific Methods: Sociologists often employ systematic and empirical research methods similar to those used in natural sciences. This includes surveys, experiments, and observational studies to gather data about social behavior and structures.
- Example: Studies on social phenomena, like voting behavior or crime rates, are conducted using quantitative methods to analyze patterns and relationships, allowing for hypotheses to be tested and validated.
Theory Development: Sociology contributes to theoretical frameworks that explain social behavior and institutions. Just like in natural sciences, sociological theories can be tested and refined based on empirical evidence.
- Example: Theories like functionalism or conflict theory provide explanations for social dynamics and can be assessed through research to determine their validity and applicability.
Generalization of Findings: Sociological research aims to identify trends and patterns that can be generalized to larger populations. This aligns with the scientific goal of producing knowledge that is not just specific to individual cases but can apply to broader social contexts.
- Example: Studies on the impact of education on social mobility may yield insights applicable to various societies, supporting the notion that sociological findings can have predictive value.

No, Sociology is not a Science

Complexity of Social Phenomena: Critics argue that social phenomena are too complex and influenced by numerous factors, including cultural, historical, and individual differences, making them difficult to study with the same precision as natural sciences.
- Example: Human behavior is often unpredictable and influenced by emotions, beliefs, and social contexts, which can lead to variations that are not easily quantifiable or replicable.
Subjectivity in Interpretation: The interpretation of social data can be subjective, influenced by the researcher’s perspectives and biases. Unlike natural sciences, where measurements can be objectively verified, sociology often involves qualitative methods that may lead to differing interpretations.
- Example: In-depth interviews or ethnographic studies can yield rich data about social interactions, but the meaning derived from these interactions can vary based on the researcher’s background and worldview.
Normative and Value-Laden Aspects: Sociology often addresses moral and ethical issues, which can complicate its classification as a pure science. The normative aspects of sociological research—such as examining social justice or inequality—may lead to biases that affect objectivity.
- Example: Sociological studies on race, gender, or class may advocate for social change or highlight injustices, which can influence how research is conducted and interpreted, contrasting with the objective stance often held in natural sciences.

The classification of sociology as a science remains contested. Supporters argue that its use of empirical methods and theory development align it with scientific disciplines, while critics highlight the complexities, subjectivity, and normative elements of social research that differentiate it from natural sciences. Ultimately, sociology may occupy a unique position that blends scientific inquiry with interpretative understanding of human behavior and society.

Previous Year Questions

Is Sociology a science? Give reasons for your answer. (2015)

Important Keywords

Science, Systematic Knowledge, Objective Methods, Martha Nussbaum, Durkheim, Standardized Units, Verifiability, Theory of Evolution, Sensory Experience, Empiricism, Galileo, Predictability, Experimentation, Reliability, Validity, Scientific Methods, Theory Development, Generalization, Social Phenomena, Subjectivity and Value-Laden Aspects.

Scientific method, and Critique

According to Karl Pearson: “There is no short cut to truth, no way to gain knowledge, of the universe except through this gateway of scientific method.” Science goes with the method, not with the subject matter.

“Scientific Method is a systematic and objective attempt to study a problem for the purpose of deriving general principles”. The logical, rational, efficient and effective way of collecting, organizing and interpreting facts is scientific method. It consists of a series of steps, which researcher follow while carrying out research.

The scientific method involves developing and testing theories about the world based on empirical evidence.
If is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of the empirical world and strives to be objective, critical, skeptical and logical.
The scientific method is an essential tool in research.
A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data is gathers, hypothesis is formulated from the data and testable explanation is found for the hypothesis.
Scientific method is characterized by systematic observation, measurement experimentation, formulation and testing of hypothesis and its modification.

Thinker's view

Robert Burns describes it as “a systematic investigation to find solutions to a problem”. The investigation is guided by previously collected information.
George A. Lundberg: “Social scientists are committed to the belief that the problems which confront them are to be solved, if at all by judicious and systematic observation, verification, classification, and interpretation of social phenomena. This is a approach in its most rigorous and successful from is broadly designated as the scientific method.”
N. Thouless: “Scientific method is a system of techniques (different in many respects in different sciences, although retaining the same general character) for attaining the end of discovering general laws.”

Steps of the Scientific Method with Examples

Selecting a Topic: Sociologists start by identifying a social phenomenon or issue they want to study. This could range from social inequality, crime, or education systems.
- Example: A sociologist may choose to study the impact of social media on mental health.
Defining the Problem: After selecting a topic, the sociologist narrows it down to a specific issue or problem to be addressed.
- Example: The researcher defines the problem as examining whether excessive use of social media increases anxiety among teenagers.
Reviewing the Literature: The sociologist reviews existing research and theories related to the chosen problem, identifying gaps that their study can fill.
- Example: The researcher looks at previous studies on social media usage and mental health, noting that while some studies focus on adults, research on teenagers is limited.
Formulating the Hypothesis: A hypothesis is then developed, proposing a testable statement about the relationship between variables.
- Example: The hypothesis could be: “Increased time spent on social media is positively correlated with higher levels of anxiety in teenagers.”
Choosing a Research Method or Methodology: The sociologist selects the most appropriate research method to test the hypothesis. Common methods include surveys, experiments, or observational studies.
- Example: The researcher might choose to conduct a survey of high school students, asking them about their social media use and self-reported anxiety levels.
Collecting the Data: The data is gathered through the chosen method, ensuring it is empirical and verifiable.
- Example: The researcher distributes surveys to a representative sample of students from different schools, collecting quantitative data on their social media usage and anxiety.
Analyzing the Results: The sociologist then analyzes the data, typically using statistical methods to determine whether the hypothesis is supported.
- Example: After analyzing the data, the researcher finds a significant correlation between the amount of time spent on social media and higher levels of anxiety among teenagers, supporting the hypothesis.
Sharing the Results: Finally, the sociologist publishes their findings, contributing to the broader body of knowledge in sociology.
- Example: The results are published in an academic journal, adding to the growing research on the mental health impacts of social media and prompting further studies.

How the Scientific Method Systematizes Sociology

The use of the scientific method ensures that sociology is not just based on assumptions or opinions, but on carefully tested theories and empirical data. By following systematic steps, sociologists can create a structured body of knowledge that is reliable and applicable across various contexts.

Example: Emile Durkheim’s study on suicide is a classic example. Durkheim used empirical data and statistical analysis to demonstrate how social integration and regulation influence suicide rates, showing that even deeply personal acts can have social causes. This systematic approach helped give sociology a scientific basis, shaping it as a structured field of inquiry.

The scientific method in sociology ensures that research is methodical, results are verifiable, and knowledge is systematized, making sociology a credible discipline with a definite shape.

Characteristics of Scientific Method

Verifiable evidence:e., factual observation which other observers can see and check.
Accuracy: It means truth or correctness of a statement or describing things exactly as they are and avoiding jumping to unwarranted conclusion either by exaggeration or fantasising.
Systematic Observation: Strictly speaking the scientific method is systematic that is, it relies on care carefully planned studies rather than on random or haphazard observation. Nevertheless, Science can begin from some random observation.
Objective Approach: The scientific method is objective. It relies on facts and on the world as it is, rather than on beliefs, wishes or desires. Scientists attempt (with varying degrees of success) to remove their biases when making observations.
Precision: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 percent people were against family planning.” Thus, in scientific precision, one avoids colourful literature and vague meanings.
Logical: Logic is defined as the discourse of argument. Analytically, logic is separable from any science, it constitutes a field of inquirey itself. However, science is not independent of the logic supporting it, at some point in his inquire, the researcher reaches a conclusion regarding the acceptability of some proposition.
Training investigators: Imparting necessary knowledge to investigators to make them understand what to look for, how to interpret it and avoid inaccurate data collection.
Predictive: Science is concerned with relating the present to the future. In fact, scientists strive to develop theories because, among other reasons, they are useful in predicting behaviour. A theory’s adequacy lies in its ability to predict a phenomenon or event successfully.

According to Martindale and Monachies

“Science too is a mode of thought, and like all thinking it arises in response to problems. It differs from the other modes of thought primarily in its method. Among the methods characteristic of the science are

1. the emphasis it places upon the observation
2. the attempt to test its ideas in practice
3. the development of experiment, of model situations that may serve to test its ideas
4. the invention of new instruments that permit more precise observation and more exact measurement
5. the rigorous exclusion of the scientists’ evaluations from the study, and the concentration on the problem of how thing actually happen rather than on why they happen or what ought to happen”.

According to Henry Jhonson

Characteristics of Scientific Research

It is empirical
It is theoretical
It is cumulative
It is non – ethical

Important Uses of Scientific Research in Sociology

Improves Decision-Making: Scientific research provides evidence-based insights that help individuals and organizations make informed decisions on social issues, policies, and interventions.
- Example: A government might use sociological research on poverty to implement targeted welfare programs for vulnerable populations.
Reduces Uncertainty: By systematically collecting and analyzing data, sociological research reduces uncertainty, offering clearer understanding of complex social phenomena.
- Example: Research on crime rates in urban areas can help predict where crime is most likely to occur, enabling law enforcement to deploy resources effectively.
Enables Adopting New Strategies: Research outcomes offer practical solutions, enabling organizations and governments to adopt new strategies that address emerging social challenges.
- Example: Studies on remote work trends during the COVID-19 pandemic have enabled companies to adopt more flexible work strategies.
Helps in Planning for the Future: Sociological research identifies long-term trends, allowing policymakers and organizations to plan for future societal changes.
- Example: Demographic studies can predict aging populations, helping governments prepare for future healthcare and pension needs.
Helps in Ascertaining Trends: Scientific research identifies social patterns and trends over time, enabling societies to better understand and address ongoing changes.
- Example: Research on family dynamics and marriage patterns can reveal shifts in societal values, helping policymakers adjust family-related laws.

Limitations of Scientific Research in Sociology

Social scientists tried to apply the techniques of the natural sciences for the study of human psyche and society. But it was soon found that social reality is very different, and it is not possible to apply the classical scientific method without modification for its study due to the following reasons

Complexity of Social Data: No two persons are exactly alike and even the behaviour of the same individual varies under different circumstances. So, it is difficult to generalize about social phenomena in the form of universal cause-effect relationships.
Social Phenomena is Unpredictable: Due to the complexity of social phenomena, it is difficult to predict human behavior and arrive at laws that are universally true under identical circumstances. This is in contrast to the high level of predictability that prevails in the case of physical and chemical phenomena.
Plurality of Causes and Inter mixture of Effects: Not only do social phenomena have a range of causes but it is also difficult to clearly distinguish between cause and effect in the case of social data.
Difficulty in Measurement and Quantification: Due to such diversity, it is difficult to quantify and consequently measure social categories.

Criticism of Scientific Method

Historian Jacques Barzun termed science “a faith as fanatical as any in history” and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.

Various dimensions along which the science and its methods have been criticized are as follows

It is criticized for its claim to be an objective method.
Karl Popper denied the very existence of evidence and of scientific method. Popper holds that there is only one universal method of acquiring knowledge, the negative method of trial and error. It covers not only all products of the human mind, including science, mathematics so on, but also the evolution of life.
Thomas Kuhn felt that scientists work with preconceived notions and theories which subtly impact their observations and measurements.
Science has been criticized for manipulating nature as well as individual.
Science and technology is criticized for promoting consumerism and creating new problems for human being. It has threatened the very existence of humanity.
Science and scientific methodology is a process of rationalization and according to Weber, process of rationalization is itself irrational.
EconomistF. Schumacher considered that the 17^th century scientific revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature and it leads to manipulate people, as well.
J F Feyerbend contends that scientific method restricts the choices of the researcher and sociological research should be liberating not constraining.
Adorno indicates that science is suffocating and kills creativity.

Previous Year Questions

Describe the basic postulates of scientific method. How far are these followed in sociological research (2016
Is Sociology a value- free science? Discuss (2020)

Important Keywords

Science, Systematic Knowledge, Objective Methods, Karl Pearson, Robert Burns, George A. Lundberg, Research Method or Methodology, Karl Popper, E.F. Schumacher, Decision-Making, Non – Ethical, Social Data and Systematic Observation.

Major Theoretical Strands of Research Methodology

Research methodology is a wider term given to the entire process of research which includes specific approach and ideology, research methods, research design, data, assumptions and logics used in that process.

Sociologists approach the study of human society in different ways. They can look at the “big picture” of society to see how it operates. This is a macro view focusing on the large social phenomena of society such as social institutions and inequality.

Sociologists can also take a micro view, zeroing in on the immediate social situations in which people interact with one another.

From these two views, sociologists have developed various theoretical perspectives, each a set of general assumptions about the nature of society.

Macropositivist

Positivism – Many of the founding fathers of sociology believed that it would be possible to create a science of society such as chemistry and biology. This approach is known as positivism.

Functionalism - The Consensus Approach

Functional analysis also known as functionalism and structural functionalism is rooted in the origin of Sociology. It is prominent in the work of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, two of the founding fathers of the discipline. It was developed by Emile Durkheim and refined by Talcott Parsons.

Functionalism begins with the observation of the structural behavior of the society. This means that relationships between members of the society are organized in terms of rules.

Social relationships are therefore patterned and recurrent. Values provide general guidelines for behaviour and they are translated into more specific directives in terms of roles and norms.

The structure of the society can be seen as the sum total of normative behaviour – the sum total of social relationships which are governed by norms.

In determining the function of various parts of the social structure, functionalists are guided by some ideas. Societies have certain basic needs or requirements which must be met if they have to survive.

These requirements are sometimes known as functional prerequisites.

Society, from a functionalist perspective, is a system made up of interrelated parts.
Since society is a system, there must be some degree of integration between its parts.
A minimal degree of integration is therefore a functional prerequisite of society.
Many functionalists believe that the order and stability they see as essential for the maintenance of the social system are largely provided by value consensus.
An investigation of the source of value consensus is therefore a major concern of functionalist analysis.

Criticisms of Functionalism

Conflict theorists critique functionalism for presenting an overly idealistic and harmonious view of society, often perceived as “utopian.” Functionalists argue that social institutions serve functions to maintain stability, but conflict theorists emphasize that societies are characterized by inherent conflicts and power imbalances that shape these institutions. Conflict theorists believe that systems of stratification are not naturally harmonious; instead, they are often maintained through constraints, control, and coercion, which functionalists may overlook or underemphasize.

While functionalists view social consensus as foundational, conflict theorists argue that it is often temporary and maintained through negotiation of power and resources. They assert that conflict is not only unavoidable but can lead to social stability by creating necessary adjustments and reforms. To gain a complete understanding of society, conflict theorists advocate for examining both conflict and the dynamics of consensus within social structures. This dual focus helps highlight how equilibrium is achieved not merely through shared values but often through managed or resolved conflicts.

However, with their concern for investigating how functional prerequisites are met, functionalists have concentrated on functions rather than dysfunctions. This emphasis has resulted in many institutions being seen as beneficial and useful to society. Indeed, some institutions, such as the family, religion, and social stratification, have been seen as not only beneficial but indispensable.

This view has led critics to argue that functionalism has a built in conservative bias which supports the status-quo. The argument that certain social arrangements are beneficial or indispensable provides support for their retention and rejects proposals for radical change.

The Conflict Approach

The conflict perspective views society as a complex network of diverse groups with competing values and interests, primarily differentiated by access to wealth, power, and prestige. This perspective is grounded in the belief that societal structures favour certain groups at the expense of others. Within this broad framework, two key approaches help explain how conflicts manifest: the Marxian approach, with its emphasis on economic determinism and social class, and the neo-conflict approach, which examines power differentials and authority.

Proponents of the conflict perspective are inclined to concentrate on social conflict, to see social change as beneficial, and to assume that the social order is forcibly imposed by the powerful on the weak. They criticize the status quo.
The conflict theorists stress inequalities and regard society as a system made of individuals and groups which are competing for scarce resources.
In modern society, Karl Marx focused on struggle between the bourgeoisie (owners of production) and proletariat (those who worked for the owners), but today’s conflict theorists have expanded this perspective to include smaller groups and even basic relationships.

The Marxian Approach to Conflict

Karl Marx laid the theoretical foundation for the conflict perspective, emphasizing class conflict as a primary driver of social change. According to Marx, society is divided into the bourgeoisie (the ruling capitalist class) and the proletariat (the working class). The interests of these classes are inherently opposed: the bourgeoisie seeks to maintain control over resources and production, while the proletariat struggles for fair compensation and living conditions. This class struggle, in Marx’s view, is a fundamental, inevitable conflict rooted in economic inequalities. The bourgeoisie uses its power to enforce its ideology and maintain its dominance, leading to exploitation and the subjugation of the working class. For Marx, these economic and social class conflicts are essential for understanding how societies evolve and how social change occurs.

The Neo-conflict Approach

The neo-conflict approach acknowledges that conflict, rather than being purely destructive, can have a functional role in promoting social stability and order. This approach diverges from Marx’s focus on economic determinism and instead highlights that conflict often arises from differences in power and authority, rather than solely from issues related to property and production.

Neo-conflict theorists argue that in diverse societies like the United States, conflicts are bound to arise among groups defined by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, and political interests. Such conflicts can lead to compromise and adaptation, contributing to the ongoing stability of social structures. For example, disagreements over budget priorities in the U.S. often force competing groups to negotiate, preventing any single group from fully imposing its agenda. This dynamic of compromise allows for social cohesion, as it upholds the structure of society without overwhelming its core values.

A key concept within neo-conflict theory is the idea that external threats can unify groups with conflicting interests, as a shared enemy or challenge often diminishes internal disputes. Conflict becomes dysfunctional only when it directly challenges or undermines society’s foundational values.

C. Wright Mills and the “Power Elite”

Sociologist C. Wright Mills expanded the conflict perspective by examining the distribution of power and authority in American society. In his influential work, The Power Elite (1956), Mills argued that post-World War II U.S. society was governed by a coalition of elites from the military, industrial, and political sectors. This “power elite” shaped domestic and foreign policy to serve its interests, often to the detriment of the general public. Mills emphasized that this elite group used its considerable influence and resources to maintain control, advancing an ideology that justified its power and status. His work underscored that power imbalances and elite dominance were central to understanding societal organization and the perpetuation of inequality.

While both Marxian and neo-conflict perspectives within the conflict theory framework acknowledge inherent societal conflicts, they differ in their emphasis: the Marxian approach highlights economic class struggles, whereas the neo-conflict approach focuses on power dynamics and authority as sources of tension.

Wright Mills’ contribution emphasizes the role of elite groups in perpetuating inequality through ideological and structural control, further deepening the conflict perspective’s analysis of power and dominance in society.

Micro Interpretive (Social Action Approach)

Social action approach (also called as the phenomenological, interpretive, anti/non-positive or micro sociology) in Sociology rejects many of the assumptions of positivism.

Social action theorists 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.

Max Weber was one of the first sociologists to outline this perspective in detail. He argued that sociological explanations of actions should begin with ‘the observation and theoretical interpretation of the subjective “states of minds” of actors.

Interactionism adopts a similar approach with particular emphasis on the process of interaction. Where positivists emphasize facts and cause and effect relationships, integrationists emphasize insights 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.

Therefore, Sociology is limited to an interpretation of social action and hence the social action approaches are also sometimes referred to as ‘interpretive sociology’.

Symbolic Interactionism

We can trace the origins of symbolic interactionism to Max Weber’s argument that people act according to their interpretation of the meaning of their social world. But it was George Herbert Mead, an American philosopher, who introduced Symbolic interactionism to sociology.

According to symbolic interactionism, people assign meanings to each other’s words and actions.
Our response to a person’s action is therefore determined not by that person’s action in itself but by our subjective interpretation of the action.
It is an interaction between individuals that is governed by their interpretation of the meaning of symbols. In this case, the symbols are primarily spoken words.
The symbolic interactionism perspective suggests two things.
- People do not respond directly to physical things. Rather, they respond to their own interpretations of them.
- As people constantly impose interpretations – on the world in general, on other people, themselves, and even their own interpretations – and then act accordingly, human behaviour is fluid, always changing.
How we act is constantly being altered by how we interpret other people’s actions and their reactions to our own behaviour.
Human behaviour is thus not real in it but becomes real only after it has been subjected to reality construction.
The process by which we interpret depends on what a given action means, and respond to it in accordance with the interpretation.

The symbolic interactionism perspective has been criticized, for ignoring the larger issues of national and international orders and changes. It has also been faulted for ignoring the influence of larger social forces, such as social institutions, groups, cultures, and societies on individual interactions.

Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism

Limited Consideration of Social and Historical Context (Marxist Critique): Interactionists are often criticized for overlooking the historical and social backgrounds of interactions. By focusing mainly on immediate interactions, they may ignore the broader societal structures and events that have contributed to these interactions. This absence of historical context is seen as a major flaw, as social encounters do not happen in isolation but are influenced by societal patterns and class relations, which interactionism underemphasizes.
Neglect of Social Structure and Norms: Symbolic interactionism places a strong emphasis on individual agency, arguing that people have considerable flexibility and freedom in their actions. Critics, however, argue that this perspective underestimates the influence of social structures and norms that restrict and guide individual behaviour. While interactionists acknowledge the existence of norms, they often take them for granted rather than exploring how and why these norms originated and became standardized within society. William Skidmore argues that this lack of attention to social structure leads to a failure to explain why people tend to behave consistently within certain societal expectations.
Failure to Address the Origins of Meaning: Interactionists prioritize the meanings that emerge in interactions but often fail to examine where these meanings come from. Critics argue that meanings are not created solely within immediate interactions but are influenced by larger social structures and power relations. From a Marxist perspective, meanings are often shaped by class relationships and economic forces. Therefore, critics contend that interactionists overlook how social structures systematically generate shared meanings and, in doing so, miss a crucial aspect of understanding why certain meanings prevail.
American Cultural Bias: Symbolic interactionism developed primarily in the United States, and some critics, like Leon Shaskolsky, argue that it reflects distinctly American cultural ideals such as individualism, freedom, and personal agency. This cultural bias, they suggest, may lead interactionism to emphasize liberty and personal interpretation while downplaying the structural constraints that shape human behaviour. The theory’s focus on personal agency and individual meaning-making can be seen as an ideological “mirror” of American values, potentially limiting its applicability to societies where individualism is less prominent.

While symbolic interactionism provides valuable insights into the nuances of human interactions, it has been criticized for its limited focus on the influence of historical, social, and economic structures. Critics argue that by neglecting these broader contexts, interactionism falls short in explaining the origins of shared meanings and the structural constraints that guide human behaviour. This critique suggests that while interactionism brings balance to deterministic views, it may sometimes overemphasize individual freedom and downplay the social forces that influence interaction.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology in sociology emphasizes that human behaviour and social actions are fundamentally different from the subjects of natural sciences due to the presence of human consciousness, subjective meaning, and purposeful action.

This perspective argues that the methods and assumptions used to study matter in natural sciences are inappropriate for studying human beings because people do not merely react to external stimuli like molecules or atoms; they actively interpret, assign meaning to, and act upon their experiences and surroundings.

Key Ideas of Phenomenology

Consciousness and Meaning: Unlike matter, humans have consciousness: thoughts, feelings, intentions, and an awareness of self. This subjective experience means that people interpret situations and assign meanings to actions and objects, guiding their responses based on these meanings. For example, early humans didn’t simply react to fire’s heat as a stimulus; they gave fire various meanings and purposes, using it for warmth, cooking, protection, and tool-making.
Understanding Subjective Meanings: Because human actions are directed by subjective meanings, sociologists must uncover and interpret these meanings to understand behaviour fully. Observing actions from an outsider’s perspective alone is insufficient. Instead, sociologists need to understand the internal logic or subjective “states of mind” that drive actions. Max Weber, a foundational thinker in this perspective, argued that sociological explanations must begin by interpreting the subjective intentions of actors.
Interpretive Sociology: Phenomenological approaches are often called interpretive sociology because they emphasize understanding the internal, subjective meanings and intentions of individuals rather than relying on objective measurement or establishing rigid cause-and-effect relationships. This method contrasts with positivism, which emphasizes observable facts and seeks to identify general laws governing behaviour. For phenomenologists, social reality is constantly negotiated and redefined through interactions, making it impossible to apply the exact methods of natural sciences to human society.
Critique of Positivism: Phenomenologists criticize positivism for reducing human beings to passive responders to external forces, similar to how matter reacts in scientific models. By treating people as if they are “puppets on strings,” controlled by social norms, economic systems, or other pressures, positivism is seen as oversimplifying social life. In contrast, phenomenology portrays people as active creators of their social reality, constructing their own meanings through interactions and thereby directing their own actions.

Strengths and Limitations of Phenomenology

Strengths: Phenomenology offers a deep, nuanced understanding of how individuals create and interpret their social worlds. It acknowledges the complexity of human experience, highlighting the ways people actively construct and negotiate meanings rather than passively following societal dictates.
Limitations: Critics argue that phenomenology’s emphasis on subjective interpretation can make it difficult to develop generalizable theories about society. Its focus on individual meaning-making processes may overlook broader structural forces (such as class, power, and economic constraints) that also influence behaviour. Additionally, the interpretive nature of phenomenology makes objective measurement challenging, which limits its compatibility with the quantitative rigor of traditional scientific methods.

Phenomenology challenges the positivist view by arguing that human beings are not passive responders but active creators of their social reality. This perspective highlights the importance of subjective meanings and emphasizes the need for sociologists to interpret rather than merely observe human actions. Through this lens, society is seen not as an external force but as a continuous, shared construction by individuals who assign and reinterpret meanings through their interactions. This interpretive approach provides valuable insights into the dynamic and fluid nature of social life, underscoring the role of human agency in shaping society.

Ethnomethodology

Ethnomethodology is the study of the methods people use to understand and organize their social world. It explores how individuals construct and give meaning to their daily interactions, drawing inspiration from phenomenological philosophy, particularly the ideas of Alfred Schutz.

Key Ideas of Ethnomethodology

Social Order as a Perception: Ethnomethodologists argue that society and social order are not objectively real but appear orderly because people perceive them that way. While social life seems systematic and organized to individuals, this may not be due to any inherent order; rather, it’s a result of how people interpret and understand their interactions.
Focus on Everyday Methods: Ethnomethodology examines the everyday techniques and reasoning people use to create and explain social order. For instance, researchers like Zimmerman and Wieder note that ethnomethodologists focus on how people see, describe, and make sense of the world they live in.
Criticism of Mainstream Sociology: Ethnomethodologists criticize traditional sociology for treating social phenomena—like crime or suicide—as objective facts. Instead, they argue that these phenomena are social constructs shaped by people’s interpretations. Sociology, in their view, should focus on understanding the methods individuals use to create their social realities rather than assuming these realities exist independently.
Similarity to Everyday Thinking: Ethnomethodologists see little difference between the methods used by sociologists and the everyday practices of people in society. Just as people use experiences and observations to make sense of the world, so do sociologists in their studies. Ethnomethodologists argue that conventional sociology, by imposing theories and frameworks, is doing the same as everyday people who create a sense of social order through interpretation.

Criticisms of Ethnomethodology

Lack of Focus on Goals and Power: Critics argue that ethnomethodology overlooks people’s motives, goals, and the influence of power in social interactions. There’s little mention of why people behave as they do or how power dynamics shape social life. For instance, Gouldner notes that ethnomethodology fails to recognize that social definitions are often influenced by competing groups and power differences.
Dismissal of Unseen Influences: Ethnomethodologists sometimes dismiss external realities that people may not directly recognize but which still impact them. For example, John H. Goldthorpe points out that even if people don’t consciously consider threats like bombs, those threats still have real effects, such as limiting interaction in extreme ways, including death.
Endless Accounting: Ethnomethodologists’ focus on “accounting for accounts” implies that every explanation could be reinterpreted indefinitely. Anthony Giddens notes this could lead to a situation where nothing can ever be fully known, as each account could always be analysed further.

Despite its limitations, ethnomethodology raises thought-provoking questions about how individuals actively construct their social realities.

Important Keywords

Research methodology, Positivism, Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Order and Stability, Value consensus, Social Conflict, Neo-conflict Approach, Social action, Power Elite, Symbolic Interactionism, Phenomenology, American Cultural Bias, Everyday Methods, Social Order, Subjective Meanings and Endless Accounting.

Positivism and its Critique

What is Positivism?

Positivism is defined as “a set of ideas which speaks that the behaviour of man can be studied in the same way as the behaviour of matters in natural sciences”.
Positivism is a philosophical thought, where assertions are validated by the use of logic, science, mathematics, facts etc.
It is a set of philosophical approaches that seeks to apply scientific principles and methods, drawn from the natural sciences, to the social phenomena.
The emergence of positivism owes to the changing socio-economic condition of the 19^th century Europe, rapid technological development, growing complexity and development in the researches in the field of Physics, Biology etc.
Extraordinary development in the area of natural sciences had led to the growing conviction among scientists to win over the nature created problem.
This conviction to solve the misery of people encouraged them to think along the line of natural science and thereby Positivism.

Thinker’s View

Kieran Egan argues that Positivism can be traced to the philosophy side of what Plato described as “the quarrel between philosophy and poetry”, later reformulated by Wilhelm Dilthey as “the quarrel between the natural sciences and the humanities”.
Claude-Henri Saint-Simon is known as the originator of positivism. He used research to find evidence that could strengthen his commitment to fairness and social equality.
It got formal recognition with the publication of the book Cours de philosophies positive and society positive by Auguste Comte.
Auguste Comte is of the view that “society, like the physical world, operates according to general laws”.
Durkheim is of the opinion that “the study of society should be founded on an examination of facts”.

Main Characteristics of Positivism

Theory and Model Building for Generalization: Positivism advocates that sociology, like natural sciences, can create theories and models to generalize human behaviour. These generalizations are law-like assertions, which means that they are consistent across various contexts and can predict future events.

Example: Emile Durkheim’s study of suicide is a classic example. He identified social factors like integration and regulation that could explain different suicide rates across societies, aiming to establish a general theory of social integration and its effects on individual behaviour.

Rejection of Normative Questions: Positivism avoids questions involving values or morals, focusing solely on empirical facts. Normative questions (such as “what should be” or “what is good”) are seen as irrelevant in a scientific study of society.

Example: In studying crime, a positivist would examine the patterns and causes of crime using empirical data, rather than questioning the moral aspects of punishment or debating what the criminal justice system “should” aim for.

Positive, Testable Questions: Positivism stresses the need for questions that can be tested by data. A “positive” question is one that can be empirically tested, leading to a clear conclusion of being true or false.

Example: A positivist might ask, “Is there a correlation between education level and income?” This question can be tested with data on education and income, allowing for an objective analysis and conclusion.

“Facts Speak Themselves” Philosophy: Positivists believe that facts, when observed objectively, can lead to reliable conclusions without the interference of personal bias or subjective interpretation.

Example: In medical sociology, data showing the prevalence of certain diseases in specific demographics can be taken as objective facts, helping researchers analyse the distribution and causes of diseases without subjective interpretation.

Data and Facts for Validation: Positivism relies on empirical evidence to validate assertions. For any theory to be accepted, it must be backed by observable and measurable data.

Example: In economics, the relationship between supply and demand is validated through empirical data showing how price changes impact quantity supplied and demanded.

Unity of Method with Natural Sciences: Positivists argue that social sciences should employ the same methods as natural sciences, such as observation, hypothesis formulation, experimentation, and data collection.

Example: When studying group dynamics, a sociologist might employ experiments similar to those used in psychology, such as structured observation or controlled settings to understand human interactions.

Objectivity and Value Neutrality: Positivism advocates for research that is free from personal biases and values. Objectivity ensures that research findings are not influenced by the researcher’s personal views or societal values.

Example: Max Weber’s concept of “value-free sociology” aligns with this, where researchers are urged to keep personal beliefs separate from their analysis. If a sociologist studies income inequality, they should report findings objectively rather than framing the data with their own views on fairness or justice.

Key Principles of Positivism

Objectivism: Positivism asserts that reality is objective and independent of individual perceptions or interpretations. It believes in absolute truths that exist outside of subjective influence.

Example: In studying social issues like poverty, a positivist would assume that poverty exists as an objective condition that can be observed and measured, rather than something defined by individual perspectives or cultural contexts.

Empiricism: Empiricism is the belief that knowledge comes from sensory experience—through observation and evidence collected via the senses, rather than through abstract reasoning or intuition.

Example: In the field of sociology, researchers might rely on surveys, experiments, and observational studies to gather data about social behaviour, ensuring their conclusions are grounded in empirical evidence rather than assumptions.

Quantitativism: Positivism places a high value on quantitative data, favouring accuracy, precision, and measurable outcomes. This focus on numbers and metrics aims to make research more replicable and consistent.

Example: A positivist approach to studying crime rates would involve collecting statistical data on crime occurrences, arrests, and sentencing, rather than relying solely on qualitative descriptions of criminal behaviour.

Value-neutrality: This principle insists that researchers should separate facts from values, maintaining neutrality and objectivity in their work. Positivists argue that personal biases or moral judgments should not interfere with scientific inquiry.

Example: In analysing economic inequality, a positivist would present data on income distribution without interjecting personal opinions on fairness or justice, focusing solely on objective reporting.

Anti-rationalism: Positivism generally dismisses the idea that knowledge comes purely from reason or intuition, emphasizing observable evidence instead. It holds that empirical data is more reliable than reasoned argument alone.

Example: Instead of relying on theoretical speculation about social interactions, a positivist might conduct an experiment or survey to understand patterns in social behaviour, favouring data over abstract reasoning.

Universality of Science: Positivism maintains that the methods used in physical sciences, such as controlled experiments and statistical analysis, are applicable to the social sciences as well. This principle asserts that social phenomena can be studied with the same rigor as natural phenomena.

Example: Emile Durkheim’s use of statistical analysis to study suicide rates reflects this principle. He applied a scientific, quantitative method similar to those used in natural sciences to understand social issues.

Determinism: Positivism holds that social phenomena are governed by causal laws, similar to natural laws. Determinism suggests that, by discovering these laws, it’s possible to predict and control social outcomes.

Example: In sociology, a determinist might argue that economic factors like poverty and unemployment are direct causes of crime rates. Understanding these causal relationships could, theoretically, allow societies to predict and reduce crime through economic policy.

These principles form the foundation of positivism, shaping its approach to scientific inquiry in the social sciences. By emphasizing objectivity, measurement, and causality, positivism aims to bring the same empirical rigor found in natural sciences to the study of society.

Critique of Positivism

The ideology and methodology of positivism is being criticized mainly by

Phenomenology
Frankfurt school
The feminist school

Phenomenological Approach

It is critical to positivism on account of the character of the subject matter of natural science and social science.
Peter Berger contended that facts never fall from sky, but develop in a particular context.
It argues that the subject matter of the social and natural science is fundamentally different.
The methods and assumptions of the natural sciences are inappropriate to the study of man, as it deals 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.
But man has consciousness, feelings, thoughts etc. Because of this his actions are meaningful. Hence, he does not merely react to external stimuli but he acts based on the situation being conscious.

However, from a phenomenological perspective man does not merely react and respond to an external society, he is not simply acted upon acts. In his interaction with others, he creates his own meanings and constructs his own reality and therefore directs his own actions.

The Frankfurt School

Positivism focuses on specific social issues rather than the complex totality of society.
Positivism focuses only on things that can be observed and are therefore “on the surface”.
Positivism attempts to discover facts about the social world and the criticism related to this idea is that facts themselves are social constructions.
Positivism’s defence of scientific objectivity and value-neutrality is itself a value-commitment.

Feminist approach

It considers positivism as an ideology of men without considering the women as constituent element.
The positivist scientific epistemology is based on a liberal ideology which poses rational man producing objective knowledge of the natural world through scientific endeavour.
Thus, intentionally or unintentionally science has systematically excluded the possibility that women could be the agents of knowledge.
Women are either rendered invisible or are construed as inferior deviations of men.
Feminists have shown how within social sciences, people are often assumed to be male.

Other Criticism of Positivist Methodology

Experiments cannot be performed on humans.
Difficult to control the thinking of humans.
Quantification is difficult as only limited data is available.
Prejudices and biases often intrude into research.
Generalization is difficult as human behaviour cannot be predicted.

Previous Year Questions

Critically examine positivistic approach in sociological studies. (2013)
Examine the basic postulates of positivism and post-positivism. (2017)
How far are sociologists justified in using positivist approach in understanding social reality? Explain with suitable illustrations. (2021)
What are the shortfalls of positivist philosophy that gave rise to the non-positivist methods of studying social reality? (2022)

Important Keywords

Positivism, Philosophical Thought, Kieran Egan, Saint-Simon, Wilhelm Dilthey, Auguste Comte, Durkheim, Testable Questions, Theory and Model Building, “Facts Speak Themselves” Philosophy, Unity of Method with Natural Sciences, Objectivism, Value-neutrality and Frankfurt school.

What is Fact?

It is defined as empirically verifiable observations.

They are thought to be definite, certain, without question, and their meaning to be self-evident. It is considered objective.

Example: The statement “Water boils at 100°C at sea level” is a fact because it can be consistently observed and verified through experiment under specific conditions, making it an objective truth.

What is Value?

Value is defined as moral judgments which speaks or “what ought to be”. They are subjective, emotional feelings, personal, value judgmental.

Example: The belief that “helping those in need is essential” is a value, as it represents a moral standpoint rather than an objective fact, varying from person to person or culture to culture.

What is Objectivity?

Robert Bierstedt defines it as – the conclusion arrived at as a result of inquiry and investigation is independent of the race, color, creed, occupation, nationality, religion, political predisposition of the investigator.

Example: In a study on voting patterns, objectivity would mean analysing the data purely based on numbers and trends without allowing the researcher’s political beliefs to influence their interpretation of the results.

Thinker’s View

The fact value distinction emerged in philosophy during the Enlightenment, David Hume argued that human beings are unable to ground normative arguments in positive arguments, that is, to derive ‘ought’ from ‘is’.
Nietzsche asserts that what made a people great was not the content of their beliefs, but the act of valuing.
Max weber maintained two-tiered approach to value-free social science.
He believed that ultimate values couldn’t be justified “scientifically”. Thus, in comparing different religious, political or social systems, one system couldn’t be chosen over another without taking a value or end into consideration, the choice would necessarily be dictated by the analyst’s values.
Weber believed that once a value, end, purpose, or perspective had been established, then a social scientist could conduct a value-free investigation into the most effective means within a system of bringing about the established end.

Thus, even though Weber maintained ultimate values couldn’t be evaluated objectively, this belief didn’t keep him from believing that social problems could be scientifically resolved.

The Fact-Value Dichotomy

A group of scientists known as the logical positivists were troubled by the continued talk about God and religion and morality in the midst of our “scientific world”. They wanted to define out of existence ideas that opposed their ideas. They developed a philosophy that not only emphasized the dichotomy but that held only the “fact” disjunction to be of any worth.

As Ernest R House notes, the logical positivists thought that facts could be ascertained and that only facts were the fit subject of science. Whereas Values might be feelings, emotions, or any metaphysical entities. They were not subject to scientific analysis. Values were thus depreciated as mere matters of taste and as not subject to rational or objective discussion.

Observations

Theory selection always presupposes values.
Values also came into play in the choice of theories.
Values are involved in the ordering and structuring of facts to give understanding or meaning to data.
Values are involved in identification or determination of what is a fact.
Some values are objective.

Conclusion

Facts and values are often entangled and inseparable.
Values are integral to the process of knowing. Michael Polanyi notes that “science itself can be pursued and transmitted to succeeding generations only within an elaborate system of traditional, beliefs and values, just as traditional beliefs have proved indispensable throughout the life of society.”
Both facts end and values can be discussed and handled rationally.
Value statements can be objective.
It is incorrect to assign all non-empirical truth claims to the realm of values.

Value Neutrality: Can Sociology be Value Free?

Weber uses the term ‘value neutrality’ to refer to the objectivity which researchers need while investigating problems in social sciences.

Though Weber says that value neutrality is the desired goal of social science, he also recognizes that no science can be completely neutral, because there is link between the researcher’s values and the methods – he adopts or the questions he asks.

The concept of value-free sociology has its roots in the rise of positivism and the scientific methods of the mid-19th century.

Positivists believed that discovering laws of social development could create better society and advocated complete separation of facts and values.

Weber asserted that there cannot be any such thing as absolutely ‘objective scientific analysis’. Weber is trying to say that FACTS DO NOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

What counts as social facts is determined by the ‘moral spectacles’ through which we view the world.

Weber was of the view that a sociologist could distinguish between empirical knowledge and value judgments.

Criticisms

Despite personal declarations of neutrality value may unwittingly intrude in research.
It is not clear that neutrality, even in principle, is possible.
It is not always evident that value neutrality is desirable.

How to Achieve Objectivity and Value Neutrality?

Achieving objectivity and value neutrality in social research requires a systematic approach to minimize personal biases and maintain a neutral stance. Here are some key strategies:

Clear Research Design: Design the study with clearly defined objectives and standardized methods, which helps minimize the influence of subjective views.

Example: Using structured surveys with carefully worded, neutral questions reduces the risk of guiding respondents toward a particular response.

Standardized Data Collection: Using standardized methods for gathering data ensures that all participants are approached uniformly, minimizing variations in data due to researcher influence.

Example: Conducting structured interviews with identical questions across participants helps maintain consistency and limits the interviewer’s influence on responses.

Use of Quantitative Methods: Quantitative methods rely on measurable, numeric data, which can help limit subjective interpretation.

Example: In studying social inequality, gathering statistics on income distribution provides objective data, minimizing the need for personal judgment.

Replication of Studies: When a study can be replicated by other researchers with similar results, it adds credibility and shows that findings are not dependent on individual biases.

Example: Researchers studying educational outcomes can use the same survey with different groups to verify whether findings remain consistent.

Peer Review and Collaboration: Peer review by other experts helps identify and correct any unintentional biases or assumptions in the study design or analysis.

Example: Sharing research methodology with colleagues before data collection can help ensure that personal biases are minimized.

Reflexivity: Reflexivity involves researchers examining their own biases, values, and assumptions, making them aware of potential influences on their work.

Example: A researcher studying poverty may acknowledge any preconceptions they hold about wealth and poverty to actively prevent these from influencing their analysis.

Triangulation: Using multiple methods or sources of data can provide a more comprehensive view and offset the limitations of any single method, reducing bias.

Example: In a study on workplace dynamics, using both surveys and observational data can provide a more rounded view than relying on only one method.

By implementing these strategies, researchers can improve objectivity and ensure that findings are as neutral and unbiased as possible, enhancing the validity and reliability of social research.

Previous Year Questions

Examine the problems of maintaining objectivity and value neutrality in social science research. (2015)
What is value-free Sociology? Clarify (2016)
Examine Max Weber’s method of maintaining objectivity in social research. (2016)
Distinguish between fact and value in Weber’s Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism. (2018)
Is sociology a value-free science? Discuss. (2020)
How does a researcher achieve objectivity in interpretative research? (2022)
Do you think ‘objectivity’ is an over-hyped idea in sociological research? Discuss the merits and demerits of non-positivist methods. (2024)

Important Keywords

Positivism, Fact, Value and Objectivity, Robert Bierstedt, David Hume, Nietzsche, Fact-Value Dichotomy, Ernest R House, Observations, Value neutrality, Clear Research Design, Standardized Data Collection, Quantitative Methods, Replication of Studies, Peer Review and Collaboration, Reflexivity and Triangulation.

Non-Positivist Methodologies

Scholars turned from Positivism to Non-positivism when they realized that the sociological issues cannot be addressed using fixed laws only.

Non-positivists considered man as an independent thinking being who can also influence society.

Characteristics

Non-positivists study the internal processes represented through emotions, motives and the individual’s interpretation of social reality.

Example: In studying religion, a non-positivist approach might explore what being religious means to different individuals, rather than simply quantifying religious affiliation. Researchers might interview participants to understand how they interpret spiritual experiences, personal beliefs, and practices in their daily lives. This type of research highlights personal meaning over generalization.

They also suggested the understanding of social reality and not prediction of events.

Example: A non-positivist approach to studying youth subcultures, like skateboarding communities, would focus on understanding how participants interpret their own identities, values, and experiences within the subculture, rather than predicting future trends in youth behavior. This research might explore why individuals are drawn to skateboarding, what it represents to them, and how they create a sense of belonging, without trying to generalize or forecast behaviors of future youth groups.

They refrained from formulation of generalized universal theories.

Example: In studying marriage and family structures, non-positivists avoid creating universal theories about family life that apply to all societies. Instead, they focus on understanding how marriage and family are experienced differently across cultures and individual situations. For instance, instead of trying to define a “normal” family structure, a non-positivist might explore how diverse cultural, social, and economic factors shape family dynamics in various communities, recognizing that no single framework can universally explain family life across different societies.

They also highlighted impossibility of total objectivity and hence, were accommodative of subjectivity in research.

Example: In researching the impact of colonialism on indigenous communities, a non-positivist approach would acknowledge that the researcher’s own cultural background, values, and experiences inevitably influence their interpretation of the findings. Rather than claiming complete neutrality, the researcher would reflect on how their perspectives shape the research process and conclusions. For example, a researcher from a post-colonial society studying indigenous resistance movements might openly discuss their personal stance on colonialism and how this may inform their empathy towards the subjects, allowing a more transparent and subjective interpretation of the social reality being studied.

They emphasized upon using qualitative methods and not the Scientific methods.

Example: A non-positivist approach to studying mental health would prioritize qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews or ethnographic fieldwork to understand the personal experiences of individuals living with mental health conditions, rather than using quantitative surveys or experiments. For instance, a researcher might conduct narrative interviews with people suffering from depression to explore how they interpret their symptoms, their coping strategies, and the meaning they attach to their experiences. This approach focuses on the richness of individual stories and subjective experiences, rather than trying to generalize or measure mental health with statistical tools.

Difference between Positivism and Non-Positivism

Positivists	Non-Positivists
They adopt a structural approach. Example: Positivists studying crime analyze structural factors like poverty and education, using statistical data to identify patterns. This approach aims to generalize causes of crime across communities, focusing on societal-level patterns rather than individual experiences	They adopt an interactional approach. Example: Non-positivists studying healthcare might adopt an interactional approach by observing doctor-patient interactions to understand how communication styles influence patient satisfaction. Rather than focusing on outcomes alone, they explore the nuances of interpersonal exchanges in shaping experiences.
They have a macro perspective. Example: Positivists studying education adopt a macro perspective, examining how large-scale factors like government policies, socioeconomic status, and institutional structures impact educational outcomes across populations, rather than focusing on individual students’ personal experiences.	They have a micro perspective. Example: Non-positivists studying family dynamics take a micro perspective, examining individual relationships and daily interactions within families to understand how personal experiences shape family life, rather than analyzing broad societal trends or generalizations.
They have a normative approach. Example: Positivists studying deviance use a normative approach by defining behaviors as "normal" or "deviant" based on societal standards. They analyze how deviations from these norms impact social order, aiming to generalize principles about acceptable behavior.	They have an individual centric approach. Example: Non-positivists studying mental health often take an individual-centric approach by focusing on personal narratives and experiences. For instance, they might conduct in-depth interviews with individuals to understand how they perceive and cope with their mental health challenges, emphasizing subjective experience over generalized data.
They take a nomothetic view of things. Example: Positivists adopt a nomothetic view in psychology by studying broad patterns across groups to establish general laws of behavior. For instance, they might research factors influencing anxiety across populations to develop universal principles, rather than focusing on individual cases.	They take an idiographic view of things. Example: Non-positivists studying trauma may take an idiographic view by focusing on the unique, personal experiences of survivors. Instead of seeking general laws, they explore how specific individuals process and interpret their trauma, recognizing the distinctiveness of each case.
They prefer quantitative tools of research. Example: Positivists studying job satisfaction prefer quantitative tools like surveys and statistical analysis to measure satisfaction levels across a large workforce. This approach allows them to identify general trends and correlations, such as the impact of salary on employee morale.	They prefer qualitative tools of research. Example: Non-positivists studying social movements prefer qualitative tools like in-depth interviews or participant observation to explore how individuals within the movement experience and interpret their activism, rather than relying on quantitative surveys or statistical analysis.
They provided causal explanation and generalized the conclusion. Example: Positivists researching education outcomes might find that higher parental income leads to better student performance. By establishing this causal relationship, they generalize that socioeconomic status significantly influences academic success across various student populations.	They focused on describing the phenomenon. Example: Non-positivists studying childhood development focus on describing how children perceive the world, their social interactions, and emotional growth through detailed observations and interviews, rather than trying to predict or generalize developmental outcomes across all children.
Prime research techniques used are survey etc. Example: Positivists often use surveys as a primary research technique to gather data from large groups, allowing them to quantify attitudes or behaviors. For instance, a survey on political preferences enables them to identify and generalize trends across populations.	They used techniques like participant observation etc. Example: Non-positivists studying urban communities may use techniques like participant observation, where researchers immerse themselves in the community to observe daily interactions, social behaviors, and cultural practices, providing a rich, firsthand account of the social dynamics at play.

Previous Year Questions

Non-positivistic methodology is essential for understanding human behavior. Discuss (2015)
Is non-positivistic methodology scientific? Illustrate (2018)
What are the shortfalls of positivist philosophy that gave rise to the non-positivist methods of studying social reality? (2022)

Important Keywords

Positivism, Non-positivists, Internal processes, Generalized universal theories, Social reality, Objectivity, Qualitative methods, Structural approach, Interactional approach, Individual centric, Nomothetic view, Describing the phenomenon, Prime research techniques, Participant Observation.

Interpretive Sociology

Interpretive sociology focuses on the meanings people attach to their social world. It shows that reality is constructed by people themselves in their daily lives.

Since sociology was founded as a discipline in the 19th century by the French philosopher Auguste Comte, the study of society has developed in several different ways.

The early rise of sociology was deeply rooted in positivist philosophy favoured by Comte, which relied on scientific methods and techniques to study society.

Interpretive sociology developed as an alternative to positivism.

Interpretive Sociology can be defined as the study of society that focuses on discovering the meanings that people attach to their social world.

In sociology, the study of interpretive sociology, occupies central importance.

This can also be loosely defined as ‘understanding’, rooted in the concept Verstehen (German term which means ‘empathic understanding of human behaviour’).

It is an approach that centres the importance of meaning and action when studying social behaviour and interactions.

This approach diverges from positivistic sociology by recognizing that the subjective experiences, beliefs, and behaviour of people are intrinsic aspects of what we observe or in other words there is no such thing as a purely objective phenomenon.

In simple words, this approach tells us that in order to study and understand society and social phenomena, we must ‘enter or step into the shoes of the other’ and nothing can be understood from the outside.

Interpretive sociology employs rational understanding of motivations. Max Weber (1978) suggested that we understand ‘the chopping of wood’ or ‘aiming of a gun’ in terms of motive.

We know that the woodchopper is working for a wage; for his own use or possibly is doing it for recreation. But he might also be working through a fit of rage (an irrational case).

Similarly, we understand the motive of a person aiming a gun if we know that he has been commanded to shoot as a member of a firing squad, that he is fighting against an enemy, or that he is doing it for revenge.

Differences between Positivist and Interpretive Sociology

Positivists	Interpretive
The concept of positivism was developed by the French sociologists Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim, modelled along natural or rational sciences- physics or chemistry.	Interpretive sociology was initiated by German sociologist Max Weber and developed by Georg Simmel and others.
Positivist sociology aims to understand social institutions by relying on observation and knowledge or facts.	Interpretive sociology aims to understand the meaning behind actions through the subject’s position within a system of meanings
Positivist sociology sees an objective reality ‘out there’.	Interpretive sociology sees reality as being constructed by people according to their own understanding of the phenomenon.
Positivist sociology makes use of quantitative methods and data.	Interpretive sociology relies on qualitative methods and data.

Origins of Interpretive Sociology

The origins of this approach lie in the contributions of the early twentieth century German Sociologist, Max Weber (1864-1920).
Weber’s rich legacy of sociological writings includes works on sociology of religion as well as on society, economics, politics and government.
Some of the notable ones are: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904), The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism (1958) and Economy and Society (1978).
He wrote extensively on many subjects but focused on developing an interpretive sociology of social action and of power and domination.
Another major concern of Weber was the process of rationalisation in modern society and the relationship of the various religions of the world with this process.
His approach to sociology can be seen as an attempt to compromise with positivism and its aims to create a scientific sociology.
Weber defined sociology as a “science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects”.
Here social action needs to be understood as reciprocally oriented action which is intentional, meaningful and symbolic.
In contemporary sociology, we can say that the term refers to as interaction.
Weber introduced a key methodological concept called verstehen which means comprehending or understanding on the level of meaning.
Weber believed that this aspect lent an advantage to the social sciences over the natural sciences.
While, in the natural sciences we can only observe and generalize; in social sciences, we can understand the actions and comprehend the subjective intentions of the actors also.
As a result, it makes for a scientific study of social behaviour in two ways: on one hand, it allows us to directly observe and understand the meaning of actions. On the other hand, it facilitates an understanding of the underlying motive.
When a chemist studies the properties of a particular substance, he does so from the outside.
When a sociologist tries to understand human society and culture, he approaches it as an insider, or a participant.
Being human, the social scientist has access to the motives and feelings of his or her subject matter.
Social scientists can understand human action by probing the subjective meanings that actors attach to their own behaviour as well as that of others.
Sociological understanding is thus qualitatively different from that of other (natural) sciences.
Weber points out that a natural scientist understands natural phenomena from the outside.
But by using the method of verstehen, the sociologist should be able to and should visualise the motivations of the actor by trying to interpret feelings through the understanding of the situation.
We can understand that Weber’s contribution to this approach was supreme as he attempted to fuse the concept of social action with scientific sociological explanation.
And this was only possible through the use of verstehen (interpretive understanding).
This is the process by which the sociologist attempts to gain access to the meaning of action for the actor.
For Weber, action is defined as subjectively meaningful human behaviour.
He also emphasizes on the ‘motive’ present in the mind of the actor as the ‘cause’ of the act.
Weber argued that the overall objective of the social sciences was to develop an ‘interpretive understanding of social action’.
Since the central concern of the social sciences was with social action and since human actions necessarily involved subjective meanings, the methods of enquiry of social science also had to be different from the methods of natural science.
For Weber, ‘social action’ included all human behaviour that was meaningful, that is, action to which actors attached a meaning.
In studying social action, the sociologist’s task was to recover the meanings attributed by the actor.
To accomplish this task the sociologist had to put themselves in the actor’s place, and imagine what these meanings were or could have been, known as an empathetic understanding.
Raymond Aron (1967) discusses the same with the following example: one can understand why the driver stops in front of a red light; He or She does not need to observe how often drivers regularly stop before red lights in order to understand why they do it.
This is because the subjective meaning of the actions of others is often immediately comprehensive in daily life.
It was precisely for these reasons that Weber argued, the overall objective of the social sciences was to develop an ‘interpretive understanding of social action’.
He wanted to develop and express that these sciences were thus very different from the natural sciences, which aimed to discover the objective ‘laws of nature’ governing the physical world.
He also believed that the primary concern of social sciences was with social action, which involved subjective meanings.
Thus, the methods of social sciences also had to differ from those of the natural sciences.
Weber also wanted to establish an alternative approach (to positivism) as it would focus on understanding subjective experience and not be merely based on observation or adherence to facts.
As a result, the perceived facts that are inherent to the positivist observational method can take on an entirely new meaning from the perspectives of different individuals.
Weber persistently emphasized the role Interpretive Sociology of interpretation in the cultural and social sciences.
He also underlined that, social scientists should never be content to just understand the ‘rules’ of a society but they must ‘interpret’ and ‘explain’ the actions and beliefs of social agents.
Another key contributor to this approach has been Georg Simmel, who was a contemporary of Max Weber.
He was a very popular early sociologist and has also been recognized as a major developer of interpretive sociology.
Weber and Simmel both recognized that the positivistic approach was not able to capture all social phenomena, nor was it able to fully explain why all social phenomena occur.

Branches of Interpretive Sociology

Interpretive approach has given rise to diverse theoretical traditions of sociology under the general category of social constructionist approach.

The notion of the social construction of reality lies at the heart of symbolic interactionist perspective Anthony Giddens describes the study of everyday life as telling us how humans can act creatively to shape reality and that social behaviour is guided to some extent by forces such as roles, norms and shared expectations.

He further tells us that individuals perceive reality differently according to their backgrounds, interests and motivations.

In other words, reality is not fixed or static – it is created through human interactions.

Wallace and Wolf suggest that the forerunners and direct contributors to the symbolic interactionist perspective include Georg Simmel and Robert Park.

However, Max Weber’s contribution and emphasis on the importance of Verstehen (interpretive understanding or subjective meaning) for understanding social life was most important. It also demonstrated Weber’s ability to bridge ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ perspectives.

Some of the prominent ones are symbolic interactionism, dramaturgy, phenomenology and ethnomethodology.

Previous Year Questions

In what way ‘interpretative’ method is different from ‘positivist’ approach in the study of social phenomena? (2014)
Elaborate the main tenets of interpretative perspective in sociology. (2017)
Discuss the importance of interpretative understanding of social phenomena and explain its limitations. (2019)

Important Keywords

Positivism, Non-positivists, Interpretive sociology, Auguste Comte, Verstehen, Max Weber, Social Institutions, Quantitative and Qualitative Methods, Process of Rationalisation, Social Action, Social Behaviour, Motives and Feelings, Empathetic Understanding, Raymond Aron, Georg Simmel, Anthony Giddens, Wallace and Wolf, Dramaturgy, Phenomenology and Ethnomethodology.

Phenomenology

Phenomenological perspectives in sociology assert that the focus of social sciences is inherently different from that of natural sciences. Consequently, the methods and assumptions used in natural sciences are unsuitable for studying human beings.

Social phenomenology is an approach within the field of sociology that aims to reveal what role human awareness plays in the production of social action, social situations and social worlds.

An example of social phenomenology is how people create shared meanings in everyday interactions. For instance, when two friends greet each other with a handshake, they’re not just exchanging gestures but acknowledging mutual respect and friendship. This shared understanding shapes how they interact and influences their ongoing social relationship.

Social phenomenology emphasizes the internal processes of the human mind and how people categorize and interpret the world around them. It explores how individuals construct their reality, form judgments, and assign meaning to experiences, showing that social actions are shaped by these subjective interpretations rather than by external, objective facts alone.

It is Not Concerned with Causal Explanation of Human Behaviour in the Same Way As Other Perspectives.

For instance, it studies how personal meanings shape one’s response to societal norms rather than why norms exist.

Phenomenology is the study of phenomena, appearances of thing or things as they appear in our experience.

An example is studying how people experience a sunrise. Instead of focusing on the scientific cause, phenomenology explores the feelings, thoughts, and meanings people attach to witnessing the sunrise—such as a sense of calm, beauty, or a fresh start to the day—capturing how the experience appears in their consciousness.

Phenomenologists argue that humans engage with the external world exclusively through their senses—touch, smell, hearing, sight, and taste. These sensory experiences shape our understanding and perception of reality, as we interpret the world based on how it appears to us through these sensory inputs.

Alfred Schutz tried to explain how phenomenology can be applied in social world in The Phenomenology of the Social World.

Humans developed what he called as typifications. These typifications are not unique to each person but are shared by members of a society.

An example of typifications is the concept of “teacher.” In society, people generally share an understanding that a teacher is someone who educates, holds authority in the classroom, and follows a structured curriculum. This shared typification shapes how students, parents, and society as a whole interact with teachers, regardless of individual differences.

Phenomenologists believe that it is impossible to produce factual data and that it is impossible to check causal explanations.

For example, when studying emotions like love, it’s impossible to objectively measure or provide a cause for why one person feels love for another. Instead, phenomenologists focus on how individuals personally experience and interpret love, understanding it as a unique and fluid experience shaped by perception rather than measurable data or fixed causes.

The most that sociologists can do is to understand meanings that individuals attach to certain phenomena.

An example of this concept is the decision-making process of a police officer when deciding whether to arrest a suspect. The officer’s actions are influenced by the meaning they attach to the situation, shaped by their personal experiences, training, and social context. The officer might interpret a suspect’s behavior as suspicious or threatening, or they might assess it as harmless, ultimately determining whether an arrest is warranted based on their subjective understanding of what constitutes a crime in that moment.

Phenomenology is used in two basic ways in Sociology

To theorize about substantive sociological problems: Phenomenology is used to explore how individuals experience social issues. For example, in studying poverty, phenomenologists focus on how people living in poverty perceive their circumstances, their feelings of exclusion, and how they make sense of their social world, rather than just examining economic data.
To enhance the adequacy of sociological research methods: Phenomenology can improve sociological research by emphasizing the importance of understanding participants’ subjective experiences. For example, in conducting interviews, researchers would focus on the meanings individuals assign to their actions and situations, instead of solely relying on objective data or external explanations. This deepens insight into human behavior.

Rejection of Positivism by Phenomenologists

The naturalistic paradigm, which countered the positivist approach, argued that reality is not fixed but shaped by individual and subjective experiences. Phenomenology closely aligned with this paradigm, emphasizing that knowledge is gained through interactions between researchers and participants, making it subjective, inductive, and dynamic.

Phenomenology plays a role in continuously challenging and modifying the ‘discoveries’ of positivism. Edmund Husserl argued that objectivity is never value-free or detached; it is always influenced by social, cultural, and worldly contexts. This view contrasts with positivism, which holds objectivity as the sole reality, free from values. Husserl also proposed a mind-body continuum, rejecting both the extremes of pure objectivism and pure subjectivism.

Phenomenologists contend that the social and natural sciences deal with fundamentally different subjects. Thus, the methods and assumptions used in the natural sciences are unsuitable for studying human beings. While natural sciences can observe matter externally to understand its behavior, human beings, with their consciousness—thoughts, feelings, meanings, and intentions—cannot be studied in the same way. To understand human behavior, one must interpret the internal logic that guides actions rather than imposing an external, objective framework.

Many sociologists argue that the positivist approach tends to depict humans as passive responders to external forces, rather than active creators of their own society. In this view, individuals are portrayed as reacting to economic systems and social pressures, rather than shaping their own reality.

Peter Berger compares society to a puppet theatre, where individuals are like “little puppets,” controlled by invisible strings and merely acting out roles assigned to them. In contrast, phenomenology emphasizes that humans do not just respond to society; they actively engage with it. Through their interactions, people create meanings, construct their own realities, and thus direct their own actions.

Phenomenologists challenge the ontological assumptions that positivists uphold, claiming that there is a deeper, subjective reality that cannot be captured through mere observation. They reject causal explanations in favor of understanding the meanings that individuals assign to their experiences.

Alfred Schutz, from the perspective of applied phenomenology, defines sociology as the study of “lived history” — the everyday experiences within human institutions that provide context to chronological history. Schutz argues that human beings perceive and act within a framework of values, and it is within this framework that social structures and events acquire meaning.

Phenomenology faced a decline in popularity due to its highly subjective nature, which made it challenging to develop universally applicable concepts or objective theories. Some contemporary sociologists criticize it for being overly reliant on individual perceptions, arguing that it lacks the rigor needed to produce concrete, empirical findings. They view it as speculative and akin to common sense, rather than offering a systematic framework for understanding social behavior.

Important Keywords

Positivism, Non-positivists, Social Phenomenology, Everyday Interactions, Causal Explanation, Personal Meanings, Phenomenology, Quantitative and Qualitative Methods, Alfred Schutz, Typifications, Sociological Problems, Sociological Research Methods, Edmund Husserl, Peter Berger.

Ethnomethodology

Harold Garfinkel first coined the term Ethnomethodology.

It is defined as the study of the body of common-sense knowledge and the range of procedures and considerations by means of which the ordinary members of the society make sense of, find their way about in, and act on the circumstances in which they find themselves.

It is concerned with methods people use to construct, account for and give meaning to their social world.

For instance, in a conversation, people may use humor or sarcasm to convey emotions or intentions. These methods of communication are not just about exchanging information but also about constructing shared meanings and understanding. By interpreting these methods, individuals give meaning to their social world, shaping how they relate to one another and how they perceive the context of their interactions.

Ethnomethodology is not a methodology, but rather a study of methodology, because it does not have a formal methodology, but is the study of, “member’s methods”, the methods of others.

An example would be studying how people understand and navigate everyday social interactions, such as how they establish turn-taking in conversations. Ethnomethodologists don’t just observe the content of conversations; they focus on the unwritten rules and methods people use to maintain the flow of dialogue, like pausing or using gestures to signal when it’s another person’s turn to speak. These “members’ methods” are often unspoken but essential to making sense of social interactions, and ethnomethodology studies how individuals rely on these implicit rules to make social order possible.

Ethnomethodologists argue that there is no inherent or pre-existing social order, as many other sociological perspectives suggest. Instead, they believe that social order is continuously created and maintained through everyday interactions. People constantly produce and reinforce social norms and structures in their daily behaviors and conversations, rather than adhering to an established, objective order.

For example, the way people politely interrupt or initiate conversations in queues shows that social order is constructed in real-time, based on shared understandings of what is appropriate in those situations.

Social life appears orderly to members of society only because members actively engage in making sense of their social world.

For example, when people follow social norms like greeting each other politely or standing in line, they are actively contributing to a sense of order, even though these behaviors are based on collective expectations rather than any inherent, external rule.

The point of Ethnomethodology according to Zimmerman is to explain how the members of society go about the task of seeing, describing and explaining order in the world in which they live in.

A key concept in ethnomethodology is reflexivity, which refers to how our sense of social order is created through ongoing conversational processes. In other words, the way people talk, respond, and interpret each other’s actions in everyday interactions actively shapes and reinforces the social order.

For instance, when two people engage in a conversation, their responses are not only influenced by what is being said but also by the social expectations and norms that are constructed in real-time, thus creating a shared understanding of how to behave in that interaction. This reflexive process highlights how social order is not something static, but something continually produced through communication.

Another key point in ethnomethodology is indexicality, which means that the meaning of an object or phenomenon is context-dependent and can vary based on the situation. In other words, the way people understand something is not fixed but is shaped by the context in which it occurs.

For example, the term “home” may mean a physical house in one context, but in another, it might refer to a feeling of comfort or belonging. The meaning of “home” changes depending on the conversation, the people involved, and the circumstances. Indexicality emphasizes that meaning is not universal but is always tied to specific interactions and contexts.

Ethnomethodologists are highly critical of mainstream sociology for portraying individuals as mere “cultural dopes”—people who blindly follow and enact the standardized norms and directives dictated by society. They argue that this view overlooks the active role individuals play in constructing and interpreting their social world. Rather than passively following societal rules, people are seen as actively engaged in creating social order through their everyday actions and interactions.

For example, when individuals navigate social norms like politeness or appropriate behavior in different contexts, they are not just following predefined scripts, but actively shaping the meaning and structure of those interactions.

Criticism of Ethnomethodology

Ethnomethodology has faced several criticisms:

Detached view of society members: Critics argue that ethnomethodologists take a detached, almost mechanical approach to studying social interactions, focusing on minute details of behavior without considering the broader social structures or individual intentions that drive those actions. This can make their analysis seem overly narrow and detached from the real motivations of social actors.
Lack of goals: Sociologist Anthony Giddens criticizes ethnomethodology for lacking a clear sense of direction or purpose in its analysis. According to Giddens, by focusing solely on how individuals create social order through their interactions, ethnomethodologists fail to account for the goals and intentions that guide those interactions, making their perspective seem incomplete.
Triviality of focus: Alvin Gouldner criticizes ethnomethodology for focusing on trivial aspects of everyday life and uncovering insights that are already widely known. He argues that ethnomethodology often examines the obvious, mundane elements of social interaction that everyone is aware of, without providing any truly new or profound insights into the nature of society or social structure.

Despite its criticism, Ethnomethodology had its impact on linguistics – particularly on pragmatics. Ethno-methodological studies of work have played a significant role in the field of human-computer interaction, informing design by providing engineers with descriptions of the practices of users.

Previous Year Questions

Bring out the significance of Ethnography in social research. (2019)
Do you think ethnomethodology helps us in getting reliable and valid data? Justify your answer. (2021)

Important Keywords

Positivism, Non-positivists, Harold Garfinkel, Ethnomethodology, Body of Common-sense Knowledge, Study of Methodology, Member’s Methods, Quantitative and Qualitative Methods, Social Order, Zimmerman, Reflexivity, Sociological Research Methods, Indexicality, Cultural Dopes, Detached view, Triviality of focus, Alvin Gouldner.

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a prominent sociological framework developed primarily by George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley, with Cooley’s “Looking Glass Self” theory being a significant contribution. This theory focuses on how individuals form their identities and understand themselves through social interactions and the perceptions of others.

Example: According to the “Looking Glass Self,” a person may develop their self-concept based on how they think others perceive them. For instance, if someone is frequently complimented for their intelligence, they may start to see themselves as smart. This self-perception is shaped by the feedback and reflections they receive from others in their social environment.

Symbolic Interactionists says that people act towards things based on the meaning- those things have for them; and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation.

Like Weber, symbolic interactionists are concerned with explaining social actions in terms of the meanings that individuals give to them. However, they tend to focus on small scale interactions situations rather than large scale social change.

Central Ideas to Symbolic Interactionism

Following are the central ideas to symbolic interactionism:

Human beings must be understood as social persons:
Humans are inherently social, and their behavior is influenced by the interactions they have with others.

For example, a child learns how to behave in social settings by observing and interacting with family, peers, and teachers. These interactions shape the child’s social skills, communication patterns, and emotional responses.

Human beings must be understood as thinking beings:
Humans engage in complex thought processes that influence their actions and decisions.

For example, before making a purchase, a person might weigh the pros and cons, consider their budget, and reflect on past experiences to make an informed choice. This decision-making process reflects human cognition and reasoning.

Humans do not sense their environment directly; instead, humans define the situation they are in:
People interpret and give meaning to the situations they encounter.

For example, in a crowded room, one person might define the situation as an opportunity for socializing, while another may see it as overwhelming or uncomfortable. Their different perceptions shape how they behave in the environment, even though the physical setting is the same.

Human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment: Humans actively shape and influence their surroundings.

For instance, a group of activists working to address climate change does not passively accept environmental degradation but takes action, organizing events, advocating for policy change, and changing individual behaviors to protect the planet. This highlights the active role humans play in their environment.

G.H. Mead

G.H. Mead argued that humans interact in terms of symbols, the most important of which are contained in language.

Symbols enable people to live in this world orderly, as they allow them to remember objects which they encounter.
Symbols improve people’s ability to perceive the environment.

Example: The word “dog” is a symbol that helps people identify and remember the animal they encounter. This symbol not only helps people recognize a dog but also conveys shared meanings about its characteristics, such as its role as a pet or companion. By understanding and using symbols like “dog,” people can navigate and make sense of the world around them more effectively.

Symbolic interactionists describe thinking as an inner conversation which Mead called Minding.

Minding is the pause or delay in one’s thought process when an individual reflects on their next move or decision. It involves taking a moment to consider different actions or responses before acting.

Example: Before responding to a difficult question in class, a student may pause and mentally reflect on the best way to answer. This brief moment of hesitation, where the student considers possible responses, is an example of Minding, as they process and evaluate their next step in the conversation.

Mead differentiates between the concept of ‘Me’ and ‘I’. ‘Me’ is your definition of yourself in a specific social role and ‘I’ is a ‘self-concept’ build through interaction with others. This provides the basis for interaction in the society.

Basic Principles of Symbolic Interactionism

The basic principles of symbolic interactionism can be summed up as

Human beings have the capability to think:

Example: Before deciding whether to accept a job offer, a person might think about factors such as the salary, location, work-life balance, and career growth opportunities. This thoughtful process, where the person weighs the pros and cons of the decision, demonstrates their ability to think critically and make informed choices.

The capacity of thought is shaped by social interaction, Because of the meanings and symbols humans act and interact distinctively.

Example: A child learns to solve problems and think logically by interacting with parents, teachers, and peers. For instance, when a child is playing a board game with friends, they not only learn the rules of the game but also develop strategies by observing how others approach challenges. Through these social interactions, the child’s thought process is shaped and refined, showing that thinking is influenced by the people they interact with.

Based on interpretation of the situation humans are capable of altering meanings and symbols

Example: In a workplace, if an employee initially interprets feedback from a supervisor as criticism, they may feel demotivated. However, after discussing it with a colleague or reflecting on it, they might reinterpret the feedback as constructive and useful for growth. This shift in interpretation changes the meaning of the feedback and how the employee responds to it, demonstrating the ability to alter meanings and symbols based on personal perspective and context.

Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism

Interaction in vacuum: Critics of this theory claim that- symbolic interactionism neglects the macro level of social interpretation—the “big picture”. They give little importance to historical and social setting.
Constraints on action: In stressing the freedom and flexibility of human action, Interactionists tend to downplay the constraints on action. g.: In North Korea, social behavior is stringently regulated by the state and may stifle interaction in natural manner.
Source of meanings: Critics argue that inter-actionists fail to explain the source of meanings to which they attach so much importance to. Meanings, according to them, are not spontaneously created but are a product of systematically generated social structure.
Some theorists have a problem with symbolic interaction theory as it lacks testability.

While symbolic interactionism provides valuable insights into the subjective aspects of social life and individual interactions, it faces significant criticism for its narrow focus, disregard for social structures, and inability to offer concrete, testable propositions.

Important Keywords

Positivism, Non-positivists, Symbolic interactionism, George Herbert Mead, Charles Horton Cooley, Looking Glass Self, Weber, Social Persons, Quantitative and Qualitative Methods, Thinking Beings, G.H. Mead, Minding, ‘Me’ and ‘I’, Indexicality, Cultural Dopes, Social Interaction, Triviality of focus, Testability.