FUNDAMENTALS OF SOCIOLOGY

1. Sociology - The Discipline:

(a) Modernity and social changes in Europe and emergence of sociology.
(b) Scope of the subject and comparison with other social sciences.
(c) Sociology and common sense.
2. Sociology as Science:
(a) Science, scientific method and critique.
(b) Major theoretical strands of research methodology.
(c) Positivism and its critique.
(d) Fact value and objectivity.
(e) Non- positivist methodologies.
3. Research Methods and Analysis:
(a) Qualitative and quantitative methods.
(b) Techniques of data collection.
(c) Variables, sampling, hypothesis, reliability and validity.
4. Sociological Thinkers: 118
(a) Karl Marx- Historical materialism, mode of production, alienation, class struggle.
(b) Emile Durkheim- Division of labour, social fact, suicide, religion and society.
(c) Max Weber- Social action, ideal types, authority, bureaucracy, protestant ethic
and the spirit of capitalism.
(d) Talcolt Parsons- Social system, pattern variables.
(e) Robert K. Merton- Latent and manifest functions, conformity and deviance,
reference groups
(f) Mead - Self and identity.
5. Stratification and Mobility:
(a) Concepts- equality, inequality, hierarchy, exclusion, poverty and deprivation
(b) Theories of social stratification- Structural functionalist theory, Marxist theory,
Weberian theory.
(c) Dimensions – Social stratification of class, status groups, gender, ethnicity and
race.
(d) Social mobility- open and closed systems, types of mobility, sources and causes
of mobility.
6. Works and Economic Life:
(a) Social organization of work in different types of society- slave society, feudal
society, industrial /capitalist society.
(b) Formal and informal organization of work
(c) Labour and society.
7. Politics and Society:
(a) Sociological theories of power
(b) Power elite, bureaucracy, pressure groups, and political parties.
(c) Nation, state, citizenship, democracy, civil society, ideology.
(d) Protest, agitation, social movements, collective action, revolution.
8. Religion and Society:
(a) Sociological theories of religion.
(b) Types of religious practices: animism, monism, pluralism, sects, cults.
(c) Religion in modern society: religion and science, secularization, religious
revivalism, fundamentalism.
9. Systems of Kinship:
(a) Family, household, marriage.
(b) Types and forms of family.
(c) Lineage and descent
(d) Patriarchy and sexual division of labour
(e) Contemporary trends.
10. Social Change in Modern Society:
(a) Sociological theories of social change.
(b) Development and dependency.
(c) Agents of social change.
(d) Education and social change.
(e) Science, technology and social change.
 Sociology: The Discipline
Modernity and Social Changes in Europe and Emergence of Sociology
Modernity And Modernization
Modernity is associated with the sweeping changes that took place in the society-
particularly social, economic and cultural changes.

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

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

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

According to this approach, modernization depends primarily on introduction of

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

1. Inventions and Discoveries & Innovation.

2. Industrialization and urbanization.
3. Capitalism
4. Free Market
5. Optimism
6. The search for absolute knowledge in science, technology, society and politics.
7. The idea that gaining knowledge of the true self was the only foundation for all
other knowledge.
8. Rationality.
9. Increased levels of education.
10.Development of mass media.
11.Accessible transport and communication.
12.Democratic political institutions.
13.More urban and mobile population.
14.Nuclear family in place of extended family.
15.Complex division of labour.
16.Declining public influence of religion, and;
17.Developed markets for exchange of goods and services in place of traditional
ways of meeting such needs.

Modernization is, thus, supposed to be the result of the presence of these

prerequisites in the social system.
Thinkers on Modernity

1. Karl Marx’s concern with modernity was in terms of production relations. It was
the objective of the capitalist class to increase its production. More production
means more profit. Capitalism, for him, was ultimately profiteering. Marx,
therefore, argued that for capitalism everything is a commodity. Dance, drama,
literature, religion, in fact, everything in society is a commodity. It is
manufactured and sold in the market.
2. Max Weber scans a huge literature on domination, religion and other wider areas
of life and comes to the conclusion that rationality is the pervading theme, which
characterises human actions. He has, therefore, defined modernity as rationality.
For him, in one word, modernity is synonymous with rationality.
3. Emile Durkheim had a very intimate encounter with industrialization and
urbanization. He was scared of the impact of modernization. His studies of
modern society brought out very interesting and exciting data. He was a
functionalist. He very strongly believed in the cohesion of society. For him,
society is above everything else. It is par excellence. It is God. Despite all this,
society is never static
4. Ferdinand Tonnies characterized key characteristics of simple and modern
societies with the German
words Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Gemeinschaft means human
community, and Tonnies said that a sense of community characterizes simple
societies, where family , kin, and community ties are quite strong. As
societies grew and industrialized and as people moved to cities, Tonnies
said, social ties weakened and became more impersonal. Tonnies called
this situation a Gesellschaft and found it dismaying.
5. George Simmel is seen as investigating modernity primarily in two major
interrelated sites: the city and the money economy. The city is where modernity
is concentrated or intensified, whereas the money economy involves the
diffusion of modernity, its extension. Thus, for Simmel, modernity consists of
city life and the diffusion of money.

Modernity and Social Changes In Europe

The Emergence of Sociology as a scientific Discipline is traced to the period of European
History characterised by tremendous Social, Political, Economic and Cultural
changes. These changes were result of Modernity embodied in French revolution and
Industrial Revolution influenced by Commercial Revolution and Scientific
Revolution. Modernity received ideological content from these revolutions. These
revolutions came up with IDEOLOGY OF PROFITEERING, MASS PRODUCTION-NEW
MARKETS, DESIRE FOR BUILDING CAPITAL EMPIRES IN OTHER COUNTRIES AND
INDUSTRIALISM-DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, RATIONALITY, CAPITALISM AND
PROGRESS. This period of Modernity and change in European society is known
as ENLIGHTENMENT PERIOD. It embodies the spirit of new awakening in the French
philosophers of the Eighteenth century.
The Enlightenment Period

1. The roots of the ideas developed by the early sociologists are grounded in the
social conditions that prevailed in Europe. The emergence of sociology as a
scientific discipline can be traced to that period of European history, which saw
such tremendous social, political and economic changes as embodied in the
French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.
2. The Enlightenment Period marked a radical change from the traditional thinking
of feudal Europe. It introduced the new way of thinking and looking at
reality. Individuals started questioning each and every aspect of life and nothing
was considered sacrosanct – from the church to the state to the authority of the
monarch and so on.
3. The roots of the ideas, such as THE BELIEF THAT BOTH NATURE AND SOCIETY
CAN BE STUDIED SCIENTIFICALLY, THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE ESSENTIALLY
RATIONAL AND THAT A SOCIETY BUILT ON RATIONAL PRINCIPLES WILL MAKE
HUMAN BEINGS REALISE THEIR INFINITE POTENTIALS, CAN BE TRACED IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE AND COMMERCE IN EUROPE. THE NEW OUTLOOK
DEVELOPED AS A RESULT OF THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION AND THE
SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION AND CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE FRENCH AND THE
INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS GAVE BIRTH TO SOCIOLOGY AS A DISCIPLINE.
4. OLD EUROPE was traditional. Land was central to its economic system. There
were owners of land, the feudal lords and the peasants who worked on the lands.
The classes were distinct and clearly demarcated. Religion formed the corner
stone of society. The religious heads decided what was moral, what was not.
Family and kinship were central to the lives of the people. Monarchy was firmly
rooted in society. The king was believed to be divinely ordained to rule over his
people.
5. THE NEW EUROPE ushered in by the two Revolutions, the French and the
industrial, challenged each and every central feature of old Europe Classes.

The Commercial Revolution and Modernity and Social Changes In Europe

1. The “Commercial Revolution” refers to a series of events between 1450 to

approximately 1800. These events signaled to a shift from the largely
subsistence and stagnant economy of medieval Europe to a more dynamic and
worldwide system.
2. The Commercial Revolution in this sense, signified the expansion of trade and
commerce that took place from the fifteenth century onwards. It was of such a
large scale and organised manner that we call it a Revolution. This expansion was
as a result of the initiative taken by certain European countries to develop and
consolidate their economic and political power. These countries were Portugal,
Spain, Holland and England.
3. Europe’s trade with the Oriental or Eastern countries like India and China was
transacted by land routes. The northern Italian cities of Venice and Genoa were
the major centers of trade. The result of the Italian monopoly was that the prices
 of goods like spices and silks imported from the East were extremely high.
Portugal and Spain therefore, wanted to discover a route to the Orient that would
be independent of Italian control.
4. THUS BEGAN A SHIFT FROM LAND ROUTES TO SEA-ROUTES. The Portuguese
were the
pioneers in adventurous navigation and exploration, you probably know of the
historic voyage of Vasco da Gama who, in 1498 landed on the Indian coast after
having sailed around the southern tip of Africa. Christopher Columbus, an Italian
under the patronage of the Spanish King and Queen, set sail for India.
However, he landed on the shores of North America. This accidental discovery of
America was to prove very beneficial to Spain. It laid the foundations of what was
to become a Spanish empire in America. Britain, France and Holland soon
followed Spain and Portugal. The parts of India and Africa, Malacca, the Spice
Islands, West Indies and South America came under the economic control of
Spain, Portugal, England, France and Holland. Commerce expanded into a world
enterprise. The monopoly of the Italian cities was destroyed.
5. EUROPEAN MARKETS WERE FLOODED WITH NEW COMMODITIES; SPICES AND
TEXTILES FROM THE EAST, TOBACCO FROM NORTH AMERICA, COCOA,
CHOCOLATE AND QUININE FROM SOUTH AMERICA, IVORY AND, ABOVE ALL,
HUMAN SLAVES FROM AFRICA. With the discovery of the Americas, the range of
trade widened. Formerly, the items sought for were spices and cloth, later, gold
and silver were added to the list. As the Commercial Revolution progressed, the
position of Portugal and Spain declined. England, Holland and France came to
dominate Europe and the world.
6. EXPANSION OF BANKING: One of the important features of the Commercial
Revolution was the growth of banking. Credit facilities were expanded, making it
easy for merchants all over Europe to do business. The “cheque” was invented in
the eighteenth century. Paper money came to replace gold and silver coins.
7. GROWTH OF COMPANIES: As trade and commerce expanded, new kinds of
business organizations had to be devised to cope with this growth. “Regulated
companies” arose in the 16th century. These were associations of merchants who
bonded together to cooperate for a common venture. “Joint-stock” companies
emerged in the 17th century. In this set-up, shares of capital were distributed to a
large number of investors. Some of these were also “chartered companies”, their
governments gave them a charter or a contract which guaranteed them a
monopoly of the trade in a particular region. Examples of these companies
include the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company.
8. RISE OF A NEW CLASS: As hinted at earlier in this section, one of the most
distinctive characteristics of this period was the rise of the middle class to
economic power. By the end of the 17th century, the middle class had become an
influential group in nearly every western European country. It included
merchants, bankers, ship-owners and investors. Their power, at this stage, was
mainly economic. But later in the unit, we shall see how they became politically
powerful in the 19th century.
STRENGTHENING OF MONARCHY: This period saw the strengthening of monarchy, THE
DECLINE OF
THE CHURCH AND THE RISE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS. It marked the beginning of the
process of
“Europeanisation”, which was to reach a peak with colonialism.

The Scientific Revolution and Modernity and Social Changes In Europe

1. Europe produced a “scientific revolution” in the Renaissance period of fourteenth

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

Science in the Medieval Period & The Renaissance period:

1. MEDIEVAL SOCIETY was characterized by the feudal system. The Church was the
epicenter of power authority and learning. Learning was mostly of the religious
variety. Nothing could challenge the ‘dogmas’ or rigid beliefs of the Church. New,
daring ideas could not flower in such an atmosphere. Thus the development of
science was restricted mainly to improvements in techniques of production.
2. THE ‘RENAISSANCE’ PERIOD saw the beginning of the ‘Scientific Revolution’. It
marked an area of description and criticism in the field of science. IT WAS A
CLEAR BREAK FROM THE PAST, A CHALLENGE TO OLD AUTHORITY.
3. Art, literature and science all flourished. A scientific approach to Nature and the
human body became prevalent. We can see this in the paintings of that period,
which explored the smallest details of Nature and the human body. In the field of
Medicine, dissection the human body became acceptable. Doctors and
physiologists directly observed how the human body was constructed. The fields
of anatomy, physiology and pathology thus benefited greatly. In the field of
chemistry, a general theory of chemistry was developed. Chemical processes like
oxidation, reduction, distillation, amalgamation etc. were studied. In the field of
navigation and astronomy, Vasco da Gama reached the Indian shores in 1498,
Columbus discovered America in 1492. Remember, this was the era of expansion
of trade and the beginnings of colonialism. A strong interest in astronomy,
important for successful navigation also grew.
4. The first major break from the entire system of ancient thought came with the
work of the Dutchman, Nicholas Copernicus. It was generally believed that the
earth was fixed or stationary and the sun and other heavenly bodies moved
around it. (This is known as a ‘geocentric’ theory.) Copernicus however thought
otherwise. With the help of detailed explanations, he demonstrated that the
earth moved around a fixed sun. (This is a ‘heliocentric’ theory.) The work of
Copernicus is considered revolutionary because it drastically altered patterns of
thought about the universe. Human being was not at the center of the universe,
but a small part of a vast system.
5. In a nutshell, science in the Renaissance period was marked by a new attitude
towards man and nature. Natural objects became the subject of close observation
and experiment. The Copernican revolution shattered the very foundations on
which the old world rested.
6. Other Post-Renaissance Developments: The work of physicists and
mathematicians like Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and
subsequently, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) revolutionized science. It brought to
the forefront THE EXPERIMENTAL METHOD. Old ideas were challenged and
alternatives were suggested. If these alternative ideas could be proved and
repeatedly verified and checked out, they were accepted. If not, new solutions
were sought. SCIENTIFIC METHODS THUS CAME TO BE REGARDED AS THE MOST
ACCURATE, THE MOST OBJECTIVE. (The use of the ‘scientific method’ to study
society was recommended by pioneer sociologists).
7. DISSECTION OF THE HUMAN BODY HELPED PEOPLE GAIN A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF ITS WORKING. Circulation of blood was discovered by
William Harvey (1578-1657). This led to a lot of rethinking. The human organism
came to be viewed in terms of interrelated parts and interconnected
systems. This had its impact on social thought of Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, to
name a few.
8. The British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published the Origin of
Species in 1859. It was based on the observations made whilst traveling for five
years all over the world. Darwin put forward the theory that various living
organisms compete for the limited resources the earth has to offer. Thus “survival
of the fittest” is the natural law. Some species evolve or develop certain traits,
which make their survival possible, other species die out. Darwin studied ‘human
evolution’, tracing it in his work, Descent of Man (1863). He traced the origins of
the human species to some ape-like ancestors, which, over the centuries, evolved
into modern human beings.
9. This book created an uproar. It was believed that ‘God’ made humans “in his
own image” and conservatives were not willing to accept that they were
descended from the monkey. Darwin’s evolutionary theory did, however, gain
wide acceptance. It was applied to the social world by evolutionary’ thinkers,
notably Herbert Spencer. Not just organisms, but societies were seen as
constantly ‘evolving’ or developing from a lower to a higher stage.
The French Revolution and Modernity and Social Changes In Europe
The French Revolution, which erupted in 1789 marked a turning point in the history of
human struggle
for freedom and equality. It put an end to the age of feudalism and ushered in a new
order of society.
This revolution brought about far reaching changes in not only French society but in
societies throughout Europe. Even countries in other continents such as, India, were
influenced by the ideas generated during this revolution. Ideas like liberty, fraternity
and equality, which now form a part of the preamble to the Constitution of India, owe
their origin to the French Revolution.

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

 The First Estate consisted of the clergy, which was stratified into higher clergy,
such as the cardinal, the archbishops, the bishops and the abbots. They lived a life
of luxury and gave very little attention to religion. In fact, some of them preferred
the life of politics to religion. They spent much of their time in wasteful activities
like drinking, gambling, etc. In comparison to the higher clergy, the lower parish
priests were over worked and poverty-stricken.
 The Second Estate consisted of the nobility. There were two kinds of nobles, the
nobles of the sword and the nobles of the robe. The nobles of the sword were big
landlords. They were the protectors of the people in principle but in reality they
led a life of a parasite, living off the hard work of the peasants. They led the life of
pomp and show and were nothing more than ‘high born wastrels’; that is, they
spent extravagantly and did not work themselves. They can be compared to the
erstwhile zamindars in India. The nobles of the robe were nobles not by birth by
title. They were the magistrates and judges. Among these nobles, some were very
progressive and liberal as they had moved in their positions from common
citizens who belonged to the third estate.
 The Third Estate comprised the rest of the society and included the peasants, the
merchants, the artisans, and others. There was a vast difference between the
condition of the peasants and that of the clergy and the nobility. The peasants
worked day and night but were overloaded with so many taxes that they lived a
hand to mouth existence. They produced the food on which the whole society
depended. Yet they could barely survive due to failure of any kind of protection
from the government. The King, in order to maintain the good will of the other
two estates, the clergy and the nobility, continued to exploit the poor. The poor
peasants had no power against him. While the clergy and the nobility kept on
pampering and flattering the King.
As compared to the peasants, the condition of the middle classes, also known as the
bourgeoisie
comparising the merchants, bankers, lawyers, manufacturers, etc. was much better.
These classes too
belonged to the third estate. But the poverty of the state, which led to a price rise
during 1720-1789, instead of adversely affecting them, helped them. They derived profit
from this rise and the fact that
French trade had improved enormously also helped the commercial classes to a great
extent. Thus, this
class was rich and secure. But it had no social prestige as compared with the high
prestige of the members of the first and the second estates. In spite of controlling trade,
industries, banking etc. the
bourgeoisie had no power to influence the court or administration. The other two
estates looked them
down upon and the King paid very little attention to them. Thus, gaining political power
became a necessity for them.

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

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

THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FRENCH SOCIETY: The kings of France, from Louis XIV
onwards, fought costly wars, which ruined the country, and when Louis XIV died in
1715, France had become bankrupt. Louis XV instead of recovering from this ruin kept
on borrowing money from bankers. His famous sentence, “After me the deluge”
describes the kind of financial crisis that France was facing. Louis XVI, a very weak and
ineffective king, inherited the ruin of a bankrupt government. His wife, Queen Marie
Antoinette, known for her expensive habits, is famous for her reply, which she gave to
the poor, hungry people of France who came to her asking for bread. She told the
people that, ‘if you don’t have bread, eat cake’.
INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE:
France, like some other European countries during the eighteenth century, had entered
the age of reason and rationalism. Some of the major philosophers, whose ideas
influenced the French people, were rationalists who believed that all true things could
be proved by reason. Some of these thinkers were, Montesquieu (1689-1755), Locke
(1632-1704), Voltaire (1694-1778), and Rousseau (1712-1778).

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

1. Right to live,
2. Right to property, and
3. The right to personal freedom.
He also believed that any ruler who took away these rights from his people should be
removed from the seat of power and replaced by another ruler who is able to protect
these rights.

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

speech. He also
stood for the rights of individuals, for freedom of speech and expression. ROUSSEAU
WROTE IN HIS BOOK, The Social Contract, that the people of a country have the right to
choose their sovereign. He believed that people can develop their personalities best
only under a government which is of their own choice.

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

MAJOR CHANGES AFTER FRENCH REVOLUTION: French Revolution changed the

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

The Industrial Revolution and Modernity and Social Changes In Europe

1. The Industrial Revolution began around 1760 A.D. in England. It brought about
great changes in the social and economic life of the people first in England, then
in the other countries of Europe and later in other continents. In Europe,
especially England, the discovery of new territories, explorations, growth of trade
and commerce and the consequent growth of towns brought about an increase in
demand for goods. Earlier goods (i.e. consumer items like cloth, etc.) were
produced at domestic levels. This means that there existed a domestic system of
production. With increased demand, goods were to be produced on a large-scale.
2. During Industrial Revolution, new tools and techniques were invented, which
could produce goods on a largescale. During 1760-1830 A.D., a series of
inventions in tools and techniques and organization of production took place and
it gave rise to the factory system of production. Thus, a change in economy from
feudal to capitalist system of production developed. Subsequently, there
emerged a class of capitalists, which controlled the new system of production.
Due to this revolution society moved from the old age of hand-made goods to the
 new age of machine- made goods. This shift heralded the emergence of Industrial
Revolution.
3. ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT MECHANICAL INVENTIONS, which led to a quicker and
better method of production in various industries, was the Spinning Jenny,
invented in 1767 by James Hargreaves, an English weaver. It was a simple
machine rectangular in shape. It had a series of spindles, which cold be turned by
a single wheel. In 1769, Arkwright, an English barber, invented another tool,
which was named after the name of its inventor and called Arkwright’s Water
Fame. This Water Frame was so large that it could not be kept in one’s home and
a special building was required to set it up. Thus on account of this it is said that
he was responsible for introducing the factory system. Another invention called
“the Mule” was by Samuel Crompton in 1779 in England. There were several
other inventions, which all contributed to the industrial growth of European
society.
4. WITH THE CHANGE IN THE ECONOMY OF SOCIETY SEVERAL SOCIAL CHANGES
FOLLOWED. As CAPITALISM became more and more complex, THE
DEVELOPMENTS OF BANKS, INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND FINANCE
CORPORATIONS TOOK PLACE. NEW CLASS OF INDUSTRIAL WORKERS,
MANAGERS, CAPITALISTS EMERGED. THE PEASANTS IN THE NEW
INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY FOUND THEMSELVES WITH THOUSANDS OF OTHER
PEOPLE LIKE THEMSELVES, WINDING COTTON IN A TEXTILE MILL. Instead of the
famous countryside they found themselves in unhygienic living conditions.
5. WITH THE INCREASE IN PRODUCTION, POPULATION STARTED INCREASING. RISE
OF POPULATION LED TO THE INCREASED RATE OF URBANISATION. THE
INDUSTRIAL CITIES GREW RAPIDLY. IN THE INDUSTRIAL CITIES SOCIO-
ECONOMIC DISPARITIES WERE VERY WIDE. The factory workers were involved in
repetitive and boring work, the result of which they could not enjoy. In Marxist
terms the worker became alienated from the product of his/ her labour. City life
in the industrial society became an altogether a different way of life.
6. THESE CHANGES MOVED BOTH CONSERVATIVE AND RADICAL THINKERS. The
conservatives feared that such conditions would lead to chaos and disorder. The
radicals like Engels felt that the factory workers would initiate social
transformation. Though the judgement of values differed, social thinkers of the
time were agreed upon the epoch-making impact of the Industrial Revolution.
They also agreed upon THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NEW WORKING CLASS. The
history of the period from 1811 to 1850 further indicates that this class
increasingly agitated for their rights.

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

1. THE CONDITION OF LABOUR: A new population earning their livelihood by

working in the factories arose. In the early years this working class lived in
poverty and squalor. They were socially deprived. At the same time they were
indispensable in the new industrial system. This made them a powerful social
force. Sociologists recognized that the poverty of this class of workers is not
 natural poverty but social poverty. Thus the working class became during the
nineteenth century the subject of both moral and analytical concern.
2. THE TRANSFORMATION OF PROPERTY: The traditional emphasis on land lost its
value while money or capital became important during the Industrial Revolution.
The investment in new industrial system came to be recognised. The feudal
landlords became less significant while the new capitalists gained power. Many of
these new capitalists were the erstwhile landlords. Property was one of the
central issues that were raised in the French Revolution too. Its influence on the
social order is considerable. Property is related to economic privileges, social
status and political power. A change in the property system involves a change in
the fundamental character of society. Sociologists have grappled with the
question of property and its impact on social stratification since the days of Marx,
Tocqueville, Taine and Weber.
3. THE INDUSTRIAL CITY, I.E. URBANISM: Urbanization was a necessary corollary of
the Industrial Revolution. Industries grew and along with it grew great cluster of
populations, the modern towns and cities. Cities were present in ancient period
too, such as Rome, Athens, etc. but the new cities, such as Manchester in
England, famous for its textile, were different in nature. Ancient cities were
known as repositories of civilised graces and virtues while the new cities were
known as repositories of misery and inhumanity. It was these aspects of the new
cities, which concerned the early sociologists.
4. TECHNOLOGY AND THE FACTORY SYSTEM: Technology and the factory system
has been the subject of countless writings in the nineteenth century. Both the
conservative and radical thinkers realised that the two systems would alter
human life for all times to come.
5. RURAL –URBAN MIGRATION: The impact of technology and factory system led to
large-scale migration of people to the cities.
6. FAMILY RELATIONS: Women and children joined the work force in the factories.
Family structure and interactional relations changed.
7. OCCUPATIONAL RELATION: The siren of the factory seemed to rule peoples’ life.
The machine rather than man seemed to dominate work. As mentioned earlier
the relation between the labourers and the products of their labour changed.
They worked for their wages. The product was the child of everybody and of the
machine in particular. The owner of the factory owned it. Life and work became
depersonalised. Marx saw a form of enslavement in the machine and a
manifestation of alienation of labour. Social scientists, felt that men and women
had grown mechanical in heart, as well as in hand due to the industrial system of
production.

Change In Intelectual Orientation In Europe

Sociology emerged as a response to the forces of change, which took place during
eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries in Europe. The ideas, which are discussed again and again in early
sociological
writings, are thus essentially ideas of that period.
The thinkers of the Enlightenment of eighteenth century affected much of the early
sociology. The
Enlightenment appears as the most appropriate point of departure in the study of the
origins of sociological theory, for various reasons including those mentioned below.

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

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

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

Early European Sociologist:

Auguste Comte [1798 – 1857)

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

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

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

1. Comte gave to ‘sociology’ its name and laid its foundation so that it could develop
into an independent and a separate science.
2. Comte’s insistence on ‘positive approach, objectivity and scientific
attitude’ contributed to the progress of social sciences in general.
3. Comte, through his “Law of Three Stages” clearly established the close
association between ‘intellectual evolution and social progress’.
4. Comte’s ‘classification of sciences’ drives home the fact that ‘sociology depends
heavily on the achievements of other sciences’. The ‘interdisciplinary approach’
of the modern times is in tune with the Cometian view.
5. Comte gave maximum ‘importance to the scientific method’· He criticized the
attitude of the armchair social philosophers and stressed the need to follow the
method of science.
6. Comte divided the study of sociology into two broad areas: ‘social statics”
and “social dynamics”. Present day sociologists have retained them in the form
of ‘social structure and function’ and ‘social change and progress’.
7. Comte had argued that sociology was not just a “pure” science, but
an ‘applied’ science also. He believed that sociology should help to solve the
problems of society. This insistence on the practical aspect of sociology led to the
development of various applied fields of sociology such as “social work“, “social
welfare”, etc.
8. Comte also contributed to the development of theoretical sociology.
9. Comte upheld the’ moral order’ in the society. The importance which he:
attached to morality highly impressed, the later writers such, as Arnold Toynbee
and Pitrim A. Sorokin.
 10.Comte’s famous books ‘Positive Philosophy’ and, “Positive Polity” are memorable
contributions to the development of sociological literature.

Harriet Martineau (1802–1876):

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

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

Herbert Spencer [1820 – 1903]

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

struggle, competition, and violence—Herbert Spencer developed a theoretical
approach to understanding society that relied on evolutionary doctrine.
2. To explain both social structure and social changes, he used an organic analogy
that compared society to a living organism made up of interdependent parts—
ideas that ultimately contributed to the structural functionalist perspective in
sociology. Using the phrase “survival of the fittest” even before Charles Darwin’s
landmark On the Origin of Species (*1859+ 1964) was published, Spencer’s social
Darwinism concluded that the evolution of society and the survival of those
within it were directly linked to their ability to adapt to changing conditions.
3. According to Spencer, a free and competitive marketplace without governmental
interference was essential so that the best and the brightest would succeed and,
in turn, help build a stronger economy and society.
4. Spencer opposed welfare or any other means of helping the weak or the poor,
believing that such efforts would weaken society in the long term by helping the
“unfit” to survive. These ideas appealed to wealthy industrialists and government
officials, who used Spencer’s theory to scientifically support policies and practices
that helped them maintain their wealth, power, and prestige at the expense of
those less fortunate.
5. His three volumes of “Principles of Sociology”, published in 1877 were the first
systematic study devoted mainly to the sociological analysis. He was much more
precise than Comte in specifying the topics or special fields of sociology.
6. According to Spencer, the fields of sociology are: the family, politics, religion,
social control and industry or work. He also mentioned the sociological study of
 as associations, communities, the division of labour, social differentiation, and
stratification, the sociology of knowledge and of science, and the study of arts
and aesthetics.
7. Spencer stressed the obligation of sociology to deal with the inter-relations
between the different elements of society, to give an account of how the parts
influence the whole and are in turn reacted upon. He insisted that sociology
should take the whole society as its unit for analysis. He maintained that the parts
of society were not arranged unsystematically. The parts bore some constant
relation and this made society as such a meaningful ‘entity’, a fit subject for
scientific inquiry.

KARL MARX (1818 – 1883)

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

Emile Durkheim(1858-1917)

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

Max Weber (1864-1920)

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

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

Contributions of These Four Pioneers of Sociology in Common

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

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

Story of Spread and Popularity of Sociology (IN USA & Other Societies)

1. Although we have located the beginnings of Sociology in Western Europe in the

second half of the nineteenth century, its development and acceptance as an
academic discipline was not a uniform process. The early classical works in
Sociology of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were produced in
France and Germany, with Emile Durkheim in France and Karl Marx and Max
Weber in Germany as the outstanding figures. The works of these ‘classical’
sociologists still occupy a position of profound importance in contemporary
theoretical debates. Sociology developed markedly in the USA too, and received
more wide spread acceptance there than in Britain. In many ways of USA till early
in this century was ideal sociological material – a rapidly expanding and
industrializing, cosmopolitan, immigrant-based society that was experiencing a
wide range of social changes. Transplanted to U.S. soil, sociology first took root at
the University of Kansas in 1890, at the University of Chicago in 1892, and at
Atlanta University (then an all-black school) in 1897. From there, sociology spread
rapidly throughout North America, jumping from four instructors offering courses
in 1880 to 225 instructors and 59 sociology departments just 20 years later.
2. The University of Chicago initially dominated North American sociology. Albion
Small (1854–1926), who founded this department, also launched the American
Journal of Sociology and was its editor from 1895 to 1925.
3. As in Europe, the onset of rapid industrialization and urbanization, and
accompanying social problems, gave impetus to the development of sociology in
the United States. American sociologists built on and expanded the theories and
ideas of the European founders of sociology.
4. Lester F. Ward (1841–1913) Lester Ward is often considered the first systematic
American sociologist. He attempted to synthesize the major theoretical ideas of
Comte and Spencer and differentiated between what he called pure sociology—
the study of society in an effort to understand and explain the natural laws that
govern its evolution— and applied sociology, which uses sociological principles,
social ideals, and ethical considerations to improve society. The distinctions
between these two areas of sociology are still made today.
5. Jane Addams: Of the many early sociologists who combined the role of
sociologist with that of social reformer, none was as successful as Jane Addams
(1860–1935), who was a member of the American Sociological Society from its
founding in 1895. Like Harriet Martineau, Addams, too, came from a background
of wealth and privilege. She attended the Women’s Medical College of
Philadelphia, but dropped out because of illness (Addams 1910/1981). On a trip
to Europe, Addams saw the work being done to help London’s poor. The memory
wouldn’t leave her, she said, and she decided to work for social justice. In 1889,
Addams cofounded Hull-House with Ellen Gates Starr. Located in Chicago’s
notorious slums, Hull House was open to people who needed refuge—to
immigrants, the sick, the aged, the poor. Sociologists from the nearby University
of Chicago were frequent visitors at Hull-House. With her piercing insights into
the exploitation of workers and the adjustment of immigrants to city life, Addams
strove to bridge the gap between the powerful and the powerless. She co-
founded the American Civil Liberties Union and campaigned for the eight-hour
work day and for laws against child labor. She wrote books on poverty,
democracy, and peace. Adams’ writings and efforts at social reform were so
outstanding that in 1931, she was a co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace. She
and Emily Greene Balch are the only sociologists to have won this coveted award.
6. Margaret Sanger (1883–1966): Another notable social reformer, Margaret Sanger
applied sociological theories to problems of population, health, and women’s
rights. After watching a poor working woman die from a self-induced abortion,
she began publishing Woman Rebel, a journal aimed at raising the consciousness
of working-class women. Her articles covered topics ranging from personal
hygiene, venereal disease, and birth control to social revolution.
7. William E. B. Dubois (1868–1963): E. B. Du Bois (1868–1963). After earning a
bachelor’s degree from Fisk University, Du Bois became the first African American
to earn a doctorate at Harvard. He then studied at the University of Berlin, where
he attended lectures by Max Weber. After teaching Greek and Latin at
Wilberforce University, in 1897 Du Bois moved to Atlanta University to teach
sociology and do research. He remained there for most of his career.
 It is difficult to grasp how racist society was at this time. As Du Bois passed a
butcher shop in Georgia one day, he saw the fingers of a lynching victim displayed
in the window. When Du Bois went to national meetings of the American
Sociological Society, restaurants and hotels would not allow him to eat or room
with the white sociologists. How times have changed. Today, sociologists would
not only boycott such establishments, but also refuse to hold meetings in that
state. At that time, however, racism, like sexism, prevailed throughout society,
 rendering it mostly invisible to white sociologists. Du Bois eventually became such
an outspoken critic of racism that the U.S. State Department, fearing he would
criticize the United States, refused to issue him a passport (Du Bois 1968).
 Each year between 1896 and 1914, Du Bois published a book on relations
between African Americans and whites. Not content to collect and interpret
objective data, Du Bois, along with Jane Addams and others from Hull-House was
one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP) (Deegan 1988). Continuing to battle racism both as a sociologist
and as a journalist, Du Bois eventually embraced revolutionary Marxism. At age
93, dismayed that so little improvement had been made in race relations, he
moved to Ghana, where he is buried (Stark 1989).
 In his writings, Du Bois pointed out that some successful African Americans were
breaking their ties with other African Americans in order to win acceptance by
whites. This, he said, weakened the African American community by depriving it
of their influence.
8. Talcott Parsons and C. Wright Mills: Contrasting Views: Like Du Bois and Addams,
many early North American sociologists saw society or parts of it, as corrupt and
in need of reform. During the 1920s and 1930s, for example, Robert Park and
Ernest Burgess (1921) not only studied crime, drug addiction, juvenile
delinquency, and prostitution but also offered suggestions for how to alleviate
these social problems. As the emphasis shifted from social reform to objective
analyses, the abstract models of society developed by sociologist Talcott Parsons
(1902–1979) influenced a generation of sociologists. These models of how the
parts of society work together harmoniously did nothing to stimulate social
activism. Another sociologist, C. Wright Mills (1916–1962), deplored such
theoretical abstractions. Trying to push the pendulum the other way, he urged
sociologists to get back to social reform. In his writings, he warned that the nation
faced an imminent threat to freedom—the coalescing of interests of a power
elite, the top leaders of business, politics, and the military. The precedent-shaking
1960s and 1970s that followed Mills’ death sparked interest in social activism
among a new generation of sociologists.

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

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

1. In the Post-war period there has developed a rather more critical awareness of
how societies operate. Very few people accept their societies unthinking. They
see that alongside many technological and social advances that have been made
so far, there still exist problem areas like over-population, poverty and crime.
2. Alongside this, there has developed an increasing concern with social reform and
the reordering of society, accompanied by the belief that in order to make such
reforms effective knowledge about society and its members is needed.
3. There has also developed an increasing awareness of other societies and ways of
life because of better systems of communications in travel and the mass media.
 4. Increasingly, it has been claimed that people who work in government, industry,
the social services etc ought to have some sort of specialist knowledge of
society on the grounds that they will be better equipped to meet the demands of
their work.
5. Emergence of new nation states was accompanied with rapid modernization–
Therefore there was inncreasing awareness among these societies that they
need to understand social life scientifically in order to ease the process of
nation building. As a result, during and since the 1960’s, sociology degree courses
have increased considerably, Sociology has found its way into schools, sociologists
have been increasingly recognized and consulted by various organizations, from
national government downwards, in research programmes, policy, planning etc.
and some sociologists have also found fame in the national media.

Scope of the Subject and Comparison with other Social

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

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

 According to George Simmel sociology should confine its study to formal

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

Criticism of Formalistic School.

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

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

Synthetic School

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

There is Unity of Data but difference in View point among different social sciences:

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

Comparison of Sociology with other social sciences

 Sociology is one of a group of social sciences, which also includes anthropology,

economics, political science and history. The divisions among the various social
sciences are not clear cut, and all share a certain range of common interests,
concepts and methods. It is therefore very important to understand that the
distinctions of the disciplines are to some extent arbitrary and should not be seen
in a straitjacket fashion. To differentiate the social sciences would be to
exaggerate the differences and gloss over the similarities. Furthermore feminist
theories have also shown the greater need of interdisciplinary approach. For
instance how would a political scientist or economist study gender roles and their
implications for politics or the economy without sociology of the family or gender
division of labour.

Sociology and Economics

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

Sociology and Political science

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

 Conventional political science was focused primarily on two elements: political

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:
It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish political science form political
sociology. There are a number of Marxist studies having Marxist-socialist ideas as their
hypothesis. Also as modern state is increasingly getting involved in providing welfare
amenities, sociological slant to political activity and political thinking is gaining more and
more acceptance.

Sociology and History

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

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

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

Sociology and Psychology

1. Psychology is often defined as the science of behavior. It involves itself primarily

with the individual. It is interested in her/his intelligence and learning,
motivations and memory nervous system and reaction time, hopes and fears.
2. Social psychology, which serves as a bridge between psychology and sociology,
maintains a primary interest in the individual but concerns itself with the way in
which the individual behaves in social groups collectively with other individuals.
3. Sociology attempts to understand behavior as it is organized in society that is the
way in which personality is shaped by different aspects of society. For instance,
economic and political system, their family and kinship structure, their culture,
norms and values. It is interesting to recall that Durkheim who sought to establish
a clear scope and method for sociology in his well-known study of suicide left out
individual intentions of those who commit or try to commit suicide in favour of
statistics concerning various social characteristics of these individuals.
4. J.S. Mill believed that a general social science could not be considered firmly
established, until its inductively established generalizations, can be shown to be
also logically deducible from laws of mind. Thus, he clearly sought to establish
 primacy of psychology over all other social sciences. Durkheim on the other hand,
made a radical distinction between the phenomena studied by sociology and
psychology respectively. Sociology was to study social facts defined as being
external to individual mind and exercising the coercive action upon them. The
explanation of social facts could only be in terms of other social facts, not in
terms of psychological facts. “Society is not simply an aggregate of individuals; it
is a system formed by their association and represents a specific level of reality
possessing its own characteristics”. Thus sociology and psychology are totally
separate disciplines. Though, an extreme interpretation of Durkheim might lead
to the conclusion that most psychology is social psychology.
5. Thus the views of Mill and Durkheim represent two extreme vies. Most
sociologists however have adopted various intermediate positions. According to
Ginsberg, “many sociological generalizations can be more firmly established by
being related to general psychological laws. Similarly S. F. Nadal argued that some
problems posed by social enquiry can be illuminated by a move to lower levels of
analysis, viz psychology and biology. German scholars like Dilthey and Max Weber
etc., came to believe that sociological explanations can be further enriched if an
attempt is made to understand social behavior in terms of underlying meanings.
Such understanding was conceived in terms of ‘common senses psychology but
neither Dilthey nor Weber was opposed to the development of a scientific
psychology in the broad sense and Weber was even sympathetic to some of
Freud’s ideas.
6. Similarly the interdependence of sociology and psychology for the study of
human behavior has also been emphasized in the work psychologists belonging to
post Freudian School especially Karen Horney and Erich Fromm. The influence of
society in moulding individual behavior is given still greater prominence. Fromm’s
concept of social character is intended precisely to relate individual psychological
characterization to the characteristics of a particular social group of social system.
Inspite of such recognition of complementarities between sociology and
psychology, divergence persists between the two. The divergence between
sociology and psychology can be illustrated from various studies. In the study of
conflict and war there have been mutually exclusive sociological and
psychological explanations. Similarly in the studies of social stratification and
political behavior the two disciplines have remained divergent.
7. According to Bottomore, in almost every field of enquiry it can be shown that
psychology and sociology continue for the most part and two separate universes
of study. However, some attempts have been made to bring them together in one
of the most valuable works is of Gerth and Mills. According to them, the study of
social psychology is an inter-play between individual character and social
structure and it can be approached wither from the side of sociology or from the
side for biology. They have even suggested the concept of role to bridge the gap
between the two sciences. Social role represents a meeting point of the individual
organism and the social structure and it is used as a central concept and social
structure in the same terms.
Conclusion:
Yet, inspite of these efforts sociology and psychology continue to offer alternate
accounts for behavior, and if they are to be brought closer together, it will be necessary
to work out more rigorously the conceptual and theoretical links between them.

Sociology and Philosophy

1. Modern philosophy and sociology came into existence during one time period to
explain the social crisis of Europe in the 19th century. Sociology aimed, to begin
with, to provide a social doctrine that would guide social policy. This aim has now
been abandoned. Even then some links exist between sociology and philosophy.
First, there is a philosophy of sociology in the same sense as a philosophy of
science: that is an examination of the methods, concepts and arguments used in
sociology.
2. There is a close relationship between sociology and moral & social philosophy.
The subject-matter of sociology is human social behavior as guided by values.
Moral and social philosophy studies values and the sociologists study values and
human valuation as facts. On occasions, the sociologist is made to distinguish
between fact and value. It is only by some training that social philosophy
becomes competent to distinguish between fact and value.
3. it can be said that the study of sociology leads to philosophical quest. Durkheim
thought that sociology has to necessarily contribute to a renewal of philosophical
questions. This made him indulge in some epistemological discussions, a branch
of philosophy. Karl Mannheim argued that sociology of knowledge had
implications for philosophy. Both of them thought that sociology can make a
direct contribution to philosophy. But this is an incorrect approach. Philosophy is
the basis of the sociology of knowledge not vice versa.
4. It can also be said here that while sociology leads on to philosophical reflections,
much of it also begins there. Sociological research will become trivial if it ignores
the larger problems of social life which are coordinated in philosophical world-
views and in social doctrines. The stimulating character of early Marxism in social
research was to a great extent due to the fact the Marxism was not only a
sociological theory but also philosophical base was helpful for social research.
Active participation in social movement and commitment to a social doctrine
helped Beatrice Webb in her social research.

Conclusion:
In brief, although each social science, including philosophy, has its own specific area of
study, there is a growing collaboration and faster cross fertilization among them. The
unity of social science is best conceived as a unity of methods and of conceptual
segments but not as a universal history.
Sociology and Social Anthropology
Anthropology in most countries incorporates archaeology, physical anthropology,
cultural history, many branches of linguistics and the study of all aspects of life in
“simple societies”.

1. Our concern here is with social anthropology and cultural anthropology for it is
that which is close to the study of sociology. Sociology is deemed to be the study
of modern, complex societies while social anthropology was deemed to be the
study of simple societies.
2. As we saw earlier, each discipline has its own history or biography. Social
anthropology developed in the west at a time when western-trained social
anthropologists studied non-European societies often thought of as exotic,
barbaric and uncivilized. This unequal relationship between those who studied
and those who were studied, remarked upon too often earlier. But times have
changed and we have the erstwhile ‘natives’ be they Indians or Sudanese, Nagas
or Santhals, who now speak and write about their own societies.
3. In terms of the method of study, social anthropologists developed a preference of
functionalist approach and filed work as the main technique of data collection.
Functionalist approach proved suitable for social anthropologists because the
tribal and agrarian societies of Asia and Africa hardly underwent any social
change. Field work as a method of data collection was considerable because most
of these societies lacked historical records and could be directly observed as
functioning whole due to their small size.
4. On the other hand sociology continues to be dominated by the historical
approach, as can be seen in the works of L.T. Hobhouse, Max Weber and even
Marxian scholars. However, the post-colonial period witnessed a new trend
towards the convergence of the two disciplines. One major factor responsible for
this approchment between sociology and social anthropology has been the rise of
new nation states which, as a result of the process of nation building have
acquired a dualistic character. They have come to acquire the features of both
modern industrial societies as well as traditional small scale societies. Therefore
the study of these “Developing Societies” requires the use of both sociological
as well as social anthropological approach.
5. The anthropologists of the past documented the details of simple societies
apparently in a neutral scientific fashion. In practice they were constantly
comparing those societies with the model of the western modern societies as a
benchmark.
6. Other changes have also redefined the nature of sociology and social
anthropology. Modernity as we saw led to a process whereby the smallest village
was impacted by global processes. The most obvious example is colonialism. The
most remote village of India under British colonialism saw its land laws and
administration change, its revenue extraction alters, its manufacturing industries
collapsed. Contemporary global processes have further accentuated this shrinking
of the globe. The assumption of studying a simple society was that it was
bounded. We know this is not so today.
 7. The traditional study of simple, non-literate societies by social anthropology had a
pervasive influence on the content and the subject matter of the discipline. Social
anthropology tended to study society (simple societies) in all their aspects, as
wholes. In so far as they specialized, it was on the basis of area as for example the
Andaman Islands, the Nuers or Melanesia.
8. Sociologists study complex societies and would therefore often focus on parts of
society like the bureaucracy or religion or caste or a process such as social
mobility.
9. Social anthropology was characterized by long field work tradition, living in the
community studied and using ethnographic research methods. Sociologists have
often relied on survey method and quantitative data using statistics and the
questionnaire mode.
10.Today the distinction between a simple society and a complex one itself needs
major rethinking. India itself is a complex mix of tradition and modernity, of the
village and the city, of caste and tribe, of class and community. Villages exists in
the heart of the capital city of Delhi. Call centres serve European and American
clients from different towns of the country.
11.Indian sociology has been far more eclectic in borrowing from both traditions.
Indian sociologists often studied Indian societies that were both part of and not of
one’s own culture. It could also be dealing with both complex differentiated
societies of urban modern India as well as the study of tribes in a holistic fashion.
12.It had been feared that with the decline of simple societies, social anthropology
would lose its specificity and merge with sociology. However, there have been
fruitful interchanges between the two disciplines and today often methods and
techniques are drawn from both. There have been anthropological studies of the
state and globalization, which are very different from the traditional subject
matter of social anthropology. On the other hand, sociology too has been using
quantitative and qualitative techniques, macro and micro approaches for studying
the complexities of modern societies. For in India, sociology and social
anthropology have had a very close relationship.
13.Besides this, the diffusion of Marxist approach in social anthropology, as a result
of the works of Block, Sodden and Godlier, etc. have acted as a bridge between
the disciplines. On the other hand even sociologists working modern industrial
societies like America have increasingly started to rely upon the methods of
social anthropology. For example, the works of Talcott Parsons and R.K. Merton
are attempts towards an adaptation of functionalist approach to study industrial
societies and William Whyte has adopted participant observation for the study
of modern industrial society. Thus the disciplines are increasingly merging into
each other.

Importance Of Sociology

1. Sociology makes a scientific study of society: Prior to the emergence of sociology

the study of society was carried on in an unscientific manner and society had
never been the central concern of any science. It is through the study of sociology
 that the truly scientific study of the society has been possible. Sociology because
of its bearing upon many of the problems of the present world has assumed such
a great importance that it is considered to be the best approach to all the social
sciences.
2. Sociology studies role of the institutions in the development of the
individuals: It is through
sociology that scientific study of the great social institutions and the relation of
the individual to each is being made. The home and family ,the school and
educaton,the church and religion, the state and government ,industry and work
,the community and association, these are institutions through which society
functions. Sociology studies these institutions and their role in the development
of the individual and suggests suitable measures for restrengthening them with a
view to enable them to serve the individual better.
3. Study of sociology is indispensable for understanding and planning of
society: Society is a complex phenomenon with a multitude of intricacies. It is
impossible to understand and solve its numerous problems without support of
sociology. It is rightly said that we cannot understand and mend society without
any knowledge of its mechanism and construction. Without the investigation
carried out by sociology no real effective social planning would be possible. It
helps us to determine the most efficient means for reaching the goals agreed
upon. A certain amount of knowledge about society is necessary before any social
policies can be carried out.
4. Sociology is of great importance in the solution of social problems: The present
world is suffering from many problems which can be solved through scientific
study of the society. It is the task of sociology to study the social problems
through the methods of scientific research and to find out solution to them. The
scientific study of human affairs will ultimately provide the body of knowledge
and principles that will enable us to control the conditions of social life and
improve them.
5. Sociology has drawn our attention to the intrinsic worth and dignity of
man: Sociology has been instrumental in changing our attitude towards human
beings. In a specialized society we are all limited as to the amount of the whole
organization and culture that we can experience directly. We can hardly know the
people of other areas intimately. In order to have insight into and appreciation of
the motives by which others live and the conditions under which they exist a
knowledge of sociology is essential.
6. Sociology has changed our outlook with regard to the problems of crime etc:It is
through the study of sociology that our whole outlook on various aspects of crime
has change. The criminals are now treated as human beings suffering from mental
deficiencies and efforts are accordingly made to rehabilitate them as useful
members of the society.
7. Sociology has made great contribution to enrich human culture: Human culture
has been made richer by the contribution of sociology. The social phenomenon is
now understood in the light of scientific knowledge and enquiry. According to
Lowie most of us harbor the comfortable delusion that our way of doing things is
 the only sensible if not only possible one. Sociology has given us training to have
rational approach to questions concerning oneself, one’s religion,customs,morals
and institutions. It has further taught us to be objective, critical and
dispassionate. It enables man to have better understanding both of himself and of
others. By comparative study of societies and groups other than his existence ,his
life becomes richer and fuller than it would otherwise be. Sociology also
impresses upon us the necessity of overcoming narrow personal prejudices,
ambitions and class hatred.
8. Sociology is of great importance in the solution of international problems: The
progress made by
physical sciences has brought the nations of the world nearer to each other. But
in the social field the world has been left behind by the revolutionary progress of
the science. The world is divided politically giving rise to stress and conflict. Men
have failed to bring in peace. Sociology can help us in understanding the
underlying causes and tensions.
9. The value of sociology lies in the fact that it keeps us update on modern
situations: It contributes
to making good citizens and finding solutions to the community problems. It adds
to the knowledge of the society. It helps the individual find his relation to society.
The study of social phenomena and of the ways and means of promoting what
Giddens calls social adequacy is one of the most urgent needs of the modern
society. Sociology has a strong appeal to all types of mind through its direct
bearing upon many of the initial problems of the present world.

1. Sociological knowledge is different from theological and philosophical

observations. Likewise sociology is different from common sense observation.
 Many a time we make certain statements which we have not to prove that they
are true. They are based either on common sense or on practical observations
and experiences on social life, though sometimes they may be based on wisdom
too. However, often they are based on ignorance, prejudices and mistaken
interpretation.
 Common sense knowledge, based on the accumulated experiences, prejudices
and beliefs of the people, is often contradictory and inconsistent. On the other
hand, scientific observations are based on verifiable evidence or systematic
body of proof that can be cited. For example, some common sense statements
may be quoted here: man is more intelligent than women; married people remain
happier than single people; highcaste people are more talented than low-caste
people.
……..Contrary to this, the scientific research or scientific inquiry finds that
woman is as intelligent as man; there is no association between happiness and
remaining married or unmarried by a person; caste does not determine
individual’s efficiency.
2. Common sense observations result in widespread ignorance and rejection of a
sociological perspective when people think about human behavior.
3. Common-sense perspectives predominate in people’s minds. They may, for
instance, employ a biological perspective in attempting to explain family and
 marital arrangements; women rear children because they have a maternal
instinct (biologically determined) for this task. Similarly, they may use pseudo-
psychological perspective in explaining suicide (people commit suicide when they
are mentally unbalanced), or a moralistic perspective in explaining crime
(Criminals are people who have not developed a conscience regulating their
actions). Because ordinary people are more familiar with these kinds of common-
sense perspectives in their everyday lives a sociological approach does not come
easily to them.
4. Common sense observation is further compounded by a deeply held
commitment to the idea that we are all individuals, unique beings with our own
special qualities, which sociologists deny.
5. Sociology, however, insists on a willingness to reject what is obvious common-
sense, natural and to go beneath the surface for understanding of the world.
6. As Berger puts it: “The fascination of Sociology lies in the fact that its
perspective makes us see in a new light the very world in which we have lived
all our lives. It can be said that the first wisdom of Sociology is that things are
not what they seem”.
7. Sociologists emphasise, that what is ‘commonsense’ or ‘natural’ may be by no
means universal or eternal, but is frequently relative to particular societies or to
particular periods in time.
 The common-sense view of differences in behaviour between men and
women in the family in our society tends to assume that because there are
biological and physiological differences between men and women, certain aspects
of their behavior are therefore ‘natural’. For example, it is often argued that it is
common sense and natural that women will engage in child-rearing and domestic
tasks and that men will make sexual advances and will work outside the home.
 Mead’s study of New Guinea, ‘Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive
Societies’, revealed the partiality of such common-sense interpretations of
behavior pattern. Among the Apache, she found very few ‘natural differences’
in men’s and women’s behavior with neither sex exhibiting aggression: Women
did the heavy carrying (Men stayed at home with their wives during and after
child birth, ‘sharing’ the pain and strain. Among the Munduracco, both sexes
were aggressive, children were treated brutally by both parents and lovemaking
was rather like a pitched battle. Among the Tchambuli, yet further variation
occurred: men adorned themselves, gossiped, made things for trade, while
women selected their partners, made the sexual advances, did all the trade, and
were the more aggressive sex. Obviously, we cannot explain these very striking
variations in behavior via biology, since the people in the various societies were
all the same biologically.
 To the Hopi Indians of North America it is ‘common-sense’ view that rain-clouds
are Gods and must therefore be made happy through exhibiting Rain dance. This
is a view not entirely consistent with that of the Meteorological office. The
essential point, then, is that one person’s common sense is somebody else’s
nonsense and there are many examples of sociological and anthropological
investigation questioning and exploding many common-sense notions about
 behavior. Although the use of everyday common-sense beliefs is, usually not only
unsystematic and inadequate but also often contradictory.
 The common sense explanations are generally based on what may be called
‘naturalistic’ and/or individualistic explanation. A naturalistic explanation for
behavior rests on the assumption that one can really identify ‘natural’ reasons for
behavior. An individualistic explanation of some event or phenomenon assumes
that the event can be readily understood and explained solely through reference
to the behavior of the individuals involved in it. There is no attempt to
understand or explain the phenomenon in terms of wider social forces. A
naturalistic explanation of behavior rests on the assumptions that one can readily
identify ‘natural’ (or sometimes ‘God-given’) reasons for behavior. For example, it
is only natural, that two people should fall in love, get married, live together, and
raise a family. Such explanations are rejected as inadequate by the sociologist.
The individualistic explanation is rejected because it does not recognize the
importance of wider social forces acting on the individual that he or she cannot
control. The naturalistic explanation is rejected because it fails to recognize that
behavior patterns are not primarily biologically determined but rather reflect
social conventions learned by individuals as members of social groups, or, more
generally, society.
8. Sociology thus breaks away from both common sense observations and ideas as
well as from philosophical thought. It does not always or even generally lead to
spectacular results. But meaningful and unsuspected connections can be reached
only by sitting through masses of connections
 Great advances in sociological knowledge have been made, generally
incrementally and only rarely by a dramatic breakthrough. Sociology has a body
of concepts, methods and data, no matter how loosely coordinated. This cannot
be substituted by common sense. Common sense is unreflective since it does not
question its own origins. Or in other words it does not ask itself: “Why do I hold
this view?”
 The sociologist must be ready to ask of any of our beliefs, about ourselves-no
matter how cherished–“is this really so?” The systematic and questioning
approach of sociology is derived from a broader tradition of scientific
investigation. This emphasis on scientific procedures can be understood only if
we go back in time. And understand the context or social situation with which the
sociological perspective merged as sociology was greatly influenced by the great
developments in modern science.

How is sociological study different from the common sense?

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

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

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

 Sociology approaches social life from the “man – in – society” standpoint. It

conveys the dualistic and apparently paradoxical conception of social life. It
means that inclusive collectivity viz. society and its members exist in a
relationship of interdependence in which on one hand man are viewed as shaped
by their groups and group heritage on the other hand, individuals are viewed as
creators of their common society and culture. Illustrations of both these
conceptions of social reality can be seen in our earlier description of the elements
of social life. We mentioned that people behave in society as status occupants
and by virtue of their behaviour gets constrained by the need to conform to the
role expectations. These role expectations are defined by the norms of the
society that are essential for collective living. Further, while enacting this definite
behaviour, people use symbols that are collectively shared.
 The social behaviour is impossible without the knowledge of various aspects of
culture, namely values, norms, belief through socialisation. Thereby society gets
implanted in man and shapes his behaviour. Now this illustrates the first aspect
namely, “society creates man”. Evidence of second aspect of sociologists
conception of social life, that is, “Man Creates Society” can be found in our
understanding of social behaviour in terms of meanings ascribed by the
individuals which form basis for motives that underlie social action.
 Now these meanings and motives of the individual may differ from those
commonly shared by the group and therefore may lead to deviant behaviour on
the part of individuals that in turn may change the behaviour of the whole group.
Christ, Lenin, Gandhi was such individuals who could change their societies. Even
the lesser individuals do it to lesser extent.
 Sociology has a special and irrelevant attitudes towards social life Peter L
Berger has called
it a “debunking attitudes towards world taking four granted”. In his profession
sociologists
is a sceptic who refuses to accept the self – evident, common sense-based view of
the world
at its face value, rather he makes a deliberate attempt to go beyond the “visual”
and the “apparent” to look for the hidden patterns, implicit
meanings, underlying causes and unintended consequences.
 Sociologists work is to peep into people’s life and he does it with a passion to
look behind closed doors. In fact a popular textbook writer has noted that, an
adolescent who takes special delight in peeping into places, otherwise prohibited
by norms of decency, has the making of a perfect sociologists only he can retain
the voyeuristic curiosity throughout his professional career and directe it into all
spheres of social life.
 Illustrations of this debunking attitude can be found in the works of two great
sociologists and is nowhere more evident than in the study of religion, the most
venerated institution in the society. We can look at the views of Emily Durkheim
and Karl Marx who have made pioneering contributions to the growth of
sociology. In spite of the differences in their views on the role of religion both
were alike in their almost blasphemous views on religion.
 While discussing the consequences of religion for social life, Durkheim said that
the sociologists must distinguish between what believers thinks and what
actually happens. People might believe that by worshipping God together, they
might be given health, prosperity or wealth, but according to Durkheim what
actually results from such collective worships is increased social cohesiveness.
According to him religious beliefs including those related to the idea of God or
any other sacred objects are symbolic representations of the society. Thus by
worshipping God one is worshipping society.
 Now this makes a drastic break from the official view of religion. For example,
the Christians belief is “God created man in his own image” while Durkheim was
saying that “Society created God in its own image”. Same debunking attitude is
found more conspicuously by Karl Marx’s critique of religion. For him, religion in
spite of its past appearance and noble intentions is one of the instruments of
exploitations of the poor by the rich. It acts like a painkiller creating false sense of
satisfaction among the poor and therefore rendering them insensitive to the real
cause of misery.
 These examples illustrate that the concern of sociological investigation is to
penetrate beyond the surface view of social life and seek explanations in terms of
underlying causes, meanings or unintended consequences of various social
phenomena. The reason due to which the sociologists are not contended with the
generally accepted view of social life can be traced to the circumstances of
sociology’s birth.
 Sociology was born in times of turmoil, when Europe was in the throes of
transition. The ancient regimes with their divinely obtain things, anointed
 Queen’s, and noble courtiers had been destroyed by commoners like Napoleon
and the world of industrial bourgeoisie had taken its place. The trouble with the
new world was that though it was essentially a man-made world, yet it seemed to
be perpetually going out of control of its makers. Here, lay the cause of
discontentment and therefore the quest to know the world better by
looking beyond the obvious. Hence the rise of organised scepticism that became
the hallmark of Sociology.
 Another important feature of Sociology’s way of looking at things is that it
approaches social life with the help of definite methods. Sociology being a late
comer, had the advantage of gaining from the experience of other branches of
knowledge in devising the methods of enquiry. But at the same time it had to face
the limitation of having to apply these methods to study the most complex of all
phenomena namely, human behaviour.

Conclusion:

 Thus, a statement made on common sense basis may be just a guess, a hunch, or
a haphazard way of saying something, generally based on ignorance, bias,
prejudice or mistaken interpretation, though occasionally it may be wise, true,
and a useful bit of knowledge. At one time, common sense statements might
have preserved folk wisdom but today, scientific method has become a
common way of seeking truths about our social world.
 Sociology has a special and irreverent attitude towards social life.
1. Peter L Berger has called it a “debunking attitude towards world taken for
granted.”
2. Durkheim “Common sense perceptions are prejudices which can mar the
scientific study of social world”
3. Alfred Schutz – organized, typified stocks of taken for granted knowledge and
generally not questioned.
4. Garfinkel – common sense produces a sense of organization and coherence
because people draw on implicit rules of how to carry on CSK through
socialization, individual experience, others’ experience.
 Three dimensions of culture have been distinguished :
1. Cognitive: This refers to how we learn to process what we hear or see, so as to
give it meaning dentifying the ring of a cell-phone as ours, recognizing the
cartoon of a politician).
2. Normative: This refers to rules of conduct (not opening other people’s letters,
performing rituals at death).
3. Material: This includes any activity made possible by means of materials.
Materials also include tools or machines. Examples include internet ‘chatting’,
using rice-flour paste to design kolam on floors.
Explanation of Poverty by Common sense

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

Explanation of Poverty by Sociologically

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

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

Science Scientific Method and Critique

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

 Observation of an event that stimulates thinking.

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

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

Physical and natural sciences try to rely on measurement and quantification of data.
Quantification brings in exactitude and makes precise comparisons possible.
Sociology, being a late comer was also influenced and developed under the shadow of
these positive sciences. Early sociologists conceived Sociology as a positive science. For
example, influenced by biology, Herbert Spencer viewed society as an organism like
entity; a unified whole made up of interconnected parts. He advocated methods of
positive sciences to be used for the study of social phenomena.
Even Durkheim regarded Sociology to be a positive science. According to him social
facts constitute the subject matter of Sociology. He defined social facts in such a way
that they were amenable to sensory observation and exploratory generalization about
them could be made by using positive science methods. Subsequently, Radcliffe-Brown,
Malinowski and even Parsons continue to view Sociology as a positive science and so did
most of the Chicago School sociologists.

“Scientific Method is a systematic and objective attempt to study a problem for the
purpose of deriving general principles”. Robert Burns describes it as “a systematic
investigation to find solutions to a problem”. The investigation is guided by previously
collected information. Man’s knowledge grows by studying what is already known and
revising past knowledge in the light of new findings.

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

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

Characteristics of Scientific Research

Horton and Hunt have given following characteristics of scientific method :

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

Major Steps in Scientific Research

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

1. The problem is defined.

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

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

1. Choosing the research problem and stating the hypotheses;

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

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

1. Define the problem, which is worth studying through the methods of science.
2. Review literature, so that errors of other research scholars may not be repeated.
3. Formulate the hypothesis, i.e., propositions which can be tested.
4. Plan the research design, i.e., outlining the process as to how, what and where
the data is to be collected, processed and analysed.
5. Collect the data, i.e., actual collection of facts and information in accordance with
the research design. Sometimes it may become necessary to change the design to
meet some unforeseen difficulty.
6. Analyse the data, i.e., classify, tabulate and compare the data, making whatever
tests are necessary to get the results.
7. Draw conclusions, i.e., whether the original hypothesis is found true or false and
is confirmed or rejected, or are the results inconclusive? What has the research
added to our knowledge? What implications have it for sociological theory? What
new questions have been posed for further research?
8. Replicate the study. Though the above-mentioned seven steps complete a single
research study but research findings are confirmed by replication. Only after
several researches can the research conclusions be accepted as generally true.

The important uses of scientific research in Sociology are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major Theoretical Strands in Research Methodology

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

1. The central idea of functional analysis is that society is a whole unit, made up of
interrelated parts that work together. Functional analysis (also known as
functionalism and structural functionalism) is rooted in the origins of sociology.
Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer viewed society as a kind of living organism.
Just as a person or animal has organs that function together, they wrote, so does
society. And like an organism, if society is to function smoothly, its parts must
work together in harmony.
2. Emile Durkheim also viewed society as being composed of many parts, each with
its own function. When all the parts of society fulfill their functions, society is in a
“normal” state. If they do not fulfill their functions, society is in an “abnormal” or
“pathological” state. To understand society, then, functionalists say that we need
to look at both structure (how the parts of a society fit together to make the
whole) and function (what each part does, how it contributes to society).
3. Robert Merton and Functionalism. Robert Merton (1910–2003) dismissed the
organic analogy, but he did maintain the essence of functionalism—the image of
society as a whole composed of parts that work together. Merton used the term
functions to refer to the beneficial consequences of people’s actions: Functions
help keep a group (society, social system) in balance. In contrast, dysfunctions are
consequences that harm a society: They undermine a system’s equilibrium.
4. Functions can be either manifest or latent. If an action is intended to help some
part of a system, it is a manifest function. For example, suppose that government
officials become concerned about our low rate of childbirth. Congress offers a
$10,000 bonus for every child born to a married couple. The intention, or
manifest function, of the bonus is to increase childbearing within the family unit.
Merton pointed out that people’s actions can also have latent functions; that is,
they can have unintended consequences that help a system adjust. Let’s suppose
that the bonus works. As the birth rate jumps, so does the sale of diapers and
baby furniture. Because the benefits to these businesses were not the intended
consequences, they are latent functions of the bonus.
5. Of course, human actions can also hurt a system. Because such consequences
usually are unintended, Merton called them latent dysfunctions. Let’s assume
that the government has failed to specify a “stopping point” with regard to its
bonus system. To collect more bonuses, some people keep on having children.
The more children they have, however, the more they need the next bonus to
survive. Large families become common, and poverty increases. Welfare is
reinstated, taxes jump, and the nation erupts in protest. Because these results
were not intended and because they harmed the social system, they would be
latent dysfunctions of the bonus program.
6. In Sum: From the perspective of functional analysis, society is a functioning unit,
with each part related to the whole. Whenever we examine a smaller part, we
need to look for its functions and dysfunctions to see how it is related to the
larger unit. This basic approach can be applied to any social group, whether an
entire society, a college, or even a group as small as a family.
Criticisms of Functionalism

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

Marxism(Conflict Perspectives)

1. The conflict perspective views society as composed of diverse groups with

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

Symbolic Interactionism (Interactionism)

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

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

1. Symbols in Everyday Life. Without symbols, our social life would be no more
sophisticated than
that of animals. For example, without symbols we would have no aunts or uncles,
employers or
teachers—or even brothers and sisters. This sounds strange, but it is symbols that
define our
relationships. There would still be reproduction, of course, but no symbols to tell
us how we are
related to whom. We would not know to whom we owe respect and obligations,
or from whom we
can expect privileges—the essence of human relationships.
2. Look at it like this: If you think of someone as your aunt or uncle, you behave one
way, but if you
think of that person as a boyfriend or girlfriend, you behave quite differently. It is
the symbol that
tells you how you are related to others—and how you should act toward them.
3. Let’s make this a little less abstract. Consider this example: Suppose that you
have fallen head over heels in love. Finally, after what seems forever, it is the
night before your wedding. As you are contemplating tomorrow’s bliss, your
mother comes to you in tears. Sobbing, she tells you that she had a child before
she married your father, a child that she gave up for adoption. Breaking down,
she says that she has just discovered that the person you are going to marry is
this child. You can see how the symbol will change overnight—and your behavior,
too! It is not only relationships that depend on symbols to exist, but even society
itself. Without symbols, we could not coordinate our actions with those of others.
We could not make plans for a future day, time, and place. Unable to specify
times, materials, sizes, or goals, we could not build bridges and highways.
Without symbols, there would be no movies or musical instruments. We would
have no hospitals, no government, no religion.
4. Proponents of this perspective, often referred to as the interactionist perspective,
engage in microlevel analysis, which focuses on the day-to-day interactions of
individuals and groups in specific social situations. Three major concepts
important for understanding this theoretical approach include meaningful
symbols, the definition of the situation, and the looking-glass self. In addition, two
important types of theoretical analysis fit within the interactionist perspective:
dramaturgical analysis and the labelling approach.
5. Meaningful Symbols: George H. Mead (1863–1931) insisted that the ongoing
process of social interaction and the creating, defining, and redefining of
meaningful symbols make society possible. Meaningful symbols are sounds,
objects, colors, and events that represent something other than themselves and
are critical for understanding social interaction. Language is one of the most
important and powerful meaningful symbols humans have created, because it
allows us to communicate through the shared meaning of words.
6. Definition of the Situation: Definition of the situation refers to the idea that “if
*people+ define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas
and Thomas, 1928:572). Simply put, people define social reality through a process
of give and- take interaction. Once a definition is established, it shapes all further
interactions. For example, have you ever decided that you were “in love” with
someone? If so, how did that change the way you interacted with that person?
Conversely, what happens when a married couple decides they are no longer in
love? If they define their marriage as meaningless or decide they have
irreconcilable differences, how does that affect their relationship? Is a marriage
likely to survive if both partners have defined it as “over”?
7. The Looking-Glass Self : The looking-glass self refers to the idea that an
individual’s self-concept is
largely a reflection of how he or she is perceived by other members of society
 (Cooley, [1902] 1922).
Society is used as a mirror to reflect a feeling of selfpride, self-doubt, self-worth,
or self-loathing. These important elements of symbolic interactionism contribute
to socialization and the process of becoming human as we establish our personal
and social identities.
8. Dramaturgical Analysis: A useful theoretical framework within symbolic
interactionism, dramaturgical analysis, uses the analogy of the theatre to analyze
social behavior. In this approach, people are viewed as actors occupying roles as
they play out life’s drama. In real life, people do not passively accept others’
definitions of the situation nor the social identities assigned to them. Rather, they
take an active part in the drama, manipulating the interaction to present
themselves in the most positive light. Thus, people often use impression
management to communicate favorable impressions of themselves (Goffman,
1959).
9. The Labeling Approach: Another theoretical viewpoint within symbolic
interactionism is the labeling approach, which contends that people attach
various labels to certain behaviors, individuals, and groups that become part of
their social identity and shape others’ attitudes about and responses to them. For
example, in Outsiders, Howard Becker (1963) explored the fascinating world of
jazz musicians and how their non-traditional music, penchant for marijuana, and
open racial integration during the 1950s led mainstream Americans to label them
“deviant.” The influence of the Chicago School and symbolic interactionism
waned in the late 1950s, when a faction of sociologists argued that its approach
was too dependent on ethnographic studies, personal observations, interviews,
and subjective interpretations. Insisting that sociology must be more scientific, or
at least, as Comte had envisioned, more positivistic, this group believed that
sociology should rely more heavily on quantifiable data, facts, figures, and
statistics. This led to the development of the Iowa School of symbolic interaction
and also fueled a revival of structural functionalism.

Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism (Interactionism)

1. Interactionists have often been accused of examining human interaction in a

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

Phenomenology

 Phenomenological perspectives in sociology argue that the subject matter of

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

Analysis of Phenomenology

1. As the previous section indicated, interactionism adopts a similar approach with

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

1. Roughly translated, ethnomethodology means the study of the methods used

by people. It is concerned with examining the methods and procedures
employed by members of society to construct, account for and give meaning to
their social world.
2. Ethnomethodologists draw heavily on the European tradition of
phenomenological philosophy and in particular acknowledge a debt to the ideas
of the philosopher-sociologist Alfred Schutz.
3. Many Ethnomethodologists begin with the assumption that society exists only
in so far as members perceive its existence. With this emphasis on member’s
views of social reality, ethnomethodology is generally regarded as a
phenomenological approach. Ethnomethodology is a developing perspective
which contains a diversity of viewpoints.
4. One of the major concerns of sociology is the explanation of social order. From
the results of numerous investigations it appears that social life is ordered and
regular and that social action is systematic and patterned. Typically the
sociologist has assumed that social order has an objective reality.
5. Ethnomethodologists either suspend or abandon the belief that an actual or
objective social order exists. Instead they proceed from the assumption that
social life appears orderly to members of society.
6. Thus in the eyes of members their everyday activities seem ordered and
systematic but this order is not necessarily due to the intrinsic nature or inherent
qualities of the social world. In other words it may not actually exist. Rather it
may simply appear to exist because of the way members perceive and interpret
social reality. Social order therefore becomes a convenient fiction, an appearance
of order constructed by members of society. This appearance allows the social
world to be described and explained and so made knowable, reasonable,
understandable and ‘accountable’ to its members.
7. The methods and accounting procedures used by members for creating a sense of
order form the subject matter of ethnomethodological enquiry. Zimmerman and
Wieder state that the ethnomethodologist is ‘concerned with how members of
society go about the task of seeing, describing and explaining order in the world
in which they live’.
8. Ethnomethodologists are highly critical of other branches of sociology. They argue
that ‘conventional’ sociologists have misunderstood the nature of social reality.
They have treated the social world as if it had an objective reality which is
independent of members’ accounts and interpretations. Thus they have regarded
aspects of the social world such as suicide and crime as facts with an existence of
their own. They have then attempted to provide explanations for these ‘facts’. By
contrast, ethnomethodologist argues that the social world consists of nothing
more than the constructs, interpretations and accounts of its members. The job
of the sociologist is therefore to explain the methods and accounting
procedures which members employ to construct their social world. According to
 Ethnomethodologists, this is the very job that mainstream sociology has failed to
do.
9. Ethnomethodologist sees little difference between conventional sociologists and
the man in the street. They argue that the methods employed by sociologists in
their research are basically similar to those used by members of society in their
everyday lives. Members employing the documentary method are constantly
theorizing, drawing relationships between activities and making the social world
appear orderly and systematic. They then treat the social world as if it had an
objective reality separate from themselves.
10.Ethnomethodologists argue that the procedures of conventional sociologists are
essentially similar. They employ the documentary method, theorize and draw
relationships and construct a picture of an orderly and systematic social system.
They operate reflexively like any other member of society. Thus when a
functionalist sees behaviour as an expression of an underlying pattern of shared
values, he also used instances of that behaviour as evidence for the existence of
the pattern. By means of their accounting procedures members construct a
picture of society. In this sense the man in the street is his own sociologist.
Ethnomethodologists see little to choose between the pictures of society which
he creates and those provided by conventional sociologists.

Critique to Ethnomethodology:

1. Ethnomethodology has labeled as conventional or ‘folk’ sociology. Its critics have

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

Positivism and Its Critique

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

The positivist approach makes the following assumptions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critique to Positivism:

 Comte’s positivism was criticized both from within and outside the positivist
domain. Within positivism, a branch called logical positivism was developed in
early twentieth century which claimed that science is both logical and also based
on observable facts and that the truth of any statement lies in its verification
through sensory experience.
 Out side positivism developed schools of thought like symbolic interactionism,
phenomenology and ethnomethodology, etc. These schools questioned the
positivist methodology and its perception of social reality.
 But Positivism came to be accepted more in the 1950s and 1960s onwards by the
academics. Today some writers refer to the emergence of a new stage of
research, the post-empiricist research marked by the notion that the scientific
method is not the only source of knowledge, truth and validity. Thus, today,
sociological methodology is no longer based on positivist methodology as in the
past but it has become a body of diverse methods and techniques, all of which
are perceived as valid and legitimate in social research.

Fact Value and Objectivity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory is a tool of science in these ways;

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

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

1. Facts help to initiate theories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One that science and scientists can be value-free other that science and researchers
cannot be valuefree. Weber accepts the former position. He thinks that if a researcher
separates his daily life from his professional role, he can be free of biases. On the
other hand, Gouldner believes that “value-free science is a myth, though it is
desirable”. Manheim says: “Value-free research is a desirable goal towards which
social scientists can strive without any necessary expectation of actually attaining
it”. This becomes possible when the social scientists remains careful in choosing the
problem of research and states what he finds, i.e. follows data wherever they lead,
regardless of how much the conclusions may please or displease him or the research
consumer.

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

 According to Mills and Wordsworth:

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

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

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

Sociology as a value-free science

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

 At the level of philological interpretation.

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

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

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

However in practice it has been extremely difficult to fulfill this goal of value neutrality.
Values creep in various stages in sociological research. According to Gunnar Myrdal total
value neutrality is impossible. ‘Chaos does not organize itself into cosmos. We need
view points.’ Thus in order to carry out social research viewpoints are needed which
form the basis of hypothesis which enables the social scientists to collect empirical data.
These viewpoints involve valuations and also while formulating the hypothesis. Thus a
sociologist has to be value frank and should make the values which have got
incorporated in the choice of the topic of the research of the formulation of hypothesis
clear and explicit at the very outset in the research. The value-free doctrine is useful
both to those who want to escape from the world and to those who want to escape into
it. They think of sociology as a way of getting ahead in the world by providing them with
neutral techniques that may be sold on the open market to any buyer. The belief that it
is not the business of sociologist to make value judgments is taken by some to mean
that the market on which they can vend their skills is unlimited. Some sociologists have
had no hesitation about doing market research designed to sell more cigarettes
although well aware of the implications of recent cancer research. According to
Gouldner the value-free doctrine from Weber’s standpoint is an effort to compromise
two of the deepest traditions of the western thought, reason and faith but that his
arbitration seeks to safeguard the romantic residue in modern man. Like Freud, Weber
never really believed in an enduring peace or in a final resolution of this conflict. What
he did was to seek a truce through the segregation of the contenders by allowing each
to dominate in different spheres of life.

Problems of objectivity

1. Objectivity is a goal of scientific investigation. Sociology also being a science

aspires for the goal objectivity. Objectivity is a frame of mind so that personal
prejudices, preferences or predilections of the social scientists do not
contaminate the collection of analysis of data. Thus scientific investigations
should be free from prejudices of race, color, religion, sex or ideological biases.
2. The need of objectivity in sociological research has been emphasized by all
important sociologists. For example Durkheim in the Rules of the Sociological
Method stated that social facts must be treated as things and all preconceived
notions about social facts must be abandoned. Even Max Weber emphasized the
 need of objectivity when he said that sociology must be value free. According to
Radcliff Brown the social scientist must abandon or transcend his ethnocentric
and egocentric biases while carrying out researches. Similarly Malinowski
advocated cultural relativism while anthropological field work in order to ensure
objectivity.
3. However objectivity continues to be an elusive goal at the practical level. In fact
one school of thought represented by Gunnar Myrdal states that total objectivity
is an illusion which can never be achieved. Because all research is guided by
certain viewpoints and view points involve subjectivity.Myrdal suggested that the
basic viewpoints should be made clear. Further he felt that subjectivity creeps in
at various stages in the course of sociological research. Merton believes that the
very choice of topic is influenced by personal preferences and ideological biases
of the researcher.
4. Besides personal preferences the ideological biases acquired in the course of
education and training has a bearing on the choice of the topic of research. The
impact of ideological biases on social-research can be very far-reaching as seen
from the study of Tepostalan village in Mexico. Robert Redfield studied it with
functionalist perspective and concluded that there exists total harmony between
various groups in the village while Oscar Lewis studied this village at almost the
same time from Marxist perspective and found that the society was conflict
ridden. Subjectivity can also creep in at the time of formulation of hypotheses.
Normally hypotheses are deduced from existing body of theory. All sociological
theories are produced by and limited to particular groups whose viewpoints and
interests they represent. Thus formulation of hypotheses will automatically
introduce a bias in the sociological research. The third stage at which subjectivity
creeps in the course of research is that of collection of empirical data. No
technique of data collection is perfect. Each technique may lead to subjectivity in
one way or the other. In case of participant observation the observer as a result
of nativisation acquires a bias in favour of the group he is studying. While in non-
participant observation of the sociologist belongs to a different group than that
under study he is likely to impose his values and prejudices.
5. In all societies there are certain prejudices which affect the research studies. In
case of interview as a technique the data may be influenced by context of the
interview, the interaction of the participants, and participant’s definition of the
situation and if adequate rapport does not extend between them there might be
communication barriers. Thus according to P.V Young interview sometimes
carries a subjectivity. Finally it can also affect the field limitations as reported by
Andre Beteille study of Sripuram village in Tanjore where the Brahmins did not
allow him to visit the untouchable locality and ask their point of view.
6. Thus complete objectivity continues to be an elusive goal. The researcher should
make his value preference clear in research monograph. Highly trained and skilled
research workers should be employed. Various methods of data collection
research should be used and the result obtained from one should be cross-
checked with those from the other. Field limitations must be clearly stated in the
research monograph.
Sociology As Interpretative Discipline
The positivistic approach to sociology tends to assume that society can shape the
behavior of its members almost completely through socialization. However there is a
section of sociologist who regards the above view as an over-socialized conception of
man. They do not accept the belief that an individual is simply the society writ small.

According to them each individual’s personality carries an imprint to his unique

experience along with the socially transmitted world view. Also they draw attention to
the mercurial nature of man and they see in the positivistic approach an attempt to
reduce man to a passive being. But these sociologists have not altogether rejected the
positivist approach rather they find it inadequate and seek to supplement it with new
approaches which look for new data and adopt new methods. These sociologists see
their discipline as somewhat akin to literature than to natural sciences in the sense that
they seek to reflect the pattern of meaning in a set of observation they have made.

However there is no total consensus among these critics of positivist approach. One
aspect they share in common is that they all emphasize on the importance of underlying
meanings in order to understand social behavior otherwise these critics differ
significantly among themselves.

One extreme there exists anti-positivist approach like that of ethnomethodologists and
on the other hand there are moderate critics of positivism like Max Weber whose
approach tries to build a bridge between positivist approach and extreme form of
interactionism.According to Weber social reality is characterized by the presence of
geist or consciousness. Due to the presence of consciousness people ascribe meanings
to the situation around them which include other people too. These meanings influence
the subsequent behaviour.Consequently any attempt to understand social reality must
take into account these meanings and motives. These meanings ascribed by the people
are partly determined by cultural norms and partly shaped by the personal experiences
of the individual actors.

Thus an attempt to understand social behavior should not stop simply at observation
from without instead it should involve interpretation of the underlying meanings and
motives. This requires the use of new method through which an empathetic liaison can
be established between the observer and the actor. Empathetic liaison means that the
observer tries to place himself imaginatively in the actor’s position. The sociologist
should try to figure out meanings and motives given by the actor. In terms of these
meanings and motives he then tries to rationally explain the actor’s behavior. This is the
essence of Verstehen Approach advocated by MaxWeber.

Other interpretative sociologists those identified as Symbolic Interactionist are content

to operate with a relatively simple set of assumption about how we come to know
about social phenomena. They accept the meaning that the actors attribute to social
phenomena at the face value and proceed to erect their systematic interpretations on
these foundations. The term symbolic interactionist used because it is through symbols
that meanings, motives and attributes are conveyed. Thus an understanding of symbols
can help in understanding the meanings conveyed by actors involved in the interacting
situation. For example a cross x may symbolize a barbarian method of execution or a
religious movement. V-sign signifies victory where Winston Churchill elevated the
gesture to a symbol of national aspiration. The assumptions underlying symbolic
interactionism are;

1. The individual and society are regarded, as inseparable for the individual can
become a human being only in a social context.
2. Human beings are viewed as acting on the basis of meaning that they give to the
objects and events rather than simply reacting either to external stimuli such as
social forces or internal stimuli such as drives.
3. Meanings arise from the process of interaction rather than being simply present
at the outset. To some degree meanings are created, modified, developed and
changed within interactive situation rather than being fixed and preformed.
4. Meanings are the result of interpretative procedures employed by actors within
interactions context by taking the role of others; actors interpret the meanings
and intentions of others. By means of mechanism of self-interaction, individuals
modify or change definitions of their situation rehearse alternative course of
interactions and consider their possible consequences. These meanings that
guide actions arise in the context of interaction via a series of complex
interpretative procedures.
5. The methodology of symbolic interactionism as advocated by Herbert Blumer
demands that the
sociologist must immerse himself in the area of life that he seek to investigate.
Rather than attempting to fill data into predefined categories, he must attempt to
grasp the actor’s view of social reality. Since action is directed by actor meanings
the sociologist must catch the process of interpretation through which the actors
construct their action. This means, he must take the role of the acting unit whose
behavior he studies.

Another approach belonging to social anthropology that can also be categorized as an

interpretive approach starts with a description of commonly accepted meanings that
people attribute to social phenomena. Mere description of such meanings would simply
amount to an ethnographic study of the people – an account of their culture. These
sociologists are interested in understanding social phenomena in general terms.

Accordingly they must move beyond to find meaning of the phenomena and try to
discover patterns and regularities in these meanings that they can represent as cultural
themes. Further patterns and regularities running through themes may in turn be
represented as configuration of themes which taken together may be held to
characterize the essential characteristics of a culture. In this way the social
anthropologist Ruth Benedict characterizes the cultures of some American Indian
People as Dionysian that is given to extreme and frenzied state of being and other as
apollonian always seeking moderation in behavior and cultural expressions. She
achieved this by tracing these features through wide range of their manifestation in the
cultures of the people she examined. These interpretations of meanings at different
levels of abstractions are all informed and guided by the ultimate motive establishing
concepts that provide sociologist with a general way of understanding human activities
and beliefs. There is yet another set of sociologists -those identified as
Ethnomethodologists- who try to analyze the commonsense nature of social
interactions.

The accumulated commonsense of generation results in pattern of behavioral

topicalities. Social order is dependent upon people behaving in a commonsense way.
Thus, social interaction must be interpreted in terms of these commonsense meanings,
however for ethnomethodologist the basic problem of Sociology goes back even further
than this. They begin with the assumption that society exists only in so far as members
perceive its existence. So member’s view of social reality must be understood. But
sociologists must also be concerned with processes by which people come to establish
meanings in social phenomena. They say that the aim of sociology should not be simply
to identify and record the meanings that people have ascribed to situation but to
understand the ways in which they generate those meanings in the first place. The idea
that it is important to understand how the world looks to those who live in it is
approved of by these sociologists, but they argue that the final emphasis should be on
the ways in which the members of society come to see their world in the ways they do.
Harold Garfinkel and Circourel are some of the important Ethnomethodologists.Since
most meanings are transmitted through symbols, sociologists who want to study the
interpreted procedures which members of the society use to attribute meaning typically
focus their attention upon speech exchanges in which the participants are involve in
making sense of each other talk.

The emphasis is upon the study of ways in which people in actual situation of
interaction come to see what the other person is meaning. Circourel’s study of Juvenile
Delinquency is an example where he traces the way in which young people come to be
categorized as juvenile delinquents by the police, probationary officers and courts so
on.

The account of information which interpretative sociologists require to substantiate

their analysis is quite different from the information needed by positivistic sociologists.
Therefore new sources of information are made use of however quite often even those
methods of data collection which are used by positivist sociologist are also made use of
by interpretative sociologist. For example Weber relied on official statistical records and
historical documents in his study of ‘The Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism’ direct
observation is also frequently used accompanied by extensive verbatim recording of
conversational exchange among the actors involved. Sometimes laboratory techniques
have also been used as in the well-known experiment by Garfinkel when students were
asked to take part in an experiment with Psycho-therapeutic procedures. The other
methods of data collection used by interpretative sociologists include the case-studies,
use of life histories, personal diaries and correspondence and other biographical records
to provide insights into the subjective dimension of the social behavior.
 Non-Positivist Methodologies
1. When it was realized by scholars that sociological issues cannot be addressed
using fixed laws only, they turned from positivism to non-positivism. While
positivist methodologies saw society as given and man as mere part of it
governed by its rules. Non positivists on the other hand considered man as
independent thinking being who can influence society also. They rejected the
over-socialized conception of man. Non-positivist methodologies, thus, tried to
gauge what goes inside mind of man and how it affects society.
2. Even before establishment of sociology as a formal discipline, such ideas were
prevalent during late 18th century when German ‘idealist’ school attempted to
define social realty differently. Scholars like Dilthey and Rickert highlighted the
difference between natural and social world. According to them social world is
based upon uniqueness of human society in terms of meaning, symbols and
motives. The leader of German idealist school George Hegel argued, ‘Social
phenomena are results of the ideas which are generated in the minds of
individuals and these ideas are responsible for history’. This tradition was carried
on and by the end of 19th century an alternate view to positivism has strongly
emerged which contained variety of thoughts and was collectively known as non-
positivist methodology.
3. Weber was one of the pioneers of non-positivist approach. Other early doyens
were like Mead, Herbert Blumer, Schutz etc. Weber laid foundation of
interpretativist methodology and Mead pioneered symbolic Interactionism.
Various non-positivist methods which emerged include – Symbolic Interactionism,
Ideal Types and Verstehen of Weber, Phenomenology by Alfred Schutz in 1930s,
Ethnomethodology by Harold Garfinkel in1940s and so on.

Various elements that run common to these methodologies are –

1. Non-positivists study the internal processes represented through emotions,

motives, aspirations and the individual’s interpretation of social reality. For
example – Ethnomethodology relies upon the everyday methods used by actors
and their narratives.
2. Non-positivists emphasized upon using qualitative methods and not scientific
methods. Earlier non positivists like Weber and Mead emphasized upon using of
scientific methods, but later non-positivists like Alfred Schutz and Garfinkel out-
rightly rejected their use.
3. Non-positivists also suggested understanding of social reality and not prediction
of events. They refrained from formulation of generalized universal theories.
Weber and Mead though stressed upon cause and effect relations, but Schutz
eliminated such possibility.
4. Non-positivists also highlighted impossibility of total objectivity and hence were
accommodative of subjectivity in research.

Some of the prominent non-positivist methodologies are mentioned below.

Symbolic Interactionism (Interactionism)

Phenomenology:

Ethnomethodology:

Interpretativist Sociology:

1. It is an umbrella term for various streams like Phenomenology,

Ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism and so on.
2. This approach was used for the first time by Max Weber in his book ‘Methods of
Social Science’. Weber was highly influenced by idealists like Rickert and
Dilthey. According to this approach, the task of sociology is to interpret the
meanings attached by individuals to their actions in order thereby an explanation
of its cause and effect.
3. The basis of this approach is that ‘individual is having a voluntary will and his
thoughts cannot be understood simply in terms of external influence’. Human
beings have a consciousness which cannot be predicted. This approach also came
to be known as voluntarist approach. Weber also proposed scientific methods for
interpretative sociology. Methods used by Weber included – Verstehen, ideal
type and comparative methods.
4. Approach of Weber later influenced the emergence of purely non-positivist
approaches like Phenomenology and Ethnomethodology. Georg Simmel a
German sociologist was another early doyen of this approach. In America,
Chicago School led by Louis Firth, Robert Park, Mead etc took this tradition
forward.
 Research Methods and Analysis

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Before analyzing methods, it is necessary to understand difference between ‘scientific
method’ and ‘scientific methodology’.

Method is a tool or a technique used to collect data. It is a procedure for obtaining

knowledge based on empirical observations and logical reasoning.

Methodology is logic of scientific investigation. Methodology means description,

explanation and justification of methods and not the methods themselves.

When we talk of methodology of any social science, say of sociology, we refer to

the method(s) used by sociologist, e.g. survey method, experimental method, case
study method, statistical method and so on. The word ‘technique’ is also used in the
contexts of inquiry of any science, e.g., techniques in a mass opinion, survey, for
conducting interviews, for observation and so on. There is a right way and a wrong way
or a good way and a bad way to do anything in science as in any other work. The
techniques of a science are the ways of doing the work of that science. Methodology is
concerned with techniques in this sense.

Methodology inquires into the potentialities and limitations of some technique or

other. It is a plan and procedure for carrying out the research. It refers to research
techniques and strategies for obtaining valid information. It is an approach to
understanding phenomenon. It is a procedure of empirical investigation. It is not
concerned with building knowledge but how knowledge is built, i.e., how facts are
collected, classified and analysed.

The approach of a social scientist is different from that of a natural scientist. A natural
scientist does not participate in the phenomenon, he studies,

1. does not interview elements,

2. has a laboratory for conducting experiments,
3. uses instruments and chemical and
4. can control many variables, in his experiment.

Against this, a social scientist….

1. participates in the phenomenon under study,

2. interviews elements from whom collects data,
3. has no laboratory,
4. does not use any instruments for measuring etc., like barometers and so on,
5. cannot control many variables.

Thus, the difference in the approach of two scientists is of methodology and not
method. Methodology refers to philosophy on which research is based. This philosophy
includes assumptions and values that serve as basis (rationale) for research and are
used for interviewing data and reaching conclusions. It is said that the methodology
used in natural sciences is more rigorous than that of social sciences.

The cost of poll violence (in cores) in Lok Sabha elections in last ten elections in India?
How many mandays have been lost due to strikes and lockouts in industries in India in
the last two decades?

This type of research is based on the methodological principles of positivism and

adheres to the standards of strict sampling and research design.

Quantitative Method;
This research employs quantitative measurement and the use of statistical analysis. For
example, what percentage of medical, engineering, law, arts, science and commerce
students takes drugs or uses alcohol? What percentage of prisoners rejects prison
norms and internalizes norms of the inmate world? What percentage of women leading
unhappy marital life takes initiative to divorce their husbands?

Qualititative Method;
This research presents non-quantitative type of analysis. It describes reality as
experienced by the groups, communities, individuals etc. For example, how does the
structure and organisation of wall-less prisons (or minimum security jails) differ from
that of the central or district jails (or maximum security jails) and contribute to the
reformation and resocialisation of criminals? What has been the partywise stand on
women’s reservation in Parliament and state assemblies?

Difference in Designing Quantitative and Qualitative Method;

Quantitative researchers tend to be more prescriptive than qualitative
researchers. The later operate with as few prescriptions as possible.

Some people hold that the qualitative researchers usually do not employ a design. They
are more open and flexible and have greater freedom of choice. But this is not correct.
Investigators engaged in qualitative research are equally concerned with how, what,
where and when the data are to be collected. However, some differences in designing
the two types of research (quantitative is described here as ‘former’ and qualitative as
‘later) may be pointed here (Sarantakos):

1. In the former research, the problem is specific and precise in the later research,
it is general and loosely structured.
2. In the former, the hypotheses are formulated before the study; in the
latter, hypotheses are either during the study or after the study.
3. In the former, concepts are operationalized; in the latter concepts are only
sensitized.
4. In the former, in designing research, the design is prescriptive; in the latter, the
design is not prescriptive.
 5. In the former, sampling is planned before data collection; in the latter, it
is planned during data collection.
6. In the former, sampling is representative; in the latter, it is not representative.
7. In the former, all types of measurements/scales are employed; in the
latter, mostly nominal scales are used.
8. In the former, for data collection, generally investigators are employed in big
researches; in the latter, the researchers analyse data single-handed.
9. In the former, in processing data, usually inductive generalization is made; in the
latter, usually analytical generalization are made.
10.In reporting in the former research the finding are highly integrated; in the
latter, the findings
are mostly not integrated.

Techniques of Data Collection

Questionnaire • Interview • Observation • Case Study

Questionnaire;
Questionnaire is described as “a document that contains a set of questions, the answers
to which are to be provided personally by the respondents”. Questionnaire is the
structured set of questions usually sent by mail, though sometimes it is delivered by
hand also. The hand delivery could be at home, school/college, office, organization, and
so on. The importance of the survey is explained to the respondents through a covering
letter. Usually, a self-addressed stamped envelop is sent to the respondents along with
the questionnaire to reduce their expenses. The follow up request for returning
the questionnaire is made through repeated letters.

Questionnaire is used as a tool when…

 Very large samples are desired,

 Costs have to be kept low,
 the target groups who are likely to have high response rates are specialized,
 ease of administration is necessary, and
 moderate response rate is considered satisfactory.

Following guidelines should be followed for framing and asking questions:

1. Questions should be clear and unambiguous: The question like, “What do you
think about the proposed peace plan for Kashmir?” may not be clear to
respondent who does not know anything about the peace plan.
2. Questions should be relevant: Sometimes the respondents are asked to give
opinions on issues on which they have never given any thought, e.g., “What is
 your opinion on the economic policies of the BJP, the Congress and the CPI
parties?” Such questions are bound to be disregarded by the respondents.
3. Questions should be short: Long and complicated items are to be avoided. The
respondent should be able to read an item quickly, understand its meaning and
think of an answer without difficulty.
4. Negative questions should be avoided: The appearance of a negation in the
question paves the way for easy misinterpretation. For example, asking to agree
or disagree with the statement, “India should not recognize the military rule in
Fiji”, a sizeable portion of the respondents will not read the word ‘not’ and
answer on that basis.
5. Biased terms should be avoided: Prejudice affects the answers. For example, the
question, “Have military rulers in the neighbouring country always hampered our
country’s progress?” may encourage some respondents to give particular
response more than other questions do.
6. Respondents must be competent to answer: The researcher should always ask
himself whether the respondents he has chosen are competent enough to answer
questions on the issue of research. For example, asking daily wage labourers to
give their views on ‘communal violence’ may not be rational. Similarly, asking
students to indicate the manner in which university’s total income ought to be
spent will be wrong because students may not have fairly good knowledge of the
nature of activities and the costs involved in them.
7. Respondents must be willing to answer: Many a time people are unwilling to
share opinions with others, e.g., asking Muslims about Pakistan’s attitude
towards Muslims in India.

Types of Questions:
Primary, Secondary and Tertiary;

1. Primary Questions elicit information directly related to the research topic. Each
question provides information about a specific aspect of the topic. For example,
for determining the type of family (whether it is husband-dominant,
wifedominant, equalitarian), the question “who takes decisions in your family” is
a primary question.
2. Secondary questions elicit information which do not relate directly to the topic,
i.e., the information is of secondary importance. They only guard the truthfulness
of the respondents, e.g., in the above topic, the question “who decides the nature
of gift to be given in marriage to family relative” or “who finally selects the boy
with whom the daughter is to be married” are the secondary questions.
3. The tertiary questions are of neither primary nor of secondary
importance. These only establish a framework that allows convenient data
collection and sufficient information without exhausting or biasing the
respondent.
Closed-ended and Open-ended Questions:

1. The closed-ended questions are the fixed-choice questions. They require the
respondent to choose a response from those provided by the researcher. Here is
one example: “Whom do you consider an ideal teacher?”
 who takes teaching seriously;
 who is always available to students for discussions and guidance;
 whose approach to students’ problems is flexible;
 who does not believe in punishing students;
 who takes interest in co-curricular and extracurricular activities.
2. The open-ended questions are free-response questions which require
respondents to answer in their own words. For example;
 Whom do you consider an ideal teacher?
 How would you rate the performance of the last government?
 What do you feel is the most important issue facing India today?

The advantages of open-ended questions are:

1. The researcher gets insight in respondent’s understanding.

2. When the total answers categories are very large (say, 50 or more), it would be
awkward to list all of them on a questionnaire; but if some were omitted, then
there would not be appropriate answers available for all respondents.
3. Since the respondent gets freedom in answering, the researcher gets more and
varied information based on the respondent’s logic and thought processes.
Sometimes, the information and responses received are so unexpected that the
researcher’s ideas are completely changed.
4. They are preferable for complex issues that cannot be condensed into a few small
categories.

The disadvantages of open-ended questions are :

1. Sometimes responses received are irrelevant.

2. It is difficult to classify and code all responses.
3. Since the data are not standardized, statistical analysis and computation of
percentages become difficult.
4. Sometimes the responses given are very lengthy and analyzing them becomes
time-consuming.
5. Semi-literate respondents find it difficult to answer open questions since they
require better ability to express one’s feelings.

On the other hand, the advantages of closed-ended questions are:

1. They provide a greater uniformity of responses.

2. It is easy to code, score and process standard answers which saves time and
money.
3. The respondent has not to use much brain as he is often clearer about the
meaning of question.
 4. Little time is taken to complete questionnaire.
5. Answers can be compared from person to person.
6. Irrelevant responses are not received and the answers are relatively complete,
e.g., an openended question “how often do you smoke” may receive an answer
“whenever I feel like smoking”, but a closed ended question may receive an
answer, “one packet a day, or two packets in a day, or four cigarettes in a day”,
and so on.
7. Response rate is high, particularly in sensitive questions like income, age, etc. If
the answer in closed ended question is a category, the respondent may easily
identify himself with the range in which his income/age falls.

The disadvantages of closed-ended questions are:

1. The respondent may not get all alternative responses as some important
responses might have been omitted by the researcher.
2. The respondent does not think and does not involve himself in giving free
information. He ticks even wrong answer.
3. Many a time the respondents do not find those answers in the closed questions
which correspond to their true feelings or attitudes.
4. The respondent who does not know the response guesses and chooses one of the
convenient responses or gives an answer randomly.
5. Detecting the mistake whether the respondent has ticked the right answer is not
possible.

Direct and Indirect Questions :

1. Direct questions are personal questions which elicit information about the
respondent himself/herself, e.g., “Do you believe in God?”
2. Indirect questions seek information about other people, e.g., “Do you think that
people of your status and age believe in God now-a-days?” Other examples are:
3. Indirect Question : Do college teachers these days read more English or Hindi
Books?
4. Direct Question : Do you read English books?
5. Indirect Question : How would you describe the relations among members in
your family?
6. Direct Question : Do you quarrel with your spouse
frequently/occasionally/rarely/never?

Nominal, Ordinal and Interval Questions:

 Nominal question is one in which its response falls in two or more categories,
e.g., male/female; rich/poor, married/unmarried; rural/urban;
illiterate/educated; Shia/Sunni; Hindu/Muslim. Nominal question is also called
classification scale.
  Ordinal question is one in which the responses are placed in rank order of
categories. The categories may be ranked from highest to lowest, greatest to
least, or first to last.
 For Example– Smoking: regularly/occasionally/neve
 Reserving 33 per cent seats for women in Parliament: Agree/disagree/don’t know
 Relations with colleagues in office excellent/satisfactory/dissatisfactory/can’t say

Ordinal scales are sometimes referred to as ranking scales.

 Interval question is one in which the distance between two numbers is equal. For
example:
 Present age: 10 or below/11-20/21-30/31-40/41 and above
 Income per annum: Below Rs. 18,000/18,000- 36,000/36,000-54,000/54,000-
72,000/Above 72,000
 Age at marriage: Below 18/18-22/22-26/26- 30/Above 30.

Steps in Questionnaire Construction

Questionnaires are constructed in a systematic manner. The process goes through a
number of inter-related steps. The most commonly steps are (Sarantakos):

 Preparation: The researcher thinks of various items to be covered in the

questionnaire, arrangement of these items in relation to one another, and taking
into consideration questions prepared and used in other similar studies.
 Constructing the first draft: The researcher formulates a number of questions
including direct/indirect, closed/open-ended and primary/secondary/tertiary
questions.
 Self-evaluation: The researcher thinks about relevance, symmetry, clarity in
language, etc.
 External evaluation: The first draft is given to one or two experts/colleagues for
scrutiny and suggestions for changes.
 Revision: After receiving suggestions, some questions are eliminated, some
changed and some new questions added.
 Pre-test or pilot study: A pre-test or a pilot study is undertaken to check the
suitability of the questionnaire as a whole.
 Revision: The minor and major changes may be made on the basis of experience
gained in pretesting.
 Second pre-testing: The revised questionnaire is then subjected to a second test
and amended, if necessary.
 Preparing final draft: After editing, checking spelling, space for response, pre-
coding, and the final draft is prepared.

Limitations of Questionnaire

1. The mailed questionnaires can be used only for educated people. This restricts
the number of respondents.
 2. The return rate of questionnaires is low. The common return rate is 30 to 40 per
cent.
3. The mailing address may not be correct which may omit some eligible
respondents. Thus, the sample selected many a time is described as biased.
4. Sometimes different respondents interpret questions differently. The
misunderstanding cannot be corrected.
5. There may be bias in the response selectivity because the respondent having no
interest in the topic may not give response to all questions. Since the researcher
is not present to explain the meaning of certain concepts, the respondent may
leave the question blank.
6. Questionnaires do not provide an opportunity to collect additional information
while they are being completed.
7. Researchers are not sure whether the person to whom the questionnaire was
mailed has himself answered the questions or somebody else has filled up the
questionnaire.
8. Many questions remain unanswered. The partial response affects the analysis.
9. The respondent can consult other persons before filling in the questionnaire. The
responses, therefore, cannot be viewed as his opinions.
10.The reliability of respondent’s background information cannot be verified. A
middle-class person can identify himself as rich person or a person of
intermediate caste can describe himself as upper-caste person.
11.Since the size of the questionnaire has to be kept small, full information cannot
be secured from the respondents.
12.There is lack of depth or probing for a more specific answer.

Advantages of Questionnaire

1. Lower cost: Questionnaires are less expensive than other methods. Even the staff
required is not much as either the researcher himself may mail or one or two
investigators may be appointed for hand distributing the questionnaires.
2. Time saving: Since the respondents may be geographically dispersed and sample
size may be very large, the time required for getting back the questionnaires may
be little greater but usually less than that for face-to-face interviews. Thus, since
all questionnaires are sent simultaneously and most of the replies are received in
10-15 days, schedules take months to complete. In simple terms, questionnaires
produce quick results.
3. Accessibility to widespread respondents: When the respondents are separated
geographically, they can be reached by correspondence which saves travel cost.
4. No interviewer’s bias: Since the interviewer is not physically present at
interviewee’s place, he cannot influence his answers, either by prompting or by
giving his own opinion or by misreading the question.
5. Greater anonymity: The absence of the interviewer assures anonymity which
enables respondent to express free opinions and answers even to socially
undesirable questions. The absence of the interviewer assures privacy to the
 respondents because of which they willingly give details of all events and
incidents they would have not revealed otherwise.
6. Respondent’s convenience: The respondent can fillin the questionnaire leisurely
at his convenience. He is not forced to complete all questions at one time. Since
he fills up the questionnaire in spare time, he can answer easy questions first and
take time for difficult questions.
7. Standardized wordings: Each respondent is exposed to same words and
therefore there is little difference in understanding questions. The comparison of
answers is thus facilitated.
8. No variation: Questionnaires are a stable, consistent and uniform measure,
without variation.

Interview;

 Interview is verbal questioning. As a research tool or as a method of data

collection, interview is different from general interviewing with regard to its
preparation, construction and execution. This difference is that: research
interview is prepared and executed in a systematic way, it is controlled by the
researcher to avoid bias and distortion, and it is related to a specific research
question and a specific purpose.
 Lindzey Gardner (1968) has defined interview as “a two-person conversation,
initiated by the interviewer for the specific purpose of obtaining research-
relevant information and focused by him on the content specified by the research
objectives of description and explanation”.
 In the research interview, thus, the interviewer asks specific questions pertaining
to research objectives/criteria and the respondent restricts his answers to specific
questions posed by the interviewer.

Functions of Interview
The two major functions of the interview technique are described as under:

1. Description: The information received from the respondent provides insight into
the nature of social reality. Since the interviewer spends some time with the
respondents, he can understand their feelings and attitudes more clearly, and
seek additional information wherever necessary and make information
meaningful for him.
2. Exploration: Interview provides insight into unexplored dimensions of the
problem. In the problem of “exploitation of widows by the inlaws and office
colleagues”, it is the personal interview with the victims which enables the
interviewer to get details about widows’ position in the support system, and their
sticking to their traditional values which make their life miserable and adjustment
difficult. The interview can prove to be effective exploratory device for identifying
new variables for study and for sharpening of conceptual clarity. Even the new
hypotheses can be thought of for testing. For example, in the study of problems
faced by husbands and wives in inter-caste and intercommunity marriages,
 probing their attitudes, beliefs and behaviour patterns in considerable depth, one
can come up with interesting data about different aspects of adjustment.

Characteristics of Interview;
Black and Champion have pointed out the following characteristics of an interview:

Personal communication: There is a face-toface contact, conversational exchange and

verbal interaction between the interviewer and the respondent.

1. Equal status: The status of the interviewer and the interviewee is equal.
2. Questions are asked and responses received verbally.
3. Information is recorded by the interviewer and not the respondent.
4. The relationship between the interviewer and the interviewee, who are strangers
to each other, is transitory.
5. The interview is not necessarily limited to two persons. It could involve two
interviewers and a group of respondents, or it could be one interviewer and two
or more respondents.
6. There is considerable flexibility in the format of the interview.

Types of Interview;
There are many types of interview which differ from one another in terms of structure,
the interviewer’s role, number of respondents involved in the interview. Some types of
interviews are employed in both quantitative and qualitative researches but others are
used in one research type only.

Unstructured V/s structured interviews:

The unstructured interview;, There are no specifications in the wording of the
questions or the order of the questions. The interviewer forms questions as and when
required. The structure of these interviews is flexible, being presented in the form of
guide. In this interview, the interviewer has only the general nature of the questions in
mind. He has no prior indication of the specific issues on which the questions are to be
asked. He has not ordered questions in a particular way. He has no time-limit for
continuing the interview. Thus, what is asked from one respondent in the beginning
may be asked from the other respondent in the end and from yet other respondent in
the middle.

The advantages of this type of (unstructured) interview are:

 The questions being asked spontaneously, the interview can be conducted in the
form of natural conversation.
 There is a greater possibility of exploring in an unrestricted manner.
 Finding the interest of the respondent in a specific aspect of the problem, the
interviewer can focus his attention on that particular aspect.
But this type of (unstructured) interview has some limitations also:

 The data obtained from different respondents cannot be compared with each
other.
 With no systematic control over asking questions, the reliability of the data
becomes doubtful.
 The obtained data cannot be quantified.Much time can be wasted adding nothing
or little to the knowledge already obtained. Time is also wasted in repetitions and
unproductive conversations.
 Some aspects may be left out in discussions, when conversation is focused on a
few aspects.

The structured interview; This is based on the structured interview guide which is little
different from the questionnaire. In reality, it is a set of specific points and definite
questions prepared by the interviewer. It allows little freedom to make adjustments to
any of its elements, such as content, wording, or order of the questions. In this type of
interviewing, the interviewer is expected to act in a neutral manner offering the same
impression to all the respondents. The purpose is to reduce the interviewer’s bias to the
minimum and achieve the highest degree of informality in procedure. This form of
interview is employed in quantitative research.

Standardized V/s unstandardised interviews:

 In standardized interviews, answer to each question is standardized as it is

determined by a set of response categories given for this purpose. The
respondents are expected to choose one of the given options as the answer. For
example, the alternative answers could be yes/no/don’t know; agree/disagree;
illiterate/less educated/highly educated; for/against/undecided; and so on. This is
mainly used in quantitative research.
 Un standardised interview is one in which the responses are left open to the
respondent. This is used mainly in qualitative research.

Individual V/s group interviews:

 Individual interview is one in which the interviewer interviews only one

respondent at a time.
 In group interview, more than one respondent are interviewed simultaneously.
The group can be small, say, of two individuals (e.g., husband and wife, or two co-
workers in a factory, etc.) or large, say, of 10 to 20 persons (e.g., all students in a
class).

Self-administered V/s other administered interviews:

 In self-administered interview, the respondent is supplied a list of questions

along with instructions for writing answers in the appropriate place on the
interview form.
  In other administered interview, the interviewer himself writes answers to
questions on the response sheet.

Unique V/s panel interviews:

 Unique interview is one in which the interviewer collects entire information in

one interview. However, he is not barred for approaching the interviewer for the
second time for seeking additional information.
 In panel interview, the interviewer collects information from the same group of
respondents two or more times at regular intervals. If different respondents are
involved in various stages for asking the same questions, it is called trend study.

Personal V/s non-personal interviews:

 In the personal interview, there is a face-toface contact between the interviewer

and the interviewee,
 In the non-personal interview there is no faceto-face relationship, but the
information is collected through telephone, computer or some other medium.

Conditions for A Successful Interview

Gardner has pointed out three conditions for successful interviewing: Accessibility,
Understanding and Motivation.

 Accessibility: For giving information, it is important that the respondent

understands what is required of him and he is also willing to provide information
he possesses. The possibilities are that the respondent might have no information
or he might have forgotten some fact, or he is under emotional stress and
therefore, unable to give information or the question is so framed that he cannot
answer it.
 Understanding: The respondent sometimes is not able to understand what is
expected of him. Unless he understands the significance of the research/survey,
the extent of interview demand, the concepts and the terms used, the nature of
answers which the interviewer expects from him, his answers might be off the
point.
 Motivation : The respondent needs to be motivated not only for giving
information but also for giving accurate information. The fear of consequences,
embarrassment at ignorance, being suspicious about the interviewer, and dislike
of the subject are some of the factors which decrease the level of respondent’s
motivation. The interviewer, therefore, has to try to reduce the effect of these
factors.
Process of Interviewing;
It could be said that the training to the. interviewer or the process of training implies
explaining the interviewer the process of conducting the interview in a number of
stages. Each stage including certain tasks. These are:

1. Fully explain the researcher what the study is all about, what the objectives of the
study are and • Select and locate the sampled members.
2. what aspects of the theme are to be focused.
3. Seek appointment from the respondent before approaching him for the
interview.
4. Manipulate the situation of the interview in such a way that only the respondent
is available at the place of interview and others leave the place willingly.
5. Inform the respondent about the approximate time the interview is to last.
6. Begin interview by stating the organization he represents, and explaining how he
(respondent) was selected for the interview.
7. Appear with an attitude so that the respondent feels free to express his views.
8. Probe questions phrased in an impartial way.
9. On no account give an indication of own views. This will either prevent the
respondent from giving the opposite view or he might favour the interviewer’s
view. In either case, the answers would misrepresent the respondent’s true
opinion.
10.Increase the respondent’s motivation to cooperate.
11.Reassure the respondent of keeping his identity a secret.
12.Training the interviewer that all applicable questions have to be asked in a given
order.

Advantages of Interview
Some more advantages are:

1. The response rate is high,

2. In-depth probing is possible,
3. Respondent’s confidence can be sought through personal rapport,
4. Interviewer can explain difficult terms and remove confusion and
misunderstandings,
5. Administration is easy because respondents are not required to be educated or
handle long questionnaires,
6. Interviewer gets opportunity to observe respondents’ non-verbal behaviour,
7. Identity of the respondent is known, and
8. Since all questions asked by the interviewers are answered by the respondents,
completeness of the interview is guaranteed.

Disadvantages of Interview

1. The interviewees can hide information or give wrong information because of fear
of identity.
 2. Interviews are more costly and time-consuming than questionnaires.
3. The nature and extent of responses depends upon interviewee’s mood. If he is
tired, he will be distracted. If he is in hurry, he will try to dispose off the
interviewer quickly.
4. There could be variability in responses with different interviewers, particularly
when interview is unstructured.
5. The interviewer may record the responses differently, depending upon his own
interpretation sometimes.
6. If offers less anonymity than other methods.
7. It is less effective for sensitive questions.

Observation;
Lindsey Gardner has defined observation as “selection, provocation, recording and
encoding of that set of behaviours and settings concerning organisms ‘in situ’
(naturalistic settings or familiar surroundings) which are consistent with empirical aims”.
In this definition,

 Selection means that there is a focus in observation and also editing before,
during and after the observations are made.
 Provocation means that though observers do not destroy natural settings but
they can make subtle changes in natural settings which increase clarity.
 Recording means that the observed incidents/events are recorded for subsequent
analysis. Encoding involves simplification of records.

Characteristics of Observation
Scientific observation differs from other methods of data collection specifically in four
ways:

1. Observation is always direct while other methods could be direct or indirect;

2. Field observation takes place in a natural setting;
3. Observations tend to be less structured; and
4. It makes only the qualitative (and not the quantitative) study which aims at
discovering subjects’ experiences and how subjects make sense of them
(phenomenology) or how subjects understand their life (interpretive).

Loftland has said that this method is more appropriate for studying lifestyles or sub-
cultures, practices, episodes, encounters, relationships, groups, organizations,
settlements and roles, etc.

Purpose of Observation

 To capture human conduct as it actually happens. In other methods, we get a

static comprehension of people’s activity. In actual situation, they sometimes
modify their views, sometimes contradict themselves, and sometimes are so
swayed away by the situation that they react differently altogether, e.g., clerks’
 behaviour in office; tone of voice, facial expressions and content of slogans by the
demonstrators.
 To provide more graphic description of social life than can be acquired in other
ways. For example, how do women behave when they are physically assaulted by
their husbands? How do young widows behave when they are humiliated,
harassed and exploited by the in-laws? How are bounded labourers treated by
their landlords?
 To explore important events and situations. There are many instances when little
is known. about the topic/issue. By being on the scene, issues that might
otherwise be overlooked are examined more carefully, e.g., visiting office soon
after the office hours and finding that the married men and single women were
working overtime and single men and married women had gone home.
 It can be used as a tool of collecting information in situations where methods
other than observation cannot prove to be useful, e.g., workers’ behaviour during
strike.

Types of Observation
Participant and non-participant observation:

 Participant observation is a method in which the investigator becomes a part of

the situation he is studying. He involves himself in the setting and group life of the
research subjects. He shares the activities of the community observing what is
going on around him, supplementing this by conversations and interview. In India,
M.N. Srinivas had used this method in studying the process of ‘sanskritisation’ in
Mysore while Andre Beteille had used it to study social inequality in rural areas
(Tanjore village) on the basis of class, status and power.

The weaknesses in this type (participant) of observation are:

1. Since the observer participates in events, sometimes he becomes so involved that

he loses objectivity in observation;
2. He influences the events;
3. He interprets events subjectively;
4. His presence so sensitizes the subjects that they do not act in a natural way;
5. He may record some information but may fail to record other information as well
as to explain reasons why information was not recorded.
6. He fails to be precise about the procedures for data accumulation;
7. Since he fails to specify the procedures for gathering information, others cannot
replicate his research findings for verification and validity;
8. There is less attention to precision; and
9. This method cannot be used for studies where people indulge in illegal activities.

 In non-participant observation, the observer remains detached and does not

participate or intervene in the activities of those who are being observed. He
merely observes their behaviour. Sometimes this places the persons being
 observed in an awkward position and their conduct becomes unnatural. But some
say that though initially the observer’s behaviour may affect the behaviour of the
observed but after a little while, less and less attention is paid to his presence.
This type of observation is more useful as a tool of data collection because the
observer can choose the situations to be observed and can record the data freely.

Systematic/unsystematic observation :
Reiss (1971) has classified observation as systematic and unsystematic on the basis of
the ability of the observational data to generate scientifically useful information.

 The systematic observation is one in which explicit procedure is used in

observation and recording by following certain rules, which permits the use of
logic, and which makes replication possible.
 The unsystematic observation does not follow any rules or logic which makes
replication difficult

Naive and scientific observation:

 Naïve observation is unstructured and unplanned observation.

 It becomes scientific when it is systematically planned and executed, when it is
related to a certain goal, and when it is subjected to tests and controls.

Structured and unstructured observation:

 Structured observation is organized and planned which employs formal

procedure, has a set of well-defined observation categories, and is subjected to
high levels of control and differentiation.
 Unstructured observation is loosely organized and the process is largely left to
the observer to define.

Natural and laboratory observation:

 Natural observation is one in which observation is made in natural settings.

 Laboratory observation is one in which observation is made in a laboratory.

Direct and indirect observation:

 Direct observation, the observer plays a passive role, i.e., there is no attempt to
control or manipulate the situation. The observer merely records what occurs.
 Indirect observation is one in which direct observation of the subject(s) is not
possible because either the subject is dead or refuses to take part in the study.
The researcher observes the physical traces which the phenomena under study
have left behind and make conclusions about the subject, e.g., observing the site
of bomb explosion where the dead and the injured people and vehicles destroyed
is lying.
Convert and overt observation:

 In convert observation, subjects are unaware that they are being observed.
Generally, the researcher in this type of observation is himself a participant in all
the activities; otherwise it becomes difficult for him to explain his presence. These
observations are mostly unstructured.
 In overt observation, subjects are aware that they are being observed.
Sometimes this causes them to act differently than they do normally. For
example, if a policeman in a police station knows that his behaviour is being
watched by a researcher, he will never think of using third-degree methods in
dealing with the accused person; rather he would show that he is polite and
sympathetic.

Process of Observation
One of the most striking aspects of observational field research is the absence of
standardised operating procedures. As all cultures have their own distinctive
characteristics, different demands are placed on researchers. Since observation involves
sensitive human interaction, it cannot be reduced to a simple set of techniques. Yet
some scholars have tried to point out the path that the observer in the fieldwork has to
follow. Sarantakos has pointed out the following six steps in observation:

1. Selection of the topic: This refers to determining the issue to be studied through
observations, e.g., marital conflict, riot, caste Panchayat meeting in a village, child
labourers in a glass factory, and so on.
2. Formulation of the topic: This involves fixing up categories to be observed and
pointing out situations in which cases are to be observed.
3. Research design: This determines identification of subjects to be observed,
preparing observation schedule, if any, and arranging entry in situations to be
observed.
4. Collection of data: This involves familiarization with the setting, observation and
recording.
5. Analysis of data: In this stage, the researcher analyses the data, prepares tables,
and interprets the facts.
6. Report writing: This involves writing of the report for submission to the
sponsoring agency or for publication.

Factors Affecting Choice of Observation

Observers are influenced by a number of factors in the process of observation. Black
and Champion have identified three such factors:

1. Relating to the problem: Certain types of situations are not easy to be observed,
e.g., mafia group’s functioning, daily lifestyle of professional criminals, prisoners
in jails, patients in hospitals and so on. Some theoretical orientations like
ethnomethodology (the study of the methods used in everyday routine social
activity), phenomenology (approach that observes the phenomena as perceived
 by the acting individual, emphasizing perception and consciousness), and
symbolic interactionism (approach that stresses linguistic and gestural
communication in the formation of mind, self and society) are orientations in
which observation holds a central place as a method.
2. Relating to skill and characteristics of the investigator: All social scientists do not
feel comfortable in observing a situation for a long time. They feel more at ease in
asking questions for an hour or so. Only a few scholars adjust themselves in an
observable situation. Thus, persons with certain characteristics and skills can
prove to be good observers.
3. Relating to the characteristics of the observed: In getting information from the
investigated people, their characteristics play an important role. The status of the
interviewee vis- à-vis the interviewer is a major factor in determining whether
observation will be feasible as a method of data collection. Many people who are
to be observed give such importance to their privacy because of their
occupational position, economic status, sub-cultural values and social norms that
they do not permit the observer to observe them in all situations. It is easy to
observe those who are in economically disadvantaged position relative to the
well-to-do; easy to observe teachers, clerks, etc., than doctors and lawyers who
have to maintain sanctity and confidentiality of their relations with their clients.

Basic Problems in Observation

Festinger and Katz have specified six basic problems:

 Under what conditions are observations to be made? How is the observation

situation structured?
 What behaviour is to be selected and recorded in order to obtain the information
required.
 How stable are the conditions in which observations can be made so that same
results may be obtained under what appears to be same conditions. Are the
measures reliable?
 What is the validity of the process which has been observed or inferred?
 What evidence is there that some process with functional unity is being
observed?
 Has an attempt been made to summarize what is observed in quantitative terms?
Can a score be assigned?

According to Lyn Lofland (1995: 63), the following activities need to be avoided by a
researcher while using observation technique:

 The observation purpose should not be kept secret from the subjects under
observation.
 Information should be collected from all people and not from a few people only.
 Help should not be offered to people even if its severe need is felt.
 There should be no commitment for anything.
 The researcher should be strategic in relations.
  In factionalized situations, taking sides should be avoided.
 Paying cash or kind for getting information should be totally avoided.

Advantages of Observation
Bailey has pointed out four advantages of observation:

1. Superior in data collection on non-verbal behaviour : When a person’s opinion

on a particular issue is to be assessed, survey method is definitely more useful,
but when the nonverbal behaviour is to be discovered or where memory failure
of the respondent is possible, observation will be more functional. It allows not
the restrictive study of the individuals but their in-depth study. The unstructured
observational method, being very flexible, allows the observer to concentrate on
any variables that prove to be important.
2. Intimate and informal relationship : Since the observer often lives with the
subjects for an extended period of time, the relationship between them is often
more intimate and more informal than in a survey in which the interviewer meets
the respondents for 30-40 minutes on a very formal basis. The relationship
sometimes becomes primary than secondary. Being close to the subject does not
necessarily mean that observer will lose objectivity in recording facts. This
becomes possible only when the observer becomes emotionally attached to his
subjects.
3. Natural environment : The behaviour being observed in natural environment will
not cause any bias. Observation will neither be artificial nor restrictive.
4. Longitudinal analysis : In observation, the researcher is able to conduct his study
over a much longer period than in the survey.

Sarantakos has mentioned the following advantages of observation:

 It is less complicated and less time-consuming.

 It offers data when respondents are unable or unwilling to cooperate for giving
information.
 It approaches reality in its natural structure and studies events as they evolve.
 It allows collection of wide range of information.
 It is relatively inexpensive. Besides these advantages, two other advantages in
observation tool are:
 Observer can assess the emotional reactions of subjects.
 The observer is able to record the context which gives meaning to respondent’s
expressions.

Disadvantages of Observation
According to Bailey, the disadvantages in observation technique are:

 Lack of Control : In artificial setting, control over variables is possible but in

natural environment, the researcher has little control over variables that affect
the data.
  Difficulties of quantification : The data collected through observation cannot be
quantified. The recorded data will show how persons interacted with one another
but it cannot be completed the number of times they interacted. In communal
riots, looting, arson, killing may be observed but it cannot be quantified what type
of people indulged in what? It is difficult to categorise in-depth emotional and
humanistic data.
 Small sample size: Observational studies use a smaller sample than survey
studies. Two or more observers can study a bigger sample but then their
observations cannot be compared. Since observations are made for a longer
period, employing many observers can become a costly affair.
 Gaining entry: Many times the observer has difficulty in receiving approval for
the study. It is not always easy to observe the functioning of an organization or
institution without obtaining permission from the administrator. In such cases, he
may not record observations then and there but may write notes at night.
 Lack of anonymity/studying sensitive issues: In observational study, it is difficult
to maintain the respondent’s anonymity. In survey, it is easy for the husband to
say that he has no quarrels and conflicts with his wife but in observation over a
longer period of time, he cannot conceal them.
 Limited study: All aspects of the problem cannot be observed simultaneously.
The observation technique studies only limited issues. Similarly, internal attitudes
and opinions cannot be studied.

Williamson et. al. have discussed the following limitations of observation method

 This method is not applicable to the investigation of large social settings.

 There are few safeguards against biases of the researcher.
 There is the related problem of selectivity in data collection.
 The mere presence of the researcher in the setting may change the group/social
system to some extent.
 Since there is no set procedure of observation technique, the researcher may not
be able to explain exactly how the work was done. It, therefore, becomes difficult
to replicate the study. It could thus be concluded that observation becomes an
effective tool of scientific study when it is planned systematically, recorded
systematically, is subjected to checks and control, and selected observers have
skills and are trained.

Case study;
Case study is an intensive study of a case which may be an individual, an institution, a
system, a community, an organization, an event, or even the entire culture. Yin has
defined case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context, when the boundaries between phenomenon
and context are not clearly evident, and in which multiple sources of evidence are
used”. Kromrey holds that “case study involves studying individual cases, often in
their natural environment and for a long period of time”
Case study is not a method of data collection; rather it is a research strategy, or an
empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon by using multiple
sources of evidence.

Mitchell has also maintained that a case study is not just a narrative account of an
event or a series of events but it involves analysis against an appropriate theoretical
framework or in support of theoretical conclusions. Case study can be simple and
specific, such as “Ram, the delinquent boy”, or complex and abstract, such as
“decisionmaking in a university”. But whatever the subject, to qualify as a case study, it
must be a bounded system/unit, an entity in itself.

Characteristics of Case Study;

Hartfield has referred to the following distinguishing characteristics of case study:

 It studies whole units in their totality and not some selected aspects or variables
of these units.
 It employs several methods in data collection to prevent errors and distortions.
 If often studies a single unit: one unit is one study.
 It perceives the respondent as a knowledgeable person, not just as a source of
data.
 It studies a typical case..

Purposes of Case Study;

Following are the purposes of a case study :

 To use it as a preliminary to major investigation as it may bring to light variables,

processes and relationships that deserve more intensive investigation.
 To probe the phenomenon deeply and analyse it intensively with a view to
establishing generalizations about the wider population to which the unit
belongs.
 To get anecdotal evidence that illustrates more general findings.
 To refute a universal generalization. A single case can represent a significant
contribution to theory building and assist in focusing the direction of future
investigations in the area.
 To use it as a unique, typical and an interesting case in its own right.

According to Berger et. al. reasons for employing case study method can be :

 To get intimate and detailed information about the structure, process and
complexity of the research object,
 To formulate hypotheses,
 To conceptualise,
 To operationalize variables,
 To expand quantitative findings, and
 To test the feasibility of the quantitative study.
Types of Case Studies:
Burns has stated six types of case studies:

1. Historical case studies: These studies trace the development of an

organization/system over time. The study of an adult criminal right from his
childhood through adolescence and youth is an example of this type of case
study. This type depends more on interviews, recording and documents.
2. Observational case studies: These focus on observing a drunkard, a teacher, a
student, a union leader, some activity, events, or a specific group of people.
However, the researchers in this type of study are rarely total participants or total
observers.
3. Oral history case studies: These are usually first person narratives that the
researcher collects using extensive interviewing of a single individual. For
example, the case of a drug addict or an alcoholic, or a prostitute or a retired
person who fails to adjust himself in son’s family. The use of this approach
depends more on the nature and cooperation of the respondent.
4. Situational case studies: This form studies particular events. The views of all
participants in the event are sought. For example, a communal riot: how it started
with conflict between two persons of two different religious groups, how each
person sought support of persons of his own religion present at the spot, how
police was informed, how police arrested persons of one particular religious
group, how power elite interfered and pressurized the police department, how
did public and the media react, and so on. Pulling all these views together, a
depth is provided that contributes significantly to the understanding of the event.
5. Clinical case studies: This approach aims at understanding in depth a particular
individual such as a patient in the hospital, a prisoner in the jail, a woman in a
rescue home, a problem child in a school, etc. These studies involve detailed
interviews, observation, going through records and reports, and so on.
6. Multi-case studies: It is a collection of case studies or a form of replication, i.e.,
multiple experiments. For example, we can take three case studies and analyse
them on replication logic. This logic is that each case will either produce contrary
results or similar results. The outcome will demonstrate either support for the
initial propositions or a need to revise and retest with another set of cases. The
advantage of multi-case design is that the evidence can be more compelling.
However, this approach requires more time and effort.

Sources of Data Collection for Case Studies;

Two main sources of primary data collection are interviews and observation, while the
secondary data are collected through a variety of sources like reports, records,
newspapers, magazines, books, files, diaries, etc. The secondary sources may not be
accurate or may be biased. But they specify events
and issues in greater detail than interviews can.

 Interviews may be structured or unstructured. Both these methods most

commonly, it is the unstructured interview which is used by the investigators. The
 questions are usually open-ended with a conversational tone. However, at times,
the structured interview is also used as part of a case study.
 The observation method used could either be participant or non-participant. The
latter has been used more by sociologists in India like M.N. Srinivas,
Sachchidananda, L.P. Vidyarthi, etc. For some topics, the non-participant
observation is more suitable.

Advantages of Case Study;

 It makes in-depth study possible.

 It is flexible with respect to using methods for collecting data, e.g., questionnaire,
interview, observation, etc.
 It could be used for studying any dimension of the topic, i.e., it could study one
specific aspect
 and may not include other aspects.
 It can be conducted in practically any kind of social setting.
 Case studies are inexpensive.

Yin has referred to following three uses of single case study :

 It provides a critical test of a theory to corroborate, challenge or extend it.

 It helps in studying a unique case which is useful not only in clinical psychology
but also in sociology for the study of deviant groups, problem individuals, and so
on.
 It helps in studying the phenomenon that occurs in a situation where it (the
phenomenon) has not been studies before, e.g., studying the problems and
rehabilitation of the sufferers of cyclones in the coastal areas (sociology of
disaster), management of irrigation canals for the farmers, environment disasters,
etc.

Criticisms of Case Studie;

Case study method is generally criticized on the following basis :

 Subjective bias : The case study design is regarded with disdain because of
investigator’s subjectivity in collecting data for supporting or refuting a particular
explanation. Many a time the investigator allows personal views to influence the
direction of the findings and his conclusions.
 Little evidence for scientific generalizations: It is said that case study provides
little evidence for inferences and generalizing theory. The common complaint is:
How can generalization be made from a single case?
 Time-consuming : Case study is timeconsuming as it produces a lot of information
which is difficult to analyse adequately. Selectivity has naturally a tendency to be
biased. But if the case study is focused on relevant issues of person or event
under study, it need not be lengthy.
  Doubtful reliability: It is very difficult to establish reliability in the case study. The
investigator cannot prove his authenticity for obtaining data or having no bias in
analysing them. It is not easy to fix steps and procedures explicitly to the extent
that others are enabled to replicate the same study.
 Missing validity: The investigators in the case study fail to develop a sufficiently
operational set of measures. As such, checks and balances of reliable instruments
are found missing. For investigator, what seems true is more important than what
is true. The case study can oversimplify or exaggerate leading to erroneous
conclusions.The validity question also arises because the investigator by his
presence and actions affects the behaviour of the observed but he does not give
importance to this reaction while interpreting the facts. Yet one more argument
against the case study is that it has no representativeness, i.e., each case studied
does not represent other similar cases.

Yin has criticized case studies mainly on three grounds :

1. The findings of case studies are biased because the research is usually sloppy. This
criticism is probably based on the prejudice that quantitative researchers are
against qualitative data. They think that only numbers can be used to describe
and explain social life validly and reliably.
2. Case studies are not useful for generalization. One argument is that it is not
possible to generalize from a single case. The other argument is that if a number
of cases are used for the purpose, it will be extremely difficult to establish their
comparability. Each case has too many unique aspects.
3. Case studies take too long time and produce unmanageable amounts of data. In
fact, it is not the case study but the methods of data collection which are time-
consuming.

Additional Notes;
Social Survey;

 The basic procedure in survey is that people are asked a number of questions on
that aspect of behavior which the sociologist is interested in. A number of people
carefully selected so that their representation of their population being studied
are asked to answer exactly the same question so that the replies to different
categories of respondents may be examined for differences.
 One type of survey relies on contacting the respondents by letter and asking them
to complete the questionnaire themselves before returning it. These are called
Mail questionnaires. Sometimes questionnaires are not completed by individuals
separately but by people in a group under the direct supervision of the research
worker. A variation of the procedure can be that a trained interviewer asks the
questions and records the responses on a schedule from each respondent.
 These alternate procedures have different advantages and disadvantages. Mail
questionnaires are relatively cheap and can be used to contact respondents who
 are scattered over a wide area. But at the same time the proportion of people
who return questionnaires sent through post is usually rather small.
 The questions asked in main questionnaires have also to be very carefully worded
in order to avoid ambiguity since the respondents cannot ask to have questions
clarified for them. Using groups to complete questionnaires means that the
return rate is good and that information is assembled quickly and fairly.
 Administrating the interview schedules to the respondents individually is
probably the most reliable method. Several trained interviewers may be
employed to contact specific individuals. The questionnaires and schedules can
consist of both close-ended and open-ended questions. Also a special attention
needs to be paid to ensure that the questionnaires are filled in logical order.
 Where aptitude questions are included great care must be exercised to ensure
the proper words are used. In case of schedules emphasis and interactions may
also be standardized between different individuals and from respondents to
respondents. Finally proper sampling techniques must be used to ensure that the
sample under study represents the universe of study. In order to enhance the
reliability of data collected through questionnaires and schedules, these
questionnaires and schedules must be pretested through pilot studies.

Nomothetic and Ideographic Methods;

 Ideographic and nomothetic methods represent two different approaches to

understanding social life. An ideographic method focuses on individual cases or
events. Ethnographers, for example, observe the minute details of everyday life
to construct an overall portrait. A nomothetic method, on the other hand, focuses
on general statements that account for larger social patterns that form the
context of single events or individual behavior and experience.
 Nomothetic Method refers to the approach of investigating large groups of
people in order to findgeneral laws of behaviour that apply to everyone.
Idiographic Method refers to the approach of investigating individuals in
personal, in-depth detail to achieve a unique understanding of them.
 “Nomos” refer to laws in ancient Greek; this approach assumes that an individual
is a complex combination of many universal laws; it is best to study people on a
large scale. “Idios” refer to ‘private’ or ‘personal’ in ancient Greek; this approach
assumes that humans are unique.

According to Nomothetic Method, Quantitative Experimental methods are best to

identify the universal laws governing behaviour. The individual will be classified with
others and measured as a score upon a dimension, or be a statistic supporting a general
principle (‘averaging’).

According to Idiographic Method, Qualitative methods are best; case study method will
provide a more complete and global understanding of the individual who should be
studied using flexible, long terms and detailed procedures in order to put them in a
‘class of their own’.
Advantages of Nomothetic Method – In line with the deterministic, law abiding nature
of science, useful in predicting and controlling behaviour; nomothetic findings on
prejudice and discrimination perhaps helpful (reduce discrimination)

Disadvantages of Nomothetic Method – Superficial understanding of any one person;

even if two persons have same IQ they may have answered different questions in the
test; a person may have 1% chance of developing depression (but is he among the 1%?);
classification manuals are not accurate and does not help people.
Advantages of Idiographic Method: More complete and global understanding of an
individual; sometimes the most efficient; often lead to results that spark off
experimental investigation of behaviour.

Disadvantages of Idiographic Method;– Difficult to generalize findings; Sociologists

create universal theories on the basis of a limited and unrepresentative sample;
Idiographic research tends to be more unreliable and unscientific (subjective, long term
and unstandardised procedures) While comparing Sociology and History, Radcliff Brown
said “sociology is nomothetic, while history is idiographic”. In other words, sociologists
produce generalizations while historians describe unique events.

Content Analysis;

 Content analysis is a research method used to analyze social life by interpreting

words and images from documents, film, art, music, and other cultural products
and media. It has been used extensively to examine the place of women in
society. In advertising, for example, women tend to be portrayed as subordinate,
often through their lower physical positioning in relation to the males or the
unassertive nature of their poses or gestures.
 Researchers can learn a great deal about a society by analyzing cultural artifacts
such as newspapers, magazines, television programs, or music. This is called
content analysis. Researchers who use content analysis are not studying the
people, but are studying the communications the people produce as a way of
creating a picture of their society.
 Content analysis is frequently used to measure cultural change and to study
different aspects of culture. Sociologists also use it as an indirect way to
determine how social groups are perceived. For example, they might examine
how African Americans are depicted in television shows or how women are
depicted in advertisements.
 In conducting a content analysis, researchers quantify and analyze the presence,
meanings, and relationships of words and concepts within the cultural artifacts
they are studying. They then make
inferences about the messages within the artifacts and about the culture they are
studying. At its most basic, content analysis is a statistical exercise that involves
categorizing some aspect of behavior and counting the number of times such
behavior occurs. For example, a researcher might count the number of minutes
that men and women appear on screen in a television show and make
 comparisons. This allows us to paint a picture of the patterns of behavior that
underlie social interactions portrayed in the media.

Strengths And Weaknesses of Content Analysis;

 Content analysis has several strengths as a research method. First, it is a great

method because it is unobtrusive. That is, it has no effect on the person being
studied since the cultural artifact has already been produced. Second, it is
relatively easy to gain access to the media source or publication the researcher
wishes to study. Finally, it can present an objective account of events, themes,
and issues that might not be immediately apparent to a reader, viewer, or general
consumer.
 Content analysis also has several weaknesses as a research method. First, it is
limited in what it can study. Since it is based only on mass communication –
either visual, oral, or written – it cannot tell us what people really think about
these images or whether they affect people’s behavior. Second, it may not be as
objective as it claims since the researcher must select and record data accurately.
In some cases, the researcher must make choices about how to interpret or
categorize particular forms of behavior and other researchers may interpret it
differently. A final weakness of content analysis is that it can be time consuming.

Focus Group Discussion;

 Focus group Discussion is a form of qualitative research that is used most often in
product marketing and marketing research. During a focus group, a group of
individuals – usually 6-12 people -is brought together in a room to engage in a
guided discussion of some topic.
 Focus groups are often used in social science research as well. Take William
Gamson’s research on political views as an example. In 1992, he used focus
groups to examine how U.S. citizens frame their views of political issues. He chose
four issues for discussion: Affirmative action, nuclear power, troubled industries,
and the Arab-Israeli conflict. First Gamson conducted a content analysis of the
press coverage on these topics to get an idea of the media context within which
the participants would be thinking and talking about these topics and politics in
general. Then he conducted the focus groups to observe the process of people
discussing these issues with their friends.
 The participants of a focus group are selected based on their relevance and
relationship to the topic under study. They are not typically chosen through
rigorous, probability sampling methods, which means that they do not statistically
represent any meaningful population. Rather, participants are chosen through
word-of-mouth, advertising, snowball sampling, or similar, depending on the type
of person and characteristics the researcher is looking to include.

Advantages of Focus Groups:

There are several advantages of focus groups:
  As a socially oriented research method, it captures real-life data in a social
setting.
 It is flexible.
 It has high face validity, meaning that it measures what it is intended to measure.
 It generates quick results.
 It costs little to conduct.
 Group dynamics often bring out aspects of the topic or reveal information about
the subject that may not have been anticipated by the researcher or emerged
from individual interviews.

Disadvantages of Focus Group:

 There are also several disadvantages of focus groups:

 The researcher has less control over the session than he or she does in individual
interviews.
 Data are often difficult to analyze.
 Moderators require certain skills.
 Differences between groups can be troublesome.
 Groups can often be difficult to pull together.
 The discussion must be conducted in a conducive environment.

Preparing For The Focus Group:

 Identify the main objective of the focus group.

 Carefully develop your focus group questions. Your focus group should generally
last 1 to 1.5 hours, which is usually enough time to cover 5 or 6 questions.
 Call potential participants to invite them to the meeting. Focus groups generally
consist of 6-12 participants who have some similar characteristic (e.g., age group,
status in a program, etc). Select participants who are likely to participate in
discussions and who don’t all know each other.
 Send a follow-up invitation with a proposed agenda, questions up for discussion,
and time/location details.
 Three days before the focus group, call each participant to remind them of the
meeting.

Planning The Session:

 Schedule a time that is convenient for most people. Plan the focus group to take
between 1 and 1.5 hours. Lunchtime or dinnertime is usually a good time for
people, and if you serve food, they are more likely to attend.
 Find a good setting, such as a conference room, with good air flow and lighting.
Configure the room so that all members can see each other. Provide nametags as
well as refreshments. If your focus group is at lunch or dinnertime, be sure to
provide food as well.
 Set some ground rules for the participants that help foster participation and keep
the session moving along appropriately. For example: 1. Stay focused on the
 subject/question, 2. Keep the momentum of the conversation going, and 3. Get
closure on each question.
 Make an agenda for the focus group. Consider the following: Welcome, review of
agenda, review of the goal of the meeting, review of ground rules, introductions,
questions and answers, wrap up.
 Don’t count on your memory for information shared at the focus group. Plan to
record the session with either an audio or video recorder. If this isn’t possible,
involve a co-facilitator who takes good notes.

Facilitating The Session:

 Introduce yourself and your cofacilitator, if you have one.

 Explain your need and reason for recording the focus group discussion.
 Carry out the agenda.
 Carefully word each question to the group. Before a group discussion, allow
everyone a few minutes to carefully record his or her responses or answers. Then,
facilitate discussion around the answers to each question, one at a time.
 After the discussion of each question, reflect back to the group a summary of
what you just heard. If you have a note-taker/cofacilitator, he or she may do this.
 Ensure even participation among the group. If a few people are dominating the
conversation, then call on others. Also, consider a round-table approach in which
you go in one direction around the table, giving each person a chance to answer
the question.
 Close the session by thanking the participants and telling them that they will
receive a copy of the report generated as a result of the discussion.

Immediately After The Session:

 Verify that the audio or video recorder worked throughout the entire session (if
one was used).
 Make any additional notes on your written notes that you need.
 Write down any observations you made during the session, such as the nature of
participation in the group, any surprises of the session, where and when the
session was held, etc.

Serendipity;

 In general, serendipity is the act of finding something valuable or delightful when

you are not looking for it. In information technology, serendipity often plays a
part in the recognition of a new product need or in solving a design problem. Web
surfing can be an occasion for serendipity since you sometimes come across a
valuable or interesting site when you are looking for something else.
 The term was coined by English writer Horace Walpole on January 28, 1754, in a
letter written to Horace Mann. He credited it to a “silly fairy tale” he once read
called ‘The Three Princes of Serendip’.
  Three goodly young princes were traveling the world in hopes of being educated
to take their proper position upon their return. On their journey they happened
upon a camel driver who inquired if they had seen his missing camel. As sport,
they claimed to have seen the camel, reporting correctly that the camel was blind
in one eye, missing a tooth, and lame. From these accurate details, the owner
assumed that the three had surely stolen the camel, and they were subsequently
thrown into jail. Soon the wayward camel was discovered, and the princes
brought to the perplexed Emperor of the land, who inquired of them how they
had learned these facts. That the grass was eaten on one side of the road
suggested that camel had one eye, the cuds of grass on the ground indicated a
tooth gap, and the traces of a dragged hoof revealed the camel’s lameness.
 This exotic tale, told of ancient princes of Sri Lanka, then known as Serendip,
inspired Horace Walpole, the English novelist (e.g., The Castle of Otranto),
politician, and belle lettrist. In this last capacity, Walpole coined the term
‘serendipity” while writing to the British diplomat, Horace Mann, in January 28,
1754. Walpole created serendipity to refer to the combination of accident and
sagacity in recognizing the significance of a discovery.

Serendipity in classical fieldwork:

 Qualitative research inevitably contains such “good fortune,” but serendipity

consists in how we transform our fortune into substantive discovery.
 Since Malinowski (1950), many fieldwork classics provide evidence of the
importance of interpreting and capitalizing on unpredicted, unplanned events.
Yet, traditionally, ethnographers were reluctant to discuss their errors and chance
occurrences, even when these events proved to be the basis of subsequent
insight, perhaps fearing that it would confirm the belief that ethnography was
truly dilettantism. Hortense Powdermaker (1966) recognized this absence when
she remarked:
 Little record exists of mistakes and learning from them, and of the role of chance
and accident in stumbling upon significant problems, in reformulating old ones,
and in devising new techniques, a process known as “serendipity.” A lack of
theory, or of imagination, an over commitment to a particular hypothesis, or a
rigidity in personality may prevent a fieldworker from learning as he stumbles.
 With the growth of the “reflexive turn” in ethnography – what some have labelled
the “new ethnography” (Dowd, 1994), the inclusion of occurrences of serendipity
in accounts of fieldwork is a battle won long ago, perhaps contributing to the
heroic image of the ethnographer who pulls meaning from chaos. We have come
to present ourselves as lovers of the play and surprise of research. Although we
now have what Atkinson (1990) described as a “mythological corpus” of
ethnographers’ tales of discovery – frequently in the form of ” confessionals” we
know little of how serendipity operates in qualitative research. The
conceptualization of the dimensions of serendipity must be made more explicit.
The question becomes: How do our own lived experiences of insight lead to
substantive discovery?
The serendipity pattern:

 The most influential attempt to apply the concept of serendipity to social

scientific theorizing has been the one by Robert Merton. As Merton (1962) noted,
“There is a rich corpus of literature on how social scientists ought to think, feel,
and act, but little detail on what they actually do, think, and feel” (p. 19). Merton
(1968, p. 157) provided a systematic attempt to make sense of serendipity in
sociology, speaking of the serendipity pattern, whereby unexpected data provide
the spark for the creation of theoretical analysis. For Merton three features
characterize datum that fit into a serendipity pattern: it must be “unanticipated,”
“anomalous,” and “strategic” (i.e., with implications for the development of
theory).
 Merton, of course, operated from the scientific model described above, which is
also implicated in the princes’ tale. That is, a real world exists for which clues
provide insight. In contrast to a positivist (or postpositivist) view, we suggest that
serendipitous insight provides the opportunity for constructing a plausible story.
We do not deny the reality of an external world, but only suggest that numerous
possible explanations exist and that chance events can be made serendipitous if
the event provides the opportunity for storybuilding. In this way, story-telling is a
means, not an end. We use stories in much the same way as researchers might
use an illustrative case decorating a statistical study. Our stories are intended as
supporting evidence for the paper’s conclusions and, it is hoped, permit the
reader to experience an abbreviated version of the verstehen and inference
processes of the researcher.

Variables, Sampling, Hypothesis, Reliability, and Validity

The Variables:
A variable is a characteristic that takes on two or more values. It is something that
varies. It is a characteristic that is common to a number of individuals, groups, events,
objects, etc. The individual cases differ in the extent to which they possess the
characteristic. Thus, age (young, middle-aged, old) income class (lower, middle,
upper), caste (low, intermediate, high), education (illiterate, less educated, highly
educated), occupation (low status, high status), etc., are all variables.

The variables selected for analysis are called explanatory variables and all other
variables are extraneous variables. Extraneous variables which are not part of the
explanatory set are categorized as controlled or uncontrolled variables. Controlled
variables, commonly called control variables, are held constant or prevented from
varying during the course of the study. This is to limit the focus of the research. For
example, in age, all males and females under 18 years of age may be excluded from the
study. This would mean that the hypothesis is not concerned with specific sub-groups.
Types of Variables:
Dependent and Independent Variables :

 A dependent variable is one which changes in relationship to changes in another

variable. An independent variable is one whose change results in the change in
another variable. In a controlled experiment, the independent variable is the
experimental variable, i.e., one which is withheld from the control group.
 In experiments, the independent variable is the variable manipulated by the
experimenter. For example, a teacher wants to know which method of teaching is
more effective in the students’ understanding: lecture method, question-answer
method, visual method or combination of two or more of these methods. Here,
teaching method is independent variable which is manipulated by the teacher.
The “effect on students’ understanding” is the dependent variable. The
dependent variable is the condition we are trying to explain. In this experiment,
besides the methods of teaching, other independent, variables could be
personality types (of students), social class (of students), types of motivation
(reward and punishment) class atmosphere, attitude towards teacher, and so on.

Experimental and measured variables :

 The experimental variables spell out the details of the investigator’s

manipulations while the measured variables refer to measurement. For instance,
rural development (measured variable) may be assessed in terms of increase in
income, literacy level, infrastructure, availability of medical facilities, availability
of social security and so forth.
 In another study on factors affecting student’s achievement (high or low marks),
we may examine the absence/availability of books, libraries, good teachers, use
of visuals and so on. All these will be experimental variables or experimental
manipulations for the researcher. It is important when planning and executing
research to distinguish between these two types of variables.

Active and assigned variables :

 Manipulated or experimental variables will be called active variables, while

measured variables will be called assigned variables. In other words, any variable
that is manipulated is an active variable and variable that cannot be manipulated
is an assigned variable.

Qualitative and quantitative variables:

The quantitative variable is one whose values or categories consist of numbers and if
differences between its categories can be expressed numerically. Thus, age, income,
sizes are quantitative variables. The qualitative variable is one which consists of discreet
categories rather than numerical units. This variable has two or more categories that
are distinguished from each other. Class (lower, middle, upper), caste (low,
intermediate, high) sex, (male, female), religion (Hindu, non-Hindu) are all qualitative
variables.

Relationships among quantitative variables may be either positive or negative (Singleton

and Straits). A positive relationship exists if an increase in the value of one variable is
accompanied by an increase in the value of the other, or if decrease in one is
accompanied by decrease in the other. In other words, the two variables constantly
change in the same direction, e.g., the taller a father, the taller will be his son. The
negative relationship between variables exists if the decrease in the value of one
variable is accompanied by an increase in the value of the other, e.g., as age increases,
the life expectancy decreases.

Therese Baker has used the terms categorical and numerical variables for qualitative
and quantitative variables, respectively. The former (e.g., occupation, religion, caste,
gender, education, income) are made up of sets of categories (or attributes) which must
follow two rules: one, the categories must be distinct from one another, i.e., they must
be mutually exclusive; two, the categories must be exhaustive, i.e., they should cover all
the potential range of variation in a variable. After putting himself in the categories of
educated (other being illiterate) in the field of education, one can put himself in the
sub-category of undergraduate, graduate, postgraduate, etc.

The variables can also be dichotomous or continuous.

While sex is dichotomous variable, intelligence is continuous variable. Ordinarily, only

a few variables are true dichotomies. Most variables are capable of taking on
continuous values. Nevertheless, it is useful to remember that it is often convenient or
necessary to convert continuous variables to dichotomous or trichotomous variables.

Sampling:
A sample is a portion of people drawn from a larger population. It will be representative
of the population only if it has same basic characteristics of the population from which it
is drawn. Our concern in sampling is not about what types of units (persons) will be
interviewed/observed but with how many units of what particular description and by
what method should be chosen.

According to Manheim, “a sample is a part of the population which is studied in order to

make inferences about the whole population”. In defining population’ from which the
sample is taken, it is necessary to identify ‘target population’ and ‘sampling frame’. The
target population is one which includes all the units (persons) for which the information
is required, e.g., drug abuser students in one university, or voters in one
village/constituency, and so on. In defining the population, the criteria need to be
specified for explaining cases which are included and excluded.

For example, for studying the level of awareness of rights among women in one village
community, the target population is defined as all women–married and unmarried–in
the age group of 18-50 years. If the unit is an institution (say, Vidya Mandir), then the
type of its structure, size as measured by the number of students in school section,
college section, and in professional courses the number of teachers and employees
needs to be specified.

For making the target population operational, the sampling frame needs to be
constructed. This denotes the set of all cases from which the sample is actually selected.
It should be noted that sampling frame is not a sample; rather it is the operational
definition of the population that provides the basis for sampling.

For example, in the above example of Vidya Mandir, if students studying in school and
in college are excluded, only students of professional courses (MBA, Computer Science,
B.Ed., Home Science and Biotechnology) are left out from which the sample is to be
drawn. Thus, the sample frame reduces the number of total population and gives us the
target population (i.e., students of professional courses only)

There are two objectives of sampling

 Estimate of parameters
 Testing of hypothesis Estimate of parameters:

The major objectives is to estimate certain population parameters (e.g. the proportion
of clerk did an office working overtime).Thus, the researches attempts to select a
sample and calculate the relevant statistics (i.e. average and proportion. He can use this
statistic as an estimate to make a statement about its precision in terms of standard
errors and conclude about its population in terms of probability.

Testing of hypothesis: The second objective of sampling may be to test statistical

hypothesis about a population (i.e. the hypothesis that at least 60 percent of the
household in Kurukshetra town have T.V sets).The researchers may select a sample of
household and then calculate the proportion of household possessing T.V sets. The
problem now is to assess whether the sample result is such as to reject the hypothesis
or whether it supports the hypothesis. To resolve this problem, the researcher has to
find out a criterion by which he can determine the precise deviation of the sample result
from the hypothetical value..

Purposes of Sampling,
Sarantakos has pointed out the following purposes of sampling:

 Population in many cases may be so large and scattered that a complete coverage
may not be possible.
 It offers a high degree of accuracy because it deals with a small number of
persons. Most of us have had blood samples taken, sometimes from the fingers
and sometimes from the arm or another part of the body. The assumption is that
the blood is sufficiently similar throughout the body and the characteristics of the
blood are determined on the basis of a sample. Singleton and Straits have also
 said that studying all cases will describe population less accurately than a small
sample.
 In a short period of time, valid and comparable results can be obtained. A lengthy
period of data collection generally renders some data obsolete by the time the
information is completely in hands. For example, collecting information on the
attitudes of voters’ preferences during election period, or demanding action
against police personnel responsible for using violence against women
demonstrators, or for making a large number of accused persons in the police
lockup blind. Besides, opinions expressed at the time of incidence and those
expressed after a few months are bound to be different. The findings are thus
bound to be influenced if long period is involved in data collection, i.e., not taking
a small sample but studying the entire population
 Sampling is less demanding in terms of requirements of investigators since it
requires a small portion of the target population.
 It is economical since it contains fewer people. Large population would involve
employing a large number of interviewers which will increase the total cost of the
survey.
 Many research projects, particularly those in quality control testing, require the
destruction of the items being tested. If the manufacturer of electric bulbs wishes
to find out whether each bulb met a specific standard, there would be no product
left after the testing.

Principles of Sampling:
The main principle behind sampling is that we seek knowledge about the total units
(called population) by observing a few units (called sample) and extend our inference
about the sample to the entire population. For purchasing a bag of wheat, if we take out
a small sample from the middle of the bag with a cutter, it will give us the inference
whether the wheat in the bag is good or not. But it is not necessary that study of sample
will always give us the correct picture of the total population.

If few people in a village are found in favor of family planning, it would not mean that all
people in the village will necessarily have the same opinion. The opinion may vary in
terms of religion, educational level, age, economic status and such other factors. The
wrong inference is drawn or generalization is made from the study of few persons
because they constitute inadequate sample of the total population.

The study of sample becomes necessary because study of a very large population would
require a long period of time, a large number of interviewers, a large amount of money,
and doubtful accuracy of data collected by numerous investigators. The planning of
observation/study with a sample is more manageable.

The important principles of sampling are (Sarantakos):

 Sample units must be chosen in a systematic and objective manner.

 Sample units must be clearly defined and easily identifiable.
 Sample units must be independent of each other.
  Same units of sample should be used throughout the study.
 The selection process should be based on sound criteria and should avoid errors,
bias and distortions.

Advantages of Sampling:
The above mentioned purposes and principles of sampling point out some advantages
of sampling.
These are:

 It is not possible to study large number of people scattered in wide geographical

area. Sampling will reduce their number.
 It saves time and money.
 It saves destruction of units.
 It increases accuracy of data (having control on the small number of subjects).
 It achieves greater response rate.It achieves greater cooperation from
respondents
 It is easy to supervise few interviewers in the sample but difficult to supervise a
very large number of interviewers in the study of total population.
 The researcher can keep a low profile.

The Significance of Sampling:

There are various reasons for the signifance of sampling in colleting statistical data.

Only Possible, Quick, Economic Method: Perhaps it is the only possible method; it is
quick and economic. In a manufacturing unit, quality of products is tested with the help
of sample. After testing, if the quality of the product is unsatisfactory, it is reprocessed
or scrapped. Thus, there is no alternative to sampling for measuring quality. Likewise
instead of observation of all items, selection of a sample from the universe and inferring
its characteristics from that sample forms the quick and economical method. It is a
highly useful device for the researchers and the practitioners concerned for interring
within limits certain characteristics of a population.

Representativeness and Size of Sampling:– Problem of representatives of sample The

basic point in the selection of a sample is to ensure that it is as representative of the
universe as possible. Explicitly, the size of sample does not necessarily determine its
representivess.Thus, if a relatively small sample is scientifically selected , it may be more
reliable than an arbitrary selected large sample. The process of sample selection should
be such that every items in the population under study has the same chance
representative of the population.

A sample which does not represent the population is called biased sample .As Yule and
Kendal observes, “the human beings is extremely poor instrument, for the conduct of a
random selection. Whenever there is any scope for personal choice or judgment on the
part of the observes, bias is almost certain to creep in, The studies based on biased
sampling are intrinsically inaccurate and misleading. This is true of several studies in
behavioral science which are based on mailed questionnaires involving incomplete and
distorted returns. Of course, the original mailing list of prospective respondents any be
representative sample However ,the questionnaires actually received may be extremely
in view of operation of selective factors.

Problem of Sample Size:-A scientific sample is one which in conjunction with

representing the population also consists of enough cases to ensure reliable results. The
issue of adequacy of a sample is highly complex. As indicate by Hagood and price ,the
size of the sample can be determine by the following items of information :the
designation of parameters which one intends to study, the range of reliability
permissible in estimates and a cride estimate of the dispersion of studied
characteristics.

Types of Sampling:
Two types of sampling: probability sampling and non-probability sampling.

1. Probability sampling is one in which every unit of the population has an equal
probability of being selected for the sample. It offers a high degree of
representativeness.
2. Non-probability sampling makes no claim for representativeness, as every unit
does not get the chance of being selected. It is the researcher who decides which
sample units should be chosen.

Probability Sampling:
Probability sampling today remains the primary method for selecting large,
representative samples for social science and business researches. According to Black
and Champion, the probability sampling requires following conditions to be satisfied:

 Complete list of subjects to be studied is available;

 Size of the universe must be known;
 Desired sample size must be specified, and
 Each element must have an equal chance of being selected.

It means use some kind of randomization in one or more of their phases. Leabo
classifies probability samples in five categories-sample random samples, stratified
samples.

Simple Random Sampling:

Although simple random samples are not used widely, they form a basis for other types
of sampling. A simple random sample of n items refers to a smple which has been
selected from a population in such a manner that each possible combination of n units
has the same chance or probability of being selected.
The Advantages Of Simple Random Sampling:-

1. Its saves time- As against complete coverage, sampling is cheaper of course, per
unit cost is higher.
2. It saves labour- Sampling includes a smaller number of staff for the collection,
tabulation and processing of the data. Thus it saves labour considerably.
3. It saves time-Because of these advantage, sampling was first used with the census
of population in 1951.This procedure save a of time.
4. It improve accuracy: A sample coverage provides a higher overall level of
accuracy. It permits a higher quality of the field, more checks for accuracy, more
care editing and the analysis and more elaborate information.

Stratified Random Sampling:

These samples involve division of population into similar groups and selection of a
random sample from each other. The population can be divided into groups in the light
of the knowledge about it and effect of a certain characteristic group. The population
can be divided into groups in the light of the knowledge about it and effect of a certain
characteristic upon the estimate to be made.

The Advantages Of Stratified Random Sampling:

This procedure ensures proper representation from each group and probability sample.
The basis for division into groups or strata related to the nature of the problem to be
studied .For e.g. if the problem involves the estimates of the average income in an area
occupational groups can be used as biases for dividing the population. The stratified
random sample, if properly carried out, forms improvements upon the sample random
sample. Indeed, the reliability of the results for a given size increases with the smaller
range of all possible sample averages accordingly, it can said that a properly stratified
random sampling is more reliable the a simple random sample of the same size.

Non-probability sampling:
In many research situations, particularly those where there is no list of persons to be
studied (e.g., wife battering, widows, Maruti car owners, consumers of a particular type
of detergent powder, alcoholics, students and teachers who cut classes frequently,
migrant workers, and so on), probability sampling is difficult and inappropriate to use. In
such researches, non-probability sampling is the most appropriate one. Non-probability
sampling procedures do not employ the rules of probability theory, do not claim
representativeness and are usually used for qualitative exploratory analysis.

These samples do not use randomization and can be classified as quota sampling,
purposive sampling, accidental sampling, and snowball sampling.

 Quota sampling: It is used in marketing research. It is a stratified sampling but of

the non-random type. In this sampling, the population is divided into two or three
parts in terms of characteristics. Quota is then fixed up and interviewer is asked a
 specified number from each division. The interviewer may select a member of the
population who is conveniently available. Because of this convenience, bias is
likely to color. The bias can be reduced by restricting his convenience. This
method is useful where merely rough estimates (rather than results)are needed
Indeed, it results are only a rough estimate and thus ,
cannot be tested for reliability.
 Purposive Sampling: It involves use of judement and a concerted attempt to
obtain representative under the impression of including typical areas or groups in
this sample.A study conducted by Namjoshi exemplifies the nature of purposive
sample. In this study two types respondants were selected 1.married males and
females 2.Unmarried males and females. Both the samples were selected by this
procedure in order to get sufficient representation of respondents from higher
and lower castes, socioeconomic groups and from both the sexes. A sample of
400 married male and female respondents and a sample of 400 unmarried boys
and girls were selected.
 Accidental sampling:- This involves use of available , samples and , is therefore,
the weaker type of sampling. This kind of sampling can be used if no other types
of sample are available.
 Snowball Sampling:- It related to set of procedure whereby the initial
respondents’ are selected by probability methods and thereafter, additional
respondents’ are obtained on the basis of information provided by them. This
technique is used to identify elements of rare populations by referral. For e.g, a
manufacture is interested in marketing a mahogany croquet set for serious adult
players as the market for this product is small, the researches is required to use
this technique in order to accomplish the task economically.

Hypothesis:
A hypothesis is an assumption about relations between variables. It is a tentative
explanation of the research problem or a guess about the research outcome. Before
starting the research, the researcher has a rather general, diffused, even confused
notion of the problem. It may take long time for the researcher to say what questions
he had been seeking answers to. Hence, an adequate statement about the research
problem is very important.

 Theodor son and Theodor son, “a hypothesis is a tentative statement asserting a

relationship between certain facts.
 Ker linger describes it as “a conjectural statement of the relationship between
two or more variables”.
 Black and Champion have described it as “a tentative statement about
something, the validity of which is usually unknown”. This statement is intended
to be tested empirically and is either verified or rejected. If the statement is not
sufficiently established, it is not considered a scientific law.
 Webster has defined hypothesis as “a tentative assumption made in order to
draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences”. ‘Test’ here means
“either to prove it wrong or to confirm it”. Since statements in Hypothesis have to
 be put to empirical investigation, the definition of hypothesis excludes all
statements which are merely opinions (e.g., aging increases ailments), value
judgements (e.g., contemporary politicians are corrupt and have a vested interest
to serve), or normative (e.g., all people should go for a morning walk). Normative
statement is a statement of what ought to be, not a factual statement that can be
shown through investigation to be right or wrong.

Following are a few examples of hypotheses:

 Group study increases higher division achievement.

 Hostlers use more.
 Young girls (between 15-30 years) are more victims of crimes against women than
middleaged women (between 30-40 years).
 Lower-class men commit more crimes than middle-class men.
 Suicide rates vary inversely with social integration.
 Educated women have more adjustment problems after marriage than illiterate
women.
 Children from broken homes tend to become delinquents.
 Unemployment decreases juvenile delinquency.
 Upper-class people have fewer children than lower-class people.

Criteria for Hypotheses Construction:

Hypothesis is never formulated in the form of a question. Bailey, Becker, Selltiz and
Sarantakos have pointed out a number of standards to be met in formulating a
hypothesis:

 It should be empirically testable, whether it is right or wrong.

 It should be specific and precise.
 The statements in the hypothesis should not be contradictory.
 It should specify variables between which the relationship is to be established.
 It should describe one issue only.

A hypothesis can be formed either in descriptive or relational form. In the former, it

describes events, whereas in the latter, it establishes relations between variables. A
hypothesis can also be formed in the directional, non-directional or null form.

Nature of Hypotheses:
A scientific justified hypothesis must meet the following criteria:

 It must accurately reflect the relevant sociological fact.

 It must not be in contradiction with approved relevant statements of other
scientific disciplines.
 It must consider the experience of other researchers.
Hypotheses cannot be described as true or false. They can only be relevant or irrelevant
to the research topic. For instance, the causes of poverty in a village can be explored in
terms of:

 Low development of agriculture (caused by lack of irrigation, sandy soil, erratic

rainfall and use of traditional agriculture implements) causes poverty.
 Lack of infrastructure (electricity, roads, markets) causes poverty.
 Barriers in rural development are resource barriers (water, soil, minerals),
support barriers (rainfall, irrigation, livestock) and social system barriers (credit,
infrastructure, extravagant expenditure and market barriers).

The important hypotheses could be :

 Rural poverty is positively co-related with availability of and accessibility to credit.

 Rural poverty is the result of lack of infrastructural facilities.
 Poverty is associated with extravagant social expenditure.
 Rural poverty is adversely related to resource barriers (water, soil, minerals).

Types of Hypotheses:
Hypotheses are classified as working hypotheses, research hypotheses, null hypotheses,
statistical hypotheses, alternative hypotheses and scientific hypotheses.

1. Working hypothesis is a preliminary assumption of the researcher about the

research topic, particularly when sufficient information is not available to
establish a hypothesis, and as a step towards formulating the final research
hypothesis. Working hypotheses are used to design the final research plan, to
place the research problem in its right context and to reduce the research topic to
an acceptable size. For example, in the field of business administration, a
researcher can formulate a working hypothesis that “assuring bonus increases the
sale of a commodity”. Later on, by collecting some preliminary data, he modifies
this hypothesis and takes a research hypothesis that “assuring lucrative bonus
increases the sale of a commodity”.
2. Scientific hypothesis contains statement based on or derived from sufficient
theoretical and empirical data.
3. Alternative hypothesis is a set of two hypotheses (research and null) which states
the opposite of the null hypothesis. In statistical tests of null hypotheses,
acceptance of Ho (null hypothesis) means rejection of the alternative hypothesis;
and rejection of Ho means similarly acceptance of the alternative hypothesis.
4. Research hypothesis is a researcher’s proposition about some social fact without
reference to its particular attributes. Researcher believes that it is true and wants
that it should be disproved, e.g., Muslims have more children than Hindus, or
drug abuse is found more among upper-class students living in hostels or rented
rooms. Research hypothesis may be derived from theories or may result in
developing of theories.
 5. Null hypothesis is reverse of research hypothesis. It is a hypothesis of no
relationship. Null hypotheses do not exist in reality but are used to test research
hypotheses.
6. Statistical hypothesis, according to Winter (1962), is a statement/observation
about statistical populations that one seeks to support or refute. The things are
reduced to numerical quantities and decisions are made about these quantities,
e.g., income difference between two groups: Group A is richer than Group B. Null
hypothesis will be: Group A is not richer than group B. Here, variables are reduced
to measurable quantities.

Goode and Hatt have given the following three types of hypotheses on the basis of
level of abstractness :

 Which presents proposition in common sense terms or, About which some
common sense observations already exist or, Which seeks to test common sense
statements. For example: Bad parents produce bad children, or Committed
managers always give profits, or Rich students drink more alcohol.
 Which are somewhat complex, i.e., which give statement of a little complex
relationship. For example:
 Communal riots are caused by religious polarization.
 Growth of cities is in concentric circles (Burgess).
 Economic instability hampers development of an establishment.
 Crime is caused by differential associations (Sutherland).
 Juvenile delinquency is related to residence in slums (Shaw).
 Deviant behaviour is caused by mental disorders (Healy and Bronner).
 Which are very complex, i.e., which describe relationship between two variables
in more complex terms, e.g., high fertility exists more in low income,
conservatives and rural people than in high income, modern and urban people.
Here dependent variable is ‘fertility’ while independent variables are income,
values, education and residence, etc. The other example is: Muslims have high
fertility rate than Hindus. We have to keep number of variables constant to test
this hypothesis. This is abstract way to handle the problem.

Difficulties in Formulating Hypotheses:

According to Goode and Hatt, three main difficulties in formulating hypotheses are:

1. Inability to phrase the hypothesis properly.

2. Absence of clear theoretical framework or knowledge of theoretical framework,
e.g., awareness of rights among women depends upon personality, environment
(education).
3. Lack of ability to utilize the theoretical framework logically, e.g., workers’
commitment and role skills and role learning.
4. Evaluating whether a hypothesis is good or bad depends upon the amount of
information it provides about the phenomenon. For example, let us take the
following hypothesis, given in three forms:
  X is associated with Y.
 X is dependent on Y.
 As X increases Y decreases. Of these three forms, third form explains the
phenomenon better.

Characteristics of A Useful Hypothesis:

Goode and Hatt have described the following characteristics of a good hypothesis:

 It must be conceptually clear. This means that concepts should be defined lucidly.
These should be operationalized. These should be commonly accepted. These
should be communicable. In the hypothesis, “as institutionalization increases,
production decreases”, the concept is not easily communicable.
 It should have empirical referents. This means that it should have variables which
could be put to empirical test, i.e., they should not merely be moral judgements.
For example, capitalists exploit workers, or officers exploit subordinates, or young
people are more radical in ideas, or efficient management leads to harmonious
relations in an establishment. These hypotheses cannot be considered useful
hypotheses.
 It should be specific, e.g., vertical mobility is decreasing in industries, or
exploitation leads to agitation.
 It should be related to available techniques, i.e., not only the researcher should
be aware of the techniques but these should be actually available. Take the
hypothesis: “Change in infrastructure (means of production and relations of
production) leads to change in social structure (family, religion, etc)”. Such
hypothesis cannot be tested with available techniques.
 It should be related to a body of theory.

Sources of Deriving Hypotheses:

1. Cultural values of society : American culture, for example, emphasizes

individualism, mobility, competition and equality, while Indian culture emphasizes
tradition, collectivism, karma and unattachment. Therefore, Indian cultural values
enable us to develop and test the following hypotheses:
 Residential jointness in Indian family has decreased but functional jointness
continues to exist.
 Divorce is used as a last resort by a woman to break her marriage.
 Caste is related to voting behaviour among Indians.
 Indian family comprises of not only primary and secondary kin but most often of
tertiary and distant kin too.
2. Past research : Hypotheses are often inspired by past research. For example, a
researcher studying the problem of student unrest may use the finding of another
study that “students having spent two or three years in the college/university
take more interest in students’ problems in the campus than freshers; or that
“students with high ability and high social status participate less in students,
agitations than those who have low ability and low social status”. Such
 hypotheses could be used either to replicate past studies or revise the
hypotheses that the alleged correlation does not exist.
3. Folk wisdom : Sometimes researchers get the idea of a hypothesis from
commonly held lay beliefs, e.g., caste affects individual’s behaviour, or that
geniuses lead unhappy married life, or married women without children are less
happy, or that young illiterate married girls are more exploited in joint families, or
that being an only child creates barriers in child’s development of some
personality characteristics, and so on.
4. Discussions and conversations: Random observations during discussions and
conversations and reflections on life as a person throw light on events and issues.
5. Personal experiences: Very often researchers see evidence of some behaviour
pattern in their daily lives. Intuition: Sometimes the investigators get a feeling
from inside that certain phenomena are correlated. The suspected correlation
leads the investigator to hypothesize a relationship and conduct a study to see if
his/her suspicions are confirmed. For example, living in a hostel for a few years
gives an idea to the hostler that “lack of control leads to deviant behaviour”.
He/she therefore decides to study hostel sub-culture.

Functions or Importance of Hypotheses:

Sarantakos has pointed out following three functions of hypotheses:

1. To guide social research by offering directions to the structure and operation;

2. To offer a temporary answer to the research question; and
3. To facilitate statistical analysis of variables in the context of hypothesis testing.

The importance of hypotheses can also be pointed out in following terms:

1. Hypotheses are important as tools of scientific inquiry/research because they are

derived from theory or lead to theory.
2. The facts (in hypotheses) get a chance to establish the probable truth or falsify it.
3. Hypotheses are tools for the advancement of knowledge as they stand apart from
man’s values and opinions.
4. Hypotheses help the social scientists to suggest a theory that may explain and
predict events.
5. Hypotheses perform a descriptive function. The tested hypothesis tells us
something about the phenomenon it is associated with. In a nutshell, the main
functions of hypotheses are:
 To test theories,
 To suggest theories, and
 To describe social phenomena.

The secondary functions are:

 To help in formulating social policy, say, for rural communities, penal institutions,
slums in urban communities, educational institutions, solutions to various kinds of
social problems;
  To assist in refuting certain ‘common sense’ notions (e.g., men are more
intelligent than women); and
 To indicate need for change in systems and structures by providing new
knowledge.

Criticism of Hypotheses:

 Some scholars have argued that each study needs a hypothesis. Not only
exploratory and explanatory researches but even the descriptive studies can
benefit from the formulation of a hypothesis. But some other scholars have
criticized this position. They argue that hypotheses make no positive contribution
to the research process. On the contrary, they may bias the researchers in their
data collection and data analysis. They may restrict their scope and limit their
approach. They may even predetermine the outcome of the research study.
 Qualitative researchers argue that although hypotheses are important tools of
social research, they must not precede the research but rather result from an
investigation.
 Despite these two contradictory arguments, many investigators use hypotheses in
their research implicitly or explicitly. The greatest advantage is that they not only
guide in goals of research but help in concentrating on the important aspects of
the research topic by avoiding less significant issues.

Reliability;
Reliability is the consistency of your measurement, or the degree to which an
instrument measures the same way each time it is used under the same condition with
the same subjects. In short, it is the repeatability of your measurement. A measure is
considered reliable if a person’s score on the same test given twice is similar. It is
important to remember that reliability is not measured, it is estimated.

There are two ways that reliability is usually estimated: Test/Retest and Internal
Consistency.

1. Test/Retest: Test/retest is the more conservative method to estimate reliability.

Simply put, the idea behind test/retest is that you should get the same score on
test 1 as you do on test 2. The three main components to this method are as.
follows
 Implement your measurement instrument at two separate times for each subject;
 Compute the correlation between the two separate measurements; and
 Assume there is no change in the underlying condition (or trait you are trying to
measure) between test 1 and test 2.
2. Internal Consistency: Internal consistency estimates reliability by grouping
questions in a questionnaire that measure the same concept. For example, you
could write two sets of three questions that measure the same concept (say class
participation) and after collecting the responses, run a correlation between those
 two groups of three questions to determine if your instrument is reliably
measuring that concept.

The primary difference between test/retest and internal consistency estimates of

reliability is that test/retest involves two administrations of the measurement
instrument, whereas the internal consistency method involves only one
administration of that instrument.

Validity:
Validity is the strength of our conclusions, inferences or propositions. More formally,
Cook and Campbell (1979) define it as the “best available approximation to the truth or
falsity of a given inference, proposition or conclusion.” In short, were we right? Let’s
look at a simple example. Say we are studying the effect of strict attendance policies on
class participation. In our case, we saw that class participation did increase after the
policy was established. Each type of validity would highlight a different aspect of the
relationship between our treatment (strict attendance policy) and our observed
outcome (increased class participation).

Types of Validity;
There are four types of validity commonly examined in social research :

1. Conclusion validity asks is there a relationship between the programme and the
observed outcome? Or, in our example, is there a connection between the
attendance policy and the increased participation we saw?
2. Internal Validity asks if there is a relationship between the programme and the
outcome we saw, is it a causal relationship? For example, did the attendance
policy cause class participation to increase?
3. Construct validity is the hardest to understand in my opinion. It asks if there is
there a relationship between how I operationalzed my concepts in this study to
the actual causal relationship I’m trying to study? Or in our example, did our
treatment (attendance policy) reflect the construct of attendance, and did our
measured outcome – increased class participation – reflect the construct of
participation? Overall, we are trying to generalize our conceptualized treatment
and outcomes to broader constructs of the same concepts.
4. External validity refers to our ability to generalize the results of our study to other
settings. In our example, could we generalize our results to other classrooms?

Camparrision b/w Validity and Reliability

 The real difference between reliability and validity is mostly a matter of

definition. Reliability estimates the consistency of your measurement, or more
simply the degree to which an instrument measures the same way each time it is
used in under the same conditions with the same subjects. Validity, on the other
hand, involves the degree to which you are measuring what you are supposed to,
more simply, the accuracy of your measurement. It is my belief that validity is
 more important than reliability because if an instrument does not accurately
measure what it is supposed to, there is no reason to use it even if it measures
consistently (reliably).
 So what is the relationship between validity and reliability? The two do not
necessarily go hand-inhand. At best, we have a measure that has both high
validity and high reliability. It yields consistent results in repeated application and
it accurately reflects what we hope to represent.
 It is possible to have a measure that has high reliability but low validity – one that
is consistent in getting bad information or consistent in missing the mark. It is also
possible to have one that has low reliability and low validity – inconsistent and
not on target.
 Finally, it is not possible to have a measure that has low reliability and high
validity – you can’t really get at what you want or what you’re interested in, if
your measure fluctuates wildly.
 Sociological Thinkers
Karl Marx (1818 – 1883)
Historical Materialism, Mode of Production, Alienation, Class Struggle

Basic Understanding:

1. Karl Marx’s (1818- 1883) thought was strongly influenced by: The dialectical
method and historical orientation of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel; The classical
political economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo; French socialist and
sociological thought, in particular the thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Marx
was born in Trier, Prussia (present-day Germany). While he attended a Lutheran
elementary school growing up, he later became an atheist and a materialist. In
1835, Marx enrolled in Bonn University in Germany where he took courses in law,
however, he was much more interested in philosophy and literature. One year
later, he enrolled him at the University of Berlin. Marx soon felt at home when he
joined a circle of brilliant and extreme thinkers who were challenging existing
institutions and ideas, including religion, philosophy, ethics, and politics. Marx
graduated with his doctoral degree in 1841.
2. After school, Marx turned to writing and journalism to support himself. In 1842
he became the editor of the liberal Cologne newspaper Rheinische Zeitung, but
the Berlin government prohibited it from publication the following year. He then
moved to Brussels, Belgium, where he founded the German Workers’ Party and
was active in the Communist League. Here he wrote his most famous work
Communist Manifesto. After being exiled from Belgium and France, Marx finally
settled in London where he lived as a stateless exile for the rest of his life.
3. In London, Marx worked in journalism and wrote for both German and English
language publications. From 1852 to 1862 he was also a correspondent for the
New York Daily Tribune, writing a total of 355 articles. He also continued writing
and formulating his theories about the nature of society and how he believed it
could be improved, as well as actively campaigning for socialism.
4. MARX’S THEORIES ABOUT SOCIETY, ECONOMICS AND POLITICS, WHICH ARE
COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS MARXISM, ARGUE THAT ALL SOCIETY PROGRESSES
THROUGH THE DIALECTIC OF CLASS STRUGGLE. He was heavily CRITICAL OF THE
CURRENT SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORM OF SOCIETY, CAPITALISM, WHICH HE CALLED
THE “DICTATORSHIP OF THE BOURGEOISIE,” believing it to be run by the wealthy
middle and upper classes purely for their own benefit, and predicted that it would
inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and
replacement by a new system, socialism. Under socialism, he argued that society
would be governed by the working class in what he called the “dictatorship of the
proletariat.” HE BELIEVED THAT SOCIALISM WOULD EVENTUALLY BE REPLACED BY
A STATELESS, CLASSLESS SOCIETY CALLED PURE COMMUNISM.
5. While Marx remained a relatively unknown figure in his own lifetime, his ideas
and the ideology of Marxism began to exert a major influence on socialist
movements shortly after his death. Marx has been described as one of the most
 influential figures in human history, and in a 1999 BBC poll was voted the “thinker
of the millennium” by people from around the world.
6. In the late 1830s radical criticism for extreme change in existing socio-political
conditions was made by the young Hegelians (a group of people following the
philosophy of Hegel). This was the group with which Marx became formally
associated when he was studying law and philosophy at the University of Berlin.
7. Hegel’s philosophy was humanist in treating humanity as occupying a special,
central place in the whole historical process and seeing that the very point of
history was to improve and fulfil the human spirit. His ideas certainly had
immense impact; he dominated German intellectual life and influenced most
young German philosophers of the time. One of these was Marx, who
appropriated much of Hegel’s scheme, certainly in his early writings.

Hegel: the dialectic of history:

1. Hegel was the most influential thinker of the first half of the nineteenth century
in Germany and, arguably, in Europe as a whole. HEGEL’S PHILOSOPHY AIMED TO
GIVE AN ACCOUNT OF HISTORY-AS-A-WHOLE. The history of all humanity can, he
argued, be grasped as a single, unified, organised and rational progress. History
might look like a mere accidental succession, one thing after another in a rather
disorganised, chaotic sequence, but that impression is only superficial. Seen in the
right way, history can be recognised as making up a coherent story about
development and progress. Progress is not smooth, continuous and cumulative,
but, rather, comes through struggle, conflict and discontinuity, which none the
less is of an essentially logical kind.
2. The crucial idea is that conflict is itself an orderly process, consisting in the
creation and overcoming of oppositions. COMPARE THE HISTORY OF HUMAN
BEINGS TO THE GROWTH OF A PLANT FROM A SEED. THE SEED CONTAINS THE
PLANT, AND OUT OF THE SEED GROWS THE PLANT, DESTROYING THE SEED. THUS
THE LIFE OF THE PLANT IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEED INTO WHAT IT HAS
THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME: FIRST, THE SHOOT, EVENTUALLY THE FULLY GROWN
PLANT. IN THE SAME WAY, CONSIDER HISTORY AS THE LIFE OF HUMANITY, AND
SEE, THEREFORE, THAT HISTORY IS MERELY THE UNFOLDING OF THE POTENTIAL
WHICH WAS PRESENT AT THE EARLIEST STAGE OF ITS BEING. HISTORY IS THE
NATURAL EXPRESSION OF THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF HUMAN BEINGS, JUST AS
THE PLANT IS THE NATURAL EXPRESSION OF THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE
SEED. HUMANITY MUST ITSELF DEVELOP INTO WHAT IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO
BECOME. Note that Hegel takes it for granted that his history is a collective one,
i.e. it is a history of humanity as a whole, or of large groups of people, not of
particular individuals. Just as the seed is destined to turn into a plant of a specific
kind, human beings— Hegel argues—are destined to develop towards complete
freedom.
3. What human beings essentially are will never be fully expressed if their capacity
for development
is restricted, inhibited by circumstances; the potential of humanity will only be
 fully developed when they are truly free, which means free of all circumstantial
inhibition. Over the course of history, human beings necessarily represent
something less than the true or full nature of humanity. For just as the full
potential of the seed is only realised when the plant is fully matured, so the full
potential of human beings will only be realised after the period of growth—i.e.
history—is over. The achievement of complete freedom will be the ‘finished
growth’ of human beings. Consequently, there will be an end to history. Since
history is a process of change through which humanity develops its full potential,
then when that has been realised there can be no further development and
therefore no further history. History is directed towards an end in two senses:
 In the form of a particular result;
 In being directed towards a literal end or finish.

In what sense does humanity develop?

For Hegel, the primary manifestation of development was THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
INTELLECTUAL LIFE, of THE MIND OR SPIRIT, THE GERMAN TERM USED BY HEGEL IS
ZEITGEIST (I.E. ‘SPIRIT OF THE AGE’). He held it to be plain, if one studied the history of
a given people, that their art, religion and philosophy would at any given time have a
certain uniformity, a common cast of mind, a shared outlook. This concept reaffirms
Hegel’s collectivist aspect, for it was his firm conviction that the commonality across
many different thinkers was not a matter of mere coincidence; individuals were driven
by larger, widespread influences affecting them all in similar ways. In short, the mind or
the spirit that drives the historical process is the mind of humanity, as manifested in
particular peoples and periods, not the mind of individual thinkers.

Idealism:
Hegel’s study of the mind was THE STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF IDEAS, so
naturally he concentrated upon those areas of society that were creative or
expressive of ideas: art, abstract thought (particularly philosophy) and religion. HENCE
HEGEL IS TERMED AN IDEALIST. he thought that the true nature of history and human
existence was to be understood in terms of the development of thought, of ideas.

Dialectical logic:

1. Classically, truth is often sought in discussion—in dialogue, or dialectic. Hegel

bases his logic on the model of discussion exemplified by Socrates in classical
times. Discussion originates in disagreement, the conflict of oppositions, which
spurs debate. The argument proceeds by the putting of one position and the
countering of it by another, opposed position. The search for truth is not about
standing pat on one’s own position, but about attempting to reach agreement
with one’s opponent, to arrive at a conclusion both can accept. It incorporates
elements of each of the two previously opposed positions, but now combines
them in a third, new position that is improved and superior.
 2. In grossly simplified terms, we may glimpse Hegel’s dialectical logic as an
exposition of the way in which seeming opposites can be reconciled and
combined in a new unity. Of course, arriving at an agreed position might end that
discussion, but it does not end all discussion, for this newly agreed position will be
put in some other conversation, will provoke a counter-statement, initiate a new
debate and a search for yet another more inclusive, mutually acceptable
conclusion, and so on.
3. THIS LOGICAL PROGRESSION IS THE VERY STUFF OF HISTORY. HEGEL IS SAYING
THAT HISTORY ARISES FROM CONFLICT. FAR FROM CONFLICT BEING AN
UNDESIRABLE AND UNNECESSARY BLEMISH UPON THE FACE OF HUMAN
EXISTENCE, IT IS THE DRIVER OF HISTORY, THE ESSENTIAL MOTOR OF
PROGRESS. CONFLICT ENGENDERS NEW AND BETTER IDEAS AND PUSHES
TOWARDS A MORE COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING. CONFLICT IS NOT ONLY
NECESSARY, BUT ALSO PRODUCTIVE, FOR CONFLICTS ARE EVENTUALLY
RESOLVED AND RESULT IN IMPROVED OUTCOMES BEFORE YET FURTHER
CONFLICTS ARE INITIATED.

Marx’s reformation of Hegel:

1. Although he was the youngest member of the young Hegelians, Karl Marx
inspired their confidence, respect and even admiration. They saw in him a ‘new
Hegel’
2. He was, however, skeptical of Hegel’s significance as a political thinker. Marx
could not accept Hegel’s contention that the key to human emancipation lay in
the development of philosophy, carrying people to the level of complete
understanding of their own nature and thus to complete freedom through
This. After all, this supposed final enlightenment and full elaboration of
humanity’s progress coexisted with jails filled with political prisoners. Freedom in
philosophy, freedom only in the mind, obviously was not the same as real political
freedom. Therefore, Hegel’s idea of history could not offer an account of the
progression of history to a real, i.e. practical, political freedom if it only resulted
in freedom in theory. For Marx, the real history of human development could
not be a history solely of thought or ideas; it would have to be a history of
human life in the real world, i.e. the world of economic and political being.
3. Despite this important reservation, Marx initially adopted much of the form of
Hegel’s argument, i.e. the idea of a scheme for history-as-a-whole, and of
history as a progressive development of the true character of human nature
that could only be fully realised when history reaches its final stage. These ideas
were taken over. So was the idea that the driving force of historical change was
conflict. Change was structured in the dialectical pattern of conflict, resolution,
further conflict and higher, more advanced resolution. It went through a
succession of ever higher stages of development, with increasing degrees of
freedom, eventually resulting in a final, full enlightenment and emancipation of
humankind.
Production and human essence:

1. Of course, Marx’s reservation referred to the inequality of the then existing

society. At that stage only a very few individuals had participated in the
development of human thought, or spirit, in the sense of its intellectual
expression; the vast majority were excluded from the process of creating these
purported expressions of human essence. This majority had been engaged in
producing human history all right, but not by way of intellectual creation and
discussion. Rather, it had produced human history through physical, not mental,
effort, creating through its labour the actual conditions of human existence and
the material conditions under which thinking, for example philosophy, might be
done. Marx denied Hegel’s view that the human essence was to be found in
thinking; he favoured the view that the human essence is to work.
2. Work: Work, involving as it does the physical transformation of the world around
us, literally changes
our world, whereas thinking makes no physical difference to anything. Work also
provides the most basic means to freedom, to liberation from necessity For, of
course, our labour provides us with food, shelter and clothing, giving us some
freedom from the challenges and pressures of nature. Further, progress in labour
sets us free from the necessity for labour itself by giving us time and resources to
do things other than labour, including the opportunity to engage in intellectual
thought.
3. This is not to say that thinking does not matter at all, for, of course, thinking is
part of labour, part of what Marx calls ‘practical consciousness’, i.e. the thinking
involved in and for the purposes of carrying out labour. Indeed, for Marx as for
his predecessors, Aristotle and Hegel, the capacity for thought marks out human
beings as distinctive; the capacity to think about things and to imagine them
being otherwise enables human beings to envisage new (improved) ways of
making the physical world meet their needs, bringing about changes in the
physical environment itself. In this capacity they differ from animals, whose ability
to alter the physical world is fixed in instinct-given ways; animals have no capacity
for reflection and foresight.
 THE EPOCH TO WHICH MARX BELONGED HAD ITS BEGINNINGS IN THE FRENCH
REVOLUTION. But its historical dimension coincided with those of the whole era
of INDUSTRIAL AND SOCIAL REVOLUTIONS AND EXTENDED INTO MODERN
ERA. This is reason for the lasting appeal of a body of thought (Marxian Thought)
that is by no means free from history.
 Before the age of thirty, Marx produced a number of works which together
provide a relatively adequate outline of his “materialist conception of
history”. Though Marx never wrote explicitly on historical materialism, his
writings refer to it in a fragmentary fashion. For him, it was not a new
philosophical system. Rather it was a practical method of socio-historical
studies. It was also a basis for political action.
 THE FRAMEWORK FOR THIS THEORY WAS OBVIOUSLY DERIVED FROM HEGEL.
LIKE HEGEL, Marx recognized that the history of mankind was simply a single
 and non-repetitive process (Evolutionist). LIKEWISE HE ALSO BELIEVED THAT THE
LAWS OF THE HISTORICAL PROCESS COULD BE DISCOVERED.
 MARX DEVIATED FROM HEGELIAN PHILOSOPHY. Many others among the Young
Hegelians found defects in Hegel’s ideas and they proceeded to build a new
system of thought. BUT ONLY MARX COULD CONSISTENTLY DEVELOP A NEW SET
OF IDEAS WHICH IN FACT SUPERSEDED HEGELIAN THEORIES ABOUT
SOCIETY. …….Hegel was a liberal in the sense that he accepted the rule of law
rather than the rule of individual person. His philosophy belonged to THE
IDEALIST TRADITION. ACCORDING TO THE IDEALIST TRADITION, REASON (IDEA)
IS THE ESSENCE OF REALITY AND THE SPIRIT OF REASON EXPRESSES ITSELF
DURING THE COURSE OF HISTORY. Hegel argued that HISTORY COMPRISES THE
GROWTH OF REASON TO AWARENESS OF ITSELF. He considered constitutional
state to be the summit or highest point of history. HEGEL VIEWS HISTORY AS
‘PROGRESS IN THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF FREEDOM WHICH IS BEST EXPRESSED IN
PHILOSOPHY & RELIGION, AND DEVELOPMENT IN RELIGIOUS CONCEPT AND IDEA
SHOWS THE DEGREE OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF FREEDOM IN PARTICULAR
FORMS OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION. In other words, ADVANCES IN RELIGIOUS
AND PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS-CORRESPOND WITH SOCIO-POLITICAL PROGRESS.
For Hegel, HUMAN HISTORY WAS PROGRESSING IN THE DIRECTION OF
CHRISTIANITY, THE REFORMATION, THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND
CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. He also held that only educated state officials,
administering a constitutional monarchy, understood the ideas of human
progress.

Karl Marx also developed his ideas of human history initially on the basis of Hegel’s
views. But in course of time he too joined hands with the Young Hegelians and
eventually evolved his own ideas on the history of human society i.e. HISTORICAL
MATERIALISM. In doing so, he is said to have put Hegel on his head, i.e. Marx criticized
Hegel’s conservative ideas on religion, politics and law.

 MARX DENIED HEGEL’S FAITH IN IDEALISM but ADOPTED AND ADAPTED HEGEL’S
USE OF DIALECTICAL METHODOLOGY.
 According to Hegel, EACH THESIS HAS ITS ANTITHESIS. THE THESIS REPRESENTS
THE POSITIVE VIEW AND THE ANTITHESIS REPRESENTS THE OPPOSITE VIEW. IT
MEANS THAT EACH STATEMENT OF TRUTH HAS ITS OPPOSITE STATEMENT. The
antithesis or the opposite statement is also true. IN COURSE OF TIME, THE THESIS
AND ANTITHESIS ARE RECONCILED IN THE FORM OF SYNTHESIS. The synthesis is
the COMPOSITE VIEW.
 AS HISTORY PROGRESSES, THE SYNTHESIS BECOME A NEW THESIS. The new
thesis then has an antithesis, with eventual prospect of turning into a synthesis.
And thus goes on THE PROCESS OF DIALECTICS.
 While Hegel applied this understanding of the process of dialectics to the
progress of ideas in history, MARX ACCEPTED THE CONCEPT OF DIALECTICS but
did not, like Hegel, perceive truth in the progress of ideas. He said that “MATTER
IS THE REALM OF TRUTH” and tried to reach the truth via “materialism”. This is
 why Marx’s theory is known as “HISTORICAL MATERIALISM” while Hegel’s
system is called “dialectical idealism”.

What is materialism?
Materialism seeks the scientific explanations of things, including even religion. The idea
of materialism may be opposed to the concept of idealism. Idealism refers to a theory
that ultimate reality lies in a realm of transcending phenomena “Ideas”. Materialism, on
the other hand, contends that everything, that exists, depends upon matter.
HISTORICAL MATERIALISM emphasizes the fundamental and causal role of production
of material conditions in the development of human history.

1. PRODUCTION- It is not that people produce out of material greed or the greed to
accumulate wealth. BUT THE ACT OF PRODUCING, THE ESSENTIALS OF LIFE,
ENGAGES PEOPLE INTO “SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP”. According to Marx SOCIAL
RELATIONS, ARE OVER AND ABOVE INDIVIDUALS. Marx says that as a general
principle, THE PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LIFE, WHICH IS A
VERY BASIC NECESSITY OF ALL SOCIETIES, COMPELS INDIVIDUALS TO ENTER
INTO DEFINITE SOCIAL RELATIONS THAT ARE INDEPENDENT OF THEIR WILL. This
is the basic idea of Marx’s theory of society.
2. MARX stresses that there are social relations which impinge upon individuals
irrespective of their preferences. He further elaborates that an understanding of
the historical process depends on our awareness of these objective social
relations. In most of human history, according to Marx, these relationships
are “CLASS RELATIONSHIP” that creates class struggle. HIS CONTENTION IS THAT
THE PROCESS OF SOCIO-POLITICAL AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE IN GENERAL IS
CONDITIONED BY THE MODE OF PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL LIFE. On the basis of
this logic, Marx tries to construct his entire view of history.
3. He says that “NEW DEVELOPMENTS OF PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF SOCIETY”
COME IN “CONFLICT” WITH “EXISTING RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION”. When
people become conscious of the state of conflict, they wish to bring an end to it.
This period of history is called by Marx “the period of social revolution”. The
revolution brings about “resolution of conflict”. Thus, FOR MARX, “IT IS THE
GROWTH OF NEW PRODUCTIVE FORCE WHICH OUTLINES THE COURSE OF
HUMAN HISTORY”. The productive forces are the powers society uses to produce
material conditions of life. For Marx, “HUMAN HISTORY IS AN ACCOUNT OF
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF NEW FORCES OF MATERIAL
PRODUCTION”. This is the reason why his view of history of “historical
materialism”.
4. Infrastructure and Superstructure: According to Marx, every society has
its infrastructure and superstructure. Social relations are defined in terms of
material conditions which he calls “infrastructure”. THE ECONOMIC BASE OF A
SOCIETY FORMS ITS INFRASTRUCTURE. Any changes in material conditions also
imply corresponding changes in social relations. Forces and relations of
production come in the category of infrastructure. WITHIN
THE “SUPERSTRUCTURE” FIGURE THE LEGAL, EDUCATIONAL AND POLITICAL
 INSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS VALUES, CULTURAL WAYS OF THINKING, RELIGION,
IDEOLOGIES AND PHILOSOPHIES.
5. According to Marx, Forces of production comprise two elements: (a) means of
production (tools, machines, factories, and so on); and (b) labour power (the
skills, knowledge, experience and other human faculties used in the
work). Relations of production are constituted by the pattern of economic
ownership of means of production. At every stage of historical development, the
owners of means of production constitute the dominant class and those left with
labour power only constitute the dependent class.
6. At certain points in time, Marx speaks in terms of transformation of society from
one stage to another. In explaining the process of transformation, Marx has given
us a scheme of historical movement.
7. He develops the idea of social change resulting from internal conflicts in the
theory of class struggle. For him, social change displays a regular pattern. Marx
constructs, in broad terms, a historical sequence of the main types of society,
proceeding from the simple, undifferentiated society of ‘primitive communism’ to
the complex class society of ‘modern capitalism’. He provides an explanation of
the great historical transformation which demolishes old forms of society and
creates new ones in terms of infrastructural changes which he regards as general
and constant in their operation. Each period of contradiction between the forces
and the relations of production is seen by Marx as a period of revolution.
8. Dialectical relationship between the forces and relations of production: In
revolutionary period, one class is attached to the old relations of production.
These relations hinder the development of the forces of production. Another
class, on the other hand, is forward looking. It strives for new relations of
production. The new relations of production do not create obstacles in the way of
the development of the forces of production. They encourage the maximum
growth of those forces. This is the abstract formulation of Marx’s ideas of class
struggle.
9. The dialectical relationship between the forces of production also provides a
“theory of revolution”. In Marx’s reading of history, revolutions are not political
accidents. They are treated as “social expression of the historical
movement”. Revolution is necessary manifestations of the historical progress of
societies. Revolutions occur when the conditions for them mature. Marx wrote,
‘No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there
is room in it have been developed; and the new higher relations of production
never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in
the womb of the old society’.
10.He has also distinguished social reality and consciousness. For Marx, reality is
not determined by human consciousness. According to him, “social reality
determines human consciousness”. This results in an overall conception in which
ways of human thinking must be explained in terms of the social relations of
whom they are a part.
11.After detailed analysis, we find that “historical materialism” is different from
“economic determinism”. Marx recognized that without culture there can be no
 production possible. For him “mode of production” includes “social relations of
production” which are “relations of domination and subordination” into which
men and women are born or involuntarily enter. The “reproduction both of life
and of the material means of life” cannot be understood without turning to the
“culture, norms the rituals of the working people” over whom the rulers rule.

IN OTHER WORDS:
The human essence is the capacity to labour, to work upon and modify the world about
it, to shape it better in accord with human needs, thereby enhancing human existence
and potential. In short, labour is human nature—human essence itself. The capacity of
labour has a cumulative character, since human beings can contrive new and improved
ways of carrying out their work on the world, given their capacity for practical thought;
e.g. the creation of tools increases human powers.

Change: quantity and quality.

 The cumulative character of labour, however, is not smooth and continuous. Here
another Hegelian notion informs Marx’s analysis: quantity into quality. Hegel had
noted that many changes are continuous up to a point, and then they involve a
drastic, discontinuous alteration. For example, if we heat or cool water for a time
we get a continuous cumulative change, and the water just gets hotter or colder,
but if we continue, then at a certain point there is a change not just of quantity—
so many more degrees—but in nature or quality. The water starts to boil and turn
into a gas, or freeze and turn into ice. THIS QUANTITY-INTO-QUALITY CHANGE IS
CHARACTERISTIC OF HISTORICAL PROCESSES, WHERE A SOCIETY CHANGES IN A
CUMULATIVE WAY. FOR EXAMPLE, AN AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY MIGHT EXPAND
THE AREA OF LAND UNDER CULTIVATION BUT, AT A CERTAIN POINT, FURTHER
CHANGES ARE NOT POSSIBLE EXCEPT THROUGH A CHANGE IN THE WHOLE
NATURE OF THE SOCIETY, AND AN AGRICULTURAL BECOMES AN INDUSTRIAL
SOCIETY.
 HUMAN BEINGS DEVELOP TOOLS—TECHNOLOGY—TO ENHANCE THEIR LABOUR
POWER, AND IN A GIVEN PERIOD OF HISTORY A CERTAIN LEVEL OF
TECHNOLOGY PREVAILS, WHICH IS AMENABLE TO CONTINUING
IMPROVEMENT. At a certain point, however, a new, different kind of technology
is created, which is superior. This emphasis upon the development of technology
invites the view that Marx is a technological determinist, i.e. he sees the
development of new technologies of production as giving rise to historical
change. However, Marx was precisely concerned to oppose this kind of idea of
technology as an independent force, since technology in itself is no more than an
inert body of practical and technical knowledge. It takes the social relations
between human beings to make a technology conceivable and practical.
Economic, productive activity is a social, a collective affair. The prevailing form of
technology might be among the forces of production, but the social relations of
production are most critical.
The social relations of production:

 A technology implies, so to speak, certain kinds of relations among people. For

example, one person can operate a horse-drawn plough, but an industrial plant
obviously requires the complex organisation of a team of individuals, involving,
among other things, an elaborate division of labour into specialist tasks.
 Economic change is never just a change in technology; it also requires a set of
changes in social relations, and not just in the social relations involved in
production itself. For example, an individual alone, someone living in isolation,
remote from any neighbour, can operate the horsedrawn plough, but an
industrial plant cannot be operated by members of a population that is as thinly
scattered across a landscape as prairie farmers. People have to be resident near
to the plant if they are to work there. Obviously, there is much more to this idea
that economic relations require social relations of specific kinds, but this example
indicates its force.

In summary, Marx’s idea that economic production is basic to the life of a society has
at least a threefold justification:

1. Productive activity is definitive of human nature.

2. Productive activity is logically prior to other activities, in the sense that we cannot
do anything else until we have met the conditions of our physical existence, i.e.
we cannot theorise, or paint, or play sport until we have provided food,
protection from the environment and so forth.
3. The structure of productive activity has causal consequences for the form taken
by other social activities. For example, an aristocrat and a peasant lived
completely differently, i.e. the aristocrat could have a leisure-filled existence, but
the overwhelming bulk of the peasant’s time was consumed in producing what
was needed for his or her own (and, ultimately, the aristocrat’s) existence.

Ownership of the means of production:

1. In production, there was often the difference between those who did the
physical work, and those who supplied them with the means to do that work—
access to land, or raw materials or technology—but did not themselves do it.
The aristocrat controlled land and granted the peasant permission to work, the
industrial employer controls the physical plant and machinery and pays workers
wages to use them. The one who possesses ‘the means of production’,
therefore, has power over the one who makes use of them.
2. Hence for Marx the crucial division in society became not just that between
those who worked and those who did not work in physical production, but
more specifically one based on the existence of private property, i.e. between
those who possessed—who owned—the means of production and those who
did not. In production, the latter controlled (and exploited) the former. The
exploitation consisted, in crudest terms, in the fact that those who did not work
were able to have at least a portion of the product physically created in work
 handed over to them, though they had contributed nothing to its actual
creation. The relationship of power, of control, which was found in economic
relations based on private property, was reproduced in the wider society. Those
who dominated within the process of economic production ruled the society; for
example, the aristocrats who controlled the land also made up the ruling group
within pre-industrial society. The key positions and relationships in society were
those of class.

Class:

1. Under any particular regime of production, there are many people who would
stand in the same relationship to one another; in the productive process, as we
have said, people either work, or own the means of production. Those people in
the same position on one side of this divide were in the same class.
2. The pattern of this divide not only exists in the economic sphere, but also obtains
across all areas of life. Life in society, even in those areas most remote from
physical production, is class divided, class based. Hence the concept of class is
wider than the analysis of economic relations alone; it involves the analysis of the
structure of society as a whole. This is another respect in which economic
structures are ‘basic’ to society for Marx, for it is in terms of the relationships
established around a given form of economic production that social class is
formed, which, in its turn, becomes the fundamental relation around which all
other social activities are structured.

Historical materialism:-

1. MARX’S GENERAL IDEAS ABOUT SOCIETY are known as his theory of

“HISTORICAL MATERIALISM”. Materialism is the basis of his sociological thought
because, for Marx, MATERIAL CONDITIONS OR ECONOMIC FACTOR AFFECT THE
STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY. His theory is that material
conditions essentially comprise TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND
HUMAN SOCIETY IS FORMED BY THE FORCES AND RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION.
2. Why Marx’s theory of society, i.e. HISTORICAL MATERIALISM is historical? It is
historical because Marx has traced the evolution of human societies from one
stage to another. It is called materialistic because Marx has interpreted the
evolution of societies in terms of their material or economic bases. Materialism
simply means that it is matter or material reality, which is the basis for any
change. The earlier view that of Hegel was that ideas were the cause of change.
Marx opposed this view and instead argued that ideas were a result of objective
reality, i.e., matter and not vice versa.
3. At the outset historical materialism implies that in any given epoch the
ECONOMIC RELATIONS of society – the means whereby men and women provide
for their sustenance, produce, exchange, and distribute the things they regard
necessary for the satisfaction of their needs – EXERT A PREPONDERATING
INFLUENCE IN SHAPING THE PROGRESS OF SOCIETY AND IN MOULDING SOCIAL,
 POLITICAL, INTELLECTUAL, AND ETHICAL RELATIONSHIP. In other words, all types
of social relations prevailing at any stage of historical development are
determined by economic conditions.
 Marx’s argument in this behalf begins with the simple truth THE SURVIVAL OF
MAN DEPENDS UPON HIS EFFICIENCY IN THE PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL
THINGS.
 PRODUCTION IS, THEREFORE, THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY.
 SOCIETY COMES INTO EXISTENCE PRIMARILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ECONOMIC
PRODUCTION BECAUSE MEN IN ASSOCIATION PRODUCE MORE THAN MEN IN
ISOLATION.
 A PERFECT SOCIETY will secure all the necessities of life to the satisfaction of all
its members. BUT ACCORDING TO THE DIALECTIC CONCEPT, PERFECTION COMES
THROUGH A VERY LONG PROCESS.
4. As the process of MATERIAL PRODUCTION holds the key to man’s social life
CHANGES IN THIS PROCESS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HISTORICAL
DEVELOPMENT. Marx’s description of historical development is based on the
concept of historical materialism. As Marx himself observed: “In the social
production of their life men enter into definite relations that are indispensable
and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a
definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total
of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure, the real basis
on which rises a legal and political superstructure.” According to this
interpretation, mode of production in a given society constitutes its’ ‘base’; legal
and political institutions, religion and morals, etc. constitute its ‘superstructure’
which are shaped according to the changing character of the base.

What is the reason behind changes in the mode of production?

 Marx’s answer is: “at a certain stage of their development, the material
productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of
production … within which they have been at work hitherto; Then begins and
epoch of social revolution.”
 Man’s constant search for improvement of production (with a view to
overcoming scarcity, etc.) leads to the development of forces of
production. Means of production are improved by scientific discoveries and
invention of new techniques and implements while labour power’s developed by
the acquisition of new knowledge, education and training. The development of
the forces of production leads to a contradiction between the forces of
production and relations of production. The intensification of this contradiction
ushers in a stage when the existing relations of production are no longer
compatible with the level of development of forces of production. Its result is the
breakdown of the existing mode of production and its superstructure. Thus, for
example with the rise of industrialization in the sphere of forces of production,
the pre-existing feudal system in the sphere of relations of production (that is,
 division of society into lords and serfs) is bound to collapse which is now replaced
by a new capitalist mode of production.
 This process of historical development can also be explained by dialectical
method. According to the dialectic concept, the established order is a thesis
which inevitably produces its own antithesis in the form of a new mode of
production. ………In other words, as a result of some new invention or discovery,
the productive forces come into conflict with the existing relations of production,
particularly with the prevailing property system, which instead of furthering their
development becomes the fetters upon it. As a result of the clash between the
existing social relations and the new productive forces, a new revolutionary class
emerges which overthrows the existing order in a violent revolution. The old
order gives way to the new-slave society, which is replaced by feudal society;
feudal society is replaced by capitalist society; capitalist society is replaced by
socialist society…………. According to dialectical logic, every stage of society
which falls short of perfection contains the seeds of its own decay. Marx saw his
contemporary capitalist society into antagonistic classes – the “haves” and “have-
nots”, the bourgeoisie and proletariat, the dominant and dependent classes-and
the consequent exploitation of the dependent class. It was, therefore, doomed
due interplay of its inherent contradictions.

Marx and Engels identified four main stages of past historical development:

1. Primitive communism in which forms of production are light and communally

owned;
2. Ancient slave-owning society in which the means of production are owned by
masters and labour
for production is done by the slaves;
3. Medieval feudal society in which the means of production are owned by feudal
lords and labour for
production is done by the serfs; and
4. Modern capitalist society in which the means of production are owned by
capitalists and labour for
production is done by the proletariat – the property less workers.

 At each stage, society is divided into antagonistic classes; the class which owns
the means of production and controls the forces of production; dominates the
rest, thus perpetuating tension and conflict.
 At each stage of historical development, the forms of conditions of production
determine the structure of society. Thus ‘the hand-mill gives you society with the
feudal lord, the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist’.
 The structure of society will in its turn breed attitudes, action, and
civilizations. Therefore ‘all the social, political and intellectual relations, all
religious and legal system, all the theoretical outlooks which emerge in the course
of history, are derived from the material conditions of life’.
 The forces of capitalism had heralded a new era of production process by
destroying the feudal system. But Marx saw capitalism itself as a transitory
 phase. As George H. Sabine has elaborated: “The abolition of feudalism meant for
Marx, the rise to power of the middle class and the creation of a political system
which made its power effective. In its most developed form, as yet only partially
reached, this system would be the democratic republic. The French Revolution,
therefore, had been essentially political revolution. It had transferred social
dominance from the nobility and the clergy to the industrial and commercial
middle class; it had created the state as a typical organ of middle class repression
and exploitation; and its philosophy-the system of natural rights in politics and
economics – was the ideal justification and rationalization of the middle class
right to exploit the worker.”
 Thus, class-conflict was inevitable during the capitalist stage of historical
development, and another revolution was in store. Marx therefore, anticipated
a more profound social revolution by which the rising proletariat would displace
the middle class from power as the middle class had displaced the older feudal
class. This revolution would pave the way for the termination of the era of
exploitations.

Contribution of Historical Materialism to Sociological Theory

 The theory of historical materialism played an essential part in the formation of

modern sociology. Marx’s ideas had been foreshadowed in the works of earlier
thinkers as diverse in other respects as Hegel, Saint-Simon and Adam Ferguson.
All of them greatly influenced Marx. He did so in a more precise and above all
more empirical fashion than did his predecessors. He introduced an entirely new
element to understand the structure of each society. It was derived from the
relations between social classes. These relations were determined by the mode of
production. It was this feature of historical materialism which was widely
accepted by later sociologists as offering a more promising starting point for
exact and realistic investigation of the causes of social change.
 Historical materialism introduced into sociology a new method of inquiry, new
concepts, and a number of bold hypotheses to explain the rise, development
and decline of the particular forms of society. All of these came to exercise, in
the later decades of the nineteenth century, a profound and extensive influence
upon the writings of sociologists.
 Originality of historical materialism was in its immense effort to synthesis in a
critical way, the entire understanding of the conditions of human
development. The desired system would be based upon rational planning,
cooperative production, and equality of distribution and most important,
liberated from all forms of political and social exploitation.
 Historical materialism not only provides a method to understand the existing
social reality; it is a method to understand the existence of other methods. It is
persistent critique of the aims and methods of the social sciences.
Criticism of Historical materialism:

 The philosophic basis of Marxist is purely material. It does not believe in religion,
God as the change of heart feelings. His view regarding human nature is very
narrow. In this opinion men is selfish and works only according to his class and
interest. But along with it there are also feelings of mutual cooperation, sacrifice,
love and sympathy too. Marx has neglected there aspects. In the words of famous
socialist J.P. Narayan when people start suspecting about their morality, tradition
philanthropic activities, materialism offers no answer for all this things.
 According to Marxist thinker’s dialectical materialism is a master key to several
locks. It means with the help of this methodology any kind of process of change
could to explain and that is why it is purely scientific and universal. Weber
appreciated the works of Marx that undoubtedly by change in infrastructure
(economic structure) brought change into superstructure (human
relations/consciousness). But there is possibility that even change in
superstructures (religion) would being change in infrastructure (capitalism).
Weber has proved in his famous theory ‘Protestant ethics and spirit of capitalism.
 Similarly G. Myrdal opined that state and its policies are important factors for
change and and because of state intervention there is change in infrastructure.
 Melovan Djilas criticizes Marx as a utopian thinker because the kind of
communist society which Marx talked about could never emerged and the
communist society which emerged does not stick to Marxian Ideology

Mode of Production (Forces And Relation of Production)

 Role of production in human history became a guiding thread in Marx’s

writings. People need food, clothing, shelter and other necessities of life in order
to survive. They cannot get all these things ready-made from nature. To survive,
they produce material goods from objects found in nature. Material production
has always been still is the basis of for Karl Marx, the history of human societies is
the story of how people relate to one another in their efforts to make a living. He
said, “The first Historical act is….The production a material life. This is indeed a
historical act, a fundamental condition of all history”
 According to Marx, economic production or production of material life is the
starting point from which society as an inter-related whole is structured. He
speaks of reciprocity between economic factors and other aspects of historical
development of mankind. The factor of economic production is all the same a key
concept in explaining the changes that occur in society. He considers that forces
of production along with relations production form the basis of economic and
social history of every society.

Forces Of Production:

 The forces of production are the ways in which material goods are
produced. They include the technological know-how, the types of equipment in
 use and goods being produced for example, tools, machinery, labour and the
levels of technology are all considered to be the forces of production.
 In other words the forces of production include Means of Production and labour
power. The development of machinery, changes in the labour process, the
opening up of new sources of energy and the education of the workers are
included in the forces of production. In this sense science and the related skills
can be seen as part of the productive forces.
 The development of forces of production reflects the constant struggle of
human beings to master nature through their labour. In every social order there
is a continuous change in the material forces of production. Sometimes, as in
tribal societies, this change is produced by some natural and ecological
phenomena, such as the dying up of rivers, deforestation in or exhaustion of the
soil etc. Usually, however, this change is produced by a development in the
instruments of production. Human beings have always attempted to better their
lives and overcome scarcity.
 The motive force is the rational and ever-present impulse of human beings to
try to better their situation and overcome scarcity by developing the productive
forces. Man is above all an animal that produces in society by acting upon nature
through labour. The productive forces compel the creation and destruction of
successive system of production relations between men. Productive forces have
an intrinsic tendency to develop, as human being’s knowledge and mastery over
nature increase.
 Different socio-economic organisations of production which have characterized
human history arise or fall as they enable or impede the expansion of society’s
productive capacity. The growth of the productive forces thus explains the
general course of human history. The productive forces, however include, as we
have already noted, not just the means of production (tools, machines, factories
and so on), but labour power, the skills, knowledge, experience, and other human
faculties used at work. The productive forces represent the powers society has at
its command in material production.
 According to Marx, labour power is the capacity to do such useful work which
increases the value of products. Workers sell their labour i.e. their capacity to do
work which adds value to commodities. They sell their labour power to capitalist
for a wage paid in cash.
 Labour is the actual exercise of one’s power to add value to commodities. The
category of labour power is used by Marx to explain the source of surplus value.
Let us say that the capitalist invest money to buy goods and later sells them for
more money than he invested. This is possible only if some value is added to
those goods, labour power, according to Marx, is precisely that capacity which
adds value to a commodity. In buying and using labour power the capitalist is able
to extract labour and labour is the source of value.
 The source of surplus value in capitalist system of production is located in the
process whereby the value
paid by capitalists for labour power is smaller than the value which labour power
adds to a commodity.
Relation of Production:

 According to Marx, in order to produce, people enter into definite relations with
one another. Only within these social relations does production take
place. Relations of production are the social relations found among the people
involved in the process of production. These social relations are determined by
the level and character of the development of productive forces.
 ‘Forces’ and ‘relations’ of production are strongly interrelated. The
development of one leads to a growing incompatibility or contradiction with the
other. In fact, the contradictions between the two aspects of production ‘act as
the motor of history’ (Bottomore). The chain of causation in historical
development runs like this. The forces of production determine the
superstructure. There is, however, quite a good deal of controversy regarding the
primacy to the relations of production while in other places he describes forces of
production as the prime mover of social change.
 These relations are of two broad types. The first refers to those technical
relations that are necessary for the actual production process to proceed. The
second refers to the relations of economic control which are legally manifested as
property ownership. They govern access to the forces and products of
production.
 Relations of production are the social relations of production. Relations of
production are not merely the ownership of means of production. The employer’s
relation to the worker is one of domination and the worker’s relation with co-
workers is one of cooperation. The relations of production are relations between
people and people whereas means of production are relations between people
and things. The relations of production can influence the momentum and
direction of the development of the productive forces.
 Relations of production are reflected in the economic ownership of productive
forces. For example, under capitalism the most fundamental of these relations is
the bourgeoisie’s ownership of means of production while the proletariat owns
only its labour power. The relationship of production can also dominate and
generate changes in the forces. For example capitalist relations of production
often do revolutionize the instruments of production and the labour process.

Mode of Production:

 Mode of Production refers to the general economic institution i.e., the

particular manner in which people produce and distribute the means that
sustain life. The force of production and the relations of production together
define the mode of production, e.g., Capitalistic mode of production, feudal
mode of production, etc For Marx, the mode of production is the main
determinant of social phenomena. Modes of production can be distinguished
from one another by the different relationship between the forces and relations
of production. For example, in the feudal mode of production, the lord does not
 possess direct control over the peasant’s forces of production and the
disposition of the product.
 In Marx’s writings historical periods are founded and differentiated on the basis
of the modes of material production. In other words, the basis of history is
successive modes of material production. The forces and relation of production
are two aspects of mode of production. The productive forces or forces of
production of society reflect the degree to which human beings control nature.
The more advanced the productive forces, the greater is control over nature. In
order to produce, people enter into definite relations with one another.
Production is an integral unity between the forces of production and the relation
of production. The forces of production shapes the relations of production and
the two together define the mode of production. The successive modes of
production are the basic element of a systematic description of history.
 Crucial element in defining mode of production is ‘the way in which the surplus
is produced and its use controlled’ (Bottomore). Surplus means the amount that
remains surplus takes the form of profit. Surplus is produced by exploiting the
working class and is sold for more than the wages given to the workers. Because
production of surplus enables societies to grow and change, this factor is taken to
be most important in defining mode of production.
 Each mode of production has its specific relations of production. These are not
developed by chance or by accident. They are deliberately ordered because they
help the property owning class extract the surplus from the working people. Take
an example, the relations of production under feudalism, in which the serf is
dominated in all respects by the feudal lord, are necessary to enable the feudal
lord to appropriate the surplus from the serf. If such a relationship is continued
under capitalism it will fail. Therefore a new set of production relations develop
under capitalism that enables the capitalist appropriate surplus value from the
workers.
 Neither the forces of production nor the relations of production are fixed and
static. Even within a given mode of production the forces of production may
change. In any society, we may find that over the years greater production
follows improvements in technology. The capitalist nations are very different
from what they were to hundred years ago, when capitalism was born. This
change in the productive force has resulted in changes in the relations of
production. The workers, today, may not be as exploited as the factory workers a
hundred years earlier. Marxists would, however, argue that exploitation still
remains, because the modern worker, with modern technology, produces more
surplus value than his predecessors, and he does not proportionately earn that
much more.

The four modes of production, identified by Marx during his studies of human
societies

1. PRIMITIVE-COMMUNAL: The primitive-communal system was the first and the

lowest form of organization of people and it existed for thousand of years. Man
started using primitive tools; he learned to make fire, cultivation and animal
 husbandry. In this system of very low level of forces of production, the relations
of production were based on common ownership of the means of
production. Therefore, these relations were based on mutual assistance and
cooperation. These relations were conditioned by the fact that people with their
primitive implements could only withstand the might forces of nature together,
collectively.
2. ANCIENT MODE OF PRODUCTION: Ancient mode of production refers to the
forms which precede feudal mode of production. Slavery is seen as the
foundation of the productive system. The relation of masters to slaves is
considered as the very essence of slavery. In this system of production the
master has the right of ownership over the slave and appropriates the products
of the slave’s labour. The slave is not allowed to reproduction.
 If we restrict ourselves to agricultural slavery, exploitation operates according to
the following modalities: the slave works at the master’s land and receives his
subsistence in return. The master’s profit is constituted by the difference
between what the slave produces and what he consumes. The slave was
deprived of his own means of reproduction. The reproduction of slavery depends
on the capacity of the society to acquire new slaves, that is, on an apparatus
which is not directly linked to the capacities of demographic reproduction of the
enslaving population. The rate of accumulation depends on the number of slaves
acquired, and not directly on their productivity.
 Slaves are different from the other members of the community in that they are
rightfully deprived of offspring.
3. FEUDAL MODE OF PRODUCTION: Just as capitalist exploited the workers or the
‘proletariat’, so did the feudal lords exploit their tenants or ‘serfs’. Capitalists
grabbed surplus value and feudal lords appropriated land rent from their serfs.
 Serfs, being legally unfree, were deprived of property rights, though they could
use the ‘lord’s property. They were obliged to surrender their labour, or the
product of their labour, over and above what was needed for family subsistence
and the simple reproduction of the peasant household economy. Serfs or the
producers were forced to ful fill the economic demands of an overlord. These
demands could be in the form of services to be performer. These could also be in
the form of dues to be paid in money or kind. The dues or taxes were levied on
the family holding of the peasants. Thus, feudal rent whether in the form of
services or taxes was an important component of the feudal mode of production.
The feudal lord was able to force serfs on the basis of military strength. This
power was also backed by the force of law. In this mode of production, serfdom
implied a direct relation between rulers and servants. In feudal serfdom, the
instruments of production were simple and inexpensive.
 The evolution of the feudal system brought about the development of exchange
of agricultural and manufactured products in regional markets, Special needs of
the ruling class and high ranking Church officials gave an impetus to the growth of
commodity production, including consumption goods such as silks, spices, fruits
and wines. Around this activity developed international trade routes and
mercantile centres. It laid the foundation for capitalist relations of production
 which were to become the main contradiction of the system and cause its
downfall. In the course of this transformation, many peasants were expropriated
from their lands and forced to become wage labourers.
4. CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION: Capitalism refers to a mode of production in
which capital is the dominant means of the production. Capital can be in various
forms. It can take the form of money or credit for the purchase of labour power
and materials of production. In capitalist mode of production, the private
ownership of capital in its various forms is in the hands of a class of capitalists
(Bourgeosie). The ownership by capitalists is to the exclusion of the mass of the
population.
 Marx distinguished industrial capitalists from merchant capitalists. Merchants buy
goods in one place and sell them in another; more precisely, they buy things in
one market and sell them in another. Since the laws of supply and demand
operate within given markets, there is often a difference between the price of a
commodity in one market and another. Merchants, then, practice arbitrage, and
hope to capture the difference between these two markets. According to Marx,
capitalists, on the other hand, take advantage of the difference between the
labor market and the market for whatever commodity is produced by the
capitalist. Marx observed that in practically every successful industry input unit-
costs are lower than output unit-prices. Marx called the difference “surplus
value” and argued that this surplus value had its source in surplus labour.
 The capitalist mode of production is capable of tremendous growth because the
capitalist can, and has an incentive to, reinvest profits in new technologies. Marx
considered the capitalist class to be the most revolutionary in history, because it
constantly revolutionized the means of production. But Marx argued that
capitalism was prone to periodic crises. He suggested that over time, capitalists
would invest more and more in new technologies, and less and less in labor. Since
Marx believed that surplus value appropriated from labor is the source of profits,
he concluded that the rate of profit would fall even as the economy grew. When
the rate of profit falls below a certain point, the result would be a recession or
depression in which certain sectors of the economy would collapse. Marx
understood that during such a crisis the price of labor would also fall, and
eventually make possible the investment in new technologies and the growth of
new sectors of the economy. Marx viewed capitalism as a historical phase, to be
eventually replaced be socialism.

Asiatic Mode of Production:

 The Asiatic mode of production is characteristic of primitive communities in which

ownership of land is communal. These communities are still partly organized on
the basis of kinship relations. State power, which expresses the real or imaginary
unity of these communities, controls the use of essential economic resources, and
directly appropriates part of the labour and production of the community.
 This mode of production constitutes one of the possible forms of transition from
classless to class societies; it is also perhaps the most ancient form of this
 transition. It contains the contradiction of this transition, i.e. the combination of
communal relations of production with emerging forms of the exploiting classes
and of the State.
 Marx did not leave behind any systematic presentation of history of India. He set
down his observations on certain current India question which attracted public
attention, or drew materials from India’s past and present conditions to illustrate
parts of his more general arguments. The concept of Asiatic Mode of Production
is therefore inadequate for an understanding of Indian history and society.

Criticism of Mode of Production:

 Mode of production is an abstract analytical concept. In any particular society at

a particular point in time there may exist more than one mode of
production. However, it is possible to identify a dominant or determinant mode
of production which gains primacy over all the other production system.
 Particularly during the period of social revolution more than one mode of
production coexist in the same society.

Alienation:
Marx has conceived of alienation as a phenomenon related to the structure of those
societies in which the producer is divorced from the means of production and in which
“dead labour” (capital) dominates “living labour” (the worker). Alienation literally
means “separation from”. This term is often used in literature and Marx has given it a
sociological meaning. Let us take an example of a shoemaker in a factory. A shoe maker
manufactures shoes but cannot use them for himself. His creation thus becomes an
object which is separate from him. It becomes an entity which is separate from its
creator. He makes shoes not because making shoes satisfies merely his urge to work
and create. He does so to earn his living. For a worker this ‘objectification’ becomes
more so because the process of production in a factory is divided into several parts and
his job may be only a tiny part of the whole. Since he produces only one part of the
whole, this work is mechanical and therefore he loses his creativity.

Given his borrowing from Hegel, it is not surprising that Marx’s criticism of his
contemporary society was initially cast in terms of one of Hegel’s key concepts,
alienation.

Alienation refers precisely to the separation of human beings from their very essence.
Engagement in productive work should be the expression of human essence, thereby
fulfilling the rich potential of human energy, imagination and creativity. It was clear to
Marx that work in the developing industrial societies of the nineteenth century was very
different. Far from being the fulfilment of their very being, work for industrial workers
was experienced, at best, as a necessary evil and undertaken out of the need for
survival. For the overwhelming majority it was a deadening experience—physically
unpleasant, mentally unrewarding and spiritually numbing.
Further, the members of industrial society are alienated as a population, not just as a
collection of individuals. Human essence is not the possession of individual beings, but
of the species as a whole, and will be fully realised only when human beings have
developed their full potential. The industrial society, however, was divided within itself
between those who could enjoy physical comfort and intellectual stimulation, engaging
in freely creative activity, e.g. of a cultural and artistic kind, and those who were
reduced to being near-sub-humans in the foul and brutal conditions of the factory
system.

Another aspect of alienation involves the misrepresentation of reality in the form of the
self-denial of human essence when people misapprehend their own true nature. In their
thinking, people come to underestimate their own powers, failing to realise that certain
things are actually the product of their own, human effort and not of some other
source. A leading example is religion, where people often take a fatalistic line towards
what occurs because they believe God determines what happens to them and that they
can have no control over their own fate. But Marx, the atheist, following another critic
of Hegel, Ludwig Feuerbach, maintains that there is no God. God is just an idea made up
by human beings, partly to muddle up and mislead people, partly to express unsatisfied
human longings. By accepting the idea of God and taking such a fatalistic line, people
are resigning their own capacity to control their own destiny, are wrongly thinking of
themselves as subordinate to great, supernatural forces over which they can have. no
control. In fact there are no occult beings or forces, so that everything that human
beings can possibly be is within their own (collective) control.

A further example of this kind of alienation is Hegel’s own philosophy, where the human
spirit, made up of ideas, achieves an almost occult existence of its own. This strange,
superhuman force directs history from behind people’s backs, making use of them as
unwitting pawns to carry out its plans. It is human beings, however, who produce ideas,
including ‘the human spirit’, not the other way around, and it is human beings, not
quasi-supernatural ideas, who make history. In so far as things are done behind people’s
backs, then, they are done by other people, not ‘ideas’.

For Marx, another most important kind of alienation is the way in which people accept
their economic situation, e.g. unemployment or badly paid labour, because they
suppose that their fate is decided by economic laws over which they can have no
control. The recent tendency of many governments to insist that the market is a near-
infallible mechanism for regulating all activities, the possessor of greater wisdom than
individuals or their governments are capable of, might show the persistence of this kind
of conception. For Marx, the market cannot be some super-human, super-wise entity
but only a set of relationships between human beings, something which human beings
have created (albeit not by any conscious intention) and something which they
potentially can control. He maintained that there is no need to accept that we are
assigned a miserable fate by the nature of things, to which we simply have to resign
ourselves. Human beings make themselves through their labour, they develop their own
nature through changing the world about them, and they have (collectively) the
capacity to reshape themselves by reshaping their physical, economic and social world.
Alienation manifests itself in four ways:

1. The worker is alienated from the product of his labour, since what he produces
is appropriated by
the capitalist and the worker have no control over it.
2. The worker is alienated from the act of production because all decisions as to
how production is
to be organized are taken by the capitalist. For the worker, labour ceases to offer
an intrinsic
satisfaction and instead becomes only a means for survival. It becomes a
compulsion forced from
without and is no more an end in itself. In fact, work becomes a commodity to be
sold and its only
value to the worker is its sale ability.
3. Alienation from his real human nature or his species-being. Man is distinguished
form the animal
by his creative ability to do labour but due to above mentioned aspects of
alienation man looses his
distinctly human quality and gets alienated from his real human nature or his
species-being.
Prevalence of religion and belief in God as an independent power are the result of
this selfestrangement of man. “The more man puts into God, the less he retains
of himself”. The capitalist
system stratifies man, destroys the human qualities and renders man to a state
worse than animal.
No animal has to work for its survival at other’s bidding while man has to do that
in a capitalist
system.
4. The worker in a capitalist system is also socially alienated because social relation
became
market relations in which each man is judged by his position in the market, rather
than his human
qualities. Capital accumulation generates its own norms which reduces people to
the level of
commodities. Workers become merely factors in the operation of capital and
their activities are
dominated by the requirements of profitability rather than by their human needs.

MARX BELIEVED THAT MEN CAN BE FREED FROM HIS ALIENATED EXISTENCE ONLY
WITH THE EMERGENCE OF A COMMUNIST SOCIETY WHEREIN EACH MAN SHALL WORK
TO AFFIRM HIMSELF RATHER THAN WORKING FOR SELF-DESTRUCTION. SINCE MARX,
‘ALIENATION’ HAS UNDERGONE A LOT OF CHANGE OF MEANING, THOUGH IT HAS
BECOME ONE OF THE IMPORTANT CONCEPTS IN MAINSTREAM SOCIOLOGY, ESPECIALLY
IN THE WRITINGS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIOLOGISTS OF 50’S AND 60’S.
 Max Weber disagreed with Marx regarding the factors leading to alienation and
believed the alienation was an inevitable feature of modern industrial society
irrespective of whether the means of production are owned privately or
collectively. For Weber the cause of alienation lies in the rationalization of social
life and predominance of bureaucratic organizations in modern industrial
societies. The compulsive conformity to impersonal rules in bureaucratic
organizations renders people into mere cogs in giant machines and destroys
their human qualities. The American sociologists after World War II have further
changed the meaning of alienation to adapt it to contemporary advanced
industrial societies.
 C.W. Mills states that the growth of the tertiary (service) sector in modern
industrial societies has contributed to self alienation among the white-collar
(non-manual) workers. In these societies, ‘skills with things’ have been replaced
by ‘skills with persons’ which the non manual workers have to sell like
commodities. Mills calls this ‘personality market’ since aspects of personality at
work is false and insincere. Mills gave the example of a girl working in a
department store, smiling, concerned and attentive to the whims of the
customers. He states that the sales girl becomes selfalienated in the course of her
work, because her personality becomes the instrument of an alien purpose. At
work she is not herself.
 Herbert Marcuse, talking of work and leisure in advanced industrial societies,
says that both work and leisure alternate people from their true selves. Work is
‘stupefying’ and ‘exhausting’ while leisure involves modes of relaxation which
only soothe and prolong this stupyfication and it is largely a pursuit of false needs.
 Melvin Seeman: He applied Reputational Approach to study alienation. He has
tried to define alienation in a comprehensive way. He argues that alienation
could be decomposed into five separate elements; powerlessness,
meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation and self estrangement. However,
Seeman simply treats them as subjective dispositions which can be measured
with the help of attitude scales.
 Robert Blaumer has further developed four of these conditions and has related
them with different type of technology. To him less technical job has less
alienation. He saw less alienation in handicrafts & cottage industries & more in
mechanized industries. He has plotted the relation between technology and
alienation in the form of an inverted U-curve. According to him, level of alienation
is low in craft industries like printing but it increased to a high level in assembly-
line industries of mass production like automobile industry, but in process
industries with high degree of automation, alienation tends to decline further
because workers feel more involved and responsible. …………..However, as can be
seen from the foregoing analysis the latter-day meaning of alienation has
undergone change, it is no longer based upon objective conditions rather it has
come to be identified with subjective dispositions.
Conclusion:
Karl Marx concept of Alienation is unidimensional explanation of multidimensional
phenomena. Different studies provided that in a similar working condition not
essentially all people get alienated. In modern capitalism where human resource is
precious, different measures are taken by the industries and authorities to improve the
moral & efficiency of the worker. Also in today’s world democracy recognize trade
union, labour laws, arbitration council are there to protect the interest of worker. So
there is less chance of alienation. With globalizations & the rise of service sector,
chances of alienation are less because of high value for work culture &
professionalism. Now the workers are not only producer but also share holders of the
company. Rather than getting alienated they are now involved in the management
which motivates them to work hand for the company. Workers are also provided with
medical and education facilities to their children.

…………..But in the changing scenario the exploitation and alienation of working class
persists. Recent strikes of workers in many industries are the live examples. So we
cannot outrightly deny the Marxist concept of alienation. The nature of alienation
change but it still persists.

Class struggle (Class and Class Conflict):

Marx’s sociology is in fact, sociology of the class struggle. This means one has to
understand the Marxian concept of class, before understanding any study into Marxian
philosophy. At a broader level, society could be divided into two major classes i.e.
‘haves’ (owners of land and/or capital) often called as bourgeoisie and ‘have-nots’
(those who own nothing but their own labour power), often called as proletariats.
According to him a social class occupies a fixed place in the process of production’.

Class:
Under any particular regime of production, there are many people who would stand
in the same relationship to one another; in the productive process, as we have said,
people either work, or own the means of production. Those people in the same
position on one side of this divide were in the same class.

The pattern of this divide not only exists in the economic sphere, but also obtains
across all areas of life. Life in society, even in those areas most remote from physical
production, is class divided, class based. Hence the concept of class is wider than the
analysis of economic relations alone; it involves the analysis of the structure of society
as a whole. This is another respect in which economic structures are ‘basic’ to society
for Marx, for it is in terms of the relationships established around a given form of
economic production that social class is formed, which, in its turn, becomes the
fundamental relation around which all other social activities are structured.
Classes and class conflict:
The idea of society as composed of classes is the key to the materialist
implementation of Hegel’s dialectical concept. To reiterate: by ‘materialist’ we here
mean nothing more than a view of history as the product of real, striving human
beings, rather than of any occult or supra-individual forces such as God or the human
spirit. Classes are relational entities: one class can exist only if there are other classes;
a ‘one-class’ society must be a no-class society, since to speak of a class is to speak of
a collection of people who are differentiated from one or more other collections of
people. The relationships between such classes are those of opposition.

Class interest:

 The two classes of owners and workers have opposed interests, for the owning
class can only meet the conditions of its physical survival—or, indeed, of its
much more luxuriant style of existence—if it takes the means f rom those who
create the things that can be consumed.
 In Marx’s view, someone who does not take part in physical production is not
entitled to a share
of its product; thus those who do not work exploit those who do.
 This conception of the fundamental organising character of class has
implications for the way in which the structure of society as a whole is to be
understood. The class nature of ownership and exploitation has consequences
within the economic structure and also carries implications for the organisation
of the rest of the society. Since the inequality between the owning class and the
labouring class involves a social relationship of power and control, it cannot be
narrowly defined as simply economic, because the difference of interest
between these classes refers to freedom. The capacity of the owning class to
deprive the physical producers of their physical product is a difference in power,
a manifestation of the fact that the owners can restrict the access of labourers
to the means of economic activity. When they do grant them access to these
means, e.g. by renting land to farm, or hiring them for industrial work, the
owners have the capacity to direct what they will do. In other words, those who
labour are not free, a fact most starkly apparent in the case of the slave and
also, albeit less starkly, in the cases of the peasant legally
bound in service to the lord, and of the industrial worker hired for a wage to
work under the control and direction of plant management.
 Class conflict The conflict of interest between owning and labouring classes is,
then, a conflict over power and freedom. It must pervade the rest of society’s
organisation because the owners wish to protect and preserve their position.
For them to realise their own interest requires control not only over the
immediate circumstances of economic production, but also over the way the
rest of the society is arranged.
 In Other words we can say that, Marx defined class in terms of the extent to
which an individual or social group has control over the means of production. In
Marxist terms a class is a group of people defined by their relationship to the
 means of production. Classes are seen to have their origin in the division of the
social product into a necessary product and a surplus product. Marxists explain
history in terms of a war of classes between those who control production and
those who actually produce the goods or services in society (and also
developments in technology and the like).

Criteria for Determination of Class: According to Marxian Literature, a social class has
two major criteria: (i) objective criteria (ii) subjective criteria

Objective Criteria (class in itself): people sharing the same relationship to the means of
production comprise a class. Let us understand it through an example –all labourers
have a similar relationship with the landowners. On the other hand all the landowners,
as a class have a similar relationship with the land and labourers. In this way labourers
on one hand and land owners on the other hand could be seen as classes. However, for
Marx, this relationship above is not sufficient to determine the class, as according to
him it is not sufficient for class to be ‘class in itself’ but should also be ‘class for itself’.
What does this mean? By ‘class in itself’ he means the objective criteria of any social
class. Obviously, Marx is not simply satisfied with objective criteria above. Hence he
equally emphasize upon the other major criteria i.e., “Class for itself” or the subjective
criteria.
Subjective Criteria (Class for itself): Any collectivity or human grouping with a similar
relationship would make a category not a class, if subjective criteria are not included.
The members of any one class not only have similar consciousness but they also share a
similar consciousness of the fact that they belong to the same class. This similar
consciousness of a class serves as the basis for uniting its members for organizing social
action. Here this similar class consciousness towards acting together for their common
interests is what Marx class – “Class for itself”.
TO UNDERSTAND CLASS STRUGGLE WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND MARX’S
DIFFERENTIATION OF STAGES OF HUMAN HISTORY AND CLASS ANTAGONISM.

Marx differentiated stages of human history on the basis of their economic regimes of
modes of production. He distinguished four major modes of production which he
called, will culminate into a stage called communism. Let us simplify this classification of
societies or various stages of human history into– Primitive-communal, Slave-owning,
and Feudal, Capitalist and Communist stages.

1. The primitive-communal system: The primitive-communal system was the first

and the lowest form of organization of people and it existed for thousand of
years. Man started using primitive tools; he learned to make fire, cultivation and
animal husbandry. In this system of very low level of forces of production, the
relations of production were based on common ownership of the means of
production. Therefore, these relations were based on mutual assistance and
cooperation. These relations were conditioned by the fact that people with their
primitive implements could only withstand the might forces of nature together,
collectively.
 In such a situation, exploitation of man by man did not exist because of two
reasons. Firstly, the
tools used (namely, means of production) were so simple that they could be
reproduced by anyone. These were implements like spear, stick, bow and arrow
etc. Hence no person or group of people had the monopoly of ownership over the
tools. Secondly production was at a low-scale. The people existed more or less on
a subsistence. Their production was just sufficient to meet the needs of the
people provided everybody worked. Therefore, it was a situation of no master
and no servant. All were equal.
 …………….Gradually with time, man started perfecting his tools, his craft of
producing and surplus production started taking place. This led to private
property and primitive equality gave way to social inequality. Thus the first
antagonistic classes, ‘slaves and slave-owners’, appeared. This is now the
development of the forces of production led to the replacement of primitive
communal system by slavery
2. Slave-owing society: In the slave-owing society, primitive tools were perfected
and bronze and iron tools replaced the stone and wooden implements. Large
scale agriculture, live stock raising, mining and handicrafts developed. The
development of this type of forces of production also changed the relations of
production. These relations were based on the slave owner’s absolute ownership
of both the means of production and the slave himself and everything he
produced. The owner left the slave only with the bare minimum necessities to
keep him from dying of starvation.
 In this system, the history of exploitation of man by man and the history of class
struggle
began. The development of forces of production went on and slavery became an
impediment to the expansion of social production. Production demanded the
constant improvement of implements, higher labour productivity, but the slave
had no interest in this as it would not improve his position.
 With the passage of time the class conflict between the classes of slave-owners
and the slaves became acute and it was manifested in slave revolts. These
revolts, together with the raids from neighboring tribes, undermined the
foundations of slavery leading to a new stage i.e. feudal system.
3. Feudal System: The progressive development of the forces of production
continued under feudalism. Man started using inanimate sources of energy, viz.,
water and wind, besides human labour. The crafts advanced, new implements
and machines were invented and old ones were improved. The labour of
craftsmen was specialized, raising productivity considerably. The development of
forces of production led to emergence of feudal relations of production. These
relations were based on the feudal lord’s ownership of the serfs or landless
peasant. The production relations were relations of domination were more
progressive than in slavery system, because they made the labourers interested,
to some extent, in their labour. The peasants and the artisans could own the
implements or small parts of land.
  These forces of production underwent changes due to new discoveries, increasing
demands for
consumption caused by population increase and discovery of new markets
through colonialism. All this led to the need and growth of mass scale
manufacture. This became possible due to advances in technology. This brought
the unorganized labourers at one place i.e. the factory.
 This sparked off already sharpened class conflict leading to peasant’s revolution
against landowners. The new system of production demanded free labourer
whereas the serf was tied to the land, therefore, the new forces of production
also changed the relations of production culminating into a change in the mode
of production from feudalism to capitalism.
4. Capitalist System: Class Conflict intensified under Capitalism. Large scale machine
production is the specific feature of the productive forces of capitalism. Huge
factories, plants and mines took the place of artisan workshop and
manufacturers. In a century or two capitalism accomplished much in developing
the productive forces than had been done in all the preceding eras of human
history.
 The vigorous growth of the forces of production was helped by the capitalist
relations of production based on private capitalist ownership. Under capitalism,
the producer (worker), the proletariat, is legally free, being attached neither to
the land nor to any particular factory. They are free in the sense that they can go
to work for any capitalist, but they are not free from the bourgeois class as a
whole. Possessing no means of production, they are compelled to sell their labour
power and thereby come under the yoke of exploitation.
 Due to this exploitation the relatively free labourers become conscious of their
class interest and organize themselves into a working class movement. Thus
working class movement intensified its struggle against the bourgeois class. It
begins with bargaining for better wages and working conditions and culminates
into an intensified class conflict which is aimed at overthrowing the capitalist
system. Marx said that the capitalist system symbolizes the most acute from
of inequality, exploitation and class antagonism. This paves the way for a
socialist revolution which would lead to a new stage of society i.e. communism.

“History of hitherto existing society is a history of class struggle”

According to Marx the mode of production of economic structure is the base or

foundation of society. Any change in this infrastructure fundamental changes in the
superstructure and consequently in the society. The changes in the mode of
production are essentially changes in the forces of production and relations of
production. In primitive communal stage there was no surplus production and hence it
had no inequality and exploitation caused by the private ownership of means of the
production. The means of production were common property of the community. With
the development and improvements in the force of production there was increased
productivity. This caused private ownership of means of production and change in the
relations of production. This marked the end of the primitive-communal system and
thus began the long history of inequality, exploitation and class conflict, coinciding with
the emergence of slave-owing society.

In the slave-owning society the class conflict between the slave owners and slaves
reached a peak causing a change in the mode of production from slavery to feudalistic
mode of production. Marx has said that the history of hitherto existing society is a
history of class struggle. This means that the entire history of society is studded with
different phases and periods of class struggle. This history of class struggle begins in
the slave-owing society, continues through feudal society where this class struggle is
between classes of the feudal lords and the landless agricultural laboures or serfs. Due
to change in mode of production and class struggle a new stage of society i. e,
capitalism replaces the age-old feudal system.

In the capitalistic mode of production the class antagonism acquires most acute
dimension. The working class movement gets concretized and reaches its peak.
Through a class conflict between the class of capitalists and the class of industrial
labourers, the capitalist system is replaced by socialism. This violent change has been
termed as revolution by Marx.

That the contradiction between the forces and the relations of production is the basis
of this antagonism. The bourgeoisie is constantly creating more powerful means of
production. But the relations of production that is, apparently, both the relations of
ownership and the distribution of income are not transferred at the same rate. The
capitalist mode of production is capable to produce in bulk, but despite this mass
production and increase in wealth, majority of the population suffers from poverty and
misery. On the other hand, there are a few families who have so much wealth that one
could not even count of imagine. These stark and wide disparities create some tiny
islands of prosperity in a vast ocean of poverty and misery. The onus of this disparity lies
on the unequal, exploitative relations of production which distribute the produce in an
inequal manner. This contradiction, according to Marx, will eventually produce a
revolutionary crisis. The proletariat, which constitutes and will increasingly constitute
the vast majority of the population, will become a class that is, a social entity aspiring
for the seizure of power and transformation of social relations.

Marx did the admirable task of sifting all this material and constructed anew set of
social analysis. His analysis of class-struggle was a unique mix of simple basis
principles with down-to-earth details.

According to Marx, the bottom rung of the social stratification is the proletariat.
Below it there is no class and therefore emancipation of the proletariat will, in fact, is
the emancipation of mankind. Marx accepts the right of the bourgeoisie to fight the
final war. But for the proletariat the battle is for its very survival and it has to win.

The revolutions of the proletariat will differ in kind from all past revolutions. All the
revolutions
of the past were accomplished by minorities for the benefit of minorities. The
revolution of the
proletariat will be accomplished by the vast majority for the benefit of all. The
proletarian revolution will, therefore, mark the end of classes and of the antagonistic
character of capitalist society. This would mean that the private ownership of property
will be abolished. The proletariat will jointly own means of production and distribute
the produce according to the needs of the members of the society. This stage is called
the stage of dictatorship of proletariat. This stage will later on convert into a stateless
society where the communist system will finally be established in the society. This stage
is called the stage of dictatorship of proletariat.

This stage will later on convert into a stateless society where the communist system
will finally be established in the society. This will also end all kinds of social classes
and of all kinds of class conflicts for future. This will also mean delineation of the
proletariat.

Critiques of Karl Marx

1. In context of Class and Polarization of Classes: Unlike Marx, Weber talked about
four classes, He defines the class as a group of individual who share a similar
position in market economy and by virtue of that fact received similar economic
rewards. Thus a person’s class situation, which is a market situation, which
further shows his life chances. In this way Weber says that apart from two major
classes, there is one more class who, though does not have the ownership of
means of production, But the members receives high salaries because of their
demand for services. The four classes are:
 (i)Propertied Upper class (Bourgeoisie)
 (ii)Propertied while collar workers
 (iii)Petty Bourgeoisie
 (iv)Manual worker class.
 Because of distribution of struggle amongst two classes, the class struggle never
becomes as acute as more suggested.
2. In context of polarization of these classes – Weber sees no favour support the
idea of polarization of classes. He finds that the petty bourgeoisie will never sink
to the level of proletariat but rather they will go upward to the position of
propertied white collar collared workers. And even more importantly Weber
argues that the white collar middle class expands rather than contracts as
capitalism develops. Because in his views the world is tending towards a more
and more bureaucratization. Ex- People are going to depend heavily in
bureaucrats. It shows the to polarization of two classes will not happen.
3. In context of inevitability of revolution Max Weber rejects the views held by
some Marxist, of the inevitability of the proletariat revolution for them,
revolution may or may not happen. Weber suggests that individual manual
worker, who is dissatisfied with his class, situation, may respond in following ways
He may grumble, , sabotage industrial machineries (production process), go for
strike, etc for this, there will be a trade union. The petty bourgeoisie, will not sink
to the level of proletariat. It means the workers will not get a leadership. In this
 way Weber concludes that revolution is not inventible but it may be a
possibility, which is remote.
4. In the context of Superstructure(law, power . authority, : According to Marx,
there is only one source of power and that is economic power but Weber finds
three sources of power for this (1) on the basis of class and inequality (economy)
(2) on the basis of inequal distribution of prestige status quo (social (3) party
(political).
5. In the Context of Class struggle. In Dahrendorf words “Instead of advancing their
claim of members of homogenous group, people are more likely to compete with
each other, as individuals for a place in the sun”. As a result class solidarity and
intensity will reduced and (especially class conflict will reduced). The gap between
social and economic inequalities will be reduced. It means clean struggle will be
reduced. He found in his analysis that there is “Decomposition of Labour” (Skilled
workers, Semi Skilled Workers and Unskilled Workers) and “Decomposition of
Capital” (Owners and Managers)
 Functionalist criticizes Marxist theory of stratification on three bases:
1. On the basis of Universality:
2. On the basis of indispensibity or inevitability.
3. On the basis of functionality.
 Functionalist argues that there has not been any society in the history of
mankind, free from Class (stratification system). This is against the Marxist view
point that the primitive community and communist societies are the classless
societies. To prove it Parson has given an example of a primitive tribal society
known as SIOUX INDIAN of America which was stratified.
 Functionalist argue that for proper functioning of society, stratification i.e.
existence of classes (Stratification System) in society is inevitable. TALCOTT
PARSON & DAVIS and MOORE firmly believed in it. They said that in absence of
stratification, the society could work on the basis of equality and that will be an
injustice for the talents and talented people will come against it. Secondly,
without stratification, there will be chaos in society, which is the most unwanted
thing for any society. This is a criticism of Marxist that ideology, in which it was
opined that Class System (stratification) is exploitating and bad for society.
 Unlike Marxist, the functionalist believed that Class System (social stratification) is
functional for society. If there is no stratification, there will not be any
development in society. And for development, skill and talent is required which
varies from person to person. And so stratification becomes necessary and
functional.
 Functionalist like DAVIS & MOORE & MICHAEL YOUNG, argue that talented
people must be given important position in society and therefore they are the
recipients of maximum rewards. This system brings forth a healthy society.
6. In the context of establishment of communism: Though communism was
established in
USSR and China, but it was done after making, much manipulation in Marxist
theory, so its validity is
always questionable. Such critics have become even more important after the
 disintegration of
USSR. In China, also, the kind of communism predicted by Marx does not exist.
 The efforts to bring communist society in other countries like India could not be
successful, because of the present of other mechanisms to sort out the problems
in the system. The violent behavior and activity commit by Maoist cannot be
accepted and a consensus can’t be made for such activities. Therefore, Marx is
irrelevant as far as communism is concerned and these way difficult violent
activities are undertaken to establish such kind of systems.

Relevence of Karl Marx Theory of Class Struggle:

 Political level: Policies have been formulated to avoid class conflict. And generally
democratic and socialist values are being established in all such societies or state
to give everyone liberty and equal opportunities, without any discrimination. And
it is to avoid any kind of conflict.
 Economic term: (1) Agricultures (2) Industry
 (1) Agriculture: Estate system in Europe and Zamindari system in India have been
abolished and peasants have been given lot of benefits so that they could feel
free to work in society.
 (2) Industry: To check the conflict between employers and employers, Employees
have been given many benefits like fixed wages, hikes in wages, medical facilities,
provident fund, gratuity, bonus pension facilities etc. And all together HRD is
working all together to make it happen.
 At international level: In Political terms: preparation of different kinds of
policies, so that a powerful state should not take the advantage to exploit the
weaker states. To work the rules properly, United Nation has been established as
an organisation internationally.
 Globalization, Importance of WTO and World Bank, Interest of workers being
taken care of, Child Labour being prohibited worldwide are the initiative to avoid
conflict Internationally.

In developing countries special like in India:

 To establish India, as Democratic, socialist India, the earlier discriminations on

the basis of caste, sex, religion, race, have been completely abolished from the
system. Many actions have been taken in this way like.
 Removal of practice of untouchability, Abolition of Zamindari System (land
reforms) and to avoid inequalities in economic terms, A guarantee of jobs
(MANEREGA) has been provided to rural labourers and Reservation (Protective
discrimination) has been extended to downtroden people.
 Educational right has been provided to everyone and protection has been given
to religious minorities and also there are different policies to eliminate poverty.
Such changes are the outcome of struggle, directly or indirectly in societies.

CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF MARX

The theory of Marx is plagued by several methodological and conceptual
problems. His theory about capitalist society’s inevitable tendency towards radical
polarization and self-destruction is too simplistic and in error. The most distinct
characteristic of modern capitalism has been the emergence of a large, “contented and
conservative” middle-class consisting of managerial, professional, supervisory, and
technical personnel. Modern corporations entail a separation between ownership and
control; the capitalists who own the instruments of production are not necessarily the
“effective” decision-makers. Also the wide spread ownership of the means of
production through investment in stocks, and the great expansion of government role in
the regulation of big business, redistribution of wealth and general social welfare
functions were not anticipated by Marx.

Today’s capitalism does not justify Marx’s belief that class conflict is essentially
revolutionary in character and that structure changes are always the product of
violent upheavals; organized labor has been able to sway the balance of power and
effect profound structure changes without violent revolution. Marx’s theory of labor
and the deductive reasoning which flows directly from it namely the pauperization of
these masses are wrong. If the value of surplus labor is the only basis of profit, there is
no way to eliminate exploitation and profit accumulation. In fact, most socialist
countries have a higher percentage of accumulation than do capitalist countries.

Marx misjudged the extent of alienation in the average worker. The great depth of
alienation and frustration which Marx “witnessed” among the workers of his day is not
“typical” of today’s capitalism or its worker who tends to identify increasingly with a
number of “meaningful” groups-religious, ethnic, occupational and local. This is not to
deny the existence of alienation but to point out that alienation results more from the
structure of bureaucracy and of mass society than from economic exploitation

Marx also over emphasized the economic base of political power and ignored other
important source of power. Moreover, Marx’s predictions about the downfall of
capitalism have not come true. Contrary to his belief, socialism has triumphed in
predominantly peasant societies whereas capitalist societies show no signs of
destructive class war. And Marx’s classless and stateless society is an utopia; there can
be no society without an authority structure or a regulatory mechanism which inevitably
leads to a crystallization of social relations between the rulers and the ruled, with
inherent possibilities of internal contradiction and conflict.

Marx is leveled as an economic determinist. Basically change is a complex phenomena

where multiple factors continue simultaneously which led to change. If we analyse the
human history, a factor at a particular time can be more important than other factor for
social change. But Marx neglected other factors of social change except economic
factors. Renaissance of Europe in 15th century period created revolutionary change
where ideas were the main factors of change. In contemporary world, the Iranians
Revolution under Ayatollah Khomeini was purely Cultural Revolution. Again the
Turkish revolution under Mustafa Kamal Pasha was a political revolution.
Again the Gandhi mobilized the Indian marcs against the colonial rule on the basis of
nonviolence & Satyagraha. Though the economic exploitation the British era was the
cause of the mobilization but other factors like education, modernization & rising
nationalism also played as important role. Change in a society is a complex
phenomenon; so the Marxian analysis of historical change cannot give the clear picture
of society.

Independence & the constitutional provisions regarding abolition of untouchability,

Zamindari reservation for dispreviliged person has lead structural change in Indian
Society. The social welfare scheme implemented by democratic wefarist states likes
India has brought revolutionary change. Again here the basis of change is not the
economic factor but the idea of democratic planning & social welfare goals.

…………….Before criticizing Marx, it is very clear that Marx was neither a scientist nor a
sociologist. The historical naturalism is a philosophical representation of Karl Marx
world view. Also he never wasted to put a sociological theory. He was a political
agitator Marx main agitation is to bring the social reality of his time into the forefront
of political debate.

Before Marx, Leezing tried to explain 3 stages of moral evolution of human society. The
contemporaries of Marx tried to explain human evolution with the help of religious
books. German thinker Emanuel Kant said that human history is a history of conflict for
the freedom human being. This thought influenced Marx’s writings. Before Karl Marx
sociologist like August Comte tried to explain the evolution of knowledge in history-
Theological-metaphysical-positivism. Then Herbert Spencer contributed to the theory of
evolution by telling that the society passes through two stages (Military – industry). L.H.
Morgan, Oswald Spengler also talks about evolution of human history but before Karl
Marx nobody talked the evolution of human history in materialistic term. Also, Marx
was the 1st thinker who talked about how one stages change into another. Marx tried
to establish a cause & effect relationship between changes (from one stage to
another). Sociology is the scientific study of human interaction & Marx tried to explain
the evolution of human history in a scientific manner. Though he did not use all the
methods of science but he was not lacking scientific explanation.

CONTRIBUTION OF MARX TO SOCIOLOGY

Karl Marx never saw himself in the role of a sociologist, his prime concern being to bring
about a revolutionary transformation in the then contemporary European society.
Nevertheless, ideas of Karl Marx have greatly contributed to the development of
modern sociology. In fact, he is the founder of the conflict tradition in modern sociology
and his ideas have stimulated a lively debate which has enriched and discipline.

New perspective and a new approach: He contributed a new perspective and a new
approach to the study of social phenomena. He highlighted the role of economic factors
in shaping various institutions of society. This has been accepted as an academic
methodology in social science.
Analysis of class and Class conflict: His theory of class and class conflict, though no
longer relevant to a present day society, has been an immensely valuable contribution.
It has stimulated further debate and research which enriched sociology as a discipline.
Ralf Dahrendorf has modified the Marxian theory of class and class struggle to make it
applicable to contemporary industrial societies.

Theory of social change: In Marx’s ideas, one can also find a theory of social change.
Although, Marx’s
predictions regarding the future of capitalist societies have been largely disproved by
the developments of history in 20th century yet. Marx’s theory of social change remains
a valuable tool to analyse continuity and change.

The concept of alienation is another important contribution to sociology. The concept

of alienation was further developed by other sociologists like C.W. Mills and Herbert
Marcuse, etc. to adapt it to contemporary societies.

Marxian ideas have influenced the thinking of many sociologists. Prominent among
them being C.W. Mills and the ‘critical’ theorists of Frankfort School namely, Adorno,
Habermas, and Marcuse. The ‘critical’ theorists have aimed to restore the philosophical
dimensions of Marxism. They have developed a series of concepts intended to go
beyond Marx to interpret the changes that have taken place in the world since his
death. These consists mainly in adding the dimensions of social psychology to Marx’s
work and emphasizing the basic proposition that, if society is increasingly under the
artificial control of technocrats, any purely empirical approach to social reality must end
up as a defence of that control. In Eros and Civilization, Marcuse attempted a synthesis
of Freud and Marx. But it was One Dimensional Man which made Marcuse famous,
particularly when some of its ideas seemed to offer an interpretation of the student
revolts of the late 1960’s. Marcuse’s pessimism about the revolutionary potential of a
proletariat dominated (along with the rest of society) by an all pervasive technocratic
ideology led him to place his faith in the substratum of the outcast and the outsiders,
the exploited and persecuted minorities such as students and blacks which would
involve a meeting of the ‘most advanced consciousness of humanity and its most
exploited force.’

Today Marxists are striking back. They blame imperialism for the failure of Marx’s
prophecy. They argue that advanced industrialized nations have been able to fortify
their capitalist economy by exploiting the rest of the world through colonialism and the
“sovereign” multi-national corporations. Conflict sociologists make effective use of
Marxian theoretical schema to explain the processes of class conflict and revolutionary
movements around the world: conflicts between landless peasantry and landed
aristocracy, between political and military elite, between incongruent status groups in
newly emerging industrial societies, populist movements and conservative counter-
revolutions, colonialism and imperialism, international conservative counter-
revolutions, colonialism and imperialism, international conspiracies and ideological
warfares, and between socialism and democracy.
Contemporary Marxist sociology has accumulated a considerable amount of “evidence”
to substantiate the Marxian postulates that economic position is the major determinant
of one’s life-style, attitudes, and behaviour, and that strategic position in the economic
structure along with access to effective means of production and distribution hold the
key to political power. The modern theory of power elite is only a variation of the
Marxian theme.

Above all, Marx’s theory of class is not a theory of stratification but a comprehensive
theory of social change-a tool for the explanation of change in total societies. This, T.B.
Bottomore, a leading expert on Marxist sociology, considers to be a major contribution
of Marx to sociological analysis: “…the view of societies as inherently mutable systems,
in which changes are produced largely by internal contradictions and conflicts, and the
assumption that such changes, if observed in a large number of instances, will show a
sufficient degree of regularity to allow the formulation of general statements about
their causes and consequences.”

Bottomore account for the recent growth of Marxist sociology. One important reason
for the present revival of interest is the fact that Marx’s theory stands in direct
opposition on every major point to the functionalist theory which has dominated
sociology and anthropology for the past twenty or thirty years, but which has been
found increasingly unsatisfactory. Where functionalism emphasizes social harmony,
Marxism emphasizes social conflict; where functionalism direct attention to the stability
and persistence of social forms, Marxism is radically historical in its outlook and
emphasizes the changing structure of society; where functionalism concentrates upon
the regulation of social life by general values and norms, Marxism stresses the
divergence of interests and values within each society and the role of force in
maintaining over a longer or shorter period of time, a given social order. The contrast
between “equilibrium” and “conflict” models of society, which was stated forcefully by
Dahrendorf in , has now become commonplace; and Marx’s theories are regularly
invoked in opposition to those of Durkheim, Pareto and Malinowski, the principal
architects of the functionalist theory”

A BRIEFING OF MARXIAN PERSPECTIVE on the basis of Above Descriptions:

 According to Marx, the world, including the social world, is better characterized
by flux and change rather than by stability or permanence of phenomena.
 Change is not random in the social world (as in the natural world), but
orderly. In that uniformities and regularities can be observed and scientific
findings can be made about them.
 In the social world, the key to this pattern of change can be found in men’s
relationship in the economic order. Subsistence, the need to make a living, must
be achieved in all societies. How, subsistence is achieved, affects the whole
structure of any society.
 Society can be viewed as an interrelated system of parts with the
economy (infrastructure) influencing the other parts (superstructure).
  According to Marx, man is essentially rational, intelligent and sensitive, but these
qualities can be changed into their opposites if the social arrangements of a
society are so badly designed as to allow some men to pursue their own interest
to the detriment of others. This creates conditions for the conflicts between the
deprived (proletariats) and their exploiters (bourgeoisie).
 Social reality being an external reality, with its own independent existence, is
amendable to sense perception and therefore methods of positive science can
be employed. However, mere empiricism is not adequate in knowing the essence
of human behavior therefore, empirical data have to interpreted from ‘historical
materialist’ standpoint.
 Change is a characteristic feature of human society and it takes place in an
ordered fashion. Thus laws governing change can be discovered.
 Change in the relations of production and the superstructure is normally
preceded by conflict between groups having mutually opposed interests.
 Conflict and changes in society must be explained in the light of the forces
operating in the economic structure.
 Man’s thinking and attitudes are shaped by the nature of society he lives in,
especially, by the way he participates in the process of production, therefore it is
very difficult to study one’s society in a detached and dispassionate manner as is
required of science. Some men can, however succeed in being objective. Marx
considered himself to be such a man.

EMILE DURKHEIM
Emile Durkheim – Division of labour, social fact, suicide, religion and society
Durkheim was born in Epinal, France. He came from a long line of devout French Jews;
his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather had all been rabbis. He began his
education in a rabbinical school, but at an early age, decided not to follow in his family’s
footsteps and switched schools, realizing that he preferred to study religion from an
agnostic standpoint as opposed to being indoctrinated. Durkheim entered the École
Normale Supérieure (ENS) in 1879.

Durkheim became interested in a scientific approach to society very early on in his

career, which meant the first of many conflicts with the French academic system, which
had no social science curriculum at the time. Durkheim found humanistic studies
uninteresting, turning his attention from psychology and philosophy to ethics and
eventually, sociology. He graduated with a degree in philosophy in 1882. Durkheim’s
views could not get him a major academic appointment in Paris, so from 1882 to 1887
he taught philosophy at several provincial schools. In 1885 he left for Germany, where
he studied sociology for two years. Durkheim’s period in Germany resulted in the
publication of numerous articles on German social science and philosophy, which gained
recognition in France, earning him a teaching appointment at the University of
Bordeaux in 1887. This was an important sign of the change of times, and the growing
importance and recognition of the social sciences. From this position, Durkheim helped
reform the French school system and introduced the study of social science in its
curriculum. Also in 1887, Durkheim married Louise Dreyfus, with whom he later had two
children.

In 1893, Durkheim published his first major work, The Division of Labor in Society, in
which he introduced the concept of “anomie”, or the breakdown of the influence of
social norms on individuals within a society. In 1895, he published The Rules of
Sociological Method, his second major work, which was a manifesto stating what
sociology is and how it ought to be done. In 1897, he published his third major work,
Suicide: A Study in Sociology, a case study exploring the differing suicide rates among
Protestants and Catholics and arguing that stronger social control among Catholics
results in lower suicide rates.

By 1902, Durkheim had finally achieved his goal of attaining a prominent position in
Paris when he became the chair of education at the Sorbonne. Durkheim also served
as an advisor to the Ministry of Education. In 1912, he published his last major work,
The Elementary Forms of The Religious Life, a book that analyzes religion as a social
phenomenon.

INFLUENCE OF PREDECESSORS on Emile Durkheim:

1. The father of sociology Auguste Comte, wanted to develop sociology as positive

sciences so that social faith could be directly observe and proper solution could
be given to related problems. Durkheim was highly influenced by his view point
the corroboration of which we find in his statement “consider ‘social facts as
things”.
2. UTILITARIAN POSITIVISTS: They are basically economist and for them the social
system or society is made up of human beings and everyone has a special quality
in oneself and those qualities are useful for the system that is with the help of
their utility, social system as properly governed. In this way the focal point of
study for utilitarian positivist is an individual.
3. Durkheim while rejecting this aspect accepted the positive aspect and in this way
propounded his self structured positivism. In which he turned down their thinking
that individual is important for society. According to Durkheim individual is
nothing in himself and society is everything. Thus society is not made up of
individuals but rather the existence of individual is very much attached into the
existence of society. This is why Durkheim focal point of study is society or social
fact with which the collective conscious is attached.

Nature And Scope Of Sociology According To Durkheim:

Durkheim was explicitly concerned with outlining the nature and scope of Sociology.
Durkheim considered social sciences to be distinct from natural sciences because
social sciences deal with human relationship. However the method used in the natural
sciences could be used in the social sciences as well.

He was concerned with examining the nature of Sociology as a social science distinct
from Philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with ideas and conceptions whereas science
is concerned with objective realities. Philosophy is the source from where all science
has emerged. Durkheim advocated for positivist method to study social phenomena.

Durkheim laid down the general conditions for the establishment of a social science
which also applies to Sociology:

1. SCIENCE DEALS WITH A SPECIFIED AREA OR A SUBJECT MATTER OF ITS OWN,

NOT WITH TOTAL KNOWLEDGE .He pointed out Science is not concerned with
total human knowledge or thought. Not every type of question the mind can
formulate can be tested by science. It is possible for something to be the object of
the philosopher or artist and not necessarily stuff of science at all.
2. SCIENCE MUST HAVE A DEFINITE FIELD TO EXPLORE. Science is concerned with
things, objective realities. For social science to exist it must have a definite
subject matter. Philosophers, Durkheim points out, have been aware of ‘things’
called laws, traditions, religion and so on, but the reality of these was in a large
measure dissolved by their instance on dealing with these as manifestations of
human will. Inquiry was thus concentrated on the internal will rather than upon
external bodies of data. So it is important to look to things as they appear in this
world.
3. SCIENCE DOES NOT DESCRIBE INDIVIDUALS BUT ‘TYPES OR CLASSES OF SUBJECT
MATTER’. If human societies classified then they help us in arriving at general
rules and discover regularities of behaviour. Social science which classifies the
various human societies, describes the normal form of social life in each type of
society’, for the simple reason that it describes the type itself; whatever pertains
to the type is normal and whatever is normal is healthy.
4. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF A SCIENCE YIELDS ‘GENERAL PRINCIPLES’ OR ‘LAWS’. If
societies were not subject to regularities, no social science would be possible.
Durkheim further points out that since the principle that all the phenomena of
the universe are closely interrelated has been found to be true in the other
domains of nature, it is also valid for human societies which are a part of nature.
In putting forth the idea that there is a ‘continuity of the natural and social
worlds’, Durkheim has been strongly influenced by Comte.

Durkheim and positivism:

Durkheim argued for his own methods on the grounds that they were essential to the
development of a ‘positive science’, i.e. an approach seeking to find law-like relations
among phenomena and modelled on the physical sciences. In this respect, Durkheim
was an inheritor of the legacy of his French predecessor Auguste Comte (1798–1857), a
founder both of positivism and of sociology in the mid-nineteenth century.
In Suicide, Durkheim subjected official figures on suicide to statistical analysis, indicating
how sociology might be taken in a quantitative direction. For a time in the 1950s and
early 1960s this approach had ensured Durkheim much attention from methodologically
minded social scientists. The idea that sociology could and should be a science was very
strong; so was the notion that science required the discipline to be quantitative.
However, with the interpretative turn, which began in the mid-1960s, talk about
sociology as a positive science and about quantification became hallmarks of the
positivist outlook, by then anathema to many in sociology. Indeed, Durkheim came to
emblematise all that was politically and epistemologically unacceptable in sociology.

Against individualism
In line with our earlier consideration of the theme of humanism in Marx, we begin with
Durkheim predominantly as a critic of individualism. His critique has two main strands:

1. It is a fundamental misconception to suppose that society is (only) an aggregate

of individuals, i.e. he opposed the view that the properties of society are merely
the properties of individuals writ large.
2. Individuals cannot pre-exist society, i.e. individualism as a doctrine is only
conceivable in a certain kind of society; individuals, as represented by this idea of
individualism, are only possible in this kind of society.

Durkheim’s major target, then, is the idea, the doctrine, of ‘individualism’, which he
seeks to expose as an ideology, to use a Marxist term.

Individualism

 In Durkheim’s sense, individualism prizes unconditionally the distinctness and

independence of individual human beings, who are to be treated as inviolable in
their freedom and autonomy. The idea that individuals should be subordinate to
any collective authority is to be borne, if at all, only in the most limited and
necessary circumstances.
 The doctrine of individualism is in many respects a political doctrine—its classical
statements remain the political theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke—
about the relationship of the individual to the rest of society and, in particular, to
the putative representative of that society, the state. However, individualism also
has a potentially scientific, methodological aspect to it in suggesting that the
constituents of social reality are only and exclusively individual human beings.
 According to this view, ‘society’ is merely a name for the other individuals in
relationship with whom a given individual co-exists. The only way to understand
society, then, is to understand the general nature of all those individuals as an
aggregate. To take a simple example of the kind Marx railed against, the
competitive nature of capitalist society is understood as a result of the natural
competitiveness and acquisitiveness of human beings generally. Indeed,
individualism often conceives of human nature as essentially anti-social, for the
individual is conceived of as being motivated only by self- interest. In a picture
 explicitly painted in Hobbes’s Leviathan, individuals lack all concern for others;
they exist in society most reluctantly, conceding to the collective some of their
freedoms and rights only for the sake of the benefits to be derived. Durkheim
maintained that such conceptions were quite false: to attempt to apply them was
entirely the wrong method for a genuine science of society. Nevertheless,
Durkheim was unswervingly confident that society could be studied scientifically.

How is a science of society possible?

1. Durkheim assumed that for there to be a science it has to have a subject matter.
On the face of it, the appropriate science of society is psychology, the science of
the individual mind. After all, if we can understand the mind, we shall understand
why individuals behave as they do, and will have no need of an additional science,
sociology. Durkheim was eager to dismiss this assumption, but was aware, also,
that it has a natural appeal; individual human creatures are tangible, we can
encounter and observe them in the flesh, whereas society seems to be no more
than an abstraction from their behaviour. We do not meet society in the street,
exchange words with it, and watch it going about its activities. Surely individuals
are real but society is not. However intuitively true this view may seem, Durkheim
insists it is false. True, society is not directly observable, perhaps, but it is
observable in its effects. It does exist; it may not be detected by the conscious
awareness of those individuals, yet it causally affects their actions.
2. In this way Durkheim argues that sociology can be a science that treats of a
genuine subject matter because society exists as an authentic natural reality. It is
as much a reality as physical nature, though different in character. Early on, in the
way he set out in The Rules of Sociological Method (1966), he tried to present the
lineaments of his general strategy. There he argued that the way to establish, in
principle, the reality of society was to reveal the criteria that define something as
a reality. They are general criteria, which include physical reality as a special case.

Criteria for reality

To say something is a reality is to say two main things:

1. It is external, i.e. exists outside our individual consciousness.

2. It is constraining, i.e. its existence sets limits to our actions.

For example, a brick wall is patently a reality because it exists in the world out there and
it resists our
actions if we try to walk through it. If these are the criteria of facts, i.e. of real things,
then Durkheim says
that society satisfies them.
How can this assertion be justified?

1. It cannot sensibly be disputed, of course, that the patterns of life in our society
are not simply individual inventions. The law is not something that I or any other
individual has invented. The law has been developed collectively, built up over a
long time by many individuals. It now confronts me as a thing that exists in the
world, whether I will it to do so or not. One test for reality is satisfied; such social
facts are external.
2. Further, if I try to act in the world, the law may offer me resistance. I cannot
simply do anything that I want to do. Yet the law is not necessarily constraining
from a subjective point of view, even though objectively this is the case. For many
of my actions, I take account of the law in a way which affects those actions, but I
do not perhaps experience it as resistance to my individual will. I have simply
become accustomed to doing things in ways which comply with the law. For
example, when I decide to get some cash, I go into the bank, present a cheque
and am given the cash in return.
3. Consequently, it may seem that I freely do what I want. However, I am doing it in
conformity with the law, the way I have to do it if I want my actions to be
unimpeded. Suppose I decide to do otherwise, by entering the bank armed with a
pistol. In that case I will meet resistance, people will try to refuse to give me the
money; they will try to capture me and, eventually, to incarcerate me in prison.
The law exists, then, as something which, in designing my actions, I must take into
account as a real consideration, just as much as I take into account the brick wall
adjoining the door which I use to pass through to the next room. Consequently,
the second test of a social fact is demonstrated, i.e. it constrains actions.

Social unity:
If a society is to be said to exist, then it must satisfy certain conditions for unity
(otherwise, as a matter of simple tautology, it would not exist, and we could not say
that it did).

Durkheim’s functionalism originates in the notion that for a society to exist it must be
ordered in such a way as to meet these conditions. If a society exists, and is
bounded?, in what way is it bounded? It must have an inside and an outside, but what
does the line between the two differentiate? A tempting idea might be geography, for,
of course, societies are often identified with territories. In Durkheim’s view this cannot
be an answer, not least because of the methodological rule, which he has laid down,
that a social fact cannot be explained by any other kind of fact, physical, biological,
geographical, climatological or psychological, but only by other social facts. The
boundary that demarcates a society must be social: it must relate to membership, which
includes or excludes people. For example, French persons visiting England do not,
thereby, become part of English society, although they are present on English territory,
since they do not have the relevant membership. Further, the boundary is moral in
nature. The line of demarcation runs between acceptable and unacceptable conduct;
those who transgress basic rules—criminals, the mentally ill—are outside the society.
That the very existence of society presupposes such a demarcation, Durkheim illustrates
with an ingenious account of the nature of crime.

The foundations of society:

1. Durkheim’s rejection of individualism takes the form of a thoroughgoing critique

of the utilitarian school of thought. Some thinkers have argued that individuals
make up the ways and practices of society on the basis of their practical
usefulness to them. For example, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) offers the picture
of individuals setting up a sovereign authority as a means of regulating their
relationship between themselves and restricting the mutually destructive
tendencies that unregulated competition would produce.
2. Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) had the idea that society consists of individuals,
who devise contractual relationships as a way of facilitating their transactions
with one another. This explanation does not work. It is an illusion that a contract
is created purely by the individuals who are party to it. Certainly, individual
parties do make up any one specific contract, but these parties expect this
particular contract to be like all contracts in general, i.e. to be created within a
pre-established moral framework. After all, if contracts were merely a matter of
individual-to individual agreement, then what would be the point of creating
them? If individuals did not trust one another to do as they say, then there would
be no point in attempting to improve one’s position towards the other by getting
him or her to make an explicit, formal agreement obliging the required actions. If
one’s word were not to be trusted, then why would a mere signature on an
agreement be any more reliable? The value of a contract resides in its being made
against the background of institutional arrangements. It does not simply bind the
actual parties, but also involves obligations on others who are not party to the
contractual agreement. The forces of law and order will support the claims of
someone who has made a contract if that contract is validly made. Furthermore,
society lays down what a contract can validly be; it is defined in terms of
understandings in the society at large so that, for example, in our society one
cannot make a contract to sell oneself into slavery.
3. Non-contractual elements in contract A framework of moral understandings and
of social arrangements of enforcement is presupposed in the making of a
contract. The parties to the contract do not establish this framework, but it is
necessary if their action of making a contract is to have any sense.
4. Consequently, the idea of society being founded in some sort of contractual
arrangement between individuals—invoked by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78)
as well as Hobbes and Spencer—is a non-starter. Hence Durkheim’s argument
about non-contractual elements in contract opposes the idea that the actions of
individuals can antedate the existence of society, since the capacity to perform
actions, and not just those of contract- making, extensively presupposes the
existence of a social framework, i.e. shared rules and forms of social organisation.
5. The idea of the individual— which we described above as ‘political’—is essentially
one of distinctiveness and autonomy, of someone entirely independent of others;
 individuals should, ideally, be left free to do whatsoever they want (within distinct
but very broad limits). This idea is not a conception of human nature, though it
offers itself as such. Rather, it is only thinkable in a certain kind of society,
namely, the complex, modern society we now inhabit.
6. The individual, in this sense, cannot exist in the simplest, most basic form of
society—one which Durkheim terms ‘mechanical’. In the very simplest societies
(as Durkheim conceived them) there is little specialisation; the individual human
beings engage in similar activities on a self- sufficient basis. Self-sufficiency means
that there is little interdependence within the society: any single part of the
society—an individual or family group—is not significant to, or essential for, the
group’s continued existence. The solidarity of such a group derives from likeness,
not interdependence; the members feel bonds of unity because they are much
alike in their pattern of life and also in outlook.
7. Under such basic conditions, life is homogeneous, and the space for the
development of distinctive patterns of thought or outlook is severely restricted.
Individuals learn their convictions from others and have little or no reason to
challenge or depart from them. Since the variety of their own experience is so
limited, it serves only to confirm those same shared beliefs in the eyes of each
individual. The analogy underpinning this notion of mechanical solidarity comes
from the conception in physics of the mechanical structure of a gas, which is
made up of identical individual and independent atomic units.
8. Of course, in line with Durkheim’s argument about crime, it follows that if a
mechanical society ensures such standard existence and uniformity of belief,
then there will be strong, widely shared sentiments and, therefore, intense,
punitive reaction against crime, i.e. against anyone who might become different.
Under pressure of population growth, such a society will begin to change its
nature, for it cannot simply continue to expand while remaining the same. Here
Durkheim is echoing Hegel’s idea of quantity into quality. The need for a society
to cope with increasing numbers gives rise to the development of specialization,
i.e. a division of labour.

Social Fact:
To Durkheim society is a ‘reality sui generis’. Hence society represents a specific reality
which has its own characteristics. This unique reality of society is separate from other
realities individuals and is over and above them. Thus ‘this reality of society must be the
subject matter of sociology’. A scientific understanding of any social phenomenon must
emerge from the ‘collective or associational’ characteristics manifest in the social
structure of a society. While working towards this end, Durkheim developed and made
use of a variety of sociological concepts. “Collective representation” is one of the
leading concepts to be found in the social thought of Durkheim. Before learning about
‘collective representations’ it is necessary to understand what Durkheim meant by
‘social facts’.

Social fact is that way of acting, thinking or feeling etc., which is more or less general
in a given society. Durkheim treated social facts as things. They are real and exist
independent of this individual’s will or desire. They are external to individuals and are
capable of exerting constraint upon them. In other words they are coercive in nature.
Further social facts exist in their own right. They are independent of individual
manifestations. The true nature of social facts lies in the collective or associational
characteristics inherent in society. Legal codes and customs, moral rules, religious
beliefs and practices, language etc. are all social facts.

Analysis of the Definition:

1. Durkheim saw social facts as laying in a continuum. First, on the one extreme
are structural or morphological-social phenomena. They make up the
substratum of collective life. By this he meant the number and nature of
elementary parts of which society is composed, the way in which the
morphological constituents are arranged and the degree to which they are fused
together. In this category of social facts following are included: the distribution of
population over the surface of the territory, the forms of dwellings, nature of
communication system etc. All the above mentioned social facts form a
continuum and constitute a social milieu of society.
2. Further Durkheim made an important distinction in terms of NORMAL AND
PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL FACTS: A SOCIAL FACT IS NORMAL WHEN IT IS
GENERALLY ENCOUNTERED IN A SOCIETY OF A CERTAIN TYPE AT A CERTAIN
PHASE IN ITS EVOLUTION. Every deviation from this standard is a pathological
fact. For example, ‘some degree of crime’ is inevitable and normal in any society.
Hence according to Durkheim crime to some extent is a normal fact. However, an
extraordinary increase in the rate of crime is pathological. Periodical price rise is
normal social fact but economic crisis leading to anarchy in society are other
examples of pathological facts.
3. For Durkheim the ‘subject’ of sociology is the “social fact”, and that social facts
must be regarded as ‘things’. In Durkheim’s view sociology as an ‘objective
science’ must conform to the model of the other sciences. It posed two
requirements: first the ‘subject’ of sociology must be specific’. And it must
be distinguished from the ‘subjects’ of all other sciences. Secondly the ‘subject’
of sociology must be such as to be “observed and explained”. Similar to the way
in which facts are observed and explained in other sciences.

Main characteristics of social facts:

 Externality,
 Constraint,
 Independence, and
 Generality.

 Social facts, according to Durkheim, exist outside individual consciences. Their

existence is external to the individuals. For example ‘domestic or civic or
contractual obligations’ are defined, externally to be individual, ‘in laws and
customs’. ‘Religious beliefs and practices exist outside and prior’ to the individual.
 An individual takes birth in a society and leaves it; however “social facts” are
already given in society. For example language continues to function
independently of any single individual.
 The other characteristic of social fact is that it exercises a constraint on
individuals. “Social fact” is recognized because it ‘forces itself’ on the
individual. For example, the institutions of law, education beliefs etc. are already
given to everyone from without. They are ‘commanding and obligatory’ for all.
Such a phenomenon is typically social because its basis, its subject is the group as
a whole and not one individual in particular.
 A social fact is that which has more or less a general occurrence in a
society. Also it is ‘independent of the personal features of individuals’ or
‘universal attributes of human nature’.

Examples are the beliefs, feelings and practices of the group taken collectively. The
social fact is specific. It is born of the association of individuals. It represents a
‘collective content of social group. or society’. It differs in kind from what occurs in
individual consciousness. Social facts can be subjected to categorization and
classification. Above all social facts from the subjects matter of the science of sociology.

There are two related senses in which social facts are independent to the individual.

 First, every individual is born into an ongoing society which already has a definite
organisation or structure. There are values, norms beliefs and practices which the
individual finds readymade at birth and which he learns through the process of
socialization. Since these phenomena exist prior of the individual and have an
objective reality, They are external to the individual.
 Secondly, social facts are independent to the individual in the sense that anyone
individual is only a single element within the totality of relationship which
constitutes of society. These relationships are not the creation of any single
individual, but are constituted by multiple interactions between individuals. To
understand the relationship between the individuals and the society, Durkheim
draws a parallel to the relationship. A living cell consists of mineral parts like
atoms of Hydrogen and Oxygen; just as society is composed of individuals. Yet life
such as, the living beings are more important than their parts. The whole is
greater than the collection of parts. The whole (society) differs from individual
manifestations of it. In putting forward this criterion Durkheim wanted to show
that social facts are distinct from individual or psychological facts. Therefore their
study should be conducted in an autonomous discipline independent of
Psychology, i.e. Sociology.

The social facts put moral ‘constraint’ they exercise on the individual. When the
individual attempts to resist social facts they assert themselves. The assertion may
range from a mild ridicule to social isolation and moral and legal sanction. However, in
most circumstances individuals conform to social facts and therefore do not consciously
fell their constraining character. This conformity is not so much due to the fear of
sanction being applied as the acceptance of the legitimacy of the social facts.
Durkheim put forward his view to counter the utilitarian view point which was
prevalent during his time that society could be held together and there would be
greatest happiness if each individual worked in his self-interest. Durkheim did not
agree, Individual’s interest and society’s interest do not coincide. For social order, it
was necessary for society to exercise some control or pressure over its members.

 To confirm the coerciveness of social facts in their effects on individuals,

Durkheim looks at education’s efforts “to impose on the child ways of seeing,
feeling, and acting which he could not have arrived at spontaneously …..the aim
of education is, precisely, the socialisation of human being; parents and teachers
are merely the representatives and intermediaries of the social milieu which
tends to fashion him in its own image”.
 Durkheim adds that social facts cannot be defined merely by their universality.
Thus a thought or movement repeated by all individuals is not thereby a social
fact. What is important is “the corporate” or “collective aspects” of the beliefs,
tendencies and practices of a group that characterize truly social phenomena”.
These social phenomena are transmitted through the collective means of
socialization.

Thus social facts can be recognized because they are external to the individuals on the
one hand, and are capable of exercising coercion over them on the other. Since they
are external they are also general and because they are collective, they can be imposed
on the individuals who form a given society.

Rules for the Observation Of Social Fact:

The first rule that Durkheim gives us is: “consider social facts as things” Social facts are
real. As ‘things’ they have to be studied by ‘the empirical method’ and ‘not direct
intuition’; and also, they ‘cannot be modified by a simple effort of the will’.

While studying social facts as ‘things’ three rules have to be followed in order to be
objective:

1. All preconceptions must be eradicated. The sociologist must emancipate himself

from the common place ideas that dominate the mind of the layman and adopt
an ‘emotionally neutral attitude’ towards what he sets out to investigate.
2. The sociologist has to formulate the concepts precisely. At the outset of the
research the sociologist is likely to have very ‘little knowledge of the phenomenon
in question’. Therefore he must proceed by conceptualizing his subject matter in
terms of those properties which are external enough to be observed. Thus in
Division of Labour the type of solidarity in a society can be perceived by looking at
the type of law – repressive or restitutive, criminal or civil – which is dominant in
the society.
3. When the sociologist undertakes the investigation of some order of social facts
he must consider them from an aspect that in independent of their individual
manifestations. The objectivity of social facts depends on their being separated
from individual facts which express them. They provide a common standard for
 members of society. They exist in the form of legal rules, moral regulations,
proverbs, social conventions, etc. It is these that the sociologist must study to
gain an understanding of social life.

Rules For Distinguishing B/W the Normal and the Pathological:

1. Durkheim makes a distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘pathological’ social facts.

But Durkheim explains that a social fact is considered to be normal when it is
understood in the context of the society in which it exists. Social fact which is
‘general’ to a given type of society is ‘normal’ when it has utility for that societal
type.As an illustration he cites the case of crime. We consider crime as
pathological. But Durkheim argues that though we may refer to crime as immoral
because it flouts values we believe in, from a scientific view point it would be
incorrect to call it abnormal. Firstly because crime is present not only in the
majority of societies of one particular type but in all societies of all types.
Secondly, if there were not occasional deviances or flouting of norms, there
would be no change in human behaviour and equally important, no opportunities
through which a society can either reaffirm the existing norms or else reassess
such behaviour and modify the norm itself. To show that crime is useful to the
society, Durkheim cites the case of Socrates, who according to Athenian law
was a criminal, in his country because it served to prepare a new morality and
faith which the Athenians needed. It also rendered a service to humanity in the
sense that freedom of thought enjoyed by people in many countries today was
made possible by people like him.
2. When the rate of crime exceeds what is more or less constant for a given social
type, then it becomes an abnormal or pathological fact i.e. sudden rise in the
suicide rate in Western Europe during the nineteenth century was a cause for
concern for Durkheim and one of the reasons why he decided to study this
phenomenon.
3. Classification of societies into types is an important step towards explanation as
problems and their explanations will differ for each type. It is also needed to
decide whether a social fact is normal or abnormal, since a social fact is normal or
abnormal only in relation to a given social type. Durkheim uses the term ‘social
morphology’ for the classification of social types. The question is, how are social
types constituted? The word “type” means ‘the common characteristics of
several units in a group’ e.g. “bachelors” and “married person” belong to two
types and Durkheim was able to show that suicide rates are found more among
the ‘bachelors’. (Please do not apply this to individual cases.)
4. We must study each particular society completely and then compare these to
see the similarities and differences. Accordingly, we can classify them. In order to
know whether a fact is general throughout a species or social type, it is not
necessary to observe all societies of this social type; only a few will suffice.
According to Durkheim, “Even one well made observation will be enough in
many cases, just as one well constructed experiment often suffices for the
establishment of a law” Durkheim wants societies to be classified according to
 their degree of organization, taking as a basis the ‘perfectly simple society’ or the
‘society of one segment’ like the ‘horde’. Hordes combine to form ‘aggregates’
which one could call ‘simple polysegmental’. These combine to form
‘polysegmental societies simply compounded’. A union of such societies would
result in the still more complex societies called ‘polysegmental societies doubly
compounded’ and so on.

Rules for the Explanation of Social Facts :

 There are two approaches which may be used in the “explanation of social fact”s
– “the causal” and “the functional”. The former is concerned with
explaining ‘why’ the social phenomenon in question exists. The latter involves
establishing the “correspondence between the fact under consideration and the
general needs of the social organism, and in what this correspondence
consist”. The causes which give rise to a given social fact must be identified
separately from whatever social functions it may fulfill. Normally, one would try
to establish causes before specifying functions. This is because knowledge of the
causes which bring a phenomenon into being can, under certain circumstances,
allow us to derive some insight into its possible function. Although ‘cause’ and
‘function’ have a separate character this does not prevent a reciprocal relation
between the two and one can start either way.
 In fact Durkheim sees a sense in the beginning of his study of Division of Labour
with function in Part I and then coming to causes in Part II. Let us take an example
of ‘punishment’ from the same work: crime offends collective sentiments in a
society, and the criminal is punished. The act of punishment strengthens the
sentiments necessary for social unity.
 The method by which Social Facts may be developed: The nature of social facts
determines the method of explaining these facts. Since the subject matter of
sociology has a social character – it is collective in nature – the explanation should
also have a social character. Durkheim draws sharp line between individual and
society (society is a separate reality from the individuals who compose it and has
its own characteristics) and also a line between psychology and sociology. Any
attempt to explain social facts directly in terms of individual characteristics or in
terms of psychology would make the explanation false. Therefore in the case of
causal explanation “the determining cause of a social fact should be sought
among the social facts preceding it and not among the states of the individual
consciousness”. In the case of functional explanation “the function of a social fact
ought always to be sought in its relation to some social end”.
 THE FINAL POINT ABOUT DURKHEIM’S LOGIC OF EXPLANATION IS HIS STRESS
UPON THE COMPARATIVE NATURE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE. To show that a given fact
is the cause of another we have to compare cases in which they are
simultaneously present or absent, to see if the variations they present in these
different combinations of circumstances indicate that one depends on the
other”. SINCE SOCIOLOGISTS NORMALLY DO NOT CONDUCT LABORATORY
CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS BUT STUDY REPORTED FACTS OR GO TO THE FIELD
 AND OBSERVE SOCIAL FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SPONTANEOUSLY PRODUCE,
THEY USE THE METHOD OF INDIRECT EXPERIMENT OR THE COMPARATIVE
METHOD.
 DURKHEIM, FOLLOWING J.S. MILL’S SYSTEM OF LOGIC, REFERS APPRECIATIVELY
TO THE ‘METHOD OF CONCOMITANT VARIATIONS’ AS THE PROCEDURE OF THE
COMPARATIVE METHOD. HE CALLS IT ‘THE INSTRUMENT PAR EXCELLENCE OF
SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH’. FOR THIS METHOD TO BE RELIABLE, IT IS NOT
NECESSARY THAT ALL THE VARIABLES DIFFERING FROM THOSE WHICH WE ARE
COMPARING TO BE STRICTLY EXCLUDED. THE MERE PARALLEL BETWEEN THE
TWO PHENOMENA FOUND IN A SUFFICIENT NUMBER AND VARIETY OF CASES IS
EVIDENCE THAT A POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP EXIST BETWEEN THEM. Its validity is
due to the fact that the concomitant variations display the causal relationship not
by coincidence but intrinsically. It shows them as mutually influencing each other
in a continuous manner, at least, so far as their quality is concerned.
 Concomitant variation can be done at different levels – single society, several
societies of the same species or social type, or several distinct
societies. However to explain completely a social institution belonging to a given
social species, one will have to compare its different forms not only among the
societies belonging to that social type but in all preceding species as well. Thus to
explain the present state of the family, marriage, property, etc. it would be
necessary to know their origins and the elements of which these institutions are
composed. This would require us to study this institution in earlier types of
societies from the time domestic organization was in its most rudimentary form
to its progressive development in different social species. “One cannot explain a
social fact of any complexity except by following its complete development
through all social species”.

The comparative method is the very framework of the science of society for Durkheim.

Criticism:
GABRIEL TARDE: While criticizing Durkheim’s social fact Tarde says that it is very
difficult to understand how a society can exists without an individual. Tarde has
criticized Durkheim for neglecting individuals and giving much emphasis on society. In
this reference Tarde says that if students and professors are evacuated from a college,
what will remain their except the name.
HARRY ELMER BAYONS: has criticized Durkheim for putting more thrust on the constant
part of social fact. For him individuals do many actions without any societal
compulsions. For example helping weaker people, philanthropist activities etc.

Evaluation:

 In the construction of social methodology Durkheim says that the society is not
because of individuals, but rather individuals behaviour are shaped by society. He
wants to say that a biological individual is made a social individual only by
 society. In absence of society, there will be a complete lack of socialization of
individual and they will behave like animals there.
 Durkheim has focused his concentration towards the personality of individuals,
which is built by society through formal and informal ways. In this way, it can be
said that human personality is a replica of society. Clearly, had there not been,
the existence of society, there would not have been the existence of individuals.
 Durkheim has made it clear that man does certain activities in his own wills and
it comes under a purview of social facts. It would definitely have some kind of
compulsion might be it in a philanthropist activity which directly may not force
an individual but truly speaking individuals can’t do any such activity without
any indirect compulsion. The kind of feeling attached with this activities are
attainment of salvation, freedom from cycle of birth and death, attainment of
social prestige and piety, etc.

Relevence:

 Durkheim has himself used this method in successfully describing his theories like
Division of labour, suicide and religion.
 IT IS A NOVEL AND COMPREHENSIVE WAY IN UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL
PROBLEMS. If problems have reached to abnormal situation they have become
pathological and so could be diagnosed.
 Moreover it paves the way to provide solution to the related social problems.
For Example in India in two different groups, the suicide rate was found at
increase recently and they are school children and farmers (cash cropper). For
school children, hiplines and support systems have been established.
 To protect farmers from suicide there debits have been written off and it is
suggested to bring them under the security through insurance. The other
problems which have been identified with social facts are crime, smuggling, black
marketing, drug addiction, alcoholism prostitution, etc. and the respective
solution is provided from time to time.
 Most importantly, it provides the acceptance of social change which is the basis
of development and progress.

Division of Labour:
Economists explain the division of labor as a rational device contrived by men to
increase the output of the collectivity. Durkheim rejects this explanation as reversal of
the true order. To say that men divided the work among themselves, and assigned
everyone a different job, is to assume that individuals were different from one another
and aware of their difference before social differentiation.

Durkheim also opposes “contractualists” like Spencer who stressed the increasing role
of contracts freely concluded among individuals in modern societies. To Durkheim
modern society is defined first and foremost by the phenomenon of social
differentiation, of which contractualism is the result and expression. He also considered
and rejected the search for happiness as an explanation, for nothing proves that men in
modern societies are happier than men in archaic societies. Moreover, since division of
labor is a social phenomena, the principle of the homogeneity of causes and effect,
demands an essentially social explanation.

DURKHEIM INSISTS THAT DIVISION OF LABOUR, A SOCIAL PHENOMENON, CAN ONLY

BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF THREE SOCIAL FACTORS–THE VOLUME, THE MATERIAL
DENSITY, AND MORAL DENSITY.

1. Volume refers to the size of the population and material density refers to the
number of individuals on a given ground surface. Moral density means the
intensity of communication between individuals. With the formation of cities and
the development of communication and transportation, condensation of society,
multiplies intra-social relations. Thus the growth and condensation of societies
and the resultant intensity of social intercourse necessitate a greater division of
labor. “The division of labor varies in direct ratio with the volume and density of
societies and, if it progresses in a continuous manner in the course of social
development, it is because societies become regularly denser and generally
more voluminous.”
2. As societies become more voluminous and denser, more people come into
contact with one another; they compete for scarce resources and there is rivalry
everywhere. As the struggle for survival becomes acute, social
differentiation develops as a peaceful solution to the problem.
3. When individuals learn to pursue different occupations, the chances of conflict
diminish. Each man is no longer in competition with all; each man is in
competition with only a few of his fellows who pursue the same object or
vocation. The solder seeks military glory, the priest moral authority, the
statesman power, the businessman riches and the scholar scientific renown. The
carpenter does not struggle with the mason, nor the physician with the teacher,
not the politician with the engineer. Since they pursue different objects or
perform different services, they can exist without being obliged mutually to
destroy one another. The division of labor is thus, the result of the struggle for
existence.

Durkheim identified two forms of solidarity– mechanical solidarity and organic

solidarity in two types of societies- societies with simple division of labour & societies
with complex division of labour:

MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY–

 Mechanical solidarity is solidarity of resemblance. People are homogeneous,

mentally and morally; they feel the same emotions, cherish the same values, and
hold the same things sacred. Communities are, therefore, uniform and non-
atomized. Durkheim suggested that mechanical solidarity prevailed to the extent
that “ideas and tendencies common to all members of the society are greater in
number and intensity than those which pertain to each member.” He explained
that this solidarity grows only in inverse ratio to personality.
  Solidarity, he suggested, which comes from likeness “is at its maximum when the
collective conscience completely envelops our whole conscience and coincides
in all points with it”. “Thus, a society having a mechanical solidarity is
characterized by strong collective conscience. Since crime is regarded as an
offence against ‘common conscience’, such a society is also characterized by
‘repressive law’ which multiplies punishment to show the force of common
sentiments”.
 The laws in mechanical solidarity are repressive and penal in character; they aim
at inflicting suffering or loss on the criminal and try to suppress recurrence of
crime. According to Durkheim, an act is treated as criminal “when it offends
strong and defined states of the conscience collective”. Thus crime is viewed as
an affront to the conscience collective which feels hurt by the criminal act and
therefore tries to resist it. Hence one of the important functions of punishments
is actions and reactions taking place at the collective level. In the words of
Durkheim, “We must not say that an action shocks the common conscience
because it is criminal, but rather that it is criminal because it shocks the common
conscience, we do not reprove it because it is a crime, but it is a crime because
we reprove it”.

Organic solidarity:
With the increase of the volume of population, material density and moral density also
increase. According to Durkheim, division of labour is a peaceful solution to the needs
created by the increase of population, in size and density. This increase in division of
labour gives rise to organic solidarity. Organic solidarity is characterized by decline of
conscience collective. The role of conscience collective become progressively smaller as
division of labour becomes specialized. Individuals become increasingly freer, while
becoming more aware of their inter-dependence. It is this heightened sense of inter-
dependence that contributes to solidarity. The freedom of individual becomes a
venerated principle of a society based on organic solidarity. Relations between
individuals and groups become contractual.

 Whereas mechanical solidarity arose from similarities of individuals in primitive

society, organic solidarity on the other hand develops out of differences rather
than likenesses between individuals in modern societies. Individuals are no longer
similar, but different; their mental and moral similarities have disappeared.
 A society having organic solidarity is characterized by specialization, complex
division of labor and individualism. It is held together by the inter-dependence
of parts, rather than by the homogeneity of elements.
 It is also characterized by the weakening of collective conscience and restitutive
law. Organic solidarity, as Durkheim envisioned it develops out of differences
rather than likenesses and it is a product of the division of labor. With the
increasing differentiation of function in a society come differences between its
members.
 With the emergence of division of labor in society, owing to a complex of facts
such as increased population, urbanization, industrialization, and with its
 concomitant rise in dissimilarities of individuals in society, there was an
inevitable increase in interdependence among society’s members. And, as
noted earlier, when there is an increase in mental and moral aptitude and
capabilities, there is a decrease corollary in the collective conscience.
 The two forms of solidarity correspond to two extreme forms of social
organization. Archaic societies (primitive societies as they were once called) are
characterized by the predominance of mechanical solidarity whereas modern
industrial societies, characterized by complex division of labor, are dominated by
organic solidarity. It must, however, be noted that Durkheim’s conception of the
division of labor is different from that envisaged by economists. To Durkheim
social differentiation begins with the disintegration of mechanical solidarity and
of segmental structure. Occupational specialization and multiplication of
industrial activities are only an expression of a more general form of a social
differentiation which corresponds to the structure of society as a whole.
 The law that exists in organic solidarity is no longer a law of punishment rather
it is a law of restitution. Unlike the repressive law which seeks to inflict suffering
on the criminal, restitutive law simply tries to restore the status-quo. Further,
while repressive law remains diffuse through out the community, restitutive law
has special organs and institutions tribunals, councils, functionaries, and so on.
 The operation of restitutive law is in fact the application of general rules to
particular cases, and it is, above all general rules, that arise out of the use and
want of society. Even when restitutive sanctions, as Durkheim says, are strangers
to conscience collective, the latter is not completely absent. If contracts have
power to bind, it is conscience collective that is the source of this power. And
further more, it is a power that can be invoked only when the contracts confirm
to the general rules of law and have something of a moral value.
 Further comparing the organic solidarity with mechanical solidarity, Durkheim,
suggests that social cohesion is greater in the case of organic solidarity. As labour
is divided so also does each member of the society depends more and more on
this labour. The labour of one fits into the labour of the other, and produces
cohesive community. Thus, as the community becomes more cohesive and better
integrated, individual becomes freer and more able to exercise his initiative,
being less tightly bound by common sentiments.

The division of labour thus contributes both to the cohesion of the society and to the
self-expression and freedom of the individual. However, the above mentioned
discussion refers to what organic solidarity ought to be. It does not describe the
situation actually obtaining in modern industrial societies. Durkheim himself was aware
of this hiatus between what ought to be and what really happens. Therefore, he called
the above description as a normal type of division of labour, at the same time, pointing
out to major abnormal forms of division of labour discussed below.

ABNORMAL FORMS OF DIVISION OF LABOUR

Durkheim regarded the chaos 18th and 19th century laissez-faire society, its wholly
unregulated markets, its arbitrary and extreme inequalities, which led to the restriction
of social mobility and its class wars and trade union conflict, as far from normal division
of labour. These aberrations of the industrial society were explained as abnormal forms
of divisions of labour viz., the anomic division of labour and the forced division of
labour.

ANOMIC FORM OF DIVISION OF LABOUR

 The essence of the idea of anomie as applied to economic behavior is that

relations between men or groups of men engaged in commercial and industrial
enterprises are devoid of regulation by shared moral beliefs or by accepts the
existence of classes and the regularity of the class conflicts.
 Class conflict for Durkheim, was manifested in a series of disputes and clashes
which resulting from the absence of agreed limits or insatiable appetites of
manufacturers or entrepreneurs as much as in the unlimited desires of workers.
Here, he regards trade-unions as replacing individual selfishness by collective
selfishness, since competing representative groups could not overcome the
anarchy of the economy.
 However, Durkheim does not regard the conflict of interest between employer
and employee as an incurable obstacle and makes certain suggestions to redeem
the anomic situation in modern industrial societies.
 He points out the need for improving the conditions of work and the
contractual conditions of employment. For example measures like provisions of
employment, and legislation aimed at ensuring safety. Healthy condition of work
and the replacement of rules by power by the rule of law. Each industry to create
a kind of self-governing institutions or corporation, empowered to administer
codes of conduct to bind all those engaged in the occupational sphere.
 These institutions would be linked with the state. Excessive decentralization of
power led to anarchy but the corporations could equally protect their member
against arbitrary state interventions.
 Further, he cites the example of professional organizations, such as lawyer’s
organizations, which create professional ethics governing their work. According
to him, this would go a long way controlling the anomic state of professional
industrial and commercial life. According to Steve Fenton, Durkheim’s solution
for the state of anomic prevailing in industrial societies was similar to the
concept of guild socialism.

FORCED DIVISION OF LABOUR:

 Under the heading of the ‘Forced Division of Labour’ Durkheim DISCUSSES

THOSE SOCIALLY STRUCTURED INEQUALITIES WHICH UNDERMINE
SOLIDARITY. Durkheim explicitly recognizes that class inequalities restrict the
opportunities of the lower classes and prevent the realization of their abilities.
Resentment accumulates and men are led to revolutionary thoughts. The
problem
here is not a lack of rules but rather the excess of them in that rules themselves
 are the cause of evil. The rules have in fact arisen in order to enforce the division
of labour coercively. Individual specialism and occupations are not freely chosen
but forced upon each person by custom, law and even sheer chance. Individuals
find themselves estranged, resentful and aspiring to social positions which have
been arbitrarily closed off to them.
 This is clearly the case, Durkheim observes, where a person can enjoy a special
advantage owing to possession of inherited wealth or where ‘thanks to the
persistence of certain prejudices, a certain distinction is attached to some
individual’s independent of their merits’. The forced division of labour then
brings about a situation which one modern author has called “the anomie of
injustice”. It is this which has produced class conflict and not, as Marx would have
called it, the inherently exploitative nature of capitalism. Durkheim considers that
all inequality could not be abolished. But whereas some inequalities are ‘natural’
and occur spontaneously, others are ‘external inequality’ which can be mitigated.
What in effect he is urging is the creation of what today is called ‘equality of
opportunity’ or a ‘meritocracy’. For this to be possible all forms of hereditary
privilege should be abolished. There cannot be rich and poor at birth’, he wrote,
‘without there being unjust contracts’.

DIVISION OF LABOUR ANALYSED AFTER DURKHEIM

ELTON MAYO-

 Studying productivity and industrial relations in an American industrial

plant discovered empirically ‘the importance of informal social groups in
forming attitudes and practices at work’. He converted the particular finding that
“informal association” influenced man’s working attitudes, into the general
principle that industrial behavior should be understood through its social
contexts. Human behavior was not wholly not even predominantly rational and
logical. The desire to stand well with one’s fellows, the so-called human instinct
of association, easily outweighs the merely individual interest and the logical
reasoning upon which so many spurious principles of management are based.
 In the Social problems of an Industrial Civilization, he draws on Durkheim’s
evolutionary model to elaborate his own distinction between ‘established’ and
‘adaptive’ societies. Suicide as an example to characterize the decay of
established grouping and the failure of a restless modern civilization to create
alternative bases of social life.

HAROLD WILIENSKY,

 The author speaks of the relationship between “division of labour and social
integration”, and examines the variable degree to which work situations and
experiences of the labour forces encourage participation in and integration into,
secondary social groups. If we give a man some college education, he puts him
on a stable career ladder, and top it with a nice family income, he will get into the
community act’.
  Wiliensky clearly presents his hypothesis that stable experience in the labour
market leads to social integration as a test of ‘Durkheim’s ideas’. He argues that
men with orderly careers have contacts with kin friends and neighbours that are
at once more integrated.
 He, however, adds that not all group participation is conductive to solidarity.
The participation pattern of miners, long shore men and others who in lodge
and union, at home and at the bar, reinforces their common alienation and
isolation.
 After Durkheim a literature has developed, with an interest in the world of work
that is often known as the sociology of occupations and professions’.

SUICIDE: Diagnosing social pathology

Suicide is a major theory of social constraints relating to collective conscience. IT is
cited as a monumental landmark in which conceptual theory and empirical research
are brought together. Durkheim’s use of statistical analysis was for two primary
reasons:

 TO REFUTE THEORIES BASED ON PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGY, GENETICS, CLIMATIC,

AND GEOGRAPHICAL FACTORS, AND
 TO SUPPORT WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE HIS OWN SOCIOLOGICAL
EXPLANATION OF SUICIDE.

He speaks of suicidal currents as collective tendencies that dominate some very

susceptible individuals and catch them up in their sweep. The act of suicide, at times, is
interpreted as a product of these currents. The larger significance of Suicide lies in its
demonstration of the function of sociological theory in empirical science.

DURKHEIM REJECTED THE VARIOUS EXTRA-SOCIAL FACTORS SUCH AS HEREDITY,

CLIMATE, MENTAL ALIENATION, RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND IMITATION AS THE
CAUSE OF SUICIDE. He arrived at the conclusion that suicide which appears to be a
phenomenon relating to the individual is actually explicit to individual and can be
analysed logically with reference to the social structure and its ramifying function
which may induce, perpetuate, or aggravate the suicide potential. Durkheim’s central
thesis is that suicide rate is a factual order, unified and definite, for, each society has a
collective inclination towards suicide, a rate of self-homicide which is fairly constant
for each society so long as the basic conditions of its existence remain the same.

Suicide For Durkheim, suicide was a result of imbalance in the independence/ autonomy
relationship. In brief summary, suicides occur among those subject to too much or too
little social solidarity.

Suicide is notable in taking what appears to be the most individual of acts, which
seems therefore least likely to exhibit any regularities of a social kind, and then going
on to demonstrate that suicide varies according to social ties, to their presence or
absence, their strength or weakness. It is important to remember that it is differential
rates between social groups that Durkheim sought to explain, e.g. Protestants commit
suicide proportionately more frequently than Catholics and Jews, single men more
frequently than married ones, and urban dwellers more than rural. Durkheim argues
that these differentials reflect differences between the social groups, i.e. the different
ways individuals are connected
to society, and the kind of social support that results.

Durkheim proposed four basic types of suicide:

 The egoistic and anomic reflect social ties that are too weak;
 The altruistic and fatalistic types arise from connections that are too strong so
that in this case the group suppresses individuality.

EGOISTIC SUICIDE results from the social isolation of the individual. It occurs among
those who have fewer social ties, such as those who live alone in rooming houses
rather than with a family, or those burdened with an intense spiritual loneliness. FOR
EXAMPLE, Protestants have a higher suicide rate than Catholics since Protestant
teachings emphasise that one is face to face alone with God, that one’s relationship is
entirely direct, and that one must, therefore, carry the entire burden of effort essential
to one’s salvation. Roman Catholic teachings, however, make the church and its
practices the basis for one’s relationship with God and provide mechanisms, e.g. the
confessional, to share the burden and so to give social support in life.

By contrast, ANOMIC SUICIDE was occasioned by insufficient social regulation of the

individual. In effect, the moral code of society fails to maintain its hold over the
individual. The seemingly paradoxical feature of suicide is that although suicide rates
rose during times of economic recession, as we might expect, they also rose during
times of economic boom and prosperity, when we might expect them to decline. The
superficial element of the explanation is that both situations—boom and bust—
occasion dislocation between the individual’s social position and the socially prescribed
morals which relate to them. Within a socially stratified society there are different
norms (moral standards) for the different social classes, and they specify different tastes
and aspirations for the members of the respective groups. FOR EXAMPLE, middle-class
people may expect to go to university, while lower-class people may not expect or even
aspire to do so. Such norms develop on a collective scale and over time; since they arise
from the real situations of the group, they have a realistic character. Even if lower-class
people aspire to university attendance, they are less likely to succeed. However,
economic bust and boom both result in abrupt movement of people up and also down
the social scale. Middle-class people find themselves in greatly reduced circumstance in
crashes, while lower-class people can be rendered enormously prosperous by economic
booms. In other words, the standards to which they have become accustomed become
inapplicable, precipitating suicide.

Altruism and fatalism are at the other extreme. ALTRUISTISM involves individuals
seeing the preeminence of the group over themselves to the extent that the group’s
needs seem greater than theirs.
In FATALISM, the group dominates individuals so intensely and oppressively that they
are rendered entirely powerless over their fate.

ALTRUISTIC SUICIDE is instanced by cases such as the suicide of military officers for the
honour of the regiment, or the self-sacrifice of a leader’s family and retinue on the
leader’s death, or the self- sacrifice of suicide bombers. In such cases the bonds within
the social group are so strong and intense that they create among the members a
powerful sense of group identity. Individuals are so dependent upon the group for their
sense of identity, in fact, that they think themselves less important than the group and
are willing to give up their lives in order to respect and preserve it and its values.

THE FATALISTIC FORM, which receives barely a mention from Durkheim (one brief
footnote), occurs when individuals in a group are placed in a position of such restriction
that they feel nothing can be done to control their own life save to exit from it, e.g.
suicides among slaves. This argument for a balance between social regulation and
individual autonomy concludes that the problem in modern, i.e. organic, society is that
the balance has swung too much towards freedom from social regulation.

Durkheim’s concern was with understanding the mechanisms which structured

relations between the individual and society, with a view to working out how to
readjust them in the desirable direction. As for making out a case for a science of
sociology, in the analysis presented in Suicide Durkheim felt he had succeeded in
demonstrating the existence of supra individual patterns in terms of which individual
fates were decided. In any given society the rates of suicide did not vary much over
time, and Durkheim wrote of society as ‘demanding a certain rate’ of individual deaths.
This kind of remark might seem to justify the impression, which alienated many from
Durkheim, that he was giving far too great a reality to society. He seemed to treat it as
something not only arising from association among human beings, but also as having a
life of its own.

Arguably, however, Durkheim did not intend any such suggestion. After all, he did point
to collective phenomena to justify his talk about the reality of society’s existence and
did seek to avoid conveying the impression that society was something utterly
dissociated from its members. From this point of view, his remark about society
‘demanding’ a certain rate of suicides was really only a way of saying, admittedly
loosely, that the conditions which exposed people to the risk of suicide remained
constant for comparatively long periods of time. Rather than unjustifiably reifying
society, Durkheim can be read as emphasizing the fact that our membership of society is
neither of our choosing, nor something we can cast off at will.

Critical Evalution:

 M. Halbwachs (1930) concluded that Durkheim’s analysis could be simplified to

an inverse relationship between social complexity and suicide rates,
demonstrated by the fact that suicide rates were lower in rural areas where life
styles were simpler than in towns. MODERN THEORIES USUALLY ASSUME THAT
 RAPID CHANGES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS ARE THE CAUSE OF SUICIDE.
THOUGH UNLIKE DURKHEIM THEY INCLUDE VARIOUS PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS
TO EXPLAIN WHY ONLY CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS COMMIT SUICIDE IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
 R. Cavan’s (1928): Outside the Durkheimian tradition, R. Cavan’s also focus
on SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION, which is conceptualized in terms of POPULATION
VARIABLES SUCH AS HIGH RATES OF SOCIAL MOBILITY AND SOCIAL
COMPLEXITY THAT WEAKEN THAT INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL VALUES ON
INDIVIDUALS.
 The devastating criticisms of Durkheimian theory made by J.B. Douglas
(1967) indicate that existing accounts lack foundation and are misguided. He
shows that official statistics are highly inaccurate and systematically biased in
ways that support disintegration theories. Suicide are more accurately reported
in towns than rural areas, highly integrated groups are more likely, than poorly
integrated ones, to conceal suicides by ensuring that other causes of death are
recorded, the medical competence of those who categorize deaths for official
purposes varies and may be assumed to be greater as societies modernize (and
more complex).
 Thus Durkheimian and ecological theories simply and uncritically reproduce the
distortions inherent in official statistics. Existing theories are also misguided,
because they impute social meanings to suicide such as ‘egoistic’ and ‘anomic’,
that are based merely on untested commonsense judgments and ignore the
actual meanings for those involved. In Douglas’s view, particular social acts like
suicide cannot be explained by abstract social meanings such as ‘suicide’ lies in its
demonstration of the function of sociological theory in empirical science.

Religion and Society

1. Durkheim’s last major book, ‘The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912)’, is
often regarded as the most profound and the most original of his works. The book
contains a description and a detailed analysis of the ‘clan system’ and of
“totemism in the Arunta tribe” of Australian aborigines, elaborates a general
theory of religion derived from a study of the simplest and most “primitive” of
religious institutions, and outlines a sociological interpretation of the forms of
human thought which is at the heart of contemporary sociology of knowledge.
2. DURKHEIM BEGAN WITH A REFUTATION OF THE REIGNING THEORIES OF THE
ORIGIN OF RELIGION. Tyler, the distinguished English ethnologist, who supported
the notion of “animism’, i.e., spirit worship as the most basic form of religious
expression. Max Muller, the noted German linguist, put forth the concepts of
“naturism”, i.e., the worship of nature’s forces.
3. DURKHEIM REJECTED BOTH CONCEPTS BECAUSE HE FELT THAT THEY FAILED TO
EXPLAIN THE UNIVERSAL KEY DISTINCTION BETWEEN “THE SACRED AND THE
PROFANE” AND BECAUSE THEY TENDED TO EXPLAIN RELIGION AWAY BY
INTERPRETING IT ASS AN ILLUSION, THAT IS, THE REDUCTIONIST FALLACY.
  Moreover, to love spirits whose unreality one affirms or to love natural forces
transfigured merely by man’s fear would make religious experience a kind of
collective hallucination. Nor is religion defined by the notion of mystery or of the
supernatural.
 Nor is the belief in a transcendental God the essence of religion, for there are
several religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism, without gods. Moreover,
reliance on spirits and supernatural forces will make religion an illusion.
4. To Durkheim it is inadmissible that system of ideas like religion which have had
such considerable place in history, to which people have turned in all ages for
the energy they needed to live, and for which they were willing to sacrifice their
lives, should be viewed as so profound and so permanent as a correspond to a
true reality. And, this true reality is not a transcendent God but society.
5. Thus the central thesis of Durkheim’s theory of religion is that throughout history
men have never worshipped any other reality, whether in the form of the totem
or of God, than the collective social reality transfigured by faith. (Collective
Conscience, Social Fact)
6. THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION: According to Durkheim, the essence of religion is a
division of the world into two kinds of phenomena, the sacred and the profane.
7. The sacred refers to things human beings have set apart, including religious
beliefs, rites, deities, or anything socially defined as requiring special religious
treatment. Participation in the sacred order, such as in rituals of ceremonies,
gives a special prestige, illustrating one of the social functions of religion. “The
sacred thing, is par excellences that which the profane should not touch and
cannot touch with impunity.” The profane is the reverse of the sacred. “The
circle of sacred objects, cannot be determined once for all. Its existence varies
infinitely, according to the different religions.”

ACCORDINGLY, DURKHEIM DEFINES RELIGION as a unified system of beliefs and

practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden-beliefs
and practices which unite in one simple moral community called a Church, all those
who adhere to it.”

1. Beliefs and practices unite people in social community by relating them to

sacred things. This collective sharing of beliefs, rituals, etc., is essential for the
development of religion.
2. The sacred symbols of religious belief and practice refer, not to the external
environment or to individual human nature but only to the moral reality of
society.
3. THE ORIGINS OF RELIGION: Instead of animism or naturism, Durkheim
took “TOTEMISM” among the Australian tribes as the key concept of explain the
origins of religion. Ordinary objects, whether pieces of wood, polished stones,
plants or animals, are transfigured into sacred objects once they bear the emblem
of the totem. Durkheim writes: Totem, refers to an implicit belief in a mysterious
or sacred force or principle that provides sanctions for violations of taboos,
inculcates moral responsibilities in the group, and animates the totem itself.
 4. The emphasis here, in keeping with his overall emphasis upon social analysis of
social phenomena, was upon the collective activities as the birthplace of religious
sentiments ideas.
5. According to Durkheim, the essence to Totemism is the worship of an
impersonal, anonymous force, at once immanent and transcendent. This
anonymous, diffuse force which is superior to men and very close to them is in
reality society itself.
6. MOREOVER, DURKHEIM CLAIMS THAT JUST AS SOCIETIES IN THE PAST HAVE
CREATED GODS AND RELIGION, SOCIETIES OF THE FUTURE ARE INCLINED TO
CREATE NEW GODS AND NEW RELIGIONS WHEN THEY ARE IN A STATE OF
EXALTATION. When societies are seized by the sacred frenzy, and when men,
participating in ritualistic ceremonies, religious services, feasts and festivals, go
into a trance, people are united by dancing and shouting and experience a kind of
phantasmagoria. Men are compelled to participate by force of the group which
carries them outside of themselves and gives them a sensation of something that
has no relation to every day experience. During such moments of sacred frenzy
and collective trance, new gods and new religions will be born.
7. DURKHEIM BELIEVED HE HAD SOLVED THE RELIGIOUS-MORAL DILEMMA OF
MODERN SOCIETY. RELIGION IS NOTHING BUT THE INDIRECT WORSHIP OF
SOCIETY. MODERN PEOPLE NEED ONLY EXPRESS THEIR RELIGIOUS FEELING
DIRECTLY TOWARD THE SACRED SYMBOLIZATION OF SOCIETY. The source and
object of religion, Durkheim pointed out, are the collective life – the individual
who feels dependent on some external moral power is not a victim of
hallucination but a responsive member of society.

THE SUBSTANTIAL FUNCTION OF RELIGION, said Durkheim, is the creation,

reinforcement, and maintenance of social solidarity. Religion act as an agency of social
control and provides solidarity. He argued that religious phenomena emerges in any
society when a separation is made between the sphere of the profane-the realm of
everyday utilitarian activities-and the sphere of sacred-the area thatpertains TO THE
TRANSCENDENTAL, THE EXTRAORDINARY.

 RELIGION, AS DURKHEIM SAW AND EXPLAINED IT, IS NOT ONLY A SOCIAL

CREATION, BUT IS IN FACT SOCIETY DIVINIZED. Durkheim stated that the deities
which men worship together are only projections of the power of society. If
religion is essentially a transcendental representation of the powers of society,
then the disappearance of traditional religion need not herald the dissolution of
society, Furthermore, Durkheim reasoned that all that is required for modern
men now was to realize directly that dependence on society, which before, they
had recognized only through the medium of religious representation.

On the most general plane, religion as a social institution serves to give meaning to
man’s existential predicaments by typing the individual to the supra individual sphere
of transcendental value which is ultimately rooted in his own society.
Critical Evaluation:

1. With his study of religion, Durkheim successfully demonstrated the application

of functionalist methodology in sociology which subsequently influenced the
works of B. Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown.
2. DURKHEIM’S view, that the idea of sacred and the beliefs associated with it are a
symbolic representation of society itself has been corroborated by the later
researches of GUY SWANSON. Swanson carried out a comparative study of
religious beliefs in simple societies organized on kinship principle and the
complex and highly differentiated societies of the present day.
3. SWANSON FOUND THAT KINSHIP BASED SOCIETIES HAD NO CONCEPT OF
SINGLE GOD AND NEITHER DID THEY HAVE ANY ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANISATION
WHICH COMPETED WITH KINSHIP ORGANISATION FOR OBESISANCE. Instead
they tended to practice totemic type of religion which symbolized and
strengthened the kinship organization. ON THE OTHER HAND, HIGHLY
DIFFERENTIATED TYPES OF SOCIETIES, LIKE KINGDOM OR A NATION TENDED TO
HAVE A BELIEF IN A SINGLE SUPREME GOD. Such a belief in a single God provided
a rallying point for the members of the society and thus helped in maintaining
solidarity. Thus the nature of religious belief corresponded with the nature of
social structure as postulated by Durkheim.

Despite this, Durkheim’s work on religion has been criticized on various grounds.

1. Durkheim’s view that religion act as an agency of SOCIAL CONTROL AND

PROVIDES SOLIDARITY is true only for simple small scale societies which
practice a single common religion. In the case of modern industrial societies
religion has lost both these function. Given the highly differentiated and
diversified nature of modern societies, religion can no longer act as an agency of
social control. Next, the existence of a plurality of religions, quite often lead to
inter religious conflict and therefore endanger solidarity rather than enhancing
it.
2. DURKHEIM’S ABSOLUTE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SACRED AND PROFANE HAS
ALSO BEEN CRITICIZED. Critiques have objected that the distinction is faulty at an
empirical level that is, as an account of what aborigine religious were actually like.
They also complained that it fails at the conceptual level. For example, it is not
clear why there can only be two classes of objects. Is there not also at least one
other class which consist of things which are neither sacred nor profane but,
simply ‘mundane’. Again, critiques asked whether the relationship between the
two classes of objects one of total hostility or one of a division between two
complimentary systems of thought. EDMUND LEACH insists that actions fall in
between the two extremes on a continuous scale. At one extreme are actions
which are entirely profane, at the other actions which are entirely sacred.
Between the two extremes fall the majority of social actions.
3. Further WORSLEY has criticized Durkheim’s explanations of religious beliefs and
rituals. Despite the length and detail of ‘Elementary Forms’ the explanation is
casting a very general form. The origins of the actual religious systems are not
 accounted for at all, but treated as if, say, the choice of the sacred object or of
the actual ritual prescription themselves were arbitrary and unimportant. This is
especially regrettable in the case of rituals since it has been argued that rituals
do, in fact, always contain an important material basis in the agricultural
technology of the tribe or the group which implies them.
4. NEXT CRITICISM IS RELATED TO DURKHEIM’S VIEWS ON RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN SOCIETY AND RELIGION. Durkheim’s views on this aspect are
irritatingly ambiguous and even tautological. At various points, he seems to be
claiming that social organisation exerts a casual influence over religious thoughts.
At others, as when he asserts that ‘nearly all the great social institutions have
been borne’ in religion’. It is religious thought which is seen as the determining
element. He appears to be arguing that religion end societies are the same thing.
This does not exhaust the list. Steven Lukes has identified no less than six distinct
hypotheses, none of them reducible to the other about the relationship between
society and ideas which can be found within Durkheim’s sociology of knowledge
as a whole

An Assesment Of Durkhiem:

1. ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS IN SOCIOLOGY WAS DEFINING “THEORY (SUBJECT

MATTER) AND METHOD”, DURKHEIM GAVE CLEAR ANSWERS, BOTH FOR
THEORY AND METHOD. Durkheim faced up to complex methodological problems
and demonstrated by implementing in his works, the necessity of empirical
research for a science of society. Durkheim defined sociology as the science of
social facts and of social institutions. Social facts, in turn, are analysed in their
capacity as constraining forces in the determination of human conduct or in more
modern terms, as part of the apparatus of social control.
2. In this connection, HIS DISCUSSIONS OF THE COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCE, IN SPITE
OF SOME VARIATIONS, CALL ATTENTION TO THE WAYS IN WHICH SOCIAL
INTERACTION AND RELATIONSHIPS SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCE INDIVIDUAL
ATTITUDE, IDEAS AND SENTIMENTS. For Durkheim, the reality of society
preceded the individual life. Durkheim frequently, especially in discussions on the
collective conscience, reached a degree of sociological realism that seemed to
deny altogether the social significance of individual volition or decision. Society is
real, to be true, but so is the individual. And the two, it should be remembered,
are always in interaction. Giving priority to one or the other is misleading in the
long run.
3. DURKHEIM SHOWED CONVINCINGLY THAT SOCIAL FACTS ARE FACTS SUI
GENERIS. He brought out vividly the social and cultural importance of division of
labour. He analysed the nature and many of consequences of social solidarity. He
indicated the role of social pressure in areas of human activity where it had
previously escaped detection. Along with Max Weber he brought the attention of
sociologists to the significance of values and ideals in social life.
4. DURKHEIM BELIEVED IN FORMULATION OF CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS
(POSITIVISM). It is argued by him that it is the business of the sociologists to
 establish causal connections and causal laws. Although many are skeptical about
this approach, a great number of causal connections and functional correlations
have been established by sociology with a reasonable degree of probability.
Moreover, those who are skeptical about finding causal relations concede the
existence of such trends in sociology. While pleading for causal explanations,
Durkheim argued that since laboratory experimentation is impossible in
sociology, we should go in for indirect experimentation, by using the comparative
method. This particular method continues to be used by sociologists.
5. DURKHEIM IS THE PIONEER OF FUNCTIONAL APPROACH IN SOCIOLOGY. After
Durkheim the functionalist approach was pursued by Talcott Parson and R.K.
Merton. It is in the context of functionalism that Durkheim distinguished between
normal and pathological functions. This opening in sociological research has been
further elaborated by later thinkers. Closely following Durkheim, Merton
distinguished between ‘Manifest’ and Latent’ functions. Also, the idea of
‘dysfunction’ goes back to Durkheim’s idea of ‘pathological’ functions. Although
Durkheim claimed that religion contributes to social solidarity, Merton pointed
out that it can be dysfunctional in some societies since it can be very frequently, a
source of discord and social conflict.
6. DURKHEIM ESTABLISHED A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUICIDE RATES AND THE
DEGREE OF INTEGRATION OF INDIVIDUALS IN A SOCIAL GROUP IN HIS THEORY
OF SUICIDE. This part of the work of Durkheim has been found to be useful, and it
has been confirmed by later studies like those of Douglas and Giddens.
7. ONE OF THE IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTIONS OF DURKHEIM IS IN DISTINGUISHING
THE PHENOMENA STUDIED BY PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY. According to him,
sociology must study social facts, those which are external to individual minds
and which exercise coercive action on them. Taking a cue from this view of
Durkheim, many sociologists have developed their thoughts. Ginsberg concedes
this point. There might be psychological generalization firmly established by
relating them to general psychological laws. In the same manner, Nadal argues
that some problems of social enquiry might be eliminated by a move to a lower
level of analysis into the fields of psychology sociology and biology.
8. Durkheim made population size an important factor in the study of
sociology. Societies can be classified according to their volume (individual) and
density (number of social relations). He thought that increase in volume generally
brought about increase in density and the two together produced variations in
the social structure. In recent sociology this particular problem has been taken up
in a different way in the book ‘The Lonely Crowd’ by Riesman. Modern
sociologists attach considerable importance to the problem of population. The
influence of population movements upon economic growth is examined by Lexis
in his book ‘The Theory of Economic Growth’.
9. Durkheim did contribute to the typology of societies. He distinguished between
mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. Besides, Durkheim was aware that
societies might be classified in other ways also. He classified them as a simple
societies (the hordes), simple poly segementary societies (the three tribes which
founded Rome) and doubly compounded poly segmental societies (The Germanic
 tribes). This attempt of Durkheim was further elaborated in terms of scale and
internal differentiation by Marret and Davy.
10.Durkheim argued that division of labour was the primary sources of social
solidarity. In mechanical solidarity law would be repressive, while in organic
solidarity, law would be restitutive. Durkheim also discussed abnormal forms of
division of labour that is those which go against the promotion of social cohesion.
In the abnormal forms he found two, the anomic and the forced. By the first he
meant examining specialization. As a remedy Durkheim proposed contact through
professional association and negotiation between capital and labour. What
Durkheim anticipated is very true of modern times. This approach is greatly
followed by a number of thinkers who discount Marx’s ideal of social or class
conflict.

Finally, after Durkheim very little work has been done on the importance of religion.
However, there are a number of empirical studies of particular sects in terms of their
relation with and response to the social milieu in which they exist just as those of
Wilson and Peter Berger, etc.

CRITICS ASSESSMENT:

1. DURKHEIM’S APPROACH HAS BEEN CRITICIZED FOR ITS EXTREME FORM OF

SOCIAL REALISM. He has been condemned for over emphasizing society and the
group at the expense of the individual. Durkheim has adopted a determinist point
of view according to which individual has been subordinated almost totally to the
collectively. Religion, law, moral etc., are the aspects of conscience collectively
which according to Durkheim, shaped individual behavior and his values. Thus
individual’s choices, meanings and motives have no independent place in
Durkheim’s scheme of things (Weber). In fact, they themselves are viewed as
shaped by the social forces. Thus, exaggerating the importance off collectivity
over individuals Durkheim has inadvertently ended up legitimizing fascism.
2. THIS EXTREME FORM OF SOCIAL REALISM IS MANIFESTED IN HIS WORK OF
SUICIDE, where he speaks of suicidogenic currents as collective tendencies which
dominate individuals and force some of them to commit suicide. Here, as pointed
out by Douglas, Durkheim totally ignores the meanings and motives which the
individual impute to their circumstances before they take the extreme step of
committing suicide.
3. DURKHEIM HAS ALSO BEEN CRITICIZED FOR HIS EXTREME POSITIVISM AS CAN
BE SEEN IN HIS ATTEMPT TO MAKE SOCIOLOGY A NATURAL SCIENCE. It has been
argued that the study of the phenomena of suicide can never rely exclusively
upon statistical data, because such data can never be authentic. The official
records reveal what the police, the doctor or the coroner regard as the case for
suicide. Sometimes, the deaths caused due to accidents or murders may get
registered as suicide in the official records and vice-versa.
4. Further, the positivist emphasis on explaining phenomena exclusively on the basis
of outwardly observable characteristics ignores the human side of social behavior.
 It fails to take into account the subjective dimension of human behavior
manifested in the meanings, choices and motives of an individual.

Max Weber (1864-1920)

Max Weber – Social Action, ideal types, authority, bureaucracy, protestant ethic, and
the spirit of capitalism
Max Weber was born in Erfurt, Prussia (present day Germany) in April 21, 1864.
Weber’s father was greatly involved in public life and so his home was constantly
immersed in both politics and academia. Weber and his brother thrived in this
intellectual atmosphere. In 1882, he enrolled at the University of Heidelberg, but after
two years left to fulfill his year of military service at Strassburg. After his release from
the military, Weber finished his studies at the University of Berlin, earning his doctorate
in 1889 and joining the University of Berlin’s faculty, lecturing and consulting for the
government.

In 1894, Weber was appointed professor of economics at the University of Freiburg and
then was granted the same position at the University of Heidelberg in 1896. His
research at the time focused mainly on economics and legal history. After Weber’s
father died in 1897, two months after a severe quarrel that was never resolved, Weber
became prone to depression, nervousness, and insomnia, making it difficult for him to
fulfill his duties as a professor. He was thus forced to reduce his teaching and eventually
left in the fall of 1899. For five years he was intermittently institutionalized, suffering
sudden relapses after efforts to break such cycles by travelling.

He finally resigned his professorship in late 1903. Also in 1903, Weber became the
associate editor of the Archives for Social Science and Social Welfare where his interests
lied in more fundamental issues of social sciences. Soon Weber began to publish some
of his own papers in this journal, most notable his essay The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism, which became his most famous work and was later published as a
book.

In 1909, Weber co-founded the German Sociological Association and served as it’s first
treasurer. He resigned in 1912, however, and unsuccessfully tried to organize a left-wing
political party to combine social-democrats and liberals. At the outbreak of World War I,
Weber, aged 50, volunteered for service and was appointed as a reserve officer and put
in charge of organizing the army hospitals in Heidelberg, a role he fulfilled until the end
of 1915. Weber’s most powerful impact on his contemporaries came in the last years of
his life, when, from 1916 to 1918, he argued powerfully against Germany’s
annexationist war goals and in favor of a strengthened parliament. After assisting in the
drafting of the new constitution and in the founding of the German Democratic Party,
Weber became frustrated with politics and resumed teaching at the University of
Vienna and then at the University of Munich.

Max Weber (1864-1920) argued against abstract theory, and he favored an approach
to sociological inquiry that generated its theory from rich, systematic, empirical,
historical research. This approach required, first of all, an examination of the
relationships between, and the respective roles of, history and sociology in inquiry.
Weber argued that sociology was to develop concepts for the analysis of concrete
phenomena, which would allow sociologists to then make generalizations about
historical phenomena. History, on the other hand, would use a lexicon of sociological
concepts in order to perform causal analysis of particular historical events, structures,
and processes. In scholarly practice, according to Weber, sociology and history are
interdependent.

 Weber’s sociology is much closer to Marx than Durkheim’s is, comprising a

critique of so-called vulgar Marxism, i.e. the idea that social life, including culture,
is a simple function of the economic structure. Weber took Marx for a vulgar
Marxist— understandably, given the unavailability to him of Marx’s early writings,
which unequivocally contradict such vulgar readings.
 Coming from a very different philosophical background from that of Marx, Weber
was allied to the Neo-Kantian rather than the Hegelian tradition in German
thought. Neo-Kantians were philosophers of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries who followed the teachings of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804).
Kant saw human beings as existing only partly in the world of natural causality,
and partly in a realm of freedom, governed by moral rules rather than causes.
Consequently, human. beings could not be understood entirely by natural
science; the study of their moral and spiritual life would have to be pursued by
other means. Nevertheless, Weber shared some of Marx’s key assumptions and
also his core concern with the nature of capitalism. However, he held very
different conceptions of the nature of history, and also of the methodology of
historical and sociological studies.
 One legacy of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy is a sharp distinction between the
realm of physical nature and that of human mental life. Physical nature is a realm
of rigid, mechanical determination, while human mental life is one of freedom
and the absence of causality. At the end of the nineteenth century, this
distinction gave rise in German culture to a hot debate over the limits to scientific
inquiry: were cultural phenomena, the topics of history, by their very nature
precluded from the kind of scientific study applied to natural phenomena? This
debate framed Weber’s own preoccupations. For him, the difference between
natural science and history was not basically a result of the different natures of
natural and social phenomena; rather, it came out of our relationship to them,
out of the interests that we take in them. With respect to nature, we have, on the
whole, an interest in understanding its general patterns; the difference between
one rock and another hardly matters at all to us and certainly does not matter for
its own sake. Rather, we are interested in the way in which rocks in general
behave; we can therefore be satisfied with an understanding that is abstract and
 generalised. However, when it comes to human beings, their individuality
captivates us. For example, our interest in Adolf Hitler derives not from the
characteristics he had in common with other human beings, but from his
distinctiveness, the extent to which he was quite unlike other politicians.
 Weber did not conclude that there is no room for generalities in the social
sciences; rather, that they are not their be-all and end-all in the way they are
within the natural sciences. Generalities can be useful in the study of history and
society as means to another end, i.e. in so far as they help us to understand
better the individual case.

Individuality:
For Weber, sociology as a generalising approach was subordinate to history; it provided
abstract concepts, which could be useful in understanding concrete, complex, individual
historical cases. Such concepts were created not for their own sake but precisely for
their usefulness in informing historical studies.

Weber’s own studies were wide-ranging geographically and historically; they

encompassed the civilisations of the West from the time of the Greeks, and Asiatic
societies such as India and China over thousands of years, and were meant to include
the world of Islam also (though his study of Islam was barely launched, and most of the
other studies, though lengthy, were unfinished). Their purpose was to tackle questions
about the role of religion in social and economic change, and also the relationship
between ideas and economic conditions of the sort posed by Marx. Nevertheless,
understanding of the general issues and of the other societies was not sought for its
own sake, but gathered with respect to its relevance to the situation at home, i.e.
understanding the individuality of the Western European and North American capitalist
civilizations (especially Germany, for Weber was strongly nationalist in sentiments) in
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The ‘individuals’ with whom history was
concerned could be quite large complexes, such as ‘Western civilization in the modern
world’, and not just individual human beings. Further, historical/scientific knowledge
had only a relatively subordinate role in relationship to politics. Weber wrote two major
essays on politics and science as vocations, putting views that provoke controversy to
this day.

Objectivity and value freedom:

Most contentious is the idea that science should be ‘value free’. A major political
concern of
Weber’s was to ensure civic responsibility within modern society, where technical and
scientific expertisewas assuming ever-increasing importance.

Weber worried about the blurring of the roles of scientist and citizen and the use of the
prestige of science to bolster the claims of demagogues. He feared that those who
occupied the role of scientist would often be irresponsible enough to take advantage of
the prestige given them by their position of scientific eminence, and of the authority
deriving from their expertise, in order to advocate political policies, which can have no
scientific basis or authority. He believed that in the universities of his time the.
professors were exceeding the bounds of their scholarly competence in the lecture hall
by delivering impassioned speeches about political issues in the guise of scholarly
disquisitions. Academics and scientists are no less entitled to the right to present their
political viewpoints than anyone else, but they are no more privileged in the political
arena than anyone else and should therefore confine their political persuasion to the
public, political arena. There the greatest historian, physicist or sociologist is just one
more citizen, one more voice. The responsible discharge of scientific obligations
requires sobe compliance with the usual rules of scholarly investigation and evidential
proof, and abstinence from political polemics in the classroom.

Facts and values:

The distinction between the scientific and the political was, for Weber, the recognition
of a long-standing philosophical distinction between facts and values. A very standard
position, which Weber shared, is that values cannot logically be deduced from facts.
Scientists can only report upon what happens and how things are; they cannot tell us
how they should be, how we should live, or what we should do. The provision of
research and evidence cannot relieve us of the necessity to make choices at the level of
values.

This distinction was a key to Weber’s conception of human existence as well as

sociological method: there is an irreducible variety of incompatible human values; and
there is no possibility of a scientific or rational basis upon which to choose between
them. We cannot excuse ourselves from the need to make a choice by arguing that
science shows one value to be preferable to another, for science cannot do this. We
have to make up our own minds about which ‘Gods or Demons’, as Weber put it, to
affiliate ourselves to, which gods to worship, which leaders to follow and which causes
to fight for. Such choice is a tragic aspect of human existence and surely a source of
terrible conflicts within and between individuals. Consequently, Weber is sometimes
spoken of as a decisionist, i.e. we have to choose our values, the things we treasure and
strive for, from a range of possible and irreconcilable values, and must therefore make a
decision to go one way rather than another and, having made it, live with its
consequences.

Therefore, science can never displace politics, and the scientist can never, acting purely
as scientist, be a political leader. The (legitimate) role of science in politics can only ever
be advisory. Scientists understand what happens and how things work causally. They
can, therefore, give good advice on how to make a certain thing happen. They can tell
us, on the basis of their expertise, that certain ways of attempting to make something
happen are more likely to bring about the desired result, but they cannot, from that
same expertise, tell us whether we should desire that result or a different one. The
question whether we want X or Y is a political decision, a matter for the political
leadership to deal with. Scientific knowledge can be of great value to politics, but it
cannot displace or substitute for politics. It is an illusion to think that politics can be
made scientific, for politics entails struggle between values, not the facts of empirical
knowledge.

Weber never sought to keep the social scientist out of politics but merely to keep
distinct the two roles a scientist might play, as disciplined inquirer and as active citizen.
Within the sphere of scholarship, the scientist can be objective, since objectivity
requires only sober compliance with the obligations of the scientific role to proceed
according to the standard rules of evidence and proof. Within politics, the danger is that
the difference between the scientific and political roles is obscured, giving a false
authority to someone who just happens to be a scientist. In the administration of
politics, those serving as scientific
advisers to politicians might exceed their role, might begin to usurp the decision-making
prerogative of the legitimate political leader through attempting to reduce real issues of
value decision to matters of mere technical choice or by obscuring the political issues in
talk that sounds like science. Science itself, as Weber recognized, also rests upon values.
For example, if we do not value knowledge for its own sake, then what would be the
point of pursuing scholarship? ‘Value freedom’ as Weber understood it operates within
the framework of accepted scientific values. He himself was not abashed at being
politically active or in seeking to use scientific knowledge in the formation of social
policy. Indeed, he was concerned about the absence of decisive, heroic political
leadership, leading some critics to see in his ideals a prefiguration of the kind of
leadership Hitler would shortly offer the German people.

The rationalisation of social life:

On several occasions we have used the term rational, persistently mentioning it as a
leading feature of modern Western capitalism. The rational In Weber’s usage, ‘rational’
refers to the attempt to work out means to ends, and to the attempt to develop a
systematic understanding of things so that ends can also be worked out systematically
and can even be ranked by calculation.

Weber thought that all actions could take only a few basic forms. Many actions are
traditional or habitual in character, i.e. they are done without thought or calculation.
There are two kinds of action worthy of the title ‘rational’. One type he calls value
rational actions, where the means have no practical relationship to the end, but are
simply a way of acting out, of realising, a value the actor holds. His own example is the
captain who goes down with the ship; his action does not achieve anything practical,
but it does continue the commitment to dignity, integrity and honour which the captain
may have made the hallmark of a whole life. The other kind of rationality is the
practical: the working out of the best, most effective means of getting towards the end
that one desires. It is most prevalently exhibited in our economic affairs and our
civilisation, drawing extensively and dependently upon scientific understanding.
Because we have such a worked-out understanding of the natural world, we are able to
calculate with great effect and in very fine detail the best technical solution to any
practical business, administrative or other problem.
In the West there has been a progressive process of rationalisation, i.e. the extension
of this practical kind of action, thereby giving a systematic understanding and
calculability of practical meansends relationships throughout the whole of society. This
development has been massively accelerated under capitalism and has been especially
associated with the rise of science. Though distinctive in its particular character and in
the sheer extent of its development in the modern Western world, the process has very
deep roots in Western culture. Weber traced its origins not only to early Greek
civilisation—with its scientific mentality—but also, as part of the comparative studies of
world religions, to the traditions of ancient Judaism, which were formatively influential
upon Christianity. For example, he argued that Judaism was notably hostile to magic, a
hostility that it bequeathed to Christianity. In itself, magic is intensely traditionalizing in
binding people to the repetitive performances of prescribed actions; to be effective, the
magical action must be done in the same way on every occasion. Consequently, the
possibility of attempting to think out the conditions of effective action, of envisaging
how the action might be made more effective by being reorganized, is inhibited. In
these ways, the rationalizing process has remote roots in Western civilisation and a long
history of development. Its apotheosis came with the capitalist phase, when we have
not only rationalised our understanding of nature and our mastery of practical actions,
but also rationalized our human relations in the form of bureaucracy. For bureaucracy is
nothing other than an attempt to rationalise, i.e. to make calculable, predictable and
controllable, our own relations and activities. For Weber, it was the one of most inimical
features of life today.

While Weber’s work has had a profound impact on sociology – as well as other
disciplines – it is not without its critics. Some critics question the consistency and
applicability of Weber’s method of verstehen. Others are puzzled by Weber’s
methodological individualism as it is applied to macrosociology. Some critics have
rebuked Weber for failing to offer any alternatives to rationalization, capitalism, and
bureaucracy. Finally, many critics decry Weber’s unflagging pessimism about the future
of rationalization and bureaucracy.

According to him, behavior of man in society is qualitatively different from that of

physical objects
and biological organism. (What accounts for these differences?)

The presence of ‘meanings and motives’ which underlie the social behavior of man.
Thus any study of
human behavior in society must take cognizance of these meanings to understand this
behavior.

 The objectives of sociological study are, therefore, different from those of

positive science, while positive science seeks to discover the underlying patterns
of interactions between various aspects of physical and natural phenomena, the
social science, on the other hand, seek to understand the meanings and motives
to explain the social phenomena in terms of these motivations.
  Hence positive science method alone would prove inadequate to study the social
behavior. However, Weber was not opposed to building generalization in social
sciences, but, he pointed out that given the variable nature of social phenomena,
only limited generalization can be made.

Subject Matter:

 Weber conceived of SOCIOLOGY as a comprehensive science of social action

which constitutes the basic unit of social life.
 In consonance with his general perception of the nature of social reality, he
defined social action as the ‘the meaningful act oriented towards other
individuals.’ Presence of MEANINGS as well AS OTHER INDIVIDUALS is equally
important for any behavior to qualify as social action.
 However, an insolated social act does not exist in real social life. Only at the
analytical level can one conceptualized an isolated social act. What exists in
reality is an on-going chain of reciprocal social actions.

Methodology:

 According to Weber the aim of Sociology is different from those of Physical and
Natural Sciences. Natural Sciences are primarily interested in search for laws or
the underlying patterns of interconnections. Sociology seeks to understand social
behavior in terms of meanings and motives, though sociology also attempts to
arrive at limited generalization. Therefore, social science cannot rely on positive
science method alone.
 Weber advocated ‘Verstehen method’ to study the social phenomena. This
method seeks to understand social action at the ‘level of meanings’ and then
tries to sequence of motive which underlie the social action. First step involved in
this method is ‘Direct Observational Understanding’ of the obvious subjective
meanings of actor’s behavior. Second step involves, establishing an empathetic
liaison with the actior.
 Here, the observer identifies himself with the actor by imaginatively placing
himself in the actor’s situation and then tries to interpret the likely meanings
which the actor might have had given to the situation and the consequent
motives which would have given rise to the action. Weber argues further that
application of this method is not confined to the study of present social behavior;
it can be applied equally to understand historical events. In Weber’s words, “one
need not be a Caesar in order to understand Caesar.
 Further, Weber states that social reality by its very nature is infinitely compiled
and cannot be comprehended in its totality by the human mind. Therefore,
sociologists should build “ideal types”. Ideal type is a one-sided view of social
reality which takes into account certain aspects of social life while ignoring others.
Which aspects are to be given importance to, and which are to be ignored
depends upon the object of study.
  Thus, although ideal type is rooted in reality, it does not represent reality in
totality. It is a mental construct. Weber claims that ideal type in a social science
equivalent of experimentation in physical and natural sciences. Thus, the
methodology of sociology consists in building ideal types of social behavior and
applying Verstehen method to explain these ideal types for value neutrality. This
means that subjective meanings and motives of the actor should be interpreted
by the observer in an objective manner.
 According to Weber, the social reality is extremely complex and therefore no
social phenomena can be explained adequately in terms of a single cause. An
adequate sociological explanation must therefore be based on the principle
of causal pluralism. Weber’s thesis on “the Protestant Ethics and Spirit of
Capitalism” is a very good example of the application of this methodology.
Besides contributing directly to the development of sociology by suggesting the
‘Verstehen’ approach and ‘ideal types’, Weber’s general conception of the nature
of social reality influenced the emergence of other approaches in sociology. For
example, Alfred Schutz, a German Social Philosopher was inspired by the ideas of
Max Weber. He contributed to the rise of phenomenological approach which in
turn gave rise to ethnomethodological approach in sociology.

Social Action
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
effect”. For Weber, the combined qualities of ‘action’ and ‘meaning’ were the ‘central
facts’ for sociology’s scientific analysis. The technical category of ‘action’ described in
Weber’s work is all human behavior to which an actor attaches subjective
meaning. According to Weber “Action is social, in so far as, by virtue of subjective
meaning attached to it by the acting individual, it takes account of the behavior of
others and is thereby oriented in its course.” The refinement and utilization of this
technical category of ‘action’ provided Weber with an objective facticity necessary to
apply his other subjective category called ‘meaning,’ a term which refers to
the rationalized reasons put forth by an individual as explanation for specific action.

What intrigued Weber was the actually assigned ‘reason’ for identifiable behavior given
by actors themselves. These behavior complexes, oriented by individuals within
specifiable socio-historical settings, were the subjects of sociological analysis. In the
absence of assigned ‘meanings’ by the individuals, the actions are meaningless and thus
outside the purview of sociology. The behavioral complex or matrix fell
into one of four types in Weber’s work:

 ZWECKRATIONAL ACTION OR RATIONAL ACTION IN RELATION TO A GOAL: The

actor determines the goal and chooses his means purely in terms of their
efficiency towards achievement of goal. In this action both means and ends are
rational. It means that in a specific situation, by determining once goal, a person
acts in a planned way that is why this action is completely rational. For example
building up of a structure by an engineer, actions done in bureaucracy, actions
 done by modern man in a planned way for his bright future. In modern era, the
importance of this action his substantially increased because, in Weber’s words,
the world is tending towards more and more bureaucratization, which means our
dependency of bureaucracy is thoroughly increasing day by day. Obviously
rationality is also increasing.
 WERTRATIONAL ACTION OR RATIONAL ACTION IN RELATION TO A VALUE: Here
means are chosen for their efficiency but the ends are determined by value. The
action of a captain who goes down with the sinking ship or that of a gentleman
who allows himself to be killed rather than yield in a duel are examples. It is that
action which is performed on any artistic religious or moral basis and which is
accepted without any logical reasons. It means that in this action, means are
rational, but not the ends and ends are accepted on the basis of social values.
Actions related with attainment of salvation or heaven come under the purview
of this action.
 AFFECTIVE FOR EMOTIONAL ACTION: Here emotion or impulse determines the
ends and means of action as in the case of a mother who slaps her child or a
player who throws a punch at a partner in a game. They are those which are
instigated by emotions and invitation. Such behaviour is affected by love, hatred,
and enmity or angry and they are mostly rational. For example a father gets angry
suddenly on the failure of his son.
 TRADITIONAL ACTIONS WHERE BOTH ENDS AND MEANS ARE DETERMINED BY
CUSTOMS. Rituals, ceremonies and practices of tradition fall in this category.
They are those which are controlled by that social action, which have been
followed by several people over a long period of time. Such actions are followed
for a reason, like many people have been doing likewise since long past, there is
no place of logic, and value, sentiment in the action. The examples of such action
can be seen in the kinship and in the patriarchal or matriarchal families. The
quantity of such actions has decreased in due course of time and it is being
replaced by rational legal actions.

WEBER ARGUED PERSUASIVELY THAT “BECAUSE INDIVIDUALS IN A SOCIAL SITUATION

UNDERGO CERTAIN EXPERIENCES, THE SOCIOLOGIST CANNOT AVOID INCLUDING IN
HIS PURVIEW THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF THESE EXPERIENCE”
UNLIKE DURKHEIM, WEBER WANTED TO ENTER INTO THE SUBJECTIVE DYNAMICS OF
HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN ORDER TO GRASP MORE FULLY ITS INTENDED PURPOSE OR
MEANING AS THOUGHT OF AND PERCEIVED BY THE ACTING INDIVIDUAL HIMSELF.

Of course, for Weber, the ability to grasp the subjective quality of human behavior is
dependent upon the scientist’s ability to interpret the causal meaning of human action.
According to Weber “A CORRECT CAUSAL INTERPRETATION OF A CONCRETE COURSE
OF ACTION IS ARRIVED AT WHEN THE OVERT ACTION AND THE MOTIVES HAVE BOTH
BEEN CORRECTLY APPREHENDED AND AT THE SAME TIME THEIR RELATION HAS
BECOME MEANINGFULLY COMPREHENSIBLE.”
Relevance:

 Max Weber himself has talked about the role of social action, indirectly in the
formation of social system and directly in the formation of different authorities
specially bureaucratic authority.
 Bureaucracy (Rational-Legal Action)is growing day by day and in that way it is
making the whole social action as relevant everything is done in the frame of
interaction which is possibly in social action only.
 The interaction is not only important at domestic level but also
internationally. In the context of globalization, it has become even more
important, though earlier we were having many regional and continental
organizations. In this way the international organization and globalization both
are making the whole world as one having the similar culture, which is entirely
possible with social action only. This shows that the whole world had consider
similar kinds of actions and in this way, it is going to finish all kinds of problems
related with particular interpretation. This shows the great significance of social
actions.
 Another important point related with it is that after identifying similar traits of
culture, we are now in a position to trace some of the unwanted activities like
separatist activities, terrorist activities and for that cause also, the world is
becoming one-to fight against it to eradicate it from the system. Now The
terrorist attacks anywhere in the world receive worldwide condemnation and also
help to fight it.

Criticism:

 IN THE CONTEXT OF “EMPATHETIC LIAISON” THEODRE OBEL criticizes Weber

that Verstehen is not easy to be followed because it is highly based on subjectivity
and in that way. Subjective perception may come in frequently. And it will be
difficult for the investigator to considers the action properly.
 IN CONTEXT OF RATIONAL ACTION IN RELATION TO A GOAL: Since everything is
rational and is not based on one’s emotion or sentiment. Then why not all
bureaucrats successfully accomplish their task. Only few achieve Excellence.
 RATIONAL ACTION RELATED WITH VALUES AND IN RELATION TO TRADITION,
BECOMES VERY MUCH SITUATIONAL FOR OBSERVER. If the observer belongs to
some traditions and value he can empathies it to some extent. But if he does not
belong to the same tradition and value it would be quite difficult for him to
empathies.
 AFFECTIVE ACTION ARE VERY SENSITIVE because they attached emotions,
impulses and so the outburst and therefore they cannot be followed easily.
 In the context of Value Neutrality, it is tough for an observer to empathies the
action done before. And in this way values of the observer come in his studies.
But even though, he is successful in this part he cannot stop the values of the
actor to come in. Weber himself was very much conscious of this situation. He
wanted to establish sociology as value neutral. For this he suggested one thing
 that the observer should not orient himself to the end but rather focus heavily
in the means use by the actor. And if to gets the same result it will show that he
has not taken actors values come in the studies. And in this way his studies would
be value neutral.
 IN THE CONTEXT OF DIFFERENT SITUATION, Weber did not talk about one thing
that how should an actor decide to act in a particular situation. In case of
dilemma between two actions, how would he resolve the problem? Talcott
Parson in his concept of pattern variables talked about this situation and explains
it very systematically.

Ideal Types
Ideal type may conceptualise as a kind, category, class or group of objects, things or
persons with particular character that seems to be the best example of it. Weber used
ideal type in a specific
sense.

To Weber, ideal type is a mental construct, like a model, for the scrutiny and
systematic characterization of a concrete situation. Indeed, he used ideal type as
a methodological tool to understand analyse social reality.

 Methodology is the CONCEPTUAL AND LOGICAL RESEARCH PROCEDURE by

which knowledge is developed. Max Weber was particularly concerned with the
problem of OBJECTIVITY in social sciences. Hence he used ideal type as a
methodological tool that looks at reality objectively. It SCRUTINIZES, CLASSIFIES,
SYSTEMATIZES AND DEFINES SOCIAL REALITY without subjective bias.
 The ideal type has nothing to do with values. Its function, as a research tool, is for
classification and defines social reality without subjective bias. To quote Max
Weber: “THE IDEAL TYPICAL CONCEPT WILL DEVELOP OUR SKILL IN RESEARCH.
IT IS NOT A DESCRIPTION OF REALITY BUT IT AIMS TO GIVE UNAMBIGUOUS
MEANS OF EXPRESSION TO SUCH DESCRIPTION”.
 In other words, IDEAL TYPES ARE CONCEPTS FORMULATED ON THE BASIS OF
FACTS COLLECTED CAREFULLY AND ANALYTICALLY FOR EMPIRICAL RESEARCH. In
this sense, ideal types are constructs or concepts which are used as
methodological devices or tools in our understanding and analysis of any social
problem.

Construction of Ideal Type:

 Ideal types are formulated by THE ABSTRACTION AND COMBINATION OF AN

INDEFINITE NUMBER OF ELEMENTS WHICH FOUND IN REALITY, ARE RARELY OR
NEVER DISCOVERED IN SPECIFIC FORM. Therefore, Weber does not consider that
he is establishing a new conceptual method. He emphasizes that he is making
explicit what is already done in practice.
  For the construction of ideal types, THE SOCIOLOGISTS SELECTS A CERTAIN
NUMBER OF TRAITS FROM THE WHOLE WHICH IS OTHERWISE CONFUSING AND
OBSCURE, TO CONSTITUTE AN INTELLIGIBLE ENTITY.

FOR EXAMPLE, if we wish to study the state of democracy in India (or for that matter of
secularism, communalism, equality, and court of law) then our first task will be to define
the concept of democracy with the help of its essential and typical characteristics. Here
we can mention some of the essential characteristics of democracy, viz., existence of a
multi-party system, universal adult franchise, formation of government by people’s
representatives, people’s participation in the decision making, equality before law,
respect to majority verdict and each others view as well. This formulation of a pure type
or an ideal type concept of democracy will guide as and work as a tool in our analysis.
Any deviation from or conformity to it will unfold the reality.

 Ideal types, therefore, focus on the typical and the essential characteristics.
Though ideal types are constructed from facts existing in reality, they do not
represent or describe the total reality, they are of pure types in a logical
sense. ……According to Weber in its conceptual purity, this ideal mental construct
may not be found empirically anywhere in reality’.

Characteristics of Ideal Type :

1. IDEAL TYPES ARE NOT GENERAL OR AVERAGE TYPES. THAT IS, THEY ARE NOT
DEFINED BY THE CHARACTERISTICS COMMON TO ALL PHENOMENA OR OBJECTS
OF STUDY. They are formulated on the basis of certain typical traits which are
essential to the construction of an ideal type concept.
2. Ideal types are not a presentation of total reality or they do not explain
everything. They exhibit partial conception of the whole.
3. IDEAL TYPES ARE NEITHER A DESCRIPTION OF ANY DEFINITE CONCEPT OF
REALITY, NOR A HYPOTHESIS, BUT THEY CAN AID BOTH IN DESCRIPTION AND
EXPLANATION. Ideal types are different in scope and usage from descriptive
concepts. Its descriptive concepts can be used, for instance, in the classification of
different sects, and if one wants to apply the distinction in order to analyse the
importance of these for the economic activity then one has to reformulate the
concept of sect to emphasise the specific components of sectarianism which have
been influential in the economic pursuit. The concept then becomes an ideal
typical one, meaning that any descriptive concept can be transformed into an
ideal type through abstraction and recombination of certain elements when we
wish to explain or analyse rather than describe a phenomenon.
4. In this sense we can say that IDEAL TYPES ARE ALSO RELATED TO THE ANALYTIC
CONCEPTION OF CAUSALITY, THOUGH NOT, IN DETERMINISTIC TERMS. THEY
ALSO HELP IN REACHING TO GENERAL PROPOSITIONS AND IN COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS. Ideal types serve to guide empirical research, and are used in
systematization of data on historical and social reality.
Purpose of Ideal Type:

 IDEAL TYPES ARE CONSTRUCTED TO FACILITATE THE ANALYSIS OF EMPIRICAL

QUESTION. Most researchers are not fully aware of the concepts they use. As a
result their formulations often tend to be imprecise and ambiguous, or as Weber
himself says’ the language which the historians talk contain hundreds of words
which are ambiguous constructs created to meet the unconsciously conceived
need for adequate expression, and whose meaning is definitely felt, but not
clearly thought out’.
 Ideal types are not formed out of a nexus of purely conceptual thought, but ARE
CREATED, MODIFIED AND SHARPENED THROUGH THE EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF
CONCRETE PROBLEMS. This, in turn, increases the precision of that analysis. Ideal
types are a methodological device which not only helps us in the analysis of
empirical question, but also in avoiding obscurity and ambiguity in the concepts
used, and in increasing the accuracy of our analysis.
 DEVICE IN UNDERSTANDING HISTORICAL CONFIGURATIONS OR SPECIFIC
HISTORICAL PROBLEMS. For this we construct ideal types, that is, to understand
how events had actually taken place and to show that if some antecedents or
other events had not occurred or had occurred differently, the event we are
trying to explain would have been different as well, For example, because of the
implementation of the land reform laws and penetration of other modernizing
forces, like education, modern occupation etc. the joint family system has broken
down in rural India. This means that there is a causal relation between the event
(land reform, education and modern education) and the situation (the joint
family). In this ideal type concept also helps in the causal explanation of a
phenomenon.
 In Weber’s work such analysis of causal relations was related to his interest in
world wide comparisons or in analysis of events and establishment of general
preposition. That is, he used ideal types to build up a conception of a particular
historical case, and used the same ideal type conceptions for a comparative
analysis. This interdependence of history and sociology appears most clearly in
Weber’s conception of the ideal type.
 Besides examining any particular case Max Weber also used idela types to
analyse the abstract elements of social reality and to explain particular kinds of
social behaviour.

Ideal Types In Weber’s Work:

Protestent Ethics & Rise Of Capitalism
Weber constructed ideal type of capitalism by selecting a certain number of traits from
the historical whole to constitute intelligible entity. This was to show that there was a
spiritual affinity between Calvinism and the economic ethics of modern capitalist
activity. For this he identified those components of Calvinist doctrine which he
considered as of particular and significant importance for the formation of capitalist
spirit.
  The essence of capitalism according to Weber is embodied in those enterprises
whose aim is to make maximum profit or to accumulate more and more. These
are based on the rational organization of work and production. It is the
conjunction of desire for profit and rational discipline which constitutes the
historically unique feature of western capitalism. The desire for profit is satisfied
not by speculation or conquest or adventure, but by discipline and rationality.
This is possible with the help of legal administration of the modern state or
rationality. This is possible with the help of legal administration of the modern
state or rational bureaucracy. Hence capitalism defined as an enterprise working
towards unlimited accumulation of profit and functioning according to
bureaucratic rationality.
 Weber tried to show that there was a close affinity between this type of
economic activity and elements of Calvinist doctrine. According to the Calvinist
ethic, God is all powerful and above common man. Man has to work for God’s
glory on earth and this can be done through handwork and labour which are
rational, regular and constant. The calling of the individual is to fulfill his duty to
God through the moral conduct of his day to day life whether he is rich or poor.
For him work is worship and there is no room for idleness and laziness. This
specific character of Calvinistic belief accounted for the relation between Calvinist
doctrine and the spirit of capitalism which was characterized by a unique
devotion to the earning of wealth through legitimate economic activity. This is
rooted in a belief in the value of efficient performance in the chosen vocation as a
duty and a virtue.

Bureaucracy

 Weber’s ideal type of bureaucracy comprised various elements…. such as a high

degree of specialization and a clearly-defined division of labour, with tasks
distributed as official duties. Hierarchical structure of authority with clearly
circumscribed areas of command and responsibility. Establishment of a formal
body of rules to govern the operation of the organization and administration
based on written documents. Impersonal relationships between organizational
members and the clients. Recruitment of personnel based on ability and technical
knowledge. Long term employment, promotion on the basis of seniority and
merit, fixed salary and the separation of private and official income.
 Though examples of developed bureaucracies existed in different parts of the
world prior to the emergence of modern capitalism, it is only within this that
organizations are found which approximate to this deal typical form. Weber used
these abstract elements of bureaucracy to explain a concrete phenomenon.

Types of Authority
To understand the various aspects of authority Max Weber constructed its ideal types in
terms of three types of authority. These are traditional, rational and charismatic.
  Traditional authority is based upon the belief in the sanctity of age old customs
and rules.
 Rational authority is maintained by laws. Decrees, regulations.
 Charismatic authority is characterized by exceptional virtue possessed by or
attributed to the leader
by those who follow him, have confidence in him and are devoted to him.

These three ideal type of concepts may be used to understand concrete political
regimes, most of which contain certain elements of each.

Type of Action
According to Max Weber “Sociology is a science which attempts the interpretative
understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its
course and effect”. Here we can point out a few important elements of social action:

 It includes all human behaviour

 It attaches a subjects meaning to it.
 The acting individual or individuals take into account the behaviour of others
 It is oriented in its course

Hence the construction of an ideal type of social action helps the sociologists social
action“which has the merit of clear understandability and lack of ambiguity”.

Weber has talked about four types of social action……… Since reality present a mixture
of the four pure types of action, for out analysis and understanding we separate them
analytically into pure or ideal types. For instance, the use of rational ideal types can help
in measuring irrational deviation and we can understand particular empirical action by
interpreting as to which of the four types of action it most closely approximates.

Power and Authority

In ordinary usage, the term ‘power’ means strength or the capacity to
control. Sociologists describe it as the ability of an individual or group to fulfill its
desires and implement its decisions and ideas. It involves the ability to influence
and/or control the behaviour of others even against their will.

1. For Max Weber, power is an aspect of social relationship. It refers to the

possibility of imposing one’s will upon the behaviour of another person. Power is
present in social interaction and creates situations of inequality since the one
who, has power imposes it on others. The impact of power varies from situation
to situation. On the one hand it depends upon the extent to which it is opposed
or resisted by the others. Weber says that power can be exercised in all walks of
life.
2. It is not restricted to a battlefield or to politics. It is to be observed in the market
place, on a lecture platform, at a social gathering, in sports, scientific discussion
 and even through charity. For example, giving alms or ‘daan’ to a beggar is a
subtle way of exercising your superior economic power.
3. Weber discusses two contrasting sources of power. These are as follows:
 Power which is derived from a constellation of interests that develop in a formally
free market. For
example, a group of producers of sugar controls supply of their production in the
market to maximize their profit.
 An established system of authority that allocates the right to command and the
duty to obey. For
example, in the army, a jawan is obliged to obey the command of this officer. The
officer derives his power through an established system of authority.

Additional Notes:
Power and the Forms of Social inequality;
Weber also provided some general concepts for sociological analysis, which shaped the
form taken by his descriptions of the world religions. Most basically, Weber looked upon
the organization of society as involving struggles for power. For Weber, no less than for
Marx, social life is about inequality, which can
take many forms. In a given situation, inequality is not necessarily economic. Economic
inequality is important and frequently plays a leading part, but it is only one form taken
by inequality. Inequalities are the basis for the organization of groups, and the struggle
over inequalities is most commonly between
groups. Therefore, the key element in Weber’s account of society is his account of
stratification.

Stratification
Inequalities are arranged on three dimensions, but all are forms of power. In Weber’s
terminology, power is the capacity to get done what you want despite resistance from
others. For example, economic wealth is a form of power, giving the capacity to get
what one desires. All forms of inequality are inequalities in power. The three
dimensions of power are (1) economic, (2) prestige and (3) pure power. They are the
basis for three characteristically different forms of grouping: the class, the status group
and the party. It is among and between these three kinds of groups that the historically
decisive struggles over power are apt to take place.

Weber’s conception of social class is much akin to Marx’s. Class is defined in terms of
position in the process of economic production, specifically in terms of one’s
relationship to a market: what does one have to sell on the market? Is it labour power,
or does one have products, or what? Weber does not think of classes as real groups, i.e.
persons self- consciously interacting with one another; rather, they are merely
categories, the product of a sociological analyst’s definitions.
Classes
A class is more a category than a group, i.e. a collection of people identified together on
the basis of some common characteristic. We can have as many or as few classes as we
like, depending on how grossly or finely we draw the criteria.

We can reduce the number of classes basically to two, by making the distinction
between those who sell labour power on the market and those who buy it, i.e. Marx’s
proletariat and bourgeoisie. Within just the one category, e.g. those (workers) who sell
labour power, we can increase the number of categories by distinguishing the broad
kinds of labour power sold, e.g. is it skilled or unskilled, manual or non-manual? We can
multiply it up to an enormous number of classes by making the criterion of common
position the specific kind of labour power being disposed of, e.g. is it the capacity to fix
plumbing, to repair electronic wiring, to lay bricks, or to dig ditches? Contrary to Marx’s
assumption, there is nothing naturally unified about a class, and the social conditions
which cause classes to act as co-ordinated social units in the struggle for power only
rarely arise. The members of a class often react to situations in the same way—what
Weber termed ‘mass action’—because, of course, they share a similar background and
experience, but they are not aware of one another’s response and are certainly not
acting out of any sense of a joint venture in so responding.

The second form Weber describes is the status group. Status groups are real
groups: the very specification of such a group involves and is dependent upon mutual
recognition by its members. The inequality which separates classes is economic, the
kind of returns which can be expected from the market relative to the things to be sold
there, but status groups are differentiated by prestige, i.e. the level of esteem in which
people hold themselves and are held by others.

Status Groups:
A status group is a collection of people who recognise themselves as equals, who look
upon one another as equally worthy, and who look up to and down on other social
groups. A status group involves shared understandings, mutual recognition among its
members and, of course, acknowledgement from its superiors and inferiors of its
standing in the general scale of social position.

Thus there is mutual awareness and some—at least diffusely—co-ordinated action

integral to the very existence of a status group. The mechanism of such a group’s
existence is closure. It includes some and excludes others; it takes steps to ensure that
those who are not equals are kept out.

From an economic point of view, a status group is defined in terms of consumption, not
production. What makes someone an equal is how he or she lives, the lifestyle, as
Weber termed it. For example, to lead the life of an educated, cultured and leisured
person might be the basis for mutual acknowledgement. In the end the status group is
dependent upon economic inequality because the capacity to lead a certain kind of life
presupposes the wealth to fund it. It is not the wealth as such, however, that is decisive.
Further, the status group’s attempt to preserve its existence and identity through
closure characteristically involves economic intervention in attempts to restrain the
operation of the market in order to prevent the hallmarks of a lifestyle becoming
available to mere purchase (which would directly link them to wealth). The Indian caste
system is the extreme case of a status group system, where the operation of the market
has been restricted to such an extent that even jobs are retained within the various
caste groups through inheritance. Inevitably, class and status are mutually inimical
forms of social organisation, since the existence of one—status group—involves some
reduction in the operation of the conditions—the market—conducive to the formation
of class. The conditions under which the status group can thrive, Weber held, are those
of long-term social stability—which is why they occupy such prominence in his
discussion of traditional China and India. In situations of rapid social and economic
change, social class possesses greater prominence.

The party is the third element in Weber’s scheme. Whereas the status group has a
diffuse sense of solidarity and common interest, providing a more promising basis for
the organisation of coordinated collective action than that available to the class, this
capacity for collective action is not easily going to amount to the focused, carefully
calculated pursuit of common interest, which is what the party is all about.

Parties:
The party is a self-conscious organisation for the pursuit of power. As a body created
specifically for the
purpose of struggling for power, it therefore works out its objectives and organisation
to maximise its chances of attaining power.

The party, as Weber intends this term, is an analytical notion and does not just refer to
formal political parties. It includes any and all associations developed purely for the sake
of winning power. For example, it can include factions in business, leisure and religious
organisations as well as large-scale political power. Such a group has self-awareness,
mutual recognition among its members of shared specific purposes, and the capacity for
closely concerted action in pursuit of them. It is the most effective vehicle in the
struggle for power in society. Parties can, of course, attempt to base themselves in
specific social groups; they can set out the goal of winning power in society for a specific
category, e.g. a socialist party might aim to take political power for the working class,
setting out to recruit from among its members, and therefore actively seek working-
class members. However, they need not do so, and may seek power for goals and
interests that are not those of one, or any specific, class, and may draw their
membership from different social categories.

Element of Authority
For a system of authority to exist the following elements must be present:

 An individual ruler/master or a group of rulers/masters

 An individual/group that is ruled
  The will of the ruler to influence the conduct of the ruled which may be expressed
through commands
 Evidence of the influence of the rulers in terms of compliance or obedience
shown by the ruled.
 Direct or indirect evidence which shows that the ruled have internalized and
accepted the fact that the ruler’s commands must be obeyed.

We see that authority implies a reciprocal relationship between the rulers and the
ruled. The rulers believe that they have the legitimate right to exercise their authority.
On the other hand, the ruled accept this power and comply with it reinforcing its
legitimacy

Types of Authority:
According to Weber are three systems of legitimation, each with its corresponding
norms which justifies, the power to command. It is these systems of legitimation which
as designated as the types of authority. They are:

 Traditional authority
 Charismatic authority
 Rational-legal authority

TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY:
This system of legitimation flows from traditional action. In other words, it is based on
customary law and the sanctity of ancient traditions. It is based on the belief that a
certain authority is to be respected because it has existed since time immemorial.

 In traditional authority, rulers enjoy personal authority by virtue of their

inherited status. Their commands are in accordance with customs and they also
possess the right to extract compliance from the ruled. Often, they abuse their
power. The persons who obey them are ‘subjects’ in the fullest sense of the term.
They obey their master out of personal loyalty or a pious regard for his time
honoured status.
 Why did the ‘lower’ castes bear the atrocities inflicted by the ‘upper’ castes for
centuries? One way of explaining this is because the authority of the ‘upper’
castes had the backing of tradition and antiquity. The ‘lower’ castes, some say,
had become socialized into accepting their oppression. Thus, we can see that
traditional authority is based on the belief in the sacred quality of long-standing
traditions. This gives legitimacy to those who exercise authority.
 Traditional authority does not function through written rules of laws. It is
transmitted by inheritance down the generations. Traditional authority is carried
out with the help of relatives and personal favorites.
 In modern times, the incidence of traditional authority has declined. Monarchy,
the classic example of traditional authority still exist, but in a highly diluted form.
The Queen of England is a traditional figure of authority but as you may be aware,
she does not actually exercise her authority. The laws of the land are enacted in
 her name, but their content is decided by the legislators, the representatives of
the people.
 Briefly, traditional authority derives its legitimacy from longstanding traditions
which enable some to command and compel others to obey. It is hereditary
authority and does not require written rules. The ‘masters’ exercise their
authority with the help of loyal relatives and friends. Weber considers this kind of
authority as irrational. It is therefore rarely found in modern developed societies.

CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY:
Charisma means an extraordinary quality possessed by some individuals. This gives
such people unique powers to capture the fancy and devotion of ordinary people.
Charismatic authority is based on extraordinary devotion to an individual and to the
way of life preached by this person. The legitimacy of such authority rests upon the
belief in supernatural or magical powers of the person. The charismatic leader
‘proves’ his her power through miracles, military and other victories or the dramatic
prosperity of the disciples. As long as charismatic leaders continue to prove ‘their
miraculous powers in the yes of their disciples, their authority stays intact, type of
social action that charismatic authority is related to is affective action.

 Charismatic authority is not dependent on customary beliefs or written rules. It is

purely the result of the special qualities of the leader who governs or rules in his
personal capacity. Charismatic authority is not organized; therefore is no paid
staff or administrative set-up. The leader and his assistants do not have a regular
occupation and often reject their family responsibilities. These characteristics
sometimes make charismatic leaders revolutionaries, as they have rejected all the
conventional social obligations and norms.
 Based, as it is, on the personal qualities of an individual, the problem of
succession arises with the death of disappearance of the leader. In order to
transmit the original message of the leader, some sort of organization develops.
The original charisma gets transformed either into traditional authority or rational
legal-authority. Weber calls this ROUTINISATION OF CHARISMA.
 If the charismatic figure is succeeded by a son/daughter or some close relative.
Traditional authority
results. If on the other hand, charismatic qualities are identified and written
down, then it changes into rational legal authority, where anyone acquiring these
qualities can become a leader. Charismatic authority can thus be described as
unstable and temporary.
 Saints, prophets and some political leaders are examples of such authority, Kabir,
Nanak, Jesus, Mohammed, Lenin and Mahatma Gandhi, to name a few were
charismatic leaders. They were revered by people for their personal qualities and
the message they preached, not because they represented traditional or rational-
legal authority.
RATIONAL-LEGAL AUTHORITY:
The term refers to a system of authority which is both, rational and legal. It is vested
in a regular administrative staff who operate in accordance with certain written rules
and laws. Those who exercise authority are appointed to do so on the basis of their
achieved qualifications which are prescribed and codified. Those in authority consider
it a profession and are paid a salary. Thus, it is a rational system.

 It is legal because it is in accordance with the laws of the land which people
recognize and feel obliged to obey. The people acknowledge and respect the
legality of both, the ordinance and rules as well as the positions or titles of those
who implement the rules.
 Rational-legal authority is a typical feature of modern society. It is the reflection
of the process of rationalization. Remember, Weber consider “rationalization as
the key feature of western civilization”. It is, according to Weber, a specific
product of human thought and deliberation. Example of rational-legal authority-
We obey the tax collector because we believe in the legality of the ordinances he
enforces. We also believe that the tax collector has the legal right to send us
taxation notices. We stop our vehicles when the traffic policemen order us to do
so because we respect the authority vested in him by the law. Modern societies
are governed not by individuals, but by laws and ordinances. We obey the
policeman because of his position and his uniform which represents the law, not
because he is Mr. ‘X’ or Mr. ‘Y’. Rational-legal authority exists not just in the
political and administrative spheres, but also in economic organizations like banks
and industries as well as in religious and cultural organizations.

Relevance:
Max Weber’s Concept and Types of Power and authority is relevant in modern era in
following
ways:

 Bureaucratic authority is unusually accepted phenomenon and mostly its works

on the basis on of the model of Max Weber. It works as a controlling and
regulating mechanism for human being.
 Charismatic authority also functions worldwide even today. Political leaders,
religious leaders, sports person put a charismatic impact on the mind of the
people. Pope, Shankaryacharya, Dalai Lama are a few examples to quote here.
There are some new emerging ones like Nirmal Baba etc.
 Traditional Authority is seen in families. In India the situation is seen in the form
of caste politics for which Andre Beteille has given the term Caste Arithmetic,
Whereas Dipankar Gupta has described it in the form of Caste Chemistry. Apart
from it, caste Associations and parties based on caste are also prevalent in India.
Criticism:
J. Haebermas has criticized Weber’s concept of authority under the title Legitimation
Crisis in different ways:

1. Weber has talked about three kinds of authority and that people community work
under different authorities in different situations. Apart from it Weber has
defined authority as legitimate power and legitimacy is nothing but the
acceptance given by people on certain traits.
2. BUT IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THE CO-EXISTENCE OF RATIONAL LEGAL
AUTHORITY AND TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY IS NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE IN MOST
OF CASES, THEY ARE IN CONTRADICTION WITH EACH OTHER. IN THIS WAY
WEBER HAS CREATED CRISIS OF LEGITIMACY WHILE DESCRIBING THERE UNDER
THE SAME HEAD AUTHORITY. ACTUALLY BOTH ARE DIFFERENT AND THEY MUST
HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED DIFFERENT NAMES.
3. Haebermas, says that Weber has not appropriately presented the distinction
between authority and power forexample the description of attaining power
through party is wrong in the sense that, it is rather authority and not power.
4. It is also wrong to say that a particular persons in a party gets enormous power
because that person himself acts under the indentation of legitimacy.

Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy is the machinery which implements rational-legal authority. MAX WEBER
WAS THE FIRST TO GIVE AN ELABORATE ACCOUNT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF
BUREAUCRACY AS WELL AS ITS CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES. His work is usually taken
as the starting point in the sociology of organizations. Weber believed that bureaucracy
is the defining characteristic of modern industrial society. His work is mainly concerned
with a comparison of bureaucracy and the forms of organisation found in pre-industrial
societies. WEBER’S VIEW OF BUREAUCRACY MUST BE SEEN IN THE CONTEXT OF HIS
GENERAL THEORY OF SOCIAL ACTION. HE ARGUED THAT ALL HUMAN ACTION IS
DIRECTED MEANINGS. THUS IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND AND EXPLAIN ACTION, THE
MEANINGS AND MOTIVES WHICH LIE BEHIND IT MUST BE APPRECIATED. Weber
identified various types of action which are distinguished by the meanings on which
they are based. These include ‘affective’ or ‘emotional action’, traditional action’ and
‘rational action’.

Rational action involves a clear awareness of goal. Rational action also involves a
systematic assessment of the various means of attaining a goal and the selection of the
most appropriate means. Thus a capitalist in the building trade aimed to maximize
profit would carefully evaluate factors such as alternative sites raw materials, building
techniques, labour costs and the potential market in order to realize his goal. This
would entail precise calculations of costs and careful weighing of the advantages and
disadvantage of the various factors involved. His action is rational since, in Weber’s
words, rational action is the methodical; attainment of a definitely given and practical
end by means of an increasingly precise calculation of means.
Weber believed that rational action had become the dominant mode of action in
modern industrial society. He expressed it in a wide variety of areas: in state
administration, business, education, science and even in western classical music. He
referred to the increasing dominance of rational action as the process of rationalization.

Bureaucratization is the prime example of this process. A bureaucratic organisation has

a clearly define goals. It involves precise calculation of the means to attain this goal and
systematically eliminated those factors which stand in the way of the achievement of its
objectives. Bureaucracy is therefore rational action in an institutional form.

Bureaucracy is also a system of control. It is a hierarchical organisation in which

superiors strictly
control and discipline the activities of subordinates. Weber argued that in any large-
scale task, some
must coordinate and control the activities of others. He states that “the imperative
coordination of the
action of a considerable number of men requires control of staff persons”.

In order for this control to be effective it must be regarded as legitimate. There must
be a ‘minimum of voluntary submission’ to higher authority. Legitimacy can be based on
various types of meanings. This legitimacy can take the form of traditional authority or
rational authority. The form of the organizational structure derives from the types of
legitimacy on which it is based. In Weber’s words ‘according to the kind of legitimacy
which is claimed, the type of obedience, the kind of administrative staff developed to
guarantee it and the mode or exercising authority, will all differ fundamentally’. To
understand bureaucracy, it is therefore, necessary to appreciate the type of legitimacy
on which bureaucratic control is based.

Weber attributed the following characteristics to bureaucracy:

 Formal Organization of Work.

 The principles of FIXED AND OFFICIAL JURISDICTIONAL AREAS which are
generally ordered by rules. The regular activities associated with each status are
distributed in a fixed way as OFFICIAL DUTIES.
 The STRUCTURE OF AUTHORITY IS CLEARLY DELINEATED AND STRICTLY
DELIMITED by rules.
 The principle of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority with a firmly
ordered SYSTEM OF SUPER-ORDINATION AND SUBORDINATION in which there is
a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones.
 A DIVISION OF LABOR based on specialized functions and responsibilities.
 A SYSTEM OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS (‘THE FILES) defining the procedure as well
as the rights and duties of people in all positions.
 Office management based on THOROUGH AND EXPERT TRAINING.
 Selection for EMPLOYMENT AND PROMOTION BASED ON TECHNICAL
COMPETENCE, SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE OR SKILL.
  OFFICE-HOLDING AS A ‘VOCATION.’ Official work is no longer a secondary activity
but something that demands the full working capacity of the official.
 Provision for PECUNIARY COMPENSATION AS A FIXED SALARY.
 APPOINTMENT OF EMPLOYEES by higher officials, rather than by election.
 THE SYSTEM OF TENURE FOR LIFE. Normally the position of the bureaucrat is
held for life as specified by contract.
 A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SPHERE OF OFFICE AND THAT OF THE
PRIVATE AFFAIRS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. The bureaucratic official is not an owner
of the enterprise and therefore not entitled to the use of official facilities for
personal needs except as defined by strict rules.
 The practice of performing specialized administrative functions according to
purely objective considerations and the official discharge of business according to
calculable rules and ‘without regard for persons.’

Weber mentions the following characteristics of officials in bureaucratic set-up:

 Office-work is a ‘vocation’ for officials

 They are specially trained for their jobs.
 Their qualifications determine their position or rank in the office
 They are expected to do their work honestly.

Their official positions also have a bearing on their personal lives. Let us see how.

 Bureaucratic officials enjoy a high status in society.

 Often, their jobs carry transfer liabilities. By this we mean that they may be
transferred from one place or department to another leading to some instability
in their professional and personal lives. Officials receive salaries not in accordance
with productivity but status. The higher their rank, the higher their salaries. They
also receive benefits like pension, provident fund, medical and other facilities.
Their jobs-are considered very secure.
 Officials enjoy good career prospects. They can move from the lower rungs of the
bureaucratic ladder to higher ones if they work in a disciplined manner.

Causes of development of Bureaucracy:

1. MONEY ECONOMY: Weber maintains that a developed money economy is

necessary before a bureaucratic administrative can come into being. A
BUREAUCRATIC ADMINISTRATION REQUIRES A STABLE SYSTEM OF TAXATION;
THE LATER IN TURN REQUIRES A MONEY ECONOMY. No proper bureaucratic
administration could develop in olden days due to the prevalence of barter
system and the absence of a money economy.
2. INCREASE IN ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE: The large size of the MODERN NATION
STATE, THE JOINT STOCK COMPANY AND THE INDUSTRIALIZED FACTORY GAVE
RISE TO BUREAUCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. A LARGE SIZE NECESSARILY
REQUIRES DIVISION OF LABOUR. TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY REQUIRES EXPERTISE.
 COORDINATION REQUIRES HIERARCHY AND RULES. Hence bureaucratic
administration tends to grow up in every large-scale organization.
3. NATURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS: The increasing complexity of civilization
and the consequent demands upon administration also led to
bureaucratization. THUS THE GROWING WEALTH OF THE INFLUENTIAL STRATA
AND THE DESIRE FOR THE POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF GOODS AND
SERVICES OF VARIOUS KINDS LED TO THE PERFORMANCE OF NEW FUNCTION
REQUIRING NEW EXPERTISE AND WIDESPREAD NETWORKS.
4. The increased emphasis on law and order and the demand for functions of social
welfare give rise to new agencies and development of old ones. Modern means of
transport and communication, such as highways, railways, telegraph and
telephone, facilitate the functioning of bureaucracies and help bureaucratization.
5. REQUIREMENT OF EFFICIENCY: Capitalist market economy is based upon
competition and competition compels increasing efficiency among all
competitions. Since efficiency requires bureaucratization, modern capitalist
enterprises are unequalled models of strict bureaucratic organisation.
6. MARKET ECONOMY: A market functions without regard for person. Hence a
market economy necessarily leads to impersonality, which in turn helps
bureaucratization.
7. RULE OF LAW: The emergence of the conception of the rule of law in modern
times has also led to bureaucratization. The rule of law means equality before the
law, or lack of arbitrariness, which is ensured by bureaucratization to some
extent.
8. CONCENTRATION OF THE MEANS OF ADMINISTRATION: The rise of the
bureaucratic structure has been associated with the concentration of the means
of management in the hands of the master. Thus the bureaucratization of the
army took place after the transfer of army service from the propertied to the
propertyless. Earlier, the soldier was himself the owner of the material means of
warfare that the army took a bureaucratic form. Before the rise of the national
state, feudal vassals and tax farmers owned the means of administration. In the
nation state, feudal vassals and tax farmers owned the means of administration.
In the nation state these means came to be owned by the central authority
resulting in bureaucratization.
9. LEVELLING OF SOCIAL DIFFERENCES: Bureaucracy has mainly resulted from
modern mass democracy, which has involved the leveling of economic and social
difference. Mass democracy makes a clean sweep of feudal privileges in
administration, and replaces these with equality before the law.
10.Permanent Character of the Bureaucratic Machine: Weber points out that once
it is fully established, bureaucracy is among those social structures which are
hardest to destroy. It is powerful instrument of the first order, and hence is used
to fulfill societal objectives and the objectives of those who happen to capture
power.
A Critical Evaluation Weber’s theory of bureaucracy:
Weber’s theory of bureaucracy may be said to be classical. It has come to be widely
accepted. In particular it has come to be adopted by bureaucrats in justification of their
behaviour. However, it has been subjected to much criticism also. We deal with some of
the criticisms below.

1. R.K. MERTON: DYSFUNCTIONS OF BUREAUCRACY: R.K. Merton argued that

certain aspects of the bureaucratic procedure may be dysfunctional to the
organization. In particular, this may encourage behavior that inhibits they
realization of organizational goals.
 Firstly the bureaucrat is trained to COMPLY STRICTLY WITH THE RULES. But
when the situation arises which may not be covered by the rules, then this
training may lead to INFLEXIBILITY AND TIMIDITY. The bureaucrat has not been
taught to improvise and innovate and in addition he may well be afraid to do so.
His career incentives such as promotions are designed to reward. Thus he may be
inclined to bend the rules.
 Secondly, THE DEVOTION TO THE RULES encouraged in bureaucratic
organizations may lead to DISPLACEMENT OF GOALS. There is a tendency for
conformity of official regulation to become an end in itself rather than means
towards an end. In this way so called bureaucratic red tape may stand in the way
of providing an efficient service to the clients of the organisation.
 Thirdly, THE EMPHASIS ON IMPERSONALITY in bureaucratic procedures may
lead to FRICTION BETWEEN OFFICIALS AND THE PUBLIC. For example, clients in a
job centre or maternity clinic may expect concern and sympathy for their
particular problems. The business like and impersonal treatment they might
receive can lead to bureaucratic being seen as unsympathetic and arrogant. As a
result clients sometimes feel that they have been badly served by bureaucratic
2. PETER BLAU AND ALVIN GOULDNER: FORMAL AND INFORMAL
STRUCTURE: Peter Blau and Gouldner have criticized Weber for his over emphasis
on elements of formal structure in the ideal type. According to Weber, the
bureaucracy with the former type of organizational structure is likely to be more
efficient in attaining organizational goals. On the basis of his study of the
functioning of FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN WASHINGTON PETER BLAU
argues that the presence of both formal and informal structures in the
organisation may together enhance the efficiency of the organization, on the
other hand the presence of formal structure may act as a hindrance towards the
attainment of organizational goals.
3. ALVIN GOULDNER on the basis of his studies of the GYPSUM PLANT IN USA shows
that formal structures may not always be effective in attaining the organizational
goals. In fact the types of organizational structure depend on the nature of goals
to be attained and the nature of the environment in which the goals are to be
pursued. GOULDNER FOUND THAT ENFORCEMENT OF FORMAL REGULATIONS IN
THE PROCESSING UNIT OF THE GYPSUM PLANT PROVED FUNCTIONAL FOR
ATTAINING GREATER EFFICIENCY BUT SIMILAR EFFORTS IN MINING UNIT PROVED
DYSFUNCTIONAL. IT WAS REALIZED THAT THE MINING UNITS FUNCTIONED MORE
 EFFICIENTLY WITH AN INFORMAL ORGANISATION SET UP THAN A FORMAL ONE.
Thus both these studies highlighted fact that formal structure alone is not always
the most efficient way to attain the organizational goals.
4. TOM BURNS AND G. M. STALKER: MECHANISTIC AND ORGANISMIC
SYSTEM: Gouldner conclusions are supported by the finding of research by Burns
and Stalker. From a study of 20 Scottish and English firms mainly in the
electronics industry, Burns and Stalker argue that bureaucratic organizations
which are formal and rigid and are termed as MECHANISTIC SYSTEM. They are
suitable for dealing with predictable familiar and routine situations. They are not
well suited to the rapidly changing technical and commercial situations of many
sectors of modern industry such as electronic industries. Since change is a hall
mark of a modern society, mechanistic type of bureaucratic organizations may
well be untypical of the future. Instead ORGANIC TYPE OF ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURES are more likely represent the future trend. IN THE ORGANIC TYPE
IF ORGANIZATIONS THE AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY ARE NOT CLEARLY DEFINED,
THE RIGID HIERARCHIES AND SPECIALIZED DIVISION OF LABOUR OF
MECHANISTIC SYSTEMS TEND TO DISAPPEAR, THE INDIVIDUAL IS ALSO
MOTIVATED TO EMPLOY HIS SKILLS TO FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE
ORGANIZATION RATHER THAN SIMPLY CARRY OUT A PRE DETERMINED
OPERATION. When a problem arises all those who have knowledge and expertise
to contribute to the solution. Tasks are shaped by the nature of the problem
rather than being pre defined. COMMUNICATION consists of information rather
than command of information, advice rather than instruction and decision.
Although a hierarchy exists, decision tends to become blurred as communication
travels in all directions and top management no longer has the sole prerogative
over important decisions nor is it monopolized knowledge necessary to make
them.
5. Bureaucracy: a Marxian perspective: To Weber, bureaucracy is a response to the
administrative requirements of all industrial societies. Whatever, capitalistic or
communist, the nature of owners of the factors of production makes relatively
little difference to the need for bureaucratic control? BUT FROM THE MARXIAN
PERSPECTIVE, BUREAUCRACY CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD IN RELATION TO THE
FACTORS OF PRODUCTION. THUS IN CAPITALISTIC SOCIETIES, WHERE THE
FORCES OF PRODUCTION ARE OWNED BY A MINORITY, THE RULING CLASS, THE
STATE BUREAUCRACY WILL INEVITABLE, REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF THAT
CLASS. THEREFORE FROM THE MARXIAN POINT OF VIEW BUREAUCRACY IS AN
AGENT OF EXPLOITATION OF ONE CLASS BY THE OTHER. According to Marxian
theory, in socialist society, the bureaucracy should be replaced by new truly
democratic institutions.
6. LENIN BELIEVED THAT AFTER THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT
WAS ESTABLISHED THERE WOULD BE A STEADY DECLINE IN STATE
BUREAUCRACY. He recognized that some form of administration was necessary
but look forward to the proposal outlined by Marx and Engels. He thought that
administrators should be directly appointed and should be simplified to the point
 where basic literacy was sufficient for their performance. In this way everybody
would have the skills necessary to participate in the administrative process.
7. An even more valiant attempt to remove bureaucratic control as made in China
under the leadership of Chairman Mao during the cultural revolution
wherein MAO INTRODUCED CERTAIN INNOVATIVE IDEAL LIKE ROLE SHIFTING
SYSTEM AND COLLECTIVE DECISION MAKING TO FREE THE ADMINISTRATIVE
ORGANIZATIONS FORM THE RIGID HIERARCHY AND CENTRALIZED DECISION
MAKING. Similar attempts have also been made in Yugoslavia and some other
countries.
8. HOWEVER, NEITHER LENIN NOR MAO SUCCEEDED IN DOING AWAY
BUREAUCRACY FROM RUSSIAN AND CHINES SOCIETIES RESPECTIVELY. Milovan
Dijilas also draws a similar picture about the erstwhile USSR with particular
emphasis on what he sees as exploitative nature of bureaucratic control.
According to Dijilas political bureaucracy in the erstwhile USSR directed the
economy for their own benefits. The mass of population appeared to have had
little opportunity to participate in or control the state administration. Thus the
Marxian dream of democratically governed society freed from bureaucratic
control remains only a dream.

Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

In order to overcome the methodological problem of defining Capitalism and Protestant
Ethic (Religion and Economy), Max Weber made use of the concept of ideal
type. Protestant Ethic does not refer to any particular theological doctrine but a set of
values and belief system that make up a religious ideal. Capitalism, in its ideal type, is
thought of by Weber to be that complex activity designed specifically to maximize
profit through the careful and intentional exercise of rational organization and
management of production. But capitalism as an economic enterprise designed to
maximize profit existed all over the world. However, there is something unique about
Western capitalism – the idea of unlimited accumulation beyond the notion of
maximum profit and the conviction that the desire for profit must be tempered
(mediated) by discipline and science, not by speculation and adventure.

 HIS THEORY IS ONE OF IMPORTANT STUDIES OF WEBER’S HISTORICAL

SOCIOLOGY. THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST MANIFESTATIONS OF THE APPLICATION
OF WEBER’S METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES I.E. CAUSAL PLURALISM, IDEAL
TYPE AND VERSTEHEN APPROACH. Besides exploring the nature of two
important sociological phenomena, religion and modern capitalism, IT ALSO
ENUNCIATES THE BASIS FOR AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY OF SOCIAL CHANGE
WHICH FOCUSES ON IDEAS AS AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF CHANGE.
 WEBER BEGINS WITH THE REJECTION OF THE THEN CONTEMPORARY MARXIST
VIEW WHICH REGARDED ECONOMIC SUBSTRUCTURE AS THE ULTIMATE CAUSE
OF ALL SOCIAL CHANGE. According to Weber, SUCH A ONE SIDED VIEW IS OVER
SIMPLIFICATION OF THE COMPLEX SOCIAL REALITY. NO SOCIAL PHENOMENON
CAN BE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF A SINGLE CAUSE ALONE. IN FACT
EACH SOCIAL PHENOMENON IS THE RESULT OF A NUMBER OF CAUSES
 INTERACTING SIMULTANEOUSLY. According to Weber, Marxian view on the
development of capitalism can at best be regarded as an ideal type construction
highlighting the role of economic factor which contribute to the rise of capitalism.
 HE ALSO REJECTED ENGEL’S VIEW THAT PROTESTANTISM ROSE IN EUROPE AS A
LEGITIMIZING IDEOLOGY TO NASCENT CAPITALISM WHICH HAD ALREADY COME
INTO EXISTENCE. Instead he emphasized the role of ideal as an independent
source of change. Refuting Engel’s argument he further states that capitalism
existed in an embryo form in Babylon, Roman, Chinese and Indian societies and in
China and India other material conditions required for the development of
capitalism also existed at certain stages in their history. But nowhere does it
characterize the development of modern capitalism. This phenomenon is peculiar
to western society alone. THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHY THESE EMBRYOS
DEVELOPED INTO THE MODERN FORM OF CAPITALISM ONLY IN THE WEST AND
NOWHERE ELSE. An explanation in terms of the internal dynamics of economic
forces alone is unable to account for this peculiarity. It is necessary to take into
account specific ethos of the early European capitalistic entrepreneurs and realize
that this was precisely what was absent in other civilizations.
 ON THE BASIS OF AN ANALYSIS OF STATISTICAL RECORDS WEBER BEGINS WITH
THE STATISTICAL FACT – BUSINESS LEADERS AND OWNERS OF CAPITAL AS WELL
AS THE HIGHER GRADES OF SKILLED LABOUR PERSONNEL OF MODERN
ENTERPRISES WERE OVERWHELMINGLY PROTESTANT. This was not merely a
contemporary phenomenon but also a historical fact, tracing the association back
to early centers of capitalistic development in the 16th and the 17th
centuries. AFTER ESTABLISHING THE STATISTICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PROTESTANT POPULATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM, WEBER
PROCEEDS TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF A LOGICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE TWO. Weber started to search for the ideas which contribute to form
psychological motivations manifested in the spirit of capitalism. For Weber, these
ideas lay in the beliefs and the practices of certain Protestant groups – Calvinists,
whose manner of life was characterized by asceticism. Weber elaborated these
motivations in the form of an ideal type which should be as coherent as possible
without aspiring thereby to reflect historical reality. He sought by means of this
rational utopia to understand how these motivations operated in the actuality
too.

According to Weber, Capitalists needs a great desire of having more and more property.
And this desire did not only come with the advent of industrialization. But rather it was
in the system inn one of the other forms. Followings types of capitalism are noted:

. Booty Capitalists: When capital is acquired by theft, robbery etc, it is called booty
capitalists. It was popular in ancient days.

• Pariah Capitalists: This kind of capitalism where money was lent to earn more interest
and so more profit.
• Traditional Capitalists: This kind of capitalism was proved in Medieval Europe in which
capital was gained by traditional methods. That is why there informal relations between
masters and workers.

• Modern Capitalists: Efficiency and discipline are necessary for modern capitalism. The
labourer are greatly controlled and so they consider hard work as their religion. The
development of modern capitalism is the result of the industrial revolution in which
new model of production were developed like Mechanization, factory system, formal
rules and regulations and the only reason of high inclination of people towards this
system was profit making.
• The initial impetus for Weber’s famous work, (1904-1905), “The Protestant Ethnic
and the Spirit of Capitalism”, centered around two general observations, viz, IN
COUNTLESS PLACES IN THE WORLD GREAT MATERIAL ACHIEVEMENTS HAD RESULTED
FROM THE WORK OF MONASTIC ORDERS DEDICATED TO A LIFE OF THE SPIRIT, AND
SPECIFICALLY ASCETIC PROTESTANT SECTS WERE NOTED FOR THEIR ECONOMIC
SUCCESS. “There appeared to (be) a paradoxically positive relationship
between ASCETIC RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE. By looking
specifically at Calvinism, Weber began to see indisputable signs of causal correlations.

Weber identified a number of values embedded in Protestantism which are in

harmony with the spirit of capitalism.

 THE SHIFT FROM RITUALISTIC AND OTHER-WORLDLY ORIENTATION TO DOWN-

TO-EARTH PRAGMATISM: The finite mind of man cannot comprehend the infinite
mind of the absolute and transcendent God who created the world for His own
glory. Therefore, there is no point in indulging in mysticism; rather, man should
seek to understand the natural order. This is essentially an anti-ritualistic attitude
that favors the development of science and rational investigation.
 CHANGED ATTITUDE TOWARD WORK (HARD WORK): Protestant Ethic proclaims
WORK AS A VIRTUE, SOMETHING NOT ONLY GOOD AND DESIRABLE BUT
CONTRIBUTING TO THE GLORY OF GOD AS WELL. Since Adam and Eve were
evicted from the Garden of Eden with the punishment that they should
henceforth earn their livelihood with the sweat, the Catholic ethic regarded work
as a punitive necessity, the reminder of the original sin, and hence valued leisure.
The Protestant Ethic not only encourages gainful enterprises but also insists that
work is a virtue in itself since it contributes to the glory of God.
 THE CONCEPT OF CALLING: This idea emerged from the Calvinist doctrine of
predestination according to which EVERY SOUL IS PREDESTINED AT BIRTH FOR
HEAVEN OR HELL AND THAT NOTHING AN INDIVIDUAL DOES IN THIS LIFE CAN
CHANGE HIS ULTIMATE FATE. BUT THERE ARE SIGNS BY WHICH GOD INDICATES
TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHETHER HE IS AMONG THE ELECT, SUCCESS IN LIFE
BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE. SINCE EVERY MAN IS ANXIOUS TO KNOW IF
HE IS MARKED FOR SALVATION OR DAMNATION, HE SHOULD SELECT A CALLING,
VOCATION, WORK HARD AT IT AND BE SUCCESSFUL. The economic impact of this
doctrine was profound indeed. No longer was it necessary for ‘religious’ men to
take the vow of poverty, enter a monastery, undertake a pilgrimage or indulge in
 self-torture, some of the Catholic means of salvation popular in the Middle Ages.
The new doctrine exhorts men to seek gainful enterprises, accumulate wealth and
prove their destiny.
 THE NEW ATTITUDE TOWARD THE COLLECTION OF INTEREST ON LOANS: The
theological doctrine of Catholicism proscribed the collection of interest on loans.
This prohibition discouraged the operation, at least open and legal operation, of
lending houses and accumulation of capital. Approving in Calvinism a practice
that had been proscribed in Catholicism. This promoted a spurt of economic
activity: establishment of lending houses, new investments, and new floating
capital.

 STRICTURES ON ALCOHOLISM: Protestant ethic prohibits the consumption of

alcoholic beverages; there is no comparable theological doctrine in Catholicism.
Indeed, prohibition movement in Western societies was always spearheaded by
Protestant.
 ENCOURAGEMENT OF LITERACY AND LEARNING: Based on the conviction that
every man should read his own Bible rather than depend on priestly
interpretations, Protestant ethic placed great emphasis on literacy and learning
which led to significant breakthrough in the sphere of education, leading to the
development of mass education (rather than education of the clergy) and of
specialized skills.
 REJECTION OF HOLIDAYS: The Catholic calendar is full of holy days and almost
every holy day is a holiday. This is consistent with the Catholic belief that one
needs leisure to honor God with ritualistic celebrations. However, since work
contributes to the glory of God in Protestant ethic, there is no need for holy days
and celebrations. This means factories and other business enterprises can
function seven days week throughout the year, thus making maximum utilization
of capital and other investments leading to greater productivity.
 PROTESTANT ASCETICISM: Protestant ethic also incorporates the notion that
earthly things and flesh belong to the order of sin and death and therefore, one
should abstain from the pleasures of the world. Thus, on the one hand,
Protestant ethic exhorts people to “accumulate and accumulate” and on the
other hand, it forbids the use of wealth for enjoyment. This means a ceaseless
pursuit of profit, not for the sake of enjoying the pleasure of life, but simply for
the satisfaction of producing more and more, undoubtedly a condition par
excellence for development of capitalism.

Comparative Study of Other Religion:

Now having established the essential harmony between Protestant ethic and the spirit
of capitalism, Weber turned to other religions to see if there is in them a discernible
cluster of values comparable to Protestant ethic that is favorable to the rise of
capitalism. HE FOUND A VARIETY OF NON-RELIGIOUS SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS CONDUCIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM IN CHINA AND INDIA
BUT THE ETHICAL SYSTEM OF CONFUCIANISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF KARMA IN
HINDUISM WERE NOT PARTICULARLY FAVORABLE. Moreover, the combination of
religious values that constituted the Protestant ethic was unique: an unusual blend of
two apparently inconsistent notions; NAMELY LIMITLESS ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH
AND ABSTENTION FROM ENJOYMENT.

HE FOLLOWERS OF HINDUISM DID NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST IN MATERIAL AND

WORLDLY SUCCESS. FOR THE SAME REASON, THE FOLLOWERS OF HINDU RELIGION
STOOD FIRST IN THE WORLD FOR SPIRITUAL PROGRESS, INSTEAD OF WORLDLY
PROGRESS. Hindu religion is based on the doctrine of (Dharma Karma and
Punarjanama). The principle of Karma says that man gets the fruit of sin and piety in the
next birth. But to get rid of cycle of birth and rebirth he will have to devote to religion
and to God at maximum. In this way, Hinduism stresses on other worldly asceticism.

Similarly Islam, has been emphasized proper use of wealth in that no single people can
have the disproportion to property.

 In Confucianism or Buddhism there is a focus on right knowledge through right

action and right mediation. It says that only right knowledge will solve all kinds of
problems and related with life and not the wealth which will do so.
 In Catholicism people are discipline in the way that they couldn’t think about
change and self constructions. These valus have been obstructions in the
development of capitalism.
 The followers of Judaism have always migrated from one place to another with
the desire of getting lot of money and everywhere they work hard and but were
highly greedy so were left isolated from the system. Therefore, they couldn’t
become capitalists.

Was it possible that Capitalism gave rise to Protestant ethics?

It would be erroneous to assume that Weber replaced a one-sided economic
determinism with a onesided “ideological determinism.” He considered a variety of
factors-social economic, and political—but the confluence of values inherent in religion
played a central role in the matrix of interrelationships.
Weber called scientific attention to three forms of relationship which exist between
social organization and religious ideas, and which he believed warranted further
investigation. These ideas were as follows:
FIRST, social groups with particular economic interests often show themselves to be
more receptive
to some religious ideas than to others. For example, peasants typically incline toward
some form of
nature worship and aristocrats toward religious ideas compatible with their sense of
status and
dignity.
SECOND religious ideas lead to the formation of certain groups, such as monastic
orders, guilds of
magicians, or a clergy, and these groups may develop quite extensive economic
activities.
THIRD, the distinction between the elite and the masses is as pertinent to the religious
sphere as to
others—the gap between the elite and the masses poses a problem with which each of
the great
world religions has had to cope.
The origin of protestant religion is traced back to 15th-16th century by data, while the
modern capitalism in 18th century. In this way, we find that modern capitalism which
came late can’t place any role in the creation of Protestant Ethics. But if we talk about
capitalism itself than we would have a different argument to support that its elements
had been responsible for the origin of Protestant Ethics.
Weber himself has added that the capitalism was their since earlier time but it was not
rational, that’s
why the growth of capitalism was unpredictable. Booty capitalism, Pariah capitalism
traditional
capitalism were all rational form of capitalism. It was during the period of 15th-16th
century that
some people organized themselves to make capitalism, stable and rational. For this
purpose,
they wanted to qualify the basic elements of capitalism in one form and they did it so
in the
form of protestant ethics, which in turn created protestant religion. In this way it can
be aptly
said that the elements of capitalism would have definitely being responsible in the
origin of Protestant
Ethics.

Critical Evaluation:

1. R H TAWNEY: Famous English historian R H Tawney has pointed out that THE
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON WHICH WEBER’S INTERPRETATION OF PROTESTANTISM
WAS BASED WAS TOO NARROW. According to him, England was the first country
to develop capitalism. However, the English Puritans did not believe in the
doctrine of pre destination.
2. Secondly THERE WERE ASPECTS OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC TEACHING WHICH
WERE EQUALLY COMPATIBLE WITH CAPITALISM. Yet capitalism was extremely
slow in some Catholic dominated areas. Weber seems to have ignored crucial
developments in Catholicism which occurred after reformation and which
modernized Catholicism form within.
3. Next Weberian thesis of Capitalism seems to be contradictory in that it requires
the consumption of commodities as well as saving for future investment.
Protestant asceticism aids the latter but the former may require
hedonism. Finally the present day Capitalists are no longer guided by inner
worldly asceticism. The modern day life style is increasingly hedonistic.
4. Criticizing Weber’s theory T.C. HALL says that ALL THE TIME CALVINIST SHOULD
BECAME RICH BECAUSE OF THEIR VALUES. CALVINISM IS STRONGLY SUPPORTED
AMONG THE PEOPLE OF HIGHLANDS OF SCOTLAND AND HILLY REGIONS OF
 SOUTH AMERICA, BUT THEY ARE POOR. It shows that a religious beliefbelieve
does not make a person wealthy but situations make him so.
5. WEBER’S THESIS CAN BE DEFENDED AGAINST SOME OF THE CRITICISM BY
POINTING OUT THAT IT WAS ONLY AN IDEAL TYPE CONSTRUCTION WHICH
SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH A CONNECTION BETWEEN CERTAIN ASPECTS OF
PROTESTANTISM WITH ONLY SOME ASPECTS OF EARLY ENTREPRENEURIAL TYPE
OF CAPITALISM. All that Weber was trying to say was PROTESTANT ETHIC
CONTRIBUTED TO THE RATIONALIZATION WHICH PRECEDED MODERN
CAPITALISM. AT NO STAGE DID WEBER CLAIM IT TO BE THE SOLE CAUSE, IN
FACT, WEBER DID ADMIT TO THE POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING OTHER IDEAL TYPES
LINKING OTHER CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS TO CAPITALISM. Thus Weber’s thesis
should not be treated as a general theory of capitalism development. Further
Weber clearly states that the spirit of capitalism was only one component,
albeit an important one. There are other components too which together with
the spirit constituted the modern capitalism. These components are:
 Private ownership of the means of production.
 Technological progress to the degree that production can be calculated in
advance. For example Mechanization or automation.
 Formally free labour.
 The organization of capitalist producers into joint stock companies.
 Calculable law that is the universalistic legal system which applied to everyone
and is administered equitably.

These elements form the basis of the ideal type of modern capitalism.

Evaluation:

1. Weber has focused on hard work and rational organization of production,

process in his theory of Protestant Ethics and Rise of Capitalism (religion and
economy). Weber believes that both this conditions were visible in Calvinists
because their religious ethics motivated them to do so.
2. Weber has also talked about one specific characteristics of Calvinist that they
were so progressive that they have been given the opportunity to make changes
everywhere and in that way, they change their religious elements as a whole.
Now if the same phenomenon becomes visible on other parts of the world, in
the following of other religions that is they become change oriented, this could
be called a parallel process to Calvinism. In this way, it can be said that even
those people who are unaware of Calvinism become capitalists because they
accepted all those elements knowingly or unknowingly of protestant religion.
3. In the way the development of capitalism in other parts of world, prohibited. The
situation talked by T.C. Hall is meant for ‘physical resources’. It is clear that Weber
has not neglected this aspects he has emphatically made this point in his theory
that two element are necessary in the development of modern
capitalism. Substance and spirit. Hence substance means physical resources
itself. It means that capitalism did not grow in certain circumstances appear to
have of lack of physical resources.
Relevance:
Weber Theory economy is relevant in two ways:

1. In the form of Capitalism: Capitalist has grown in the entire world and among the
followers of all the religions, in many Asian countries like in Japan, China, India,
Asian Tigers, Islamic countries. Capitalism is working and growing, inspite of the
fact that different religions are followed in these countries. It is so because,
changes are seen in all religions and people are becoming progressive which in
orienting them towards Capitalism. The same happens in other continents as
well. WEBER IS RELEVANT IN THE SENSE THAT WHEREVER HARD WORK IS PUT
IN, THE RELIGION WILL BECOME AN INSPIRATIONAL ELEMENT TO MAKE PEOPLE
CAPITALISTS.
2. In other fields, Weber’s Relevance is seen in all walks of life and in different fields
where in people want to excel that is in political, in Civil services or bureaucracies,
in media, in film industry, in management, in fashion industries in social work, etc.
In all this fields, people are getting name and fame with their hard work and
motivation & inspiration from religious values..

An Assessment Of Weber:

1. A prolific writer and original thinker, Weber made extensive use of his
knowledge of history, philosophical tradition, religious system and social
structures to refine his concepts and to develop general theoretical
schema dealing with a variety of social phenomena.
2. Wary of the kind of the conceptual ramification he observed in the works of Marx
and Durkheim, Weber refused to conceptualize the whole social reality with its
variegated complexity and manifold ramifications.
3. However, he analyzed structures and processes and their inter-relationship and
developed a cogent sociological mosaic, giving a coherent image of the whole
retaining the functional independence of the elements. Weber was a man of
values but not a man of faith; while he passionately upheld certain values, he
insisted on objectivity in scientific enterprises;
4. Weber’s contribution to modern sociology is multidimensional so much so that
he can be legitimately considered as one of the founding fathers of modern
sociology. He contributed a new perspective on the nature of subject matter of
sociology and laid down the foundations of interpretative sociology. In addition,
he carried out penetrating analysis of some of the crucial features of western
society like social stratification, bureaucracy, rationality and growth of capitalism.
5. Also he devoted his efforts to building up typologies especially in the studies of
political sociology. One major shortcoming of his work lies in the fact that
although he defined sociology as an interpretative understanding of social action
yet most of his efforts were directed primarily towards building typologies and
generalizations of empirical nature rather than investigating social phenomenon
through interpretative understanding of behavior.
6. By viewing the subject matter of sociology in terms of social action, he highlighted
the significance of subjective meanings and motives in understanding social
behavior. THIS VIEW OF WEBER PRESENTED AN ALTERNATIVE AND A
CORRECTIVE TO THE POSITIVIST APPROACH IN SOCIOLOGY. THE POSITIVISTS
LIKE DURKHEIM BY ASSUMING A DETERMINISTIC PERSPECTIVE HAD ALMOST
TOTALLY IGNORED THE ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL’S SUBJECTIVITY IN SHAPING
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. THEY HAD RESTRICTED THE STUDY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR TO
EXTERNALLY OBSERVABLE ASPECTS ONLY. THUS, WEBER’S EMPHASIS ON
EXPLORING THE SUBJECTIVE DIMENSION PROVIDED A CORRECTIVE TO THE
OVERTLY SOCIAL DETERMINIST PERSPECTIVE OF THE POSITIVIST.
7. ANOTHER GREAT CONTRIBUTION OF WEBER LIES IN ENRICHING METHODOLOGY
OF SOCIAL SCIENCES. THREE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF WEBER’S METHODOLOGY
ARE:
 Causal pluralism: According to Weber, the social reality is extremely complex and
therefore no social phenomena can be explained adequately in terms of a single
cause. An adequate sociological explanation must therefore be based on the
principle of causal pluralism.
 Ideal type: Given the complex and variegated nature of social reality, Weber
believed that it cannot be comprehensively understood by the human mind in a
single attempt. Therefore an attempt to study social reality must take one aspect
of social reality into account at a time. Thus the social scientists should build a
one sided model of the phenomenon taking into account and highlighting only
those aspects which are to be explored. This one sided model has been termed as
ideal type. Although Weber conceded that in advocating the ideal type he was
not suggesting something very new in fact social scientists had often been
building ideal types without being aware of it. Thus the importance of Weber’s
contribution lies in the fact that he for the first time articulated the need for
building ideal types.
 Verstehen approach: This was the method he advocated for interpretative
understanding of social action. Weber thought that methods of positive science
alone are inadequate for a comprehensive study of social behavior and needed to
be supplemented by new methods which are characteristic of social science.
However, Weber has been criticized on this account by Alfred Schultz. According
to him, Verstehen is not a method but a particular form in which human thinking
takes cognizance of the social and cultural world while having nothing to do with
interpretation.
8. WEBER’S STUDY OF POWER, AUTHORITY, BUREAUCRACY ETC. HAVE
STIMULATED RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY. Studies of political parties,
political elite and pressure groups, voting behavior, bureaucracy and political
changes in developed and developing societies both are inspired by Weber’s
studies.
9. WEBER WAS ONE OF THE EARLIEST SOCIOLOGISTS TO TRY TO STUDY ECONOMIC
BEHAVIOR IN ITS SOCIAL CONTEXT. This approach initiated by Weber influenced
many scholars. Sombart, Schumpeter and John Strachey have attempted to deal
 with economic phenomena in the context of the social structure as a whole rather
than treating it in isolation, as had been the practice before.
10.A direct influence of Weber can be seen in Schumpeter’s work. At one place
Weber wrote that puritans wanted work as a calling: we are forced to do so. This
point has been elaborated by Schumpeter also. He argues in his book that the
decay of capitalism will be largely caused by the rejection of bourgeoisie values
and not economic breakdown. Further on the lines suggested by Weber’s work
Parsons and Smelser have attempted to show in their book ‘Economy and
Society’ that economic theory is only part of the general sociological theory. The
role of sociological factors in economic development has been realized by
economists like Arthur Lewis who in his book ‘The theory of Economic Growth’
has highlighted the significance of sociological factors like the desire for goods,
attitude to work, influence of property system, social mobility, the religious and
family structures, population growth, the role of government etc in determining
economic growth.
11.Weber conceded at the outset that perfect causality is not possible in social
sciences. General statements indicating trends alone can be formulated, as for
example, the one between Protestant ethics and capitalism. This view has been
supported by a later day social scientists. According to Bottomore such
statements would run like this, whenever there are conditions of the kind C there
will be a trend of the kind T. This approach is exemplified in Weber’s studies on
the origin of capitalism, development of modern bureaucracy the economic
influence of world religions. The same approach has been followed by C W Mills
in his work White Collar.
12.Weber’s emphasis on causal pluralism and on the role of ideas in social change
has provided a corrective to the orthodox Marxist view. Weber’s theory of
social stratification and his views on the nature of socialism show a greater
correspondence with empirical reality as compared to those of Marx. Weber’s
revision of the Marxists account of the origin of capitalism has been continued by
historians and sociologists form Tawney up to the present time. The important
representatives of this approach to social problems are Birnbaum, Austin and
Turner.

Conclusion
Although, he founded no schools, he influenced every school and branch of sociology
with his erudite studies which are rich in insights, far-reaching in scope and based on a
mass of data both historical and contemporary. Although the foundations of the
conflict approach to the study of social phenomena were laid down by Karl Marx.
However to adapt this approach to contemporary societies, it had to be interpreted in
the light of the criticism and modification suggested by Weber. Thus, the imprint of
Weber’s ideas is clearly visible in the works of contemporary conflicts theorists like C
W Mills and Ralf Dahrendorf. Even those belonging to the Frankfurt School of thought
namely Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas etc. have also been influenced by Weber’s ideas.
Talcott Parsons (1902-82): Social system, Pattern variables
1. Talcott Parsons was born in Colorado. His father at the time was a professor in
English at Colorado College and vice-president of the college. Parsons studied
biology, sociology, and philosophy as an undergraduate at Amherst College,
receiving his Bachelor’s degree in 1924. He then studied at the London School of
Economics and later earned his Ph.D. in economics and sociology from the
University of Heidelberg in Germany.
2. Parsons taught at Amherst College for one year during 1927. After that, he
became an instructor at Harvard University in the Department of Economics. At
the time, no sociology department existed at Harvard. In 1931, Harvard’s first
sociology department was created and Parsons became one of the new
department’s two instructors. He later became a full professor. In 1946, Parsons
was instrumental in forming the Department of Social Relations at Harvard, which
was an interdisciplinary department of sociology, anthropology, and psychology.
Parsons served as the chairman of that new department. He retired from Harvard
in 1973, however he continued writing and teaching at Universities across the
United States.
3. He was the best-known sociologist in the United States, and indeed one of the
best-known in the world. He produced a general theoretical system for the
analysis of society that came to be called structural functionalism.
4. The impact of ‘the classics’ on Anglo-American sociology was, in the first instance,
very much the achievement of Talcott Parsons (1902–79), whose graduate
studies in the UK and Europe in the 1920s had familiarised him with the work
of, among others, the trio of Marx, Weber and Durkheim . In the 1930s Parsons
set out to construct a major work of theoretical synthesis, drawing especially
upon the work of Weber and Durkheim. The result of his efforts, The Structure of
Social Action, appeared in 1937. The work consisted in large part in the
presentation of four thinkers, two of whom—Alfred Marshall, the economist, and
Vilfredo Pareto, the economist/sociologist—have not enjoyed such continuing
significance for sociology. This book provided the world of English-speaking
sociology with its first significant and systematic presentation of the ideas of
Weber and Durkheim.
5. Parsons acknowledged Marx to be a great thinker, but argued that he remained
firmly within the prevailing nineteenth-century way of thinking in the social
sciences, while Weber and Durkheim had, by contrast, contributed to breaking it
down.
6. ONE OF THE MAIN TARGETS OF PARSONS’S CRITICISM WAS UTILITARIANISM,
which, involves the idea that people’s actions follow fundamentally practical
objectives, and that the human mind is essentially a mechanism for calculating
the most effective way to get the most rewarding results. This picture captures
the very essence of economics, where ‘the economic human’ is an individual with
a clear set of wants and the economic capacity to fulfil some of them; he or she
then sets out to figure out a way to get the most rewarding assortment of goods
in terms of the resources available. In constructing its theories upon the
 assumption of such a rational, maximizing individual, economics is building upon
the model that was very widespread in pre-twentieth-century social thought.
7. THIS MODEL, AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, FOUND ITS MOST EXPLICIT AND, IN SOME
WAYS, MOST CRUCIAL EXPRESSION BACK IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, IN
THOMAS HOBBES’S. LEVIATHAN (1994). VERY BRIEFLY, HOBBES’S ARGUMENT
WAS THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE SELFISH CREATURES LIVING IN A WORLD OF
SCARCE SATISFACTIONS. EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS WANTS, AND SEEKS TO SATISFY
AS MANY OF THEM AS POSSIBLE. IN WORKING OUT THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY
OF GETTING WHAT THEY WANT, INDIVIDUALS REALISE THAT THEY ARE IN
COMPETITION WITH ONE ANOTHER, THAT ONE PERSON CAN ONLY GAIN AT
ANOTHER’S EXPENSE. Thus individuals are by nature truly selfish and see others
only as obstacles or possible resources in their own pursuit of maximum
satisfaction. The most logical way to achieve one’s ends, then, is either to
eliminate the competition—remove others by killing them—or to turn them
towards the serviceof one’s own ends, by forcing or deceiving them into
compliance with one’s will.
8. HOWEVER, IF EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS CONCEIVED AS A RATIONAL BEING, I.E.
SOMEONE WHO OPERATES LOGICALLY, THEN EACH PERSON WILL REACH THE
SAME INEVITABLE CONCLUSION, MAKING SOCIAL LIFE INTO A STATE OF
PERPETUAL STRUGGLE. Hobbes called it a ‘war of all against all’, colourfully
characterising it in a justly famous passage as ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and
short’. Of course, for most of us human life is not that bad, as Hobbes himself
explained: valuing their own lives above all else, these rational individuals can
perceive the slippery slope to mutual misery and destruction, down which they
would slide if they did not accept some restrictions on their freedom of
competition. These restrictions are in the form of society, as represented by the
sovereign ruler to whom individuals effectively cede their autonomy.
9. PARSON ALSO REFUTED POSITIVIST AND IDEALIST: The positivists believe that
social actors have complete knowledge of their social situation. This leaves no
room for error on the part of actors or even for variation among actors. The
idealists position that social action is that realization of the social spirit and the
ideas such, as of a nation or a people, and consequently pay scant attention to
real everyday impediments on the ground that obstruct the free realization of
ideas. Similarly, in the idealist treatment of social system, Democracy is seen
simply as the fulfillment of the spirit of national. Idealism places too much
emphasis on values and ideas and not enough on social practice. Weber too, in a
way, belonged to this tradition for he argued that capitalism was aided in its early
stages by the Protestant ethic. But it must be admitted that Weber elaborated at
length certain values such as those of ‘rational asceticism’ or inner worldly
asceticism’ but neglected the role of needs of search for utilities.
10.The positivists go to the other extreme and insist that true human action is born
out of full information of the situation. There is thus a finality and inflexibility in
their scheme for there is only one way to act; the correct way. Consequently
there is no room for values, error and variations social action.
 11.PARSONS WAS INTERESTED IN DURKHEIM, WEBER, PARETO AND MARSHALL
BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL, IN THEIR DIFFERENT WAYS, CONCERNED TO THINK
THEIR WAY OUT OF THE FRAMEWORK OF UTILITARIAN ASSUMPTIONS.
12.The key move, which they all made, was to reject the utilitarian assumption that
people’s ends are random. In a scheme like Hobbes’s, it does not matter what
kinds of things people want, only that they have plenty of wants, more than can
collectively be satisfied by the finite resources of the world, and it is this simple
fact which makes them competitors. In such reasoning, the way people come by
their wants, or the nature of these wants, is essentially irrelevant; viewed as a
theoretical system, the ends might as well be random.
13.DURKHEIM, WEBER AND THE OTHERS HAD PERCEIVED, HOWEVER, THAT
PEOPLE’S ENDS ARE NOT RANDOM; THEY ARE SOCIALLY ACQUIRED AND, IN
CONSEQUENCE, ARE RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER IN SYSTEMATIC WAYS. FOR
EXAMPLE, Durkheim examines the notion of anomic suicide in terms of the way
people’s wants are patterned; they are shaped by ocial arrangements which
accord with the hierarchy of stratification and embody normative requirements
which prescribe proper and acceptable wants.
14.On this basis, Parsons thought that a start could be made on developing a
general scientific scheme for understanding human life. Between his first major
work and his next there was a fourteenyear break though Parsons did publish
many essays in that time. Then, in 1951, he published two books, one self-
authored, The Social System, the other a collaborative work, Toward a General
Theory of Action. In a way, Parsons had retreated from the ambitions he had held
in 1937, but the plan laid out in these two books was none the less grandiose.
Toward a General Theory drew its contributors from across several disciplines;
necessarily so, for Parsons sought to lay out a ground plan for a large range of the
social sciences—or ‘sciences of action’, as he called them. Thus psychology,
sociology, economics, political science and other disciplines were all to be unified
within a single theoretical framework, which was basically devised by Parsons.
The Social System was the sociological element in the project, showing how this
general scheme, this general theory of action, would be developed in
sociology. Parsons drew from the work of his four theorists a picture of social
life involving motivated compliance.
15.Motivated compliance: Social life does work, rather than disintegrating into
Hobbes’s war of all against all. It works not only because people go about their
activities in ways that are socially prescribed, but also because they believe these
ways to be right and therefore they actually want to follow them.

Social System:
Parsons concept of the social system is DEVELOPED IN THE NATURE OF A GENERAL
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY WHICH CAN BE APPLIED FOR THE STUDY OF BOTH THE SIMPLE
PRIMITIVE SOCIETIES AS WELL AS THE COMPLEX MODERN INDUSTRIAL
SOCIETIES. Parsons has developed his theory from the level of action to the social
system. HIS CONCEPTUAL SCHEME IS PROVIDED TO ANALYZE THE STRUCTURE AND
PROCESSES OF SOCIAL SYSTEM.
PARSONS FORMULATES HIS APPROACH TO THE SOCIAL SYSTEM THROUGH HIS
THEORY OF SOCIAL ACTION WHICH IS AN INTRINSIC ELEMENT OF THE SOCIAL
SYSTEM. Parsons own APPROACH TO THE SOCIAL SYSTEM IS INTEGRATIVE IN
NATURE since he not only brought out the significance of motivational factors, such as
those present in the utilitarian perspective in the formation of the system, but also that
of values.

ACTION, according to Parson DOES NOT TAKE PLACE IN ISOLATION. IT IS NOT

EMPIRICALLY DISCRETE BUT OCCURS IN CONSTELLATIONS” WHICH CONSTITUTE
SYSTEM. The concept of action, according to Parson, is derived from behaviour of
human beings as living organisms. As living organisms they interact (orientate) with
outside reality as well as within their own mind.

Behaviour becomes action when four conditions are present:

 It is ORIENTED TO ATTAINMENT OF ENDS OR GOALS or other anticipated affairs,

 It occurs in SITUATIONS,
 It is REGULATED BY NORMS AND VALUES OF SOCIETY, and
 It involves in investment of ‘ENERGY’ OR MOTIVATION OR EFFORT.

For example, a lady driving an automobile to go to a temple. She is probably going to

offer prayers. In this case then the offering of the prayer is her end or goal to which she
is oriented. Her situation is the road on which she is driving and the car in which she is
sitting. Moreover, her behaviour is regulated by social norms or values in which the
offering of prayers is recognized as desirable. In addition, she is applying her intelligence
in the skill of driving which is learnt from society. Finally, the very act of driving the car
implies expenditure of energy, holding the wheel, regulating the accelerator and skilful
negotiation through the traffic on the road. WHEN BEHAVIOUR IS SEEN IN THIS
ANALYTICAL CONTEXT, IT CAN BE DEFINED AS ACTION.

As mentioned earlier, action according to Parsons does not occur in isolation but occurs
in constellations: THESE CONSTELLATIONS OF ACTION CONSTITUTE SYSTEM. These
systems of action have three modes of organization which Parsons describes as THE
PERSONALITY SYSTEM, THE CULTURAL SYSTEM AND THE SOCIAL SYSTEM.

He proposed that the actual operating life of a society is made up of the following
elements:

1. THE ABSTRACT PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOUR (CULTURAL SYSTEM) which prescribe

what individuals should properly or appropriately do in particular cases. FOR
EXAMPLE, the highway code prescribes how fast drivers should drive under what
conditions and how they should co-ordinate with fellow motorists;
2. THE PATTERN OF ONGOING ACTIVITY, (SOCIAL SYSTEM)i.e. how actual people in
actual situations behave in ways, which (roughly, more or less) accord with the
abstract patterns. FOR EXAMPLE, in traffic on the road, drivers are busy looking
out for what others are doing, and tactically adjusting their driving to
accommodate and avoid one another, such action depending in various ways
 upon the conventions of the highway code being respected by most, if not all,
drivers;
3. THE PERSONALITIES, OR CHARACTERISTIC PATTERNS OF PREFERENCE, OF
REACTION AND SO FORTH OF THE INDIVIDUALS CARRYING OUT THESE
PATTERNS (PERSONALITY SYSTEM). For EXAMPLE, in traffic they act as drivers,
and they interact with one another in terms of their characters: some drive much
more quickly than others, some are more respectful of others’ rights on the road,
some get angry with traffic conditions, and others remain calm.

However, the great majorities of these drivers abide broadly by the rules of the
road (Motivated Compliance) and do so not merely from prudence, for safety’s sake, or
from nicely calculated considerations as to just how much adherence to the rules would
maximise their self-interest, but because they think it is the right thing to do. They
regard these rules as binding on themselves and on others. They can become indignant
with other drivers just because those drivers show disregard for the
rules of the road, even though the infraction of these rules may cause them no danger,
nor harm them in
any way.

Motivated compliance’ means no more than the drivers being motivated to abide by
the rules of the highway code, but this illustration of the idea draws attention to the
way actual situations in society are made up of three ‘action systems’, as Parsons
called them:

 Cultural System—the pattern of ideas, principles, etc. which abstractly specifies

how people should behave;
 Social system—the ordered patterns of activity and relationship among
individuals as they go about their affairs in conjunction, even collaboration, with
one another;
 Personality System—the psychic make-up of individuals which affects how they
behave in actual situations, how they go about doing things and how they react to
other people. Parsons argues that any society has to provide somehow for the
integration of these three elements.

INTEGRATING CULTURE, SOCIAL SYSTEM AND PERSONALITIES

Somehow, things will have to work out so that:

 Culture will prescribe what people should do in ways which will prove practically
effective, relative to what people want to do.
 The pattern of activities and relationships in which people engage will prove
capable of allowing the prescriptions of the culture to be effectively followed out
(a good deal of the time).
 The personality structures of the parties to social life will have that which will
enable them to associate with others, to participate in conjoint, collective
ventures, and to accept and comply with the demands that the culture lays on
them.
Cultures, social systems and personalities have to interact in integrated ways if there
is to be any social order. Cultures have to be organised in ways such that their
prescriptions will be viable in practical affairs (if cultures demand impractical things of
their members, then those members will soon either abandon the culture or die out).
The different prescriptions for the actions of an individual have to fit together with
those that other individuals abide by, otherwise they would always be acting at cross
purposes, nothing requiring their joint participation would ever get done, and no social
system would have even temporary stability. Imagine if drivers had different cultural
instructions as to which directions they were to drive in on the roads.

Social activities themselves have to be organised in ways that will offer sufficient
involvement of the personality types who will participate in them; if people are utterly
frustrated and completely alienated by the demands of participation in some activity,
e.g. a pathological fear of competition, they are going to be very resistant to being
involved in society, e.g. competitive sports. Parsons insists that these are the minimal
condition for social order. A society can, of course, tolerate the fact that there will be
some, relatively few, people who follow different prescriptions, or have personalities
incongruous with (say) the generally competitive character of American culture, but it
can only operate if the ‘lack of fit’ in such cases is confined to the relatively few.

Without sufficient integration between the culture, the social system and the
individual personality, social relationships cannot be organised and carried on. Of
course, ‘sufficient’ is far from being a precise notion. In view of the hostile response
which Parsons’s work eventually met, we should draw attention here to the fact that he
does not see the integration of culture, social system and personality as either
automatic or complete—far from it. In dealing with something as complex as the order
of a society, its pattern of institutions and relationships, its culture built up over its
history, and the varied personalities of its numerous members, we should recognise
that integration is highly problematic.

In any ongoing society which is not collapsing into internecine strife, it must be the
case that there is a level of integration, since things are getting done, people are
acting broadly in line with their cultural prescriptions, and many individuals are
engaged in and committed to activities. The perceptible stability of society indicates
that its members (or the great majority of them, for most of the time) are not alienated,
in the sense of ‘turned off’. However, there may not be thoroughgoing integration, since
some aspects of the culture may conflict with the way the social system is organized,
and the way both are organized may impose deprivations on participants’ personalities.

In any real society, many people may not be so disenchanted with their jobs that they
would rather give them up, so opposed to authority that they would rather fight their
supervisor than do what he or she says, or so contemptuous of the law that they
would happily violate it. Nevertheless, those same people may be unhappy in their
work, reluctant to comply with their supervisor, and so uncommitted to a law-abiding
existence that they may not pass up every temptation to transgress. Parsons recognizes
just such possibilities. They are partly what we mean by the integration of culture, social
system and personality being problematic, i.e. the working out of the interconnections
between them is neither automatic nor guaranteed. Although any real society must
have exceeded the ‘minimal’ requirements of integration—as testified to by the sheer
fact of its existence—none the less it is an empirical question as to how far beyond this
minimum the integration extends.

It is also a logical consequence of Parsons’ systems analysis that there will be

tendencies for the system to counterbalance tendencies towards disintegration, to
contain dissidence, to keep dissidents isolated from one another, thereby preventing
them from building up collectively organised opposition to the dominant culture, and
redirecting their deviations into ways that do not damage overall integration. The
system ‘handles and channels’ social disturbances, although there is no theoretical
guarantee that disturbances will never overwhelm the system. In talking about the
achievement and surpassing of this ‘minimal’ level, Parsons is not discussing the ways
the members of the society, through conscious, deliberative processes, ‘work out’
solutions to the problem of integration between these three aspects of social reality.
Such matters do not exercise the members. The terms in which these issues are
formulated are analytical and sociological; Parsons is talking from a ‘system standpoint’
about the way things work themselves out; how the social order through the interaction
and mutual effects of the culture, social system and personality becomes at least
minimally integrated. If societies did not satisfy these minimal requirements then they
would not be there for us to study; the fact that there is a society to study means that it
has somehow met the minimal requirements of social integration. How far it is
integrated depends on how much more than the minimum has been effected. It is
important to note that the three elements Parsons identifies are ‘integrated’ in the
minimal sense that any actual, concrete social situation is made up of all three of them.
These three elements are all mixed up in actual situations. In fact, says Parsons, they
interpenetrate one another. People in social relations do not just stand in purely
personal relationships, but relate to one another on the basis of social positions (the
status, or status roles) they occupy.

Hence two individuals in a workplace stand not just as ‘Joe’ and ‘Jim’ but as, say, a
worker and his supervisor. Their respective positions are not just a matter of what they
are doing, but of rights and entitlements, e.g. Jim may be entitled to give Joe orders,
and Joe required to do as Jim tells him. In other words, a work relationship, like any
other, is a matter of rights and responsibilities, i.e. it includes cultural elements, and
these cultural elements go to make up the social system. In its turn, the social system
becomes part of the personality of its participants; the position that one holds, the job
one occupies, is not merely a matter of external requirements, but is, obviously, bound
into and constitutive of the way one thinks of oneself. The kind of position one occupies
is contributory to one’s self-esteem. Further, in so far as one identifies with one’s job,
then of course one comes to regard the things one is entitled to do and to be
responsible for not simply as things to be done because they are formally required, but
as things one would want to do even if not required to do them. In this way, the cultural
requirements and responsibilities of a job become part of one’s personality.
In Parsons’s terms, the social system is made up of cultural elements and of
personalities. The social system and the culture interpenetrate because the latter is
institutionalised in the former. In one sense, a social system is a pattern of
institutionalised culture, i.e. a set of rules and requirements which have become
accepted as defining how people should act and relate to one another, just as the
highway code is ubiquitously accepted as saying how drivers should handle their
vehicles and communicate with and respect the drivers of other vehicles. The
connection between the social system and the personality is through internalisation.

Internalisation
This concept refers to the ways the members of society come to make the requirements
of their
various positions an integral part of their personality by ‘taking over’ these
requirements and building
them into their own convictions about how and what they should do. FOR EXAMPLE,
when we see other
persons breaking a rule of the road we may become indignant because we feel that we
personally have
been affronted by what was done. Since a social system is itself significantly
institutionalised culture,
when people internalise the social system, i.e. identify with their position in it, they also
internalise culture
because their position in the social system is made up of institutionalised culture.

Basic Unit of Organisation of a Social System

The social system has a mode of organization of action which is called ROLE. It is the
basic conceptual unit of the social system and it incorporates the individual actor’s total
system of action. It is also a point of intersection between the system of action of an
individual actor and the social system. The primary element of role, according to
Parsons is role-expectation. It implies reciprocity between the actor and his/her alter
(the other persons), and is governed by a range of motivational and value
orientations.

THE ORGANISATION OF UNIT ACTS INTO SOCIAL SYSTEMS INVOLVES THE MOTIVES AND
VALUES WHICH LINK IT TO THE PERSONALITY SYSTEMS IN THE FIRST CASE AND TO THE
CULTURAL SYSTEM IN THE SECOND.

Orientation of action can be divided into two components: the motivational orientation
and the value
orientation.

 Motivational orientation refers to a situation in which action takes place taking

into account needs,
external appearances and plans.
  Value orientation is based on considerations of standard of values, aesthetics,
morality and of
thinking.

1. THE RANGE OF MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATIONS IS THREE. These are the

cognitive, the cathetic and the evaluative orientations.
 THE COGNITIVE ORIENTATION makes actors see their environment or subject in
relation to their need dispositions as a mental object. They, i.e. the actors,
attempt to understand objectively the subject matter of observation.
 THE CATHETIC ORIENTATION involves emotional attitude of actors towards their
object, and
 THE EVALUATIVE ORIENTATION leads the actors to organize their effort in
realization of their object with optimum efficiency.
 Take FOR EXAMPLE the bahaviour of a housewife going to the market to
purchase vegetables. The cognitive orientation enables her to judge the quality of
vegetables in relation, to her need and need in relation to its prices; the cathetic
orientation would determine her likeness for a particular vegetable and
Evaluative orientation would make it possible for her to make a choice of a
vegetable which gives her maximum satisfaction.

2.THE RANGE OF VALUE ORIENTATIONS ALSO COMPRISES THREE PARTS. These are the
cognitive, the appreciative and the moral.

 THE COGNITIVE ORIENTATION is one which relates to the issue to validity of

judgments.
 THE APPRECIATIVE ORIENTATION is that which makes it possible for actors to
judge their
emotional response to object, its appropriateness or consistency.
 THE MORAL ORIENTATION is one which refers to value commitment of an actor
towards his or her
objects.

The example of a housewife buying vegetables reveals only the motivational orientation
of the housewife. But in value orientation it is the value system and the cultural pattern
of the society which is involved. The individual actors act in the context of this cultural-
pattern. For example, the role and status of a son in his family is guided by certain
values & norms of the society. As a son in a patriarchal family, he was a different status
than as a son in a matriarchal family. His bahaviour will be guided by the values & norms
of the society.

Thus, the motivational orientation involves only the motives or psychological aspects
of the individual while the value orientation involves the cultural system. Both, the
psychological and the cultural aspects of individual behaviour are, however,
interlinked and interdependent.

 Institutionalization of Roles in a Social System: In a social system roles are

institutionalized. Institutionalization means that expectations from a specific role,
 its values and motivational orientations are integrated within the culture of a
society. Society sets common standards for role expectations from its members,
and when an actor imbibes these standards common to society in the
orientations and performance of his/her roles, the roles are said to have been
institutionalized.

To explain the choices of action available to individuals in the social systems as a

collectivity, Parsons has developed the concepts of pattern variables.

Pattern Variables:
ROLE being THE MOST VITAL ELEMENT OF THE SOCIAL SYSTEM, ITS PERFORMANCE
GENERATES FORCES OF STRAIN OR TENSION. The extent of strain depends on the way
roleexpectations are institutionalized in society and also on the degree to which the
values of roleexpectations are internalized by social actors. In relation to motivational
orientation and value orientation, in the performance of roles, each actor faces
dilemmas. These dilemmas emanate from strains in an individual’s choice of or
preference within a range of orientations both related to needs and to values. If these
dilemmas were dichotomous in character, the actor must choose between the options,
before she or he can act with respect to the situation. For example, in a situation which
requires an actor to choose between universalistic values or particularistic values, the
actor can choose only one of them.

There are five pattern variables of role-definition that Parsons discusses, although he
says that there are many more possibilities.

 Affectivity versus affective neutrality

 Self-orientation versus collectivity orientation
 Universalism versus Particularism
 Ascription versus Achievement
 Specificity versus diffuseness.

1. AFFECTIVITY VERSUS AFFECTIVE NEUTRALITY : The dilemma here is in deciding

whether one expresses their orientation in terms of immediate gratification
(affectivity) or whether they renounce immediate gratification in favor of moral
interests (affective-neutrality). parsons says, ”no actor can subsist without
gratifications, while at the same time no action system can be organized or
integrated without the renunciation of some gratifications which are available in
the given situation”
2. SELF-ORIENTATION VERSUS COLLECTIVITY ORIENTATION: The main issue is that
of moral standard in the procedure of evaluation. The moral standard arises from
the fact that actor has. to make a choice between his or her own gratification and
its determent for the good of a larger number of people, a collectivity. Some form
of altruism and self-sacrifice is involved. The dilemma of this pattern variable has
always been present in human life from primitive mode of economy and society
to modern civilization. The notion of socialist society offers us a good example
where a whole social system and patterns of its institutions are based on the
 dominant choice in favour of collectivity orientation. But as Parsons has rightly
pointed out, institutionalization of such values is always fragile.
3. UNIVERSALISM VERSUS PARTICULARISM: Defines the role situation where the
actor’s dilemma is between the cognitive versus the cathetic (or emotional
standards) evaluation. Examples of roles adhering to universalistic standards of
human behaviour are role performance which goes strictly- be legal norms and
legal sanctions. If one abides by the rule of law irrespective of personal, kinship or
friendship considerations’ then that would be an example of the universalistic
mode of role performance. If one violates legal norms only because the person
involved is a kin or a friend, then particularistic considerations would be said to
be operating. Parsons says that in societies where the role of the bureaucracy of
the formal organisations and modern institutions has become widespread there
the dilemmas of universalisms and Particularism have become a matter of choice
in everyday life.
4. ASCRIPTION VERSUS ACHIEVEMENT: Dilemma in the ascription versus
achievement pattern variable is based on whether or not the actor defines the
objects of his or her role either in terms of quality or performance. In India a very
good example of this pattern variable is the role performance governed by the
caste system. Ascription is based on assigning certain quality to a person either by
birth, or age, or sex or kinship or race. Achievement is based on personal
acquisition of skills and levels of performance in society.
5. SPECIFICITY VERSUS DIFFUSENESS: The specificity versus diffuseness pattern
variable concerns the scope of the object of role performance. Scope, in this case,
is to be understood in terms of the nature of social interaction. Some social
interaction, such as between doctors and patients, or between buyers and sellers
of goods in the market, has a very specific scope. The nature of these interactions
is defined in terms of very precise context of interaction. Some role relationships
are very general and encompassing in nature. Such roles involve several aspects
of the object of interaction. Some examples of such role relationship are
friendship, conjugal relationship between husband and wife, relationship
between kin of various degrees. The scope of interaction is flexible, open and
encompassing in nature.

Analysis:

1. The pattern variables, not only define the nature of role interaction and role
expectations in social system but provide, in addition the overall direction in
which most members of a social system choose their roles. It also gives us in idea
about the nature of the social system. For Example, take the family as a social
system: the role expectations within the family amongst its members can be said
to be affective, largely collectivity oriented, particularistic, ascriptive and diffuse.
2. On the contrary,we can take the example of our membership in a medical
association or bar association, or student association: here role expectations and
standards of role performance would largely be oriented towards pattern
variables of affective neutrality, self-orientation (due to competition),
 universalism, achievement and specificity. But these are extreme examples. In
real life the dilemma of
choices in terms of pattern variables are much more precarious and full of strain
than we find in the
examples we have mentioned.
3. The dilemma of role performance where evaluation involved in relation to a
situation. How much a situation should be evaluated in emotional terms of with
a degree of emotional neutrality? This poses a difficult choice in most roles that
we are expected to perform in society. Take for example the mother-child
relationship. It has high degree of affective orientation, but discipline is also
required. So on many occasions a mother would have to exercise affective-
neutral role in relation to her child’s socialization. But mother-child relationship is
essentially dominated by affectivity. In comparison, doctorpatient relationship
brings out the aspect of affective neutrality that characterizes a doctor’s role.
Affective-neutrality is essential for proper medical care, especially where surgical
treatments are involved. But according to Parsons in all role performance
situations the dilemma of choice and its degree of expression or commitment
remains.
4. Talcott Parsons’ concept of pattern variables bridges the gap between social
action and social system . Social system may be characterised by the combination
of solutions offered to these dilemmas. These pattern variables structure any
system of interaction.

Systems theory:
In Parsons’s usage the idea of system is important. It is an abstract general term used
to capture anything from a two-person conversation to the international system of
nation states and underpins Parsons’s whole analysis.

Systems:
A system has persistent identity in an environment; it is distinct from its environment,
but must transact with it so it is an open system. For example, a mouse as a living
creature is an open system; the mouse is not the same as its environment, but it must
take in necessities (air, food) from the environment and must release waste products
into it. The overriding task of the system to maintain its own identity in the face of that
environment involves two main aspects:

1. The regulation of transactions with the environment;

2. The maintenance of effectively operating relations inside the system itself.

On the basis of these very simple assumptions, Parsons attempted to provide a

completely general analysis of the way social systems operate. After the books of 1951
Parsons saw a new way to develop his analysis, largely (or so he claimed) as a result of
an association with Robert F. Bales, a social psychologist who had been trying to
develop a general model to describe the behaviour of task-oriented small groups. Bales
saw such groups as going through four phases:
 1. They gather together the things they need to do a task;
2. Then they organise themselves into carrying out the task; and, in doing so,
3. They manage their own internal relations, e.g. stifling quarrels and keeping
people interested; and when they have successfully completed their task
4. They relax for a while into task-unrelated activities before gathering themselves
for the next task

Parsons adapted these four phases into the four-phase model of system
exchanges.The elaboration of this model and its application to various situations was
the abiding focus of his subsequent work.

Talcott Parsons was The single greatest contributor, and practitioner, of structural
functionalism. The heart of Parsons’s theory is built on the four functional imperatives,
also known as the AGIL system. According to him all system such as the family, the
economy or the polity has a boundary which they maintain in order to subsist. This
self-maintenance of systems is possible because human actors as social beings are
socialized in society and their motivational and value orientations accordingly are
patterned. In order to maintain itself, social systems have to perform some
indispensable adjustment between is internal organization and outer environment.

Social systems, Parsons argues, also have a self-adjustive and self-maintaining

quality. These adjustment processes which maintain the social system internally and
through its boundary conditions are called functions. Functions are processes of
system’s self-maintenance.

There are certain functions without which a social system cannot subsist: these are
called ‘functional prerequisites’ by Talcott parsons.

 Adaptation
 Goal attainment
 Integration, and
 Latency

The scope of functioning of these functional prerequisites is further defined in terms of

whether they deal with processes external or internal to the system. They are also
defined in terms of the nature of interaction as such, whether it is Consummatory or
whether it is instrumental. Consummatory is where the emphasis is on achieving
some desired end and instrumental is where the emphasis is on the acquisition and
incorporation of means to achieve ends.

1. Adaptation: Adaptation as a functional prerequisite implies generation and

acquisition of resources from outside the system, its external environment and to
effect its distribution in the system. External environment in this case means land,
water, etc. As an example we can mention the economic system, which involves
resource utilization, production and distribution in the society. Adaptation is
oriented to factors external to the system and it has an instrumental character.
 2. Goal-Attainment: Involves; firstly, the determination of goals, secondly, the
motivating of members of the system of attain these goals, and thirdly, the
mobilizing of the members and of their energies for the achievement of these
goals. Its processes are Consummatory in character although it does involve
external interaction. The organization of the power and authority structure in a
social system is an example of an institution where goal attainment is the primary
thrust. The political processes are its examples. It needs to be goal attainment is
related to the ideological and organisation set up of the social system.
3. Integration: Functional prerequisite which helps to maintain coherence, solidarity
and coordination in the system. In the social system this function is mainly
performed by culture and values. Integration ensures continuity, coordination
and solidarity within the system; it also helps in safeguarding the system from
breakdown or disruption. This functional prerequisite is internal to the system
and has a Consummatory character.
4. Latency: Functional prerequisite of the social system which stores organizes and
maintains the motivational energy of elements in the social system. Its main
functional are pattern maintenance and tension management within the system.
This function is performed by the socialisation process of the members of the
social system. Its main functions are pattern maintenance and tension
management within the system. Parsons’s view the function of tension
management must take place internally in all institutions.

Of course, within a complex system not all parties will be involved to the same extent
in all phases, and different parts of the system will specialise predominantly in one or
other of these activities on behalf of the rest of the system. We can structurally
dismember a system in terms of the priorities that the different parts give to the
functional phases of the system as a whole. It is important to note that for Parsons it is
systems all the way down, i.e. the question of ‘what is the system?’ is relative,
depending upon the purposes of analysis. FOR EXAMPLE, the family can be treated as a
part, i.e. a subsystem, of the society’s social system; or it can be treated as the system
itself, so that the relation of husband and wife, of father to daughters, of mother to
daughters, and so on, are seen as sub-systems of the family system. Thus Parsons’s
categories apply to systems and their sub-systems and their sub-subsystems. Of course,
any sub-system will not engage purely in one of the four functions, for each subsystem
will have to satisfy its own functional requirements. FOR EXAMPLE, within the four
phases of society the family can be allocated to the latency phase, for people at home
with their families are often taking time out from other social commitments, relaxing,
engaging in leisure pursuits and building up their capacity to face another day at the
office or whatever. However, if we decide to analyse the family as a system in its own
right, then its activities will also have to go through the AGIL cycle, and we might find
that within the family some members specialise in one or other of these functions. FOR
EXAMPLE, in the traditional nuclear family the wife/mother specialised rather more in
integrative activities than other members; she was held responsible for smoothing
relations between the others, providing comfort and support for those in distress or
under pressure.
In the AGIL model the issue of internal relations within the system came to dominate
the latter phase of Parsons’s work. He sought to understand the interchanges between
the functionally differentiated phases. FOR EXAMPLE, the adaptive phase (A) involves
the accumulation of the means for transforming the environment for the system, but if
these means are to be put to use in goal attainment (G), then they have to be handed
over to those engaged in these goal-attaining activities. There has to be some incentive,
some return, if those involved in the A phase are to make resources—or facilities, as
Parsons often talks of them—available to the G phase. If people keep on handing over
things without any reward or return, they are likely to feel resentful and, eventually, will
become fully alienated. For any system to work there have to be some (at least
minimally) balanced exchanges between the various phases. For an overly
simple EXAMPLE, the government fulfils the goal-attainment function for the society,
seeking to direct the society as a whole towards its objectives (such as economic growth
or national glory, or some combination of both). The economy is the adaptive
component of the society, i.e. producing resources out of the society’s natural and
social environment. Obviously, the running of government consumes resources, both to
support its existence as an organised structure and to pursue its policies, so the
adaptive system must hand over some of its product to government. Equally clearly, the
government has to deliver something to the economy, and we can see that some of its
policies sustain, enhance and gratify those who work in business.

Parsons’s scheme is intended to be used in subtler, delicate ways, but it should be

possible to see how it can be elaborated. One way is with reference to the patterns of
interface and exchange between the different phases (for EXAMPLE, the I and L phases
also need facilities). Another is the way that these exchange patterns are nested inside
each other, as we uncover by investigating the hierarchy of sub-systems, their
interrelations with the system in which they are included, and their own internal
exchanges.

Since the AGIL model applies to a two-person situation as well as to the level of the total
society, and to everything in between, the elaboration of these patterns is necessarily
complex and sophisticated.

Complementing this are four action systems, each of which serve a functional
imperative: the behavioral organism performs the adaptive function; the personality
system performs goal attainment; the social system performs the integrative function;
and the cultural system performs pattern maintenance. Parsons saw these action
systems acting at different levels of analysis, starting with the behavioral organism and
building to the cultural system. He saw these levels hierarchically, with each of the
lower levels providing the impetus for the higher levels, with the higher levels
controlling the lower levels.

Parsons was concerned primarily with the creation of social order, and he investigated it
using his theory based on a number of assumptions, primarily that systems are
interdependent; they tend towards equilibrium; they may be either static or involved in
change; that allocation and integration are particularly important to systems in any
particular point of equilibrium; and that systems are self maintaining. These
assumptions led him to focus primarily on order but to overlook, for the most part, the
issue of change.

.PATTERN VARIABLES ILLUSTRATE IN A PRECISE MANNER THE PRINCIPAL TYPES OF

CLUSTERING OF SOCIAL STRUCTURES. PARSONS MENTIONS FOUR SUCH TYPES.

 The universalistic-achievement pattern

 The universalistic-ascription pattern
 The particularistic-achievement pattern
 The particularistic-ascription pattern

1. The Universalistic-Achievement Pattern: It is a type of structure of social system

in which those value-orientations are dominant which encourage achievement
based on legal rational methods among members of society. It exemplifies
modern industrial societies where the governing values are those of equality,
democracy, freedom of enterprise, rational management and openness in social
interaction. Divisions of society based on caste, ethnicity or other particularistic
values do not go well with this social system. EXAMPLE.. the American society.
2. The Universalistic-Ascription Pattern: Type of configuration of roles which makes
a kind of social system in which values of legal rationality are encouraged in
performance of roles but the distribution of authority is not on the basis of
equality or democracy. Modern principles of science and technology are
employed in work and occupation in industry and communication but the
distribution of these takes place on ascriptive principles, such as membership to
particular principles, such as membership to a particular ideological association,
or party, or cult. Parsons believes that Nazi Germany is an EXAMPLE of one such
society.
3. The Particularistic-Achievement Pattern: This society was dominated by values of
familism’. By ‘familism’ we mean the notion of continuity with ancestors
(ancestor worship), strong ties of kinship, but where the female subordination in
the society. But at the same time, the society also emphasized achievement and a
“code of propriety” in the conduct of roles which was equivalent to legal
rationality (universalistic principle). This type of social structure, according to
Parsons, is best seen in the classical Chinese society. All these features were
contained in Confucianism which was the official ethic in classical China. The
dominance of universalism along with the ascription principle can be seen in the
recruitment of government servants in China who mostly belong to Communist
Party of China.
4. The Particularistic-Ascription Pattern: Types of social structure in which the roles
are organized in
terms of values which are associated with kinship, birth and other ascriptive
features. In social
structures of this kind, achievement through individual effort is not encouraged.
Work, in this type “is
considered as necessary evil just as morality is a necessary condition of minimum
 stability” says Talcott Parsons. Overwhelming emphasis, in this kind of society, is
placed on expressive or artistic
orientations. Society is traditionalistic as there is no incentive to disturb tradition
and a strong vested
interest exist in favour of stability. Spanish Americans” in the USA exemplify this
type of social
structure.

Analysis:

 The early approaches to the study of social systems, such as the utilitarian, the
positivist and the idealist approaches. Parsons did not accept these approaches
because the utilitarians stressed too much on external, motivational factors, the
positivist left no room for error on the part of social actors or values and the
idealist stressed to much on values. Thus, as an alternative, Parsons, developed
his own action approach’ theory which is integrative in nature. In this theory he
has included the motivational orientation as well as the value orientations.
 Parsons has described role as the most vital element of social systems. In
performance of roles individuals are confronted with dilemmas which in turn
emanates from choices offered by the society within a range of orientations, both
motivational and value. The dichotomy in the nature of orientations described by
Parsons in his pattern variables determines the course of action followed by
individuals in society.
 Functional prerequisites, such as, adaptation, goal attainment, integration and
latency without which a socials system cannot exist. The types of structures of
social system analysed by Parson based on the criteria of universalism,
Particularism, ascription and achievement, Parsons has given the EXAMPLEs of
these types of social systems from real societies.

AN ASSESSMENT OF PARSONS:

1. Parsons has powerful influences on American sociology for more than two
decades and shaped a whole generation of sociologists. Some of his important
students included Robert Merton, Kingsley Davis, Wilbert Moore, Marion J. Levy,
Neil Smelser, Harold Garfinkel etc.
2. Parsons achievements lie in the fact that he made a successful break with the
empiricist tradition of American sociology which was bogged down into
minute. He started with the ambitious objective of synthesizing diverse element
into a single conceptual structure for the whole of sociology which also serve to
integrate all other social sciences. Constituent elements of his theoretical system
were drawn from British utilitarian economics, French positivism and German
historicism. While such an enterprise provided a corrective to over empiricism of
American sociology, his theoretical model became too grand to be of any
empirical value.
3. Parsons attempted to blend action theory with functionalism by using the
concepts of ‘pattern variables’ and ‘systemic analyses. However, due to these
very concepts, he ended up in subordinating action theory of system. His whole
analysis is based upon an over-socialized conception of man
4. He has shown too much of a preoccupation with order and equilibrium. This has
rendered his theory status-quo oriented. Social conflict and social change have
not been given adequate importance in his scheme.
5. His concept of power is also characterized by a functionalist bias and his
functionalism is teleological. Too much of importance has been attached to
values and norms.
6. Parsons was much criticised, more so than any other figure in modern sociology,
even his inability to write plain, concise English being held against him. Much of
this criticism is superficial as well as repetitive and can be placed aside without
too much difficulty. Three initial points of criticism need to be dealt with:
 Society is portrayed as a perfect harmony, devoid of conflict.
 This portrayal partly derives from Parsons’s neglect of the source of social
conflict, namely, the unequal distribution of power.
 By emphasising harmony and excluding conflict, Parsons’s theory cannot explain
social change.
7. All three of these criticisms have limitations. That Parsons did not consider
change, conflict and power in the same way as his critics is not to say that his
theory could not deal with them. In fact, in his later writings Parsons went out of
his way to do so. From the start, the assumption behind Parsons’s theorising is
that the functional organisation and integration of the society are problematic;
the integration of such complex arrangements involved in a whole society must
take place in an intricate and thorough way, with difficulties and failures. Any real
society has to be less than completely integrated, and it is only to be expected
that there are many discontinuities and incongruities in society between and
within its different spheres and their organisation. Such discontinuities and
incongruities show up as tensions, if not outright conflicts.
8. Further, Parsons does not assume that a highly (though not perfectly) integrated
society would not and could not change. After all, to assume in biology that a
living organism must be meeting its functional requisites for survival does not
translate into the assumption that the organism is immortal, continuing
interminably to fulfil its functional requirements, or that while surviving it will
remain unchanged, never ageing, or developing illnesses. An idea of a functional
system attaining an internal balancing between its parts introduces an idea of
equilibrium, of things developing to a stable point and then remaining
unchanged, and Parsons’s model might suggest that this is what he has in mind.
Though the idea of equilibrium certainly has its place, he eschews the idea that
there is only one kind of equilibrium, for there is the type known as the moving
equilibrium, commonly found with respect to living organisms. An organism can
be in equilibrium in that its organs or parts are all healthy and functioning well,
but it does not mean that the organism does not change, for, of course, the
organism, while remaining healthy and surviving, grows and ages. Parsons had
 this kind of equilibrium in mind for society, and change is integral to this idea.
Among his very last works were two short books (1966, 1971) prepared for an
introductory series in which Parsons sought to give a general account of the long-
term evolution of Western society, from its origins in (particularly) ancient Greek
and Judaic culture (an interpretation heavily indebted to Weber).

Robert K. Merton
Latent and Manifest functions, Conformity and Deviance, Reference Groups:
Merton is an American Sociologist, a one time student and famous critic of Talcott
Parsons. Among the wide range of ideas to which he contributed, the important ones
are relating to THE NATURE OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY AND A RECODIFICATION OF
THE FUNCTIONAL APPROACH. Most of his writings have been in essay form. An
important compilation of these essays is ‘THE SOCIAL THEORY AND SOCIAL
STRUCTURE’. He was a distinguished sociologist perhaps best known for having coined
the phrase “self-fulfilling prophecy.” He also coined many other phrases that have gone
into everyday use, such as “role model” and “unintended consequences”. He was
heavily influenced by Pitrim Sorokin who tried to balance large-scale theorizing with a
strong interest in empirical research and statistical studies. This and Paul Lazarsfeld
influenced Merton to occupy himself with middle-range theories.

Merton launched a critique of Parson’s functional strategy or building sociological

theory. At the heart of his criticism was MERTON’S CONTENTION THAT PARSONS’
CONCERN FOR DEVELOPING AN ALL ENCOMPASSING SYSTEM OF CONCEPTS WOULD
PROVE BOTH FUTILE AND STERILE. FOR MERTON SUCH GRAND THEORETICAL
SCHEMES ARE PREMATURE, SINCE THE THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL GROUND WORK
NECESSARY FOR THEIR COMPLETION HAD NOT BEEN PERFORMED. In the absence of
these foundations what passes for sociological theory in Merton’s view consists of
general orientation towards data, suggesting types of variable which sociologists must
somehow take into account rather than clearly formulated statements of relationships
between specified variables.

According to Merton, Sociology, in the present state of its development, needs theories
of the
Middle Range. SUCH THEORIES WOULD BE GROUNDED IN EMPIRICAL DATA AND AT
THE
SAME TIME SHOULD USE CONCEPTS WHICH ARE CLEARLY DEFINED AND
OPERATIONALIZED.
MIDDLE RANGE THEORIES ARE SO FORMULATED THAT SPECIFIC AND VERIFIABLE
HYPOTHESIS CAN BE DEDUCED FROM THESE THEORIES AND CAN BE SUBJECTED TO
EMPIRICAL VERIFICATION. Further, Merton suggested that the functional approach
would be
utilized in formulating the theories of middle range. Thus the functional approach for
Merton was
primarily a method for sociological research in order to build theories.

MERTON PRESENTED THE STEPS INVOLVED IN FUNCTIONAL APPROACH IN THE FORM

OF A
SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT KNOWN AS THE FUNCTIONAL PARADIGM.

Theories of the Middle Range:

1. Middle range theories of R.K Merton came as rejection of mega theory of

Parsonian sociology. HIS THEORY ADVOCATES THAT THEORY BUILDING IN
SOCIOLOGY SHOULD NOT BE GOVERNED BY INTELLECTUAL AGGRESSION OR
ACADEMIC SPECULATION. SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES CANNOT AFFORD TO BE
ROGUE, UNREALISTIC, JARGON FOCUSED AND SIMPLY LOGICAL. RATHER
THEORIES ARE DEVELOPED IN SOCIOLOGY TO ARRANGE THE EMPIRICAL FACTS
IN A CONSOLIDATED MANNER. HENCE SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES SHOULD BE
FACT DRIVEN. THE SOCIAL THEORIES SHOULD BE COMING OUT OF FACTS TO
EXPLAIN THE FACTS IN A SYSTEMATIC MANNER. Instead of being concerned
about mega speculations that there is a social system where there is exchange,
negotiation, convergence, consequently control and integration sociology must
look into the actual problems and issues related to empirical situations.
2. DURING 1960S IN AMERICA, POLITICAL CORRUPTION, ETHNIC CONFLICT,
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR WAS LARGELY MANIFESTED AND MERTON TOOK INTEREST
IN STUDYING THEM AND EXPLAINED ALL THE EMERGENT CONDITIONS USING
SIMPLY DESIGNED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS. Subsequently he identified
these theories as middle range theories. As a reaction to mega theories Merton
advocates that these theories are highly speculative and do not correspond to the
empirical realities. They make an attempt to study every possible dimension of
social reality that is not possible in the field of sociology. The degree of
abstraction is quite high when concepts are chosen to develop such theories
therefore these kind of mega theories do not have much of relevance to
understand the essence of social reality. Hence sociology must have to reject
mega theoretical constructs replacing them by middle range theories.
3. Merton is not comfortable with the use of natural science theories in the field
of sociology. He advocates that theories in natural science come out of
cumulative research made on a given problem by large body of scholars in time
and space. It is possible on part of a natural scientist to modify, amend or revise
the theories of his predecessors applying such theories to contemporary
problems and issues. Natural phenomena being static, cumulative research on
them become possible and a broad agreement among the researchers studying
the same problem gives rise to the growth of unified theories in the field of
natural sciences.
4. In the field of sociology the form of capitalism, patterns of democracy, role of
family as a group keeps changing in time and space. Therefore cumulative
research should largely speak about diversity, variabilities present in their
 structure and functions for which mega theories in sociology may be necessity
to natural science but it is absolutely unwanted for sociological research.
Sociology must have to go for middle range theories than striving for scientific
status extending natural science theories into the field of sociological
research. Sociology should not be compared with natural sciences. Merton
borrows substantive ideas from sociology of Weber as the basic problem with
ideal type construct is that it asserts that totality of reality cannot be studied by
sociology therefore sociology must have to study the essence of reality. To
Merton sociology is encountering with the problem of identification of the issues
for conducting research that needs to be resolved. The weberian sociology is
committed to macroscopic issues that are difficult to study in every possible
detail. If sociological research considers that it must have to address to
microscopic structures then it will not be difficult for sociologists to understand
various dimensions to a given social reality therefore Merton takes interest in the
study of political corruption, machine politics considering these issues/problems
are subjected to complete scientific investigation.
5. Middle Range theories in sociology advocate that how sociological research
facts are important than theories. It gives rise to a situation where facts speak
for themselves. These theories are small understandable, on controversial
universally acceptable conceptual devices coming out of a given empirical
situation having capacity to explain same or different types of situations without
any possible ambiguities or controversies. For instance reference group theory,
concept of in-group or out-group are defined as middle range theories which can
provide a guide to sociological research in time and space.

Paradigm for functional analysis:

MERTON PRESENTED THE STEPS INVOLVED IN FUNCTIONAL APPROACH IN THE FORM

OF A SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT KNOWN AS THE FUNCTIONAL PARADIGM. MERTON
BEGINS HIS DISCUSSION WITH THE REVIEW OF THE MISTAKES OF THE EARLY
FUNCTIONALISTS’ PARTICULARLY MALINOWSKI AND RADCLIFFE BROWN. MERTON
SAW FUNCTIONAL THEORIZING AS EMBRACING THREE QUESTIONABLE POSTULATES:

 The functional unity of social sciences

 The functional universality of social items and
 The indispensability of functional items of social systems.

1. THE FUNCTIONAL UNITY POSTULATE: According to Merton, functionalists so far

have frequently transformed the hypothesis that social systems may reveal social
integration into a necessary condition or need for social integration. While it is
difficult to argue that human society does not possess some degree of
integration. To assume that a high degree of functional unity must exist in a social
system is to negate the possibility of its empirical verification. It is due to such a
presumption regarding high degree of functional unity that the functional
approach has come to acquire a conservative bias and an ideological
 colouration which can be discovered in the works of functionalists from
Durkheim to Talcott Parsons. Thus the degree to which functional unity exists in
the social system should be a matter subject to empirical investigation.
2. THE POSTULATE OF FUNCTIONAL UNIVERSALITY: One result of an emphasis on
high degree of functional unity was that the early functionalists assumed that if a
social item exists in an on going system, it must therefore have had positive
consequences for the integration of the social system. In its most extreme form,
Malinowski extended this form of reasoning to the point of asserting that every
custom, material object, idea and belief, fulfils some vital function. For Merton,
however, if an examination of actually existing systems is undertaken, it would
be clear that there is a wide range of empirical possibilities.
 First, items may not be only positively functional for a system or a part thereof,
but can also be dysfunctional for either the part or the whole system. Secondly,
some consequences, whether functional or dysfunctional are intended and
recognized by the systems and thus are manifest whereas other consequences
are not intended or recognized and are therefore latent. Functional analysis
therefore should arrive at the calculation of a net balance of consequences of the
part of the social system under study.
3. THE POSTULATE OF FUNCTIONAL INDISPENSABILITY: An automatic consequence
of the assumption that ‘all parts are functional’ is that existence of all parts is
essential of the survival of the social system. Therefore, all parts are functionally
indispensable. Merton contends emphatically that such conclusions which have
been taken for granted by various functionalists are unwarranted as can be seen
from empirical evidence. Examination of the empirical world reveals quite clearly
that alternative structures can exist to fulfill basically the same perquisites in
similar and diverse social systems. This fact leads Merton to postulate the
importance in functional analysis of various types of functional alternatives
or functional
equivalents within the social systems. Furthermore in looking for functional
alternatives, attention is to be drawn to the questions about the range of the
item that would serve as a functional equivalent within the existing structural
constraints of the social systems.

Having critically analysed the limitation of functional analysis, Merton suggests the
following steps for his functional paradigm. He insists that functional analysis should
begin with sheer description of the activities of individuals and groups under study. In
describing the pattern of interaction and activity among units under investigation, it will
be possible to discern clearly the social items to be subjected to functional analysis.
Such descriptions can also provide a major clue to the functions performed by such
patterned activity.

In order for these functions to become more evident, however additional steps are
necessary :

1. THE FIRST OF THESE STEPS IS FOR INVESTIGATORS TO INDICATE THE PRINCIPAL

ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE EXCLUDED BY THE DOMINANCE OF A PARTICULAR
 PATTERN. Such description of the excluded alternatives provides an indication of
the structural context from which an observed pattern first emerges and is now
maintained – thereby offering further clues about the functions or consequences,
the item might have for other items and perhaps for the systemic whole.
2. THE SECOND ANALYTICAL STEP BEYOND SHEER DESCRIPTION INVOLVES AN
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEANING OR MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF
THE ACTIVITY FOR THE MEMBER OF THE GROUP. Description of these meanings
may offer some indication of the motives behind the activities of the individual
involved and thereby shed some tentative light on the Manifest & Latent
functions of an activity.
3. THESE DESCRIPTIONS REQUIRE A THIRD ANALYTICAL STEP OF DISCERNING
SOME ARRAY OF MOTIVES FOR CONFORMITY OR FOR DEVIATION AMONG
PARTICIPANTS. Yet by understanding the configuration of motives for conformity
and deviation among actors, an assessment of the psychological needs served or
not served by a pattern can be understood –offering an additional clue to the
various functions of the pattern under investigation.
4. Thus a final analytical step involves the description of how the patterns under
investigation reveal regularities not recognized by participants, but which
appear to have consequences for both the individuals involved and the system.

Analysis :

1. RECOGNITION OF THE ELEMENTS, IMPORTANT FOR REAL FUNCTIONS: First of all

the observers should include, only those items in his study, which are functional
and necessary for related tasks. Unnecessary elements should not be inducted.
He can make out the degree of necessity of elements from his study
material/pattern. Thus in the study of development of rural structure, the level of
awareness campaign should be included a long with infrastructures.
2. IMPORTANCE OF OBJECTIVE CONSEQUENCES: According to Merton in a single
activity, both functional and dysfunctional elements are present and observer
should make a balance between the two on the bases of objectivity. Net balance
= function + dysfunction: Eg: television is a main source information and
knowledge, apart from one of the best means of entertainment, in a positive way.
But negatively, it also causes consumerism, vulgar and violent activities. And in
this way, the observer should pay attention on net balance.
3. CONCEPTS OF UNITS UNDER FUNCTIONS:
 FUNCTIONS: are those which are based on observed consequences and are
helpful in making proper adjustment in the system/associative elements.
 DYSFUNCTIONS: Those observed consequences, which lessened the levels of
adaptation and adjustment in the system and so are dysfunctional for the system.
 Manifest Function: Those observed consequences, which keep proper
coordination in the system. And are intended by the system. It means that the
knowledge about that activity is equally known by everyone.
  Latent: Such functions are unintended and also they are not given acceptance in
the system. It means, people hardly acknowledge such activities. Basically, they
are the consequences of manifest functions.

Latent and Manifest Functions:

According to Robert Merton manifest functions are those that are intended and
recognized. These are functions which people assume and expect the institutions to
fulfil. For example schools are expected to educate the children in the knowledge and
skills that they need. The manifest functions are obvious, admitted and generally
applauded. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,Latent functions are unrecognized and unintended functions.
These are the unforeseen consequences of institutions. For example schools not only
educate young they also provide mass entertainment. Latent functions of an institution
or partial structure may support the manifest functions for example the latent functions
of religious institutions in the modern society include offering recreational activities and
courtship opportunities to young people. Latent functions may be irrelevant to manifest
functions for example the big functions organized by schools may not impact the
purpose of the education. Latent functions may even undermine manifest functions. For
example the manifest function of civil service regulations is to secure a competent
dedicated staff of civil servants to make government more efficient. But the civil service
system may have the latent function of establishing more rigid bureaucracy. The
distinction between manifest and latent functions is essentially relative and not
absolute. A function may appear to be manifest for some in the social system and latent
for others.

For Merton, the difference between Manifest and Latent function is so important that
it reveals so many hidden elements in the system. Merton has presented the
difference in the following way:

1. FUNCTIONAL ACTIVITIES BECOME RATIONAL: To explain it Merton has presented

an example of rain ceremony among American Hopi Indian. In this ceremony,
people gather around one place and sprinkle water on the ground with the hope
that clouds would imitate such activity and rain will occur. This seems to be an
irrational act at the first glance, but Merton’s presents its another picture that the
gathered, people at one place, enhance their group identity, unity and solidarity.
This analysis shows that, an irrational activity his become rational and
meaningful.
2. ENHANCES SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE: To explain it Veblen’s theory of leisure class can
be presented here. In which he has talked about conspicuous consumption
people purchase commodities further comfortable life but in a single household,
the presence of plenty of such commodities, shows conspicuous consumption.
Through which show off their status in society. Apart from it, the rate of inflation
is affected with such activities, which is harmful for the economy of the country.
Interestingly, a sociologist can provide such kind of knowledge, which can be used
by the government. For e.g. Singapore government has provided, very nice facility
 for transportation. But despite, if someone wants to purchase a car, then, he will
have to pay the double price.
3. OPEN NEW VISTAS FOR RESEARCH: A sociologist searches hidden consequences
in any manifest functions and in this way provides new ways for researches, not
only to himself, but also is others which could be definitely, functional and
effective for society, in future.
4. REVEALS THE INSTITUTIONAL FAULTS BY SOMETHING ILLEGAL
ACTIVITIES: Merton has explained it with example of American political system.
America is a democratic country in which people are given equal opportunity, but
there are many, deprived from such opportunities and so they get a low level of
lifestyle; but there is one more group which Merton calls political machine which
works illegally i.e.-they pilferage smuggle etc and distribute the accumulated
money in the group, through which basic needs of those people are fulfilled. In
this way, people become capable to achieve opportunities.
5. Merton says that where American democracy failed to perform, political
machine accomplishes it. The real consequences of such activity are that the
democratic government should take a lesson from them and work for the
development of the deprived people. This would be highly functional for the
society.

Limination of Merton’s theory of functionalism :

1. LACK OF RATIONALITY: Merton has not told what is functional is dysfunctional

specially for a modern society. It is a difficult question not resolved by Merton.
Apart from it, the relevancy of objective consequence is also questionable
became, their also it is difficult to tell rationally, to what extent any activity is
functional of dysfunctional.
2. LACK OF OBJECTIVITY AND UNIVERSALITY: Like Brown and Malinowski, Merton
also presented an example of simple societies (Hopi Indians). In that way, his
universality is questionable he has also presented the example of a group
(political machine) to which, he himself was a member. It means, has studies
suffer from subjective experiences. And so it lacks objectivity. Apart from it, the
political machine acting illegally can’t be approved in all societies and so its
universality is also questionable.

Conformity and Deviance:

Analysis of Deviance before Merton:
Biological Theorist :

1. Among the earliest attempt to account for deviance was in the field of Biology.
Dr. Lombroso (an Italian) in the late 19th century tried to account for deviance in
terms of biological factors. Size of jaw, limbs, body built etc. were the parameters
to explain deviance.
 2. Sheldon & Eleanor Gleuck: They identify mesomorphs, a particular body-build as
deviance. A research in Britain among criminals lodged in prison saw an extra Y-
Chromosome. Percentage of extra Y Chromosome was high security prison. They
concluded that biological factors lead to deviance.

According to Psychological Theories deviance is the result of:

1. Inherited psychic abnormality,

2. Acquired as result of inadequate socialization or
3. Undesirable experience in social life.
4. British psychologist Hans Eysenck identified a personality type i.e. extra-version. It
is an inherited tendency. Such individuals have a craving for excitement. They do
unusual things and end up as deviants.
5. Neo-Freudians relates deviants to socialization failure or incomplete socialization.
John Bowlby in his study of 44 juvenile thieves found that chronic redivists
(juvenile delinquents) have habitual tendency to commit crime. Even if they are
punished they continue to commit crime. He found that most juvenile
delinquents tech intimate relations with their mother in their childhood. They
become indifferent to pain & sufferings of others.
6. Robert G. Andry: Male children who have hostile relation with their father usually
show hostility to others. Hitler was such a person. Hitler grew up intensely hating
his father because his father maltreated his mother.

Sociologist tends to question above mention theories. Because they treated deviant
as abnormal being in a normal society. This prepares the ground for above mentioned
theories. Durkheim was one of the earliest sociologists to address the issue of
deviance. According to him deviants is unavoidable. There can never be complete
socialization. Conscience collective cannot be fully followed by all. Deviance is also
normal and healthy that some degree of deviance may exist if collective conscience
becomes too repressive. It may suppress tendency of reform and innovation.

MERTON BEGINS WITH THE PREMISE THAT DEVIANCE RESULTS FROM THE CULTURE
AND STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY. Merton starts from the functionalist premise that for the
smooth functioning of a society, VALUE CONSENSUS among the members is essential.
However, SINCE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY ARE PLACED IN DIFFERENT POSITIONS IN THE
SOCIAL STRUCTURE, FOR EXAMPLE THEY DIFFER IN TERMS OF CLASS POSITION; THEY
DO NOT HAVE THIS SAME OPPORTUNITY OF REALIZING THE SHARED VALUES. This
situation can generate deviance. In Merton words, “the social and cultural structure
generated pressure for socially deviant behavior upon people variously located in the
structure.”

1. Merton states that a state of ANOMIE MAY EXIST IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE.
One form of anomie is that there might be lack of co-ordination between
culturally approved goals and structurally permitted means to attain these goals.
The members of the society placed variously in the social structure may adapt
differently to this anomic situation. FOR EXAMPLE, the Americans variously share
 the goal of success in American society which is equated with wealth and material
position. The ‘American Dream’ states that all members of society have an equal
opportunity of achieving success, of owning a Cadillac, a Beverly Hills mansion
and a substantial bank balance. In all societies, there are institutionalized means
or reaching culturally defined goals. In America, the accepted way of achieving
success is through educational qualification, talent, hard work, determination and
ambition.
2. IN A BALANCED SOCIETY AN EQUAL EMPHASIS IS PLACE UPON BOTH CULTURAL
GOALS AND INSTITUTIONAL MEANS AND MEMBERS ARE SATISFIED WITH BOTH.
BUT IN AN ANOMIC SITUATION SUCH EQUAL EMPHASIS MAY NOT EXIST.
INDIVIDUALS WOULD ADAPT TO THE ANOMIC SITUATION IN VARIOUS
WAYS. The anomie lies in the fact that simply by hard work, education and
determination alone an average American member cannot attain the success
goal. Merton outlines five possible responses to this state anomie.
 THE FIRST AND MOST COMMON RESPONSE IS ‘CONFORMITY’. Members of
society conform both to success goals and the normative means of reaching
them. They strive for success by means of accepted channels.
 THE SECOND POSSIBLE RESPONSE IS ‘INNOVATION’. This response rejects
normative means of achieving success and turns to deviant means to attain
success goals. Thus, the public servant who accepts bribe to get rich quickly
indulges in innovative type of deviance. So does the politician who accepts
commission in arms deals. Merton argues that members of relatively proper
sections of society are most likely to select this route. They are least likely to
succeed by conventional channels. Thus there is a greater pressure upon them to
deviate, because they have little access to conventional and legitimate means for
becoming successful. Since their ways are blocked, they innovate, turning to
crime which promises greater rewards than legitimate means. Merton argues that
they abandon institutionalized means while retaining success aspirations.
 FOR THE THIRD POSSIBLE RESPONSE MERTON USES THE TERM
‘RITUALISM’. Those who select this alternative are deviant because they make a
fetish of the means and cling to them even though it means loosing the sight of
the goals. The pressure to adopt this alternative is greatest for members of lower
middle class. Their occupations provide less opportunity for success than those of
other members of the middle class. However, compared to the members of the
working class they have been strongly socialized to conform to the social norms.
This prevents them from turning to deviant means. Unable to innovate and struck
up with jobs that offer little opportunity for advancement, their only solution is to
abandon their success goals. Merton paints the following picture of the typical
lower middle class ritualist. He is a low grade bureaucrat, ultra respectable but
struck in a rut. He is stickler of rules given to follow the book to the letter, clings
to red tape, conforms to all the outward standards of middle class respectability,
but has given up striving for success. The ritualist is deviant because he has
rejected the success goals held by most members of society.
 MERTON CALLS THE FOURTH TYPE OF RESPONSE AS ‘RETREATISM’. It applies to
psychotics, artists, outcasts, vagabonds, tramps, chronic drunkards and drug
 addicts. They have strongly internalized both the cultural goals and the
institutional means yet are unable to achieve success due to the existence of the
anomic situation. They resolve the conflict of their situation by abandoning both
the goals and means of reaching them. They are unable to cope with life and
hence drop out of society defeated and are resigned to their failures. They are
deviants in two ways. They have rejected both the cultural goals and the
institutionalized means. Merton does not relate Retreatism to social class
position.
 THE FIFTH TYPE OF RESPONSE IS ‘REBELLION’. It is a rejection of the success
goals, the institutionalized means and their replacement by different goals and
means. Those who adopt this alternative wish to create a new society. Lenin,
Christ and Gandhi are examples of rebel type of deviants. Even terrorists in
different types of societies are in illustration of the rebel type of deviants. Merton
argues that rebellion is typical of members of a rising class rather than the most
depressed strata, who organize the resentful into a revolutionary group.

To summarise, Merton claims that his analysis shows how the culture of the society
generates deviance due to lack of coordination between the cultural goals and
institutionalized means created by the state of anomic. This tendency exerts pressure
for deviance, a pressure for deviance, pressure which varies depending on a person’s
position in the class structure. The way the person responds to this pressure
will also depend on his position in the class structure. Thus he explains deviance in
terms of the nature of the society rather than the nature of the individual and hence his
theory is a sociological theory of deviance. Subsequently, Merton’s theory has been
modified by others to explain other types of deviance and covered by Merton’s theory
of deviance.

Analysis of Deviance after Merton:

1. According to ALBERT COHEN, Merton’s theories can explain only Pecuniary

deviance i.e. directed towards financial gains. It doesn’t explain senseless
violence, vandalism, non-pecuniary deviance. Such kind of deviance is a safety
valve from frustration. In the case of poor and slum dwellers borne out of status
frustration, mainstream cultural goals are of no use. Deviance acts as a safety
value to them.
2. CLOWARD & OHLIN, further criticized Merton. For them his theory does not
explain why some people should become innovators, ritualistic etc. They talked
about criminal sub-culture, which is solely responsible for deviance.
3. According to WALTER MILLAR, criminals are not always those who failed to gain
legitimate opportunity structure. They may do deviant acts out of thrill i.e. to
become smart-pick pocketing, boxing etc.
4. According to DAVID MATZA, there is minor difference between criminal and non-
criminals. Even
deviants believe in values of society. Most of the time, they try to disown the
responsibility for
example – they argue that ‘everybody is corrupt only I am caught’. Resorting to
technique of
neutralization deviants show partial acceptance of societal norms. In his theory of
delinquent drift
Matza argue that young people flow with deviant behaviour. Crimes become a
way of overcoming the
mood fatalism i.e. feeling of utterly helpless.
5. HOWARD BECKER : In his “Lebelling Theory” argue that society applies label in
context of behaviour. The behaviour becomes deviants when others label it as
such i.e. Give the dog a bad name; there are all chances that he will live up to that
expectation.
6. EDWIN M. LEMART made distinction between primary and secondary deviation
Primary deviance consist of deviant acts before they are publicly labeled.
Secondary deviance is the response individual or group to societal reaction.
7. BERNARD LANDER of Chicago School in his study of Baltimore city, found that
social disorganization provides key to explain deviants.
Reference Group:
A REFERENCE GROUP IS ONE TO WHICH YOU ALWAYS REFER IN ORDER TO EVALUATE
YOUR ACHIEVEMENTS, YOUR ROLE-PERFORMANCE, YOUR ASPIRATIONS AND
AMBITIONS. IT IS ONLY A REFERENCE GROUP THAT TELLS YOU WHETHER YOU ARE
RIGHT OR WRONG, WHATEVER YOU ARE DOING; YOU ARE DOING BADLY OR WELL.

So one might say that the membership groups to which you belong are your reference
groups.

1. Even non-membership groups-the groups to which you do not belong-may act

like reference groups. This is not really very surprising. Because life is mobile and
time and again you come to know of the lives and ways of those who do not
belong to your group. At times, this makes you wonder and ask why it is that
there are others who are more powerful, more prestigious than you…
2. It is because of this comparison that you often tend to feel deprived. You aspire
to become a member of a group to which you do not belong but which is more
powerful or more prestigious. As a result, this time in order to evaluate your
achievements, performance; you refer to a non-membership group. therefore, is
that not only membership groups, even nonmembership groups act like reference
groups. Human beings look at themselves not solely through the eyes of their
group members, but also through the eyes of those who belong to other groups.
3. Merton’s understanding of relative deprivation is closely tied to his treatment
of reference group and reference group behavior. Essentially, Merton speaks of
relative deprivation while examining the findings of ‘The American Soldier’, a
work published in 1949. In this work an attempt was made to examine how the
American soldiers looked at themselves and evaluated their role-performance,
career achievements, etc.“Comparing himself with his unmarried associates in
the Army, the married man could feel that their induction in army demanded
greater sacrifice; and comparing himself with the married Soldiers, he could feel
that he had been called on for sacrifices which unmarried soldiers were
escaping altogether”. Here we find the kernel of what Merton called relative
deprivation.
4. This is not surprising. Happiness or deprivation is not absolutes: they depend on
the scale of measure as well as on the frame of reference. The married soldier is
not asking what he gets and what other married soldiers like him get. Instead,
he is asking what he is deprived of.
5. Now his unmarried associates in the army are relatively free. They don’t have
wives and children, so they are free from the responsibility from which married
soldiers cannot escape. In other words, married soldiers are deprived of the kind
of freedom that their unmarried associates are enjoying. Likewise, the married
soldier feels deprived when he compares himself with his civilian married friend.
Because the civilian friend can live with his wife and children and fulfill his
responsibility. The married soldier therefore, feels deprived that by virtue of
being a soldier he cannot afford to enjoy the normal, day to day family life of a
civilian.
 6. t is precisely because of the kind of reference group with which the married
soldier compares his lot that he feels deprived. Likewise, as another finding
shows. “The overseas soldier, relative to soldier still at home, suffered a greater
break with home ties and with many of the amenities of life to which he was
accustomed”.

Concept of Group Membership & group Non-Membership:

Merton speaks of three characteristics of a group and group memberships:

1. First, there is an objective criterion, viz., the frequency of interaction. In other

words, the sociological concept of a group refers to a number of people who
frequently interact with one another.
2. A second criterion is that the interacting persons define themselves as
members. In other words, they feel that they have patterned expectations or
forms of interaction which are morally binding on them and on other members.
3. The third criterion is that the persons in interaction are defined by others
as ‘belonging to the group’. These others include fellow members as well as non-
members.

Membership groups shape human beings ‘day-do-day behavior more clearly and more
concretely. In Group members are conscious of their identities, they are aware of
what to do and what not to do. As a result, for them, group norms are morally
binding.

It is at this juncture that Merton wants us to appreciate the dynamics of non-

membership. It is true that non-members are those who do not meet the interactional
and definitional criteria of membership. But, at the same time, as Merton says, all non-
members are not of the same kind. Broadly speaking, non-members can be divided into
three categories.

 Some may aspire to membership in the group.

 Others may be indifferent toward such affiliation.
 Others may be motivated to remain unaffiliated with the group.

Anticipatory Socialization:

1. Merton speaks of anticipatory socialization in the context of non-membership

reference groups. It is like preparing oneself for the group to which an
individual aspires but does not belong. It is like adopting the values, life-styles
of a non-membership reference group. For an individual, says Merton,
anticipatory socialization ‘may serve the twin functions of aiding his rise into that
group and of easing his adjustment after he has become part of it’.
2. Suppose a village boy born in a lower middle class household accepts Indus
world School boys as his reference group. As a process of anticipatory
socialization he begins to emulate the ‘smartness’ of Indus World School
boys. Now if this village boy really succeeds in getting an entry into Indus World
 School, his anticipatory socialization would indeed be functional, it would be
easier for him to adjust himself to his new role.
3. While Merton speaks of the possibility of functional consequences of
anticipatory socialization, he, however, does not fail to see its dysfunctional
consequences. If the system is much closed then this lower middle class village
boy would never get an entry into Doon School. In that case, anticipatory
socialization would be dysfunctional for him. There are two reasons
4. First, he would not be able to become a member of the group to which he
aspires……….And secondly, because of anticipatory socialization-imitation of the
values of a non-membership group-he would be disliked by the members of his
own group. As Merton says, he would be reduced to being a ‘marginal man’! That
is why, anticipatory socialization is functional for the individual only ‘within a
relatively open social structure providing for mobility’. By the same token it
would be dysfunctional, in a ‘relatively closed social structure’.
5. Merton makes another interesting point. In a closed system the individual is
unlikely to choose a nonmembership group as a reference group. That is why, in
a closed system where the rights, prerequisites and obligations of each stratum
are generally held to be morally right-an individual, even if his objective
conditions are not good, would feel less deprived i.e. untouchables, schedule
castes, tribes in India. ………But in an open system in which the individual always
compares his lot with relatively better off and the more privileged non-
membership reference groups he remains perpetually unhappy and discontented.

Positive and Negative Reference Groups:

1. Reference groups, says Merton, are of two kinds. First, a positive reference group
is one which one likes and takes seriously in order to shape one’s behavior and
evaluate one’s achievements and performance. Secondly, there is also a
negative reference group which one dislikes and rejects and which, instead of
providing norms to follow, provokes one to create counter-norms.
2. As Merton says, “the positive type involves motivated assimilation of the norms
of the group or the standards of the group as a basis for self-appraisal; the
negative type involves motivated rejection, i.e. not merely non-acceptance of
norms but the formation of counter- norms”.
3. It is not difficult to think of an example. Imagine reaction of the colonized to their
colonial masters. Now you would always find some “natives” who get hypnotized
by the success story of the colonizers: they follow their life-style, speak their
language, and emulate their food habit. In other words, for them, the colonizers
act like a positive reference group.
4. But then again, we find some natives who hate the colonizers for their
exploitation, arrogance, and brutality. Instead of emulating their norms, they
create counter-norms in order to separate themselves from the colonizers. In
other words, for them, the colonizers act like a negative reference group.

Self-fulfilling prophecy: Sociologist Robert K. Merton (1957) defined a self-fulfilling

prophecy as a false definition of a situation that is assumed to be accurate. People
behave, however, as if that false definition is true. In the end, the misguided behavior
produces responses that confirm the false definition. Merton argued that the “tragic,
often vicious, cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies can be broken” if the initial definition
that set the circle in motion is abandoned. Only when that definition is questioned and a
new definition is introduced will the situation correct itself

G H Mead – Self and Identity

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective on self and society based on the
ideas of George H. Mead (1934), Charles H. Cooley (1902), W. I. Thomas (1931), and
other pragmatists associated, primarily, with the University of Chicago in the early
twentieth century. The central theme of symbolic interactionism is that human life is
lived in the symbolic domain. Symbols are culturally derived social objects having
shared meanings that are created and maintained in social interaction. Through
language and communication, symbols provide the means by which reality is
constructed. Reality is primarily a social product, and all that is humanly
consequential—self, mind, society, culture—emerges from and is dependent on
symbolic interactions for its existence. Even the physical environment is relevant to
human conduct mainly as it is interpreted through symbolic systems.

Importance of Meanings:
The label symbolic interactionism was coined by Herbert Blumer (1969), one of Mead’s
students. Blumer, who did much to shape this perspective, specified its three basic
premises:

1. Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings that things have for
them;
2. The meanings of things derive from social interaction; and
3. These meanings are dependent on, and modified by, an interpretive process of
the people who interact with one another.

The focus here is on meaning, which is defined in terms of action and its consequences
(reflecting the influence of pragmatism). The meaning of a thing resides in the action
that it elicits. For example, the meaning of “grass” is food to a cow, shelter to a fox, and
the like. In the case of symbols, meanings also depend on a degree of consensual
responses between two or more people. The meaning of the word husband, for
example, depends on the consensual responses of those who use it. If most of those
who use it agree, the meaning of a symbol is clear; if consensus is low, the meaning is
ambiguous, and communication is problematic. Within a culture, a general consensus
prevails on the meanings associated with various words or symbols. However, in
practice, the meanings of things are highly variable and depend on processes of
interpretation and negotiation of the interactants.
The interpretive process entails what Blumer refers to as role-taking, the cognitive
ability to take the perspective of another. It is a critical process in communication
because it enables actors to interpret one another’s responses, thereby bringing about
greater consensus on the meanings of the symbols used. The determination of
meanings also depends on negotiation—that is, on mutual adjustments and
accommodations of those who are interacting. In short, meaning is emergent,
problematic, and dependent on processes of role-taking and negotiation. Most concepts
of symbolic interactionism are related to the concept of meaning.

The origins of symbolic interactionism: Mead’s conception of behaviour

Symbolic interaction is a very loose categorization not particularly welcome to many of
the sociologists commonly counted as part of it. The name itself provides a succinct
summation of the key claim of Mead’s social psychology, which holds that interaction
between people is a matter of communication, through symbols. Mead aimed to
understand how the capacity for communication by symbols developed among humans,
and how it develops in the maturation of each human individual.

Mead’s View of The Self:

1. The human mind—which Mead termed the self—develops in and through the
process of symbolic interaction, enabling an individual to acquire a sense of
“HIMSELF OR HERSELF” as an individual.
2. The development of the human mind was to be understood in strictly Darwinian
terms as a product of the evolutionary process; the evolution of the human
organism and the social nature of human individuals were both part of their
biological nature. Hence Mead was certainly confident that social life could be
studied scientifically, since his social psychology was in essence an application of
biology, but he was none the less critical of many attempts to understand human
social life scientifically. This was not because they sought to be scientific, but
because they had an impoverished conception of:
 What science involves (the methods); and/or
 What the science is to study (the subject matter) in the case of human life.
3. For Mead, the mind can be studied scientifically because its workings are
displayed in people’s conduct, not concealed behind it. The capacity of humans
to respond in a more complex and flexible way to their environment than other
animals is a product of human biology and its evolution into its specific form.
For example, no small part of the crucial linguistic/symbolic capacity of humans
is a result of the evolution of the vocal cords.
4. Mead emphasizes the contrast between the way animal response is tied to the
immediate situation and the way humans can transcend it; they are able to reflect
upon and respond to past situations well after they have occurred, and can
anticipate and prepare for future situations before they happen. How we shall
react in a situation can depend on our preparation and planning, not just on an
automatic link between a certain occurrence and a fixed, instinctual reaction as in
the case of a reflex action, e.g. the knee’s reaction on being hit. We do have reflex
 reactions, but not only those. Thus Mead is putting the case that we ourselves
can control our own behaviour; we do not simply react to a stimulus that
provokes our reaction. The capacity to transcend immediate circumstance in
this way requires the development of SYMBOLIC CAPACITY.

Symbolic Capacity:

1. This is our ability to be able to represent, i.e. recall or envisage, past and future
situations to ourselves, to conjure them up when they are not actually present,
are in the past, or have not yet happened.
2. Part of this capacity for representation involves our ability to represent
ourselves to ourselves. If we are to prepare our conduct for future situations
then we must be able to imagine not just those situations but, also, what we
would do in them. Thus we must have the capacity to think of ourselves in the
way that we think about (other) objects; in Meadian terms, we can be objects to
ourselves. That is, we can think about ourselves in just the same way as we can
think about the objects (including other people) in the world about us, we can
step back from our immediate involvement in a situation and reflect on it, and we
can also envisage how others in our situation will look upon us and see ourselves
as others see us. This, then, is the capacity for self-consciousness.
3. THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT, OF COURSE, MERELY A BODY, BUT AN IDENTITY, A
PERSON WITH A DISTINCT CORE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTER, WHICH MEAD
TERMS ‘THE SELF’. It is the basis of, the driving force for, an individual’s conduct.
Mead refers to ‘the social self’ to emphasise. that the self develops in interaction
with and is modelled on other people and their ways of acting. The child, for
example, learns first by imitation, by copying the behaviour of others in playful
form, acting now like the postman, now the shopkeeper, then the mother, and so
on. In this way, the individual learns what is involved in social roles, i.e. learns
what people expect of one another. Through imitating these roles, the child is
learning how other people look upon the world, how they see it relative to their
role responsibilities. The child is learning not only to take account of things from
its own situated, particular point of view, but also to assess its situation from the
point of view of others. Such assessment is a basis for the co-ordination of
activities with others, allowing one to adjust one’s own actions to what one can
expect/anticipate, because one can consider things from their point of view as
well as one’s own.
4. The child does not develop a detailed conception of how every other kind of
person in a society would view things, for that is far too complicated a task, but
forms, rather, a general sense of how other people, broadly and typically, look
upon things. Mead called this general orientation ‘THE GENERALIZED
OTHER’. This is an important element in the individual’s psychology. It is the
standard outlook of the community in which the child grows up, and the attitudes
that are shared within it form part of each individual’s personality.
Self-Identity: Concept Formation:

1. Along with symbols, meaning, and interaction, the self is a basic concept in
symbolic interactionism. The essential feature of the self is that it is a reflexive
phenomenon. Reflexivity enables humans to act toward themselves as objects, or
to reflect on themselves, argue with themselves, evaluate themselves, and so
forth. This human attribute (al-though dolphins and the great apes show some
evidence of a self as well), based on the social character of human language and
the ability to role-take, enables individuals to see themselves from the
perspective of another and thereby to form a conception of themselves, a self
concept.
2. Two types of others are critical in the development of the self. The significant
other refers to people who are important to an individual, whose opinions
matter. The generalized other refers to a conception of the community, group, or
any organized system of roles (e.g., a baseball team) that are used as a point of
reference from which to view the self.
3. The importance of others in the formation of self-concepts is captured in
Cooley’s (1902) influential concept, the looking-glass self. Cooley proposed that
to some extent individuals see themselves as they think others see them. Self-
conceptions and self-feelings (e.g., pride or shame) are a consequence of how
people imagine others perceive and evaluate them. Within contemporary
symbolic interactionism, this process is called reflected appraisals and is the main
process emphasized in the development of the self.
4. The self is considered a social product in other ways, too. The content of self-
concepts reflects the content and organization of society. This is evident with
regard to the roles that are internalized as role-identities (e.g., father,
student). Roles, as behavioral expectations associated with a status within a set
of relationships, constitute a major link between social and personal organization.
Sheldon Stryker (1980) proposes that differential commitment to various
roleidentities provides much of the structure and organization of self-concepts.
To the extent that individuals are committed to a particular role identity, they are
motivated to act according to their conception of the identity and to maintain and
protect it, because their role performance implicates their self-esteem. Much of
socialization, particularly during childhood, involves learning social roles and
associated values, attitudes, and beliefs. Initially this takes place in the family,
then in larger arenas (e.g., peer groups, school, work settings) of the individual’s
social world. The role identities. formed early in life, such as gender and filial
identities, remain some of the most important throughout life. Yet socialization is
lifelong, and individuals assume various role identities throughout their life
course.
5. Socialization is not a passive process of learning roles and conforming to other’s
expectations. The self is highly active and selective, having a major influence on
its environment and itself. When people play roles, role-making often is as
evident as is learning roles. In role-making, individuals actively construct,
interpret, and uniquely express their roles. When they perceive an incongruity
 between a role imposed on them and some valued aspect of their self
conception, they may distance themselves from a role, which is the disassociation
of self from role. A pervasive theme in this literature is that the self actively
engages in its own development, a process that may be unpredictable.
6. Mead talks about three forms of inter-subjective activity: Language, play and the
game. These forms of symbolic interaction (social interactions that take place via
shared symbols such as words, definitions, roles, gestures, rituals etc) are the
major paradigms in his theory of socialization and are the basic social processes
that render the reflexive objectification of the self possible. Language is
communication vie significant symbols and it is through significant
communication that the individual is able to take the attitudes of others toward
oneself. Language is not only a necessary mechanism of mind but also the
primary social foundation of self. Within the linguistic act the individual takes the
role of the other i.e. responds to his/her own gestures in terms of the symbolized
attitudes of others. This process of “TAKING THE ROLE” of the other within the
process of symbolic interaction is the primal form of self-objectification and is
essential to self-realization. Mead’s self as object is the basic structure of human
experience that arises in response to other persons in an organic social –symbolic
world of internal relations.
7. This becomes even clearer in Mead’s interpretation of PLAY STAGE AND GAME
STAGE. In playing and gaming as in linguistic activity the key to the generation of
self-consciousness is the process of role-playing. In play the child takes the role of
another and acts as though she/he were the other. This form of role playing
involves a single role at a time.
8. Thus the other which comes into the child’s experience in play is a specific
other. The game involves a more complex form of role playing than that
involved in play. In the game the individual is required to internalize not merely
the character of a single and specific other but the roles of all others who are
involved with him in the game. He must comprehend the rules of the game
which condition the various roles. This configuration of roles-organized
according to the rules brings the attitude of all participants together to form a
symbolized unity: this unity is the generalized other.
9. The generalized other is an organized and generalized attitude with reference to
which the individual defines her/his conduct. When the individual can view
himself from the standpoint of the generalized other, self-consciousness in the
full sense of the term is attained. The game is the stage of the social process at
which the individual attains selfhood. One of the Mead’s most outstanding
contributions to the development of critical social theory is his analysis of games.
Mead says that the full social and psychological significance of game playing and
the extent to which the game functions is an instrument of social control.

The ‘Me’ and the ‘I’

1. Although the self is a product of socio-symbolic interaction it is not merely a

passive reflection of the generalized other. The individual’s response to the
 social world is active; he decides what he will do in the light of the attitude of
others but his conduct is not mechanically determined by such attitudinal
structures. There are two phases of the self- that phase which reflects the
attitude of the generalized other and that phase which responds to the attitude
of the generalized other. Here Mead distinguishes between the ‘me’ and ‘I’. The
‘me’ is the social self and the ‘I’ is the response to me. The ‘I’ is the response of
the organism to the attitudes of the others; the ‘me’ is the organized set of
attitudes of others which one assumes. Mead defines the ‘me’ as a conventional
habitual individual and the ‘I’ as the novel reply of the individual to the
generalized other. There is a dialectical relationship between society and the
individual and this dialectic is enacted on the intra-psychic level in terms of the
polarity of the ‘me’ and the ‘I’.
2. The me is the internalization of roles which derive from such symbolic processes
as linguistic interaction, playing and gaming whereas the I is a creative response
to the symbolized structures of the me. The ‘I’ appear as a symbolized object in
our consciousness of our past actions but then it has become part of me. The
‘me’ is in a sense that phase of the self that represents the past. The I which is a
response to the me represents action in a present and implies the restructuring of
the me in a future. Because of the temporal historical dimension of the self, the
character of the ‘I’ is determinable only after it has occurred; the ‘I’ is not
therefore subject to predetermination. Particular acts of the ‘I’ become aspects of
the ‘me’ in the sense that they are objectified through memory but the ‘I’ as such
is not contained in the ‘me’. The human individual exists in a social situation and
responds to that situation. The situation has a particular character but this
character does not completely determine the response of the individual there
seem to be alternative courses of action. The individual must select a course of
action and act accordingly but the course of action he selects is not dictated by
the situation. It is this indeterminacy of response that gives the sense of freedom
of initiative.
3. The action of the ‘I’ is revealed only in the action itself; specific prediction of the
action of ‘I’ is not possible. The individual is determined to respond but the
specific character of the response is not fully determined. The individual’s
response are conditioned but not determined by the situation in which he acts.
Human freedom is conditioned freedom. Thus the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ exist in
dynamic relation to one another. The human personality arises in a social
situation. This situation structures the me by means of inter –subjective symbolic
processes – language,gestures,play and games etc and the active organism as it
continues to develop must respond to its situation and to its me. This response of
the active organism is the ‘I’. The individual takes the attitude of the ‘me’ or the
attitude of the ‘I’ according to the situation in which he finds himself. For Mead
both aspects of the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ are essential to the self in its full expression.
Both community and individual autonomy are necessary to identity. The ‘I’ is
process breaking through structure. The ‘me’ is a necessary symbolic structure
which renders the action of the ‘I’ possible and without this structure of things;
the life of the self would become impossible.
The dialectic of ‘self’ and other:

1. The self arises when the individual takes the attitude of the generalized other
toward herself. This internalization of the generalized other occurs through the
individual’s participation in the conservation of significant symbols and in other
socialization processes. The self then is of great value to organized society: the
internalization of the conservation of significant symbols and of other
interactional symbolic structures allow for the super coordination of society as
whole and for the increased efficiency of the individual as a member of the group.
The generalized other is a major instrument of social control; it is the mechanism
by which the community gains control over the conduct of its individual
members. Social control is the expression of the ‘me’ over against the expression
of the ‘I’.
2. The genesis of the self in social process is thus a condition of social control.
The self is a social emergent that supports the cohesion of the group individual
will is harmonized by means of a socially defined and symbolized reality with
social goals and values. Thus there are two dimensions of Mead’s theory of
internalization: The internalization of the attitudes of others toward oneself and
toward one another. The internalization of the attitudes of others toward the
various phases or aspects of the common social activity or set of social
undertakings in which as members of an organized society or social group they
are all engaged. The self then has reference not only to others but to social
projects and goals and it is by means of the socialization process (the
internalization of the generalized other through language, play and the game that
the individual is brought to assume the attitudes of those in the group who are
involved with him in his social activities.

Critique Symbolic interactionism

1. Interactionists have often been accused of examining human interaction in a

vacuum. They have tended to focus on small-scale face to face interaction
with little concern for its historical or social settings. They have concentrated on
particular situations and encounters with little reference to the historical events
which led up to them or the wider social framework in which they occur. Since
these factors influence the particular interaction situation, the scant attention
they have received has been regarded as a serious omission.
2. While symbolic interactionism provides a corrective to the excesses of societal
determinism, many critics have argued that it has gone too far in this
direction. Though they claim that action is not determined by structural norms,
interactionists do admit the presence of such norms. However, they tend to take
them as given rather than explaining their origin.
3. As William Skidmore comments, the interactionists largely fail to explain ‘why
people consistently choose to act in given ways in certain situations, instead of in
all the other ways they might possibly have acted’. In stressing the flexibility and
freedom of human action the interactionists tend to downplay the constraints on
 action. In Skidmore’s view this is due to the fact that ‘interactionism
consistently fails to give an account of social structure’. In other words it fails to
adequately explain how standardized normative behavior comes about and why
members of society are motivated to act in terms of social norms.
4. Similar criticism has been made with reference to what many see as the failure of
interactionists to explain the source of the meanings to which they attach such
importance. Critics argue that such meanings are not spontaneously created in
interaction situations. Instead they are systematically generated by the social
structure. Thus Marxists have argued that the meanings which operate in face
to face interaction situations are largely the product of class relationships. From
this viewpoint, interactionists have failed to explain the most significant thing
about meanings: the source of their origin.
5. Symbolic interactionism is a distinctly American branch of sociology and to some
this partly explains its shortcomings. Thus Leon Shaskolsky has argued that
interactionism is largely a reflection of the cultural ideals of American society. He
claims that ‘Symbolic interactionism has its roots deeply imbedded in the
cultural environment of American life, and its interpretation of society is, in a
sense, a “looking glass” image of what that society purports to be’. Thus the
emphasis on liberty, freedom and individuality in interactionism can be seen in
part as a reflection of America’s view of itself. Shaskolsky argues that this helps
to explain why the interactionists perspective finds less support in Europe since
there is a greater awareness in European societies of the constraints of power
and class domination. By reflecting American ideals, Shaskolsky argues that
interactionism has failed to face up to and take account of the harsher realities of
social life. Whatever its shortcomings however, many would agree with William
Skidmore that, ‘On the positive side, it is clearly true that some of the most
fascinating sociology is in the symbolic interactionists tradition’.
Stratification and Mobility
Concepts – Equality, Inequality, Hierarchy, Exclusion, Poverty, and Deprivation

Concept of Equality:
The study of social stratification is invariably associated with the concepts of equality
and inequality, which in sociological context mean “social equality” and “social
inequality”. Both these concepts seem to be as old as social thought for they are
inextricably linked with our value system. Human history is marked by endless efforts of
a large number of social leaders and reformers who toiled and struggled to establish
equality in society and to remove, or at least, reduce inequality. Despite their efforts,
inequality still persists and establishment of equality remains an unfulfilled dream.

1. “Equality” has been one of the cherished values of the people since times
immemorial. But, social inequality has been the fact of human group life. J.J.
Rousseau, one of the intellectuals behind the French Revolution of 1789, had
recognized this fact when he said that “men are born free and equal but
everywhere they are in chains”. The quest for equality and the struggle against
inequality and injustice continue even today.
2. Broadly the tern equality refers to “the state of being equal in some respect.
Equality or social equality refers to a condition in which members of a group or
society have equal access to, wealth, prestige, or power. Social equality exists
when all people have equal access to, or share power, wealth or prestige.
3. Though the term ‘equality’ has political, legal and philosophical overtones, most
of the sociological discussions have focused on equality as an aspect of social
context. Ever since the time of the French Revolution and the growth of liberal
democracies in Europe, equality has usually been interpreted mostly as political
equality. For example, liberal democracy assumes that equality means equality
between individuals as citizens. Here, equality includes constitutional rights,
that is, the fundamental Rights, the right to hold political office, the right to
exercise all civic rights, etc.
4. Social Equality Emphasizes the Fair Distribution of Income and Wealth: The
liberal democratic concern with individual equality does not give prominence for
equality of income and wealth. The critics have argued that the unequal
distribution of income and wealth undermine all the other attempts at equality.
Because, the holders of material wealth or resources, always have an advantage
over other citizens. Sociologists have demonstrated how material resources
affect people’s life chances. For example, they have shown how material
resources have been affecting child’s progress in the educational system. Such an
access to material resources also affects one’s access to education and legal
representation.
5. Equalitarian Objectives of welfare Still Remain Unfulfilled : Various empirical
researches have clearly shown that DESPITE THE attempts to provide various
social services to the needy people particularly in the fields of education, housing,
health care, income maintenance, etc. inequalities have persisted and in some
 cases, actually increased. It is surprising to note that the western experience with
the liberal democracies has revealed that the equalitarian objectives of welfare
are not acceptable to the majority.

Concept of Inequality :

1. Inequality is found in all societies irrespective of time or place. Personal

characteristics such as beauty, skill, physical strength and personality may all play
a role in the perpetuation of inequality. However, there are also patterns of
inequality associated with the social positions people occupy.
 We can say that there are two types of inequality:
 Natural and
 Man Made
2. So far as the natural inequality is concerned with reference to age, sex, height,
weight etc. the man made inequality may be horizontal or vertical e.g. different
occupational groups perform different activities but when these groups become
social groups in the sense that they are placed hierarchically and they have
interaction within the group and at the inter-strata level, then such type of
inequality is called social inequality.
3. Usage of the Concept of Social inequality in the Analysis of Social Stratification:
The term social inequality refers to the socially created inequalities. Stratification
is a particular form of social inequality. It refers to the presence of social groups
which are ranked one above the other in terms of the power, prestige and wealth
their members possess. Those who belong to a particular group or stratum will
have some awareness of common interest and common identity. They will share
a similar life-style which will distinguish them from the members of other social
strata. Hindu society in traditional India was divided into five main strata: four
Varnas and fifth group, the out caste or untouchables. These strata are arranged
in a hierarchy with the Brahmins at the top and untouchables at the bottom. Such
inequality has been perceived by the earlier thinkers in different terms like
economic, political, religious etc.
4. PLATO was one of the first to acknowledge that inequality is inevitable and to
suggest ways in which the distribution of money, status and power could be
altered for the betterment of both the individual and the society.
5. The society that Plato envisioned is explicitly meant to be class-structured, so that
all citizens belong to one of three classes:
 Ruling
 Non-ruling
 Auxiliaries or the workers.
6. He eliminated inheritance of class status and provided equality of opportunities
regardless of birth.
7. Aristotle was clearly concerned with the consequences of inequality in birth,
strength and wealth. He talked about three classes:
 Very Rich,
 Very Poor, and
  Moderate.
8. St. Thomas and St. Augustine made distinction based on power, property and
prestige.
9. Machiavelli asked who is fit to rule and what form of rule will produce order,
happiness, prosperity and strength. He saw tension between elite and the
masses. He preferred democratic rule. About the selection for ruling positions he
advocated inequality in situation is legitimate so long as there has been equality
of opportunity to become unequal
10.Thomas Hobbes saw all men equally interested in acquiring power and privileges,
which leads to chaotic conditions, unless there is a set of rules by which they
agree to abide. These rules constitute “Social Contract”, under which people give
the right to one man to rule, who has collective desire and will. The sovereign can
be removed if he fails to come up to the maintenance of equality for safety of all
men.
11.Max Weber emphasized the existence of three types of groups based on different
forms of inequality and the fact that they may be independent of one
another. Weber suggested three types of market situations:
 Labour market,
 Money market, and
 Commodity market.
12.Weber termed the second from of inequality social honour or prestige and the
third form of inequality for Weber was power.As exemplified by caste, social
stratification involves a hierarchy of social groups. Members of a particular group
have common identity, like interests, and similar life-style. They enjoy or suffer
from the unequal distribution of rewards in societies as members of different
social groups.
13.Social stratification however is only one form of social inequality. It is possible
for social inequality to exist without social strata. It is stated that a hierarchy of
social groups has been replaced by a hierarchy of individuals. Although many
sociologists use the term inequality and social stratification interchangeably,
social stratification is seen as a specific form of social inequality.

Some Salient Aspects of Social Inequality:

1. Social Inequality is the Result of Differentiation: All societies differentiate among

their members. Some people who have certain characteristics are treated
differently from other, people. Every society for that matter differentiates
between the old and the young and between males and females. Society treats its
members in different ways on various grounds such as skin colour, religion,
physical strength, or educational achievement. The result of this differentiation is
nothing but inequality.
2. Social Inequality is Universal : In no society of the world all people have equal
recognition. It is in this simple sense; inequality is universal in human societies.
Thus, in all societies known to us, large or small, modern or extinct, there have
been distinct differences in the statuses of the individual members. Social
 inequality is apparent when a society values males over females, the rich over
the poor, Christians over Muslims, or Brahmins over the Dalits or Whites over
Blacks, and so on. It goes without telling that those with the higher status have a
superior access to whatever rewards the society offers. At the same time, those
with the lower status are deprived of these advantages.
3. Social Inequality is Normally Built into the Social Structure : In all the modern
societies, social inequality takes a much elaborate and structured form in which
different categories of people have different statuses. In these societies,
inequality is built into the social structure, and unequal statuses are passed down
from generation to generation. Like the layers of rock, people in these societies
are grouped into “strata”. People in anyone stratum have a different access to
social rewards than people in any other stratum, so the society as a whole is said
to be stratified.
4. Social Inequality is a Source of Social Conflict and Social Change: Inequality Is
one of the most pressing social problems of the present day society. Throughout
history, social inequality has been a source of tensions, revolutions and social
change. It has generated bloody conflict between slave and master, peasant and
noble, worker and capitalist, poor and rich. Ever since Karl Marx brought the issue
of social inequality to the fore front of political debate with his Communist
Manifesto in 1848, these tensions and conflicts have assumed global ‘importance.
Social inequality is strongly related to various other problems of our society such
as – social instability, economic ups and downs, political conflicts, potential
violence, status insecurities, fear and uncertainties, and so on.
5. Social Inequalities are Normally Sustained by the Power of Ideas: It is significant
to note that “social inequalities are rarely maintained primarily through force.
Instead, they are sustained by the power of ideas. Members of both the dominant
and sub-ordinate groups are inclined to accept unquestionably the ideologies, or
sets of ideas that justify the inequalities and make them seem “natural” and even
moral. For example, the sex roles in our society show how traditional roles have
ensured the dominance of men over women. Similarly, the caste roles in India
reveal that normally the upper castes tend to dominate the lower castes by virtue
of their traditionally ascribed superior status.
6. Social Inequalities are not Necessarily based on Natural or Biological
Inequalities: Many stratification systems are accompanied by beliefs which state
social inequalities are biologically based. For example, Whites claim biological
superiority over Blacks, and see ‘this as the basis for their dominance. Similarly
followers of Adolf Hitler in Germany believed in the inborn superiority of the
people of Aryan race. In India also, the higher castes claimed biological superiority
over the untouchable castes. According to Rousseau “biologically based
inequalities between men were small and relatively unimportant whereas
socially created inequalities provide the major basis for Systems of social
stratification. Most sociologists would support this view.

The beliefs that social inequalities are caused by natural or biological inequalities
seem to sense as
rationalizations to justify the stratification system. The beliefs serve to make social
inequality appear rational and reasonable. Currently, the existence of inequality, its
causes and consequences as related to social class, genders, ethnicity, and even region
or locality, continues to assume sociological prominence.

Concept of Hierarchy:
The literal meaning of term “hierarchy” is gradation or a ranking system. This term is
very commonly used in the discussions of social stratification. It signifies that
individuals and groups in any society are not socially treated equally but graded
differently. The concept of hierarchy denotes that people in a society are graded or
ranked differently depending upon the type of the statuses that they occupy.

Hierarchy refers to “Any relationship of individuals, groups, or classes involving a

system of ranking”. Broadly speaking Hierarchy refers to “ranking of statuses within
society or an organization according to some criterion of evaluation accepted as
relevant within the system”.

Usage of the Concept of Hierarchy in the Analysis of Social Stratification:

1. Any system, social or otherwise, is said to be hierarchical or gradational in nature

if it consists of different strata or layers one on top of another. The more
hierarchical a system is, the greater the number of layers and, generally, the
greater the distance between the top and bottom are found. In a system for say
Caste
system hierarchy help us understand social Inequality and Social distance
among Castes.
2. Hierarchy is an important concept because, by making use of the hierarchical
principle it is comparatively easier to trace out the relative status or position of
an individual or group in a particular society. Thus, for example, it is through the
principle of hierarchy, we can say, that in a caste system, the Brahmins as a caste
group occupy the top-most position enjoying the privileges associated with it,
while the untouchable castes occupy the bottom most position suffering from all
the disabilities related with it. A large number caste, often referred to
as ‘intermediary castes’ occupy different positions which lie in between these
two extreme positions.
3. Similarly, class system, is also hierarchical in which the capitalists and the rich
occupy the top position in the hierarchy while the workers and the poor occupy
the bottom most position. The position in between these two is occupied by the
middle class. Sociologists have also spoken of a six-fold division of class hierarchy.

Hierarchy and its Relations with Power and Authority

The principle of hierarchy is also important in the area of operation of power and
authority. Normally, power and authority flow from higher level to lower level as we
witness it in all types of bureaucracies. The exercise of power and authority and the
control of people and resource become organized in a hierarchical way. The higher the
position of an individual in the hierarchy, the greater the power and control of
resources that he has access to and vice versa. This kind of hierarchical principle can be
seen in virtually every area of social life, from politics and economics to religion and
education.

Concept of Social Exclusion:

1. Social exclusion refers to “A process by which individuals or households

experience deprivation, either of resources such as income or of social links to
the wider community or society”. “Social exclusion refers to the ways in which
individuals may become cut off from full involvement in the wider community.”
2. In order to live full and active life individuals must not only be able to feed, clothe
and house themselves but should also have access to essential goods and services
such as education, health, transportation, insurance, social security, banking and
even access to the police or judiciary.

Nature of Social Exclusion:

1. Social exclusion is systematic –it is result of structural features of

society. Exclusion is practiced regardless of the wishes of those who are
excluded. For example rich people are never found sleeping on the pavements
or under bridges like thousands of homeless poor people in cities and
towns. This does not mean that the rich are being excluded from access to
pavements and park benches because they could certainly gain access if they
wanted to but they choose not to. Social exclusion is sometimes wrongly
justified by the same logic –it is said that the excluded group itself does not
wish to participate. The truth of such an argument is not obvious when
exclusion is preventing access to something desirable. Prolonged experience of
discriminatory or insulting bahaviour often produces a reaction on the part of the
excluded who then stop trying for inclusion. For example upper caste Hindu
communities have often denied entry into temples for the lower castes and
specially the dalits. After decades of such treatment the Dalits started building
their own temple or convert to another religion like Buddhism, Christianity or
Islam. After they do this they may no longer desire to be included in the Hindu
temple or religious events. But this does not mean that social exclusion is not
being practiced.
2. Social Exclusion Indicates Deprivation of Opportunities: The concept focuses
attention on a broad range of factors that prevent individuals or groups from
having opportunities open to majority of the population. It indicates that some
are denied of having access to essential goods and services such as education,
health, transportation, insurance, social security, banking and even access to the
police or judiciary. It is not enough if individuals are just provided with food,
clothing and shelter. A fuller and an active involvement in life demands greater
freedom and better access to all the essentials of civilized life on par with all the
others in the society.
 3. Social Exclusion is Not Accidental : Social exclusion in most of the cases is found
to be an in-built mechanism to deprive a few of their social rights. It is the result
of the structural features of society. The ‘untouchables’ in India, were excluded
from doing many things, for example, entering temples, sharing food along with
higher caste people, drawing water from public wells, receiving education on par
with others, etc as a matter of caste rule.
4. Social Exclusion is Involuntary : Social exclusion is practiced regardless of the
wishes of those who are excluded. In the case of the untouchables of India, for
example, it is trusted upon them. They are prevented from having access to
something desirable, say for example, having access to education, or entering
religious institutions, etc.
5. Prolonged Exclusion Leading to a Reaction Against Inclusion : Prolonged
experience of discrimination and insult underwent by an excluded group often
compels it to develop a reaction against inclusion. As a result, it may stop making
attempts for inclusion. For example, the denial of temple entry for the dalits in
India for decades together by the upper castes may ultimately compel the dalits
to build their own temple, or to convert to another religion like Buddhism,
Christianity, or Islam. When once they start doing it, they may no longer desire to
be included in the Hindu temple or religious events. However, it cannot be
concluded that all the excluded would think and act on the same line. Instances of
this kind point out that social exclusion occurs regardless of the wishes of the
excluded.
6. The point is that the exclusion occurs regardless of the wishes of the
excluded. India like most societies has been marked by acute practices of social
discrimination and exclusion. At different periods of history protest movements
arose against caste, gender and religious discrimination. Yet prejudices remain
and often new ones emerge. Thus legislation alone is unable to transform society
or produce lasting social change. A constant social campaign to change awareness
and sensitivity is required to break them.

Three Broad Overlapping Usages of the Concept:

1. Social Exclusion in Relation to Social Rights : This usage refers to the context in
which people are prevented from exercising their rights due to certain barriers or
processes.
2. Social Exclusion in Relation to Social Isolation : This usage throws light on the
context in which some people or some section of the population is kept away or
distanced from others in most of the social dealings. Example: Practices of social
discrimination and exclusion during the British rule in South Africa which led to
the social isolation of the natives.
3. Social Exclusion in Relation to Marginalisation : This usage refers to the social
exclusion of the extreme kind in which some “are denied of opportunities and
avenues under the pretext of educational credentials, party membership, skin
colour, religious identity, proper manners and style of life, social origins, etc.
 4. Exclusion is not Always Deprivation and Inclusion is not Always Justice : It is a
common practice to equate exclusion with inequality, deprivation, unfairness and
injustice; and inclusion with equality, fairness and justice. In our practical life this
is not necessarily so. There are situations in which even inclusion would lead to
painful experiences. For example, successfully fighting against exclusions and
discriminations, some women members maybe recruited as employees to a men-
dominated company. After getting included or recruited also these women may
find it highly embarrassing to work in the company which is dominated by men
who are not that co-operative.

Concept of Poverty:
Poverty is a social problem and it is one of the manifestations of inequality. The study
of poverty is central to any examination of social equality, including an analysis of
who is poor and the reasons for their poverty. Poverty refers to “A low standard of
living that lasts long enough to undermine the health, morale, and self respect of an
individual or group of individuals. A state in which resources, usually material but
sometimes cultural, are lacking. Poverty is insufficient supply of those things which
are requisite for an individual to maintain himself and those dependent upon him in
health and vigour’.

Absolute Poverty and Relative Poverty:

The term poverty is relative to the general standard of living in the society, the
distribution of wealth, the status system, and social expectations. It is common to
distinguish between absolute and relative definitions of poverty.

1. Absolute Poverty: Poverty defined in absolute terms refers to a state in which the
individual lacks the resources necessary for subsistence.
2. Relative Poverty: Relative definitions of poverty, frequently favoured by
sociologists, refers to the individuals or groups with lack of resources when
compared with that of other members of the society – in other words, their
relative standard of living.

 Absolute poverty is often known as “subsistence poverty” for it is based on

assessment of minimum subsistence requirements such as food, clothing, shelter,
health care, etc. Subsistence definitions of poverty [or definitions of absolute
poverty] are of considerable value in examining, Third World poverty.
 International studies show that the overall level of poverty measured in
subsistence terms is very high. Some studies suggest that almost half of those in
low-income countries live in absolute poverty. Even in India, poverty is still posing
a challenge.
Deprivation:
“Deprivation” is one of the concepts closely associated with the discussions of social
inequality. Sociological analysis defines deprivation broadly as inequality of access to
social goods. It includes poverty and wider forms of disadvantage.

1. “In general, deprivation refers to a condition in which people lack what they
need” …the lack of economic and emotional supports generally accepted as basic
essentials of human experience. These include income and housing, and parental
care for children,”
2. The above mentioned definitions make it clear that some human needs [such as
income, care, shelter and security are very basic and their fulfillment leads to
fuller and more comfortable life experience. Satisfactory fulfillment of these
needs is believed to contribute to more complete Development of the individual’s
potential.

Absolute Deprivation and Relative Deprivation :

1. Absolute deprivation refers to the lack of life necessities i.e. food, water, shelter
and fuel. It means the loss or absence of the means to satisfy the basic needs
for survival – food, clothing and shelter.
2. Relative deprivation refers to deprivations experienced when individuals
compare themselves with others. In this case, individuals who lack something
compare themselves with those who have it, and in so doing feel a sense of
deprivation. Consequently, relative deprivation not only involves comparison, it is
also usually defined in subjective terms. The concept is intimately linked with that
of “reference group” – the group with whom the individual or set of individuals
compare themselves.
3. Deprivation or disadvantage is measured not by objective standards but by
comparison with the relatively superior advantages of others, such as members
of reference group with whom one desires to emulate. Thus, the mere millionaire
can feel relatively disadvantaged among his multi-millionaire friends.
4. The concept of relative deprivation has been used in the study of social
movements and revolutions, where it is argued that relative, not absolute
deprivation is most likely to lead to pressure for change..

THEORIES OF POVERTY
The culture of poverty: Oscar Lewis

1. Many researchers have noted that the life style of the poor differs in certain
respects from that of other members of society. They have also noted that
poverty life styles in different societies share common characteristics. The
circumstances of poverty are similar, in many respects, in different societies.
2. Similar circumstances and problems tend to produce similar response, and
these responses can develop into a culture, that is the learned, shared, and
socially transmitted behaviour of a social group. This line of reasoning has led to
 the concept of a ‘culture of poverty’ (or, more correctly, a subculture of poverty),
a relatively distinct subculture of the poor with its own norms and values. Oscar
Lewis developed the concept from his fieldwork among the urban poor in Mexico
and Puerto Rico. Lewis argues that the culture of poverty is a ‘design for living’
which transmitted from one generation to the next.
3. As a design for living which directs behaviour, the culture of poverty has the
following elements. In Lewis’s words, ‘On the level of the individual the major
characteristics are a strong feeling of marginality, of helplessness, of
dependence and inferiority, a strong present-time orientation with relatively
little ability to defer gratification a sense of resignation and fatalism’. On the
family level, life is characterized by ‘free union or consensual marriages, a
relatively high incidence in the abandonment or mothers and children, a trend
towards mother-centred families and a much greater knowledge or maternal
relatives’. There are high rates of divorce and desertion by the male family head
resulting in matrifocal families headed by women. On the community level, the
lack of effective participation and integration in the major institutions of the
larger society is one of the crucial characteristics of the culture of poverty’. The
urban poor in Lewis’s research do not usually belong to trade unions or other
association, they are not members of political parties, and ‘generally do not
participate in the national welfare agencies, and make very little use of banks,
hospitals, department stores, museums of art galleries’. For most, the family is
the only institution in which they directly participate.

 The culture of poverty is seen as response by the poor to their position in

society. AccorLewis it is a ‘reaction of the poor to their marginal position in a
class-stratified and highly individualistic society’. However, the culture of
poverty goes beyond a mere reaction to a situation. It takes on the force of
culture since its characteristics are guides to action which are internalized by
the poor and passed on from one generation to the next. As such the culture of
poverty tends to perpetuate poverty since its characteristics can be seen as
mechanisms which maintain poverty: attitudes of fatalism and resignation lead to
acceptance of the situation; failure to join trade unions and other organization
weakens the potential power of the poor. By the time slum children are age six or
seven, they have usually absorbed the basic values and attitudes of their
subculture and are not psychologically geared to take full advantage of changing
conditions or increased opportunities which may occur in their lifetime’.
 Lewis argues that the culture of poverty best describes and explains the
situation of the poor in colonial societies or in early stages of capitalism as in
many Third World countries. He suggests that it either does not exist or is weakly
developed in advanced capitalist societies and socialist societies, although other
have argued that the idea of a culture of poverty can be applied to the poor in
advanced industrial societies.
Situational Constraints Theory – an alternative to a culture of poverty

1. Rather than seeing the behaviour of the poor as a response to established and
internalized cultural patterns, many researchers view it as a reaction to
‘situational constraints’. In other words the poor are constrained by the facts of
their situation, by low income, unemployment and the like, to act the way they
do, rather than being directed by a culture of poverty. The situational constraints
argument suggests that the poor would readily change their behaviour in
response to new set of circumstances once the constraints of poverty were
removed.
2. Thus Hylan Lewis, an American sociologist who has conducted considerable
research on the behaviour of the poor, argues, ‘It is probably more fruitful to
think of lower class families reacting in various ways to the facts of their position
and to relative isolation rather than the imperatives of a lower class culture’. The
situational constraints thesis also attacks the view that the poor are largely
insulated from mainstream norms and values. It argues that the poor share the
values of society as a whole, the only difference being that they are unable to
translate many of those values into reality. Again, the situational constraints
argument suggests that once the constraints of poverty are removed, the poor
will have no difficulty adopting mainstream behaviour patterns and seizing
available opportunities.

Poverty and Social Stratification

To explain the basic causes of poverty, sociologists are increasingly focusing their
attention on society as a whole and particularly on the stratification system, rather
than studying the poor in isolation. As Peter Townsend states, ‘the description,
analysis and explanation of poverty in any country must proceed within the context of
a general theory of stratification’. From this perspective the poor must be seen in
terms of the stratification system as a whole. Questions about the nature and
functioning of stratification systems are directly related to questions about poverty.

MARXIAN PERSPECTIVE ON POVERTY

1. From a Marxian perspective, poverty in capitalist society can only be

understood in terms of the system of inequality generated by a capitalist
economy. Wealth is concentrated in the hands of a minority: those who own the
forces of production. Members of the subject class own only their labour which
they must sell in return for wages on the open market. Capitalism requires a
highly motivated workforce. Since the motivation to work is based primarily on
monetary return, those whose services are not require by the economy, such as
the aged and the unemployed, must receive a lower income than wage
earners. If this were not the case, there would be little incentive to work. The
motivation of the workforce is also maintained by unequal reward for work.
Workers compete as individuals and groups with each other for income in a highly
competitive society. In this respect, the low wage sector forms the base of a
 competitive wage structure. Low wages help to reduce the wage demands of the
workforce as a whole, since workers tend to assess their income in terms of the
baseline provided by the low paid.
2. Since, from a Marxian perspective, the state in capitalist society reflects the
interests of the ruling class, government measures can be expected to do little
except reduce the harsher effect of poverty. Thus Kincaid argues that, ‘It is not to
be expected that any Government whose main concern is with the efficiency of a
capitalist economy is going to take effective steps to abolish the low-wage sector’.
3. Westergard and Resler argue that the ruling class has responded to the
demands of the labour movement by allowing the creation of the Welfare State,
but the system operates, ‘within a framework of institutions and assumptions
that remain capitalist’. In their view, ‘the keyword is “containment”; the
demands of the labour movement have been contained within the existing
system. Westergaard and Resler argue that poverty exist because of the
operation of a capitalist economic system which prevents the poor from
‘obtaining the financial resources to become non-poor.
4. J.C. Kincaid he argues that ‘widespread poverty is a direct consequence of the
limited effectiveness of social security provision’. Like Westergaard and Resler,
Kincaid sees poverty resulting from the operation of a capitalist economy which
produces a particular from social stratification. Kincaid summarizes the situation
in the following way, ‘It is not simply that there are rich and poor. It is rather that
some are rich because some are poor’. Thus poverty can only be understood in
terms of the operation of the class system as a whole since the question ‘Why
poverty?’ is basically the same question is ‘Why wealth?’ Therefore from a
Marxian perspective, poverty like wealth is an inevitable consequence of a
capitalist system.

WEBERIAN PERSPECTIVE ON POVERTY :

Weber argues that an individual’s ‘class situation’ is dependent upon his ‘market
situation’, on the favour and on the rewards his skills and expertise can command in a
competitive market. From this perspective groups such as the aged, the chronically
sick and single parent families have little power in the market and therefore receive
little reward. Indeed, their circumstances largely prevent them from competing in the
market. However, not all members of these groups are poor, and this is referable to
their market situation prior to their present circumstances.

1. The poverty of the old, sick, handicapped and single parent families is largely
working-class poverty.
Members of other social classes have sufficient income to save, invest in pension
schemes, insurance policies and in shareholdings for themselves and their
dependents and so guard against the threat of poverty due to the death of the
breadwinner, sickness or old age. In this sense, social class rather than personal
disability, inadequacy, or misfortune accounts for poverty.
2. Kincaid argues that, ‘A crucial factor determining wage levels is the bargaining
power of workers’. Low paid workers are usually order, female, and as a result,
 traditionally less militant. They often belong to weak trade unions or none at all.
Low wages are concentrated in the non-unionized sectors of the workforce.
3. Ralph Miliband examines the bargaining position of the poor in an article
entitled Politics and Poverty. He argues that in terms of power, the poor are the
weakest group competing for the scarce and valued resources in society. Miliband
states that, ‘The poor are part of the working class but they are largely excluded
from the organizations which have developed to defend the interests of the
working class’.
4. Efforts by the poor to promote their interests and secure public support are
weakened by the ‘shame of poverty’, a stigma which remains alive and well.
Ralph Miliband concludes that the key to the weak bargaining position of the
poor is simply their poverty. He states that ‘economic deprivation is a source of
political deprivation; and political deprivation in turn helps to maintain and
confirm economic deprivation’.
5. As Westergaard and Resler argue, it diverts attention from the larger structure of
inequality in which poverty is embedded’. Thus the poor must be seen in relation
to the class system as a whole, not simply as an isolated group. Ralph Miliband
makes a similar point. He argues that the position of the poor is not that
dissimilar from that of the working class as a whole. The poor are simply the most
disadvantaged section of the working class rather than a separate group. TO
understand poverty, it is therefore necessary to understand the nature of
inequality in a class stratified society.

FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON POVERTY :

Herbert J. Gans argues that ‘poverty survives in part because it is useful to a number of
groups in society’. Poverty benefits the non-poor in general and the rich and powerful in
particular. They there fore have a vested interest in maintaining poverty. From this
perspective, Gans outlines the following ‘functions of poverty’ for the non-poor.

1. Firstly, every economy has a number of temporary, dead-end, dirty, dangerous

and menial jobs. The existence of poverty ensures that such work is done. Gans
argues that ‘poverty functions to provide a low-wage labour pool that is willing –
or rather, unable to be unwilling – to perform dirty work at low cost’. Without the
low paid, many industries would be unable to continue in their present form.
Gans claims that hospitals, the catering trade, large sections agriculture and parts
of the garment industry are dependent on low wage labour.
2. Secondly, poverty directly provides employment financial security for a fast
growing section of the labour force. In Gans’s words, ‘Poverty creates jobs for a
number of occupations and professions that serve the poor, or shield the rest of
the population from them’. Police, probation officers, social workers psychiatrists,
doctor and the administrators who over see the ‘poverty industry’.
3. Thirdly, Gans argues that the presence of the poor provides reassurance and
support for the rest of society. They provide a baseline of failure which resources
the non-poor of their worth. Gans claims that ‘poverty helps to guarantee the
 status of those who are not poor’. It does this by providing ‘a reliable and
relatively permanent measuring rod for status comparison.

Gans argues that the poor function to reinforce mainstream norms since norms ‘are
best legitimated by
discovering violations’. From a somewhat different perspective, Gans has reached a
similar conclusion to those who argue that poverty must be analysed in terms of class
inequality. Form both viewpoint poverty exist because it benefits the rich and because
the poor are powerless to change their situation. Gans concludes that poverty persists
‘because many of the functional alternatives to poverty would be quite dysfunctional
for the more affluent members of society’.

SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF POVERTY :

1. Once poverty is recognized as an aspect of inequality, and not merely a problem

of the poor, solutions involve restructuring society as a whole. It can now be
argued that the main obstacle to the eradication of poverty is not the behaviour
of the poor but the self interest of the rich. Thus Herbert J. Gans maintains that,
‘the prime obstacles to the elimination of poverty lie in an economic system
which is dedicated to the maintenance and increase of wealth among the already
affluent’. From the perspective of stratification of theory, the solution to
poverty involves a change in the stratification system. This war on poverty
would be far harder to wage than the previous one since it would require
considerable sacrifice by the rich and powerful.
2. Westergaard and Resler argue that many politicians make the fundamental error
of assuming that ‘the causes of poverty can be read off from the characteristics of
the poor’. This has led to the conclusion that poverty is largely the result of old
age, family break-up, large families, unemployment, physical or mental handicap
or chronic sickness. In this way, “individual conditions’ are regarded as the
‘causes’ of poverty. It therefore follows that remedies must be directed towards
the individual and particular conditions are given particular aid and treatment.
For example the unemployed receive financial aid and ‘problem families’ receive
the services of social workers and psychiatrists. This diagnosis of the problem
forms the basis of government policy. Westergaard and Resler argue that the
diagnosis ‘is false precisely because it closes one eye firmly to the total pattern
of inequality. Poverty is not an individual condition, it is a class phenomenon.
The poor are working class, not middle class. The mechanisms which generate
inequality throughout society are the same mechanisms which generate poverty.
3. The Welfare State has largely failed to redistribute wealth from rich to poor. It
simply shuffles resources within social classes rather than between
them. Kincaid argues that the only solution to poverty involves a ‘massive
redistribution of resources away from the wealthier classes’. This view sees
poverty as a social problem rather than as an individual condition. It argues that
the problem is society as a whole and therefore society must be changed.
Westergaard and Resler adopt a similar position. They argue that government
 measures to deal with poverty cannot succeed because ‘they are not designed to
produce wholesale change in the general structure of inequality’.
4. From a Marxian perspective, the official identification and treatment of poverty
can be seen as a means to disguise the true nature of exploitation and
oppression. Westergaard and Resler argue that the state, by focusing on one
aspect of inequality- situation of the poor-tends to obscure reality’ by diverting
attention from the larger structure of inequality. The definition of poverty as an
individual condition rather than a class phenomenon has the same effect. In this
way the privileged position of the wealthy, which rests ultimately on working-
class poverty, is protected. In addition, the creation and development of the
Welfare States has contained working-class demands for an improvement in their
position. Governments have conceded just enough to take the edge off working
class militancy. The role of welfare professionals can also be seen as a means to
control the working class and protect the privileged. Kincaid argues that ‘most of
the individual problems which social workers currently set out of solve are
essentially of the sort generated by a society which is not organized on the basis
of people’s needs’. He argues that many social workers still attribute poverty to a
‘defective personality structure, inability to relate to others, and impaired
capacity to make realistic judgments of self and others’. This places the blame for
poverty squarely on the shoulders of the poor. Some Marxists go even further by
seeing welfare professionals as agents of the ruling class.
5. From a Marxian perspective, the solution to poverty does not involve reforms in
the social security system; in the provision of additional payments or service to
those defined as poor. Instead it requires a radical change in the structure of
society. Thus, Ralph Miliband argues that poverty will only be eradicated with
the removal of inequality in general which ‘requires the transformation of the
economic structures in which it is embedded’.
6. Westergaard and Resler take a similar view maintaining that no substantial
redistribution of wealth can occur until capitalism is replaced by a socialist society
in which the force of production are communally owned. As long as the free
market system of capitalism determines the allocation of reward, they argue
that inequality will remain largely unchanged.
7. Kincaid concludes that since capitalism is based on the maximization of profit
rather than the satisfaction of human need, ‘Poverty cannot be abolished within
capitalist society, but only in a socialist society under workers’ control, in which
human needs, and not profits, determine the allocation of resources’.

Theories of social stratification

Structural functionalist theory, Marxist theory, Weberian theory

1. Social stratification is an inherent character of all societies. It is historical as we

find it in all societies, ancient and modern; and it is universal as it exists in simple
or complex societies. The social differentiation on the basis of high and low is the
historical heritage of all societies.
2. These social strata and layers, divisions and subdivisions have over the time been
accepted on the basis of sex and age, status and role, qualification and
 inefficiency, life chances and economic cum political ascription and
monopolization, ritual and ceremony and on numerous other basis. It is of varied
nature. It is no less based on the considerations of superiority and inferiority,
authority and subordination, profession and vocation.
3. Social stratification has remained despite the revolutionary ideas and radicalism,
equality and democracy, socialism and communism. Classless society is just an
ideal. The stratification has something to do; it appears with the very mental
makeup of man.
4. The origin of the social stratification cannot be explained in terms of history. The
existence or nonexistent of the stratification in early society cannot be pin
pointed. The differentiation between classes existed as early as the Indus Valley
society. They, it appears, had the priestly and other classes.

Meaning and Nature:

1. By stratification we mean that arrangement of any social group or society by

which positions are hierarchically divided. The positions are unequal with regard
to power, property, evaluation and psychic gratification. We add social, because
positions consist of socially defined statuses.
2. Stratification is a phenomenon present in all societies that have produced a
surplus. Stratification is the process by which members of society rank
themselves and one another in hierarchies with respect to the amount of
desirable goods they possess.
3. The existence of stratification has led to the centuries old problem of social
inequality. In societies that have closed stratification systems, such inequalities
are institutionalised and rigid. An individual born into a particular economic and
social stratum or caste, remains in this stratum until he dies. Most modern
industrial societies have open or class stratification systems. In open stratification
systems, social mobility is possible, although some members of the population do
not have the opportunity to fulfill their potential.
4. The term stratification refers to a process by which individuals and groups are
ranked in a more or less enduring hierarchy of status. It refers to the division of a
population into strata, one on the top of another, on the basis of certain
characteristics like inborn qualities, material possessions and performance.
5. According to Raymond W. Murray “Social stratification is a horizontal division of
society into higher and lower social units. As Malvin M. Tumin says, Social
stratification refers to arrangements of any social group or society into a
hierarchy of positions that are unequal with regard to power, property, social
evaluation, and/or social gratification.
6. Lundberg writes, “A stratified society is one marked by inequality, by
differences among people that are evaluated by them as being lower and
higher”. As Gisbert says, “Social stratification is the division of society into
permanent groups of categories linked with each other by the relationship of
superiority and subordination.
 7. According to Bernard Barber, “Social stratification in its most general sense, is a
sociological concept that refers to the fact that both individuals and groups of
individuals are conceived of as constituting higher or lower differentiated strata
or classes in terms of some specific or generalised characteristic or set of
characteristics.” Sociologists have been able to establish several strata or layers
which form a hierarchy of prestige or power in a society.
8. The consequence of layering process in a society is the creation of structural
forms – social classes. Where society is composed of social classes, the social
structure looks like a pyramid. At the bottom of the structure lies the lowest
social class and above it other social classes arranged in a hierarchy.
9. THUS, STRATIFICATION INVOLVES TWO PHENOMENA,
 DIFFERENTIATION OF INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS WHERE BY SOME INDIVIDUALS
OR GROUP COME TO RANK HIGHER THAN OTHER AND
 HE RANKING OF INDIVIDUALS ACCORDING TO SOME BASIS OF VALUATION.
10.Viewed in this way it can be stated that every society is divided into more or
less distinct groups. There is no society known which does not make some
distinction between individuals by ranking them on some scale of value. There
has been no society in which every individual has the same rank and the same
privileges.
11.As Sorokin pointed out, “Unstratified society with real equality of its members is
a myth which has never been realised in the history of mankind”. In simpler
communities we may not find any class strata apart from the distinction between
members of the groups and strangers, distinction based on age, sex kinship. But
in the primitive world chieftainship, individual prowess and clan or family
property introduce an incipient stratification. However, modern stratification
fundamentally differs from stratification in the primitive societies.
12.Among the primitive people class distinctions are rarely found. In the modern
industrial age estates pass into social classes. Hereditary ranks are abolished but
distinctions of status remain and there are great differences in economic power
and social opportunities.
13.Every know society, past and present, thus differentiates its members in terms
of roles they play in the group. These roles are determined by the formal
positions or statuses in which a society places its members.Society compares and
ranks individuals and groups on the basis of some differences in values it attaches
to different roles. When individuals and groups are ranked according to some
commonly accepted basis of valuation, in a hierarchy of status levels based j upon
inequality of social position, we have social stratification.

Characteristics of Stratification:
Melvin M. Tumin has mentioned the following characteristics of social stratification:

1. It is Social: Stratification is social in the sense that it does not represent inequality
which are biologically based. It is true that factors such as strength, intelligence,
age, sex can often serve as the basis on which status are distinguished. But such
differences by themselves are not sufficient to explain why some statuses receive
 more power, property and prestige than others. Biological traits do not determine
social superiority and inferiority until they are socially recognised. For example,
manager of an industry attains a dominant position not by physical strength, nor
by his age, but by having socially defined traits. His education, training skills,
experience, personality, character etc. are found to be more important than his
biological qualities.
2. It is Ancient: The stratification system is very old. Stratification was present even
in the small wandering bands. Age and sex wear the main criteria of stratification.
Difference between the rich and poor, powerful and humble, freemen and slaves
was there in almost all the ancient civilisation. Ever since the time of Plato and
Kautilya social philosopher have been deeply concerned with economic, social,
political inequalities.
3. It is Universal: Social stratification is universal. Difference between rich and poor,
the ‘haves’ or ‘have notes’ is evident everywhere. Even in the non-literate
societies stratification is very much present.
4. It is in diverse Forms: Social stratification has never been uniform in all societies.
The ancient Roman society was stratified into two strata: the Patricians and the
Plebians .The Aryan society was divided into four Varnas: the Brahmins,
Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and the Sudras, the ancient Greek society in to freemen and
slaves, the ancient Chinese society into mandarins, merchants, Farmer and
soldiers. Class and estate seem to be the general forms of stratification found in
the modern world.
5. It is Consequential: The stratification system has its own consequences. The most
important, most desired and often the scarcest things in human life are
distributed unequally because of stratification. The system leads to two kind of
consequences:
 Life chances : Life chances refer to such things as infant mortality, longevity,
physical and mental illness, marital conflict, separation and divorce.
 Life style : Life styles include the mode of housing, residential area, education,
means of recreation, relation between parent and children, modes of conveyance
and so on.

Elements of Social Stratification:

All stratification systems have some common elements. These elements have been
identified as differentiation, ranking, evaluation and rewarding. Here Tumin has been
referred to discuss the elements of social stratification.

Status Differentiation:
Status differentiation is the process by which social positions are determined and
distinguished from one another by way Of associating a distinctive role, a set of rights
and responsibilities such as father and mother.
Status differentiation operates more effectively when:

1. Tasks are clearly defined.

2. Authority and responsibility are distinguished.
3. Mechanism for recruiting and training exists.
4. Adequate sanctions including rewards and punishment exist to motivate persons.

Responsibilities, resources and rights are assigned to status not to particular individuals.
For only by doing so societies can establish general and uniform rules or norms that will
apply to many and diverse individuals who are to occupy the same status e.g. all the
different women who will play the role of a
parent. Differentiation is not independent process in itself. The most important criteria
for understanding the process of differentiation is ranking.

Ranking:
Ranking is done on the basis of:

1. Personal characteristics that people are thought to need if they are to learn and
perform the roles effectively such as intelligence, aggressiveness and politeness.
2. The skills and abilities that are believed necessary for adequate role performance
such, as surgical, numerical or linguistic skills.
3. General qualities of the task e.g. difficulty, cleanliness, danger and so forth.
Purpose of ranking is to identify the right person for the right position.

Ranking non-valuative i.e. jobs are rated as harder or easier, cleaner or dirtier, safer or
more dangerous and people are judged slower, smarter or more skillful than others
without implying that some are socially more important and others less because of
these characteristic. Ranking is a selective process in the sense that only some statuses
are selected for comparative ranking and of all criteria of ranking only some are actually
used in ranking process e.g. the status of FatherMother is not ranked.

Evaluation:

1. Differentiation and ranking are further solidified by the evaluation process.

Whereas the ranking procedure pivots about the question of more of or less of,
the evaluation process centres in the question better and worse. Evaluation is
both a personal and societal attribute.
2. That is, individuals assign a relative worth, a degree of preference and a priority
of desirability to
everything. To the extent that evaluation is a learned quality, a consensus tends
to develop within a culture individuals tend to share a common set of values. This
value consensus is the societal dimension crucial to evaluation stratification.
3. There are three dimensions of evaluation:
  Prestige: Which refers to honour and it involves the respectful behaviour.
Radcliffe Brown says that among hunting societies three groups usually are
accorded special prestige: the elderly, those with supernatural powers, those who
have special personal attributes such as hunting skill. In the more advanced
society, prestige is the commodity that is in scarce supply and it is, therefore,
more valued.
 Preferability: Those positions i.e. status roles which are preferred by majority of I
the people are evaluated higher e.g. “. I would like to be a doctor.”
 Popularity: Those status roles which are popular, about which people know to be
very prestigious are evaluated higher e.g. nowadays there is fashion among
students to go for Engineering job. It is the most popular occupation.

Rewarding:
Statuses which are differentiated, ranked and evaluated are allocated differential
rewards in terms of good things in life. Social units such as families, subcultures, social
classes and occupations that are socially differentiated are differentially rewarded in
various ways. Health care, education,’ income and positions of prominence are a few of
the advantages.

Rewards can be of two types:

1. Abundant: Which are spiritual or psychic rather than material and are secured in
the process of role performing e.g. pleasure, love, and respect.
2. Scarce: Social stratification becomes relevant in this area of desired and scarce
rewards. In society where there is an unequal distribution of rewards, those who
have power take hold these rewards.

In conclusion it can be said that differentiation, ranking, evaluation and rewarding are
the social process
which bring about shape and maintain the system of stratification.

Basis or Forms of Stratification:

Social stratification may be based on a variety of forms or interpenetrating principles
such as free and unfree, class, caste, estate, occupation, administrative hierarchy or
income level.

1. Free and unfree: The population of a society may be divided into freemen and
slaves.
 In certain communities the slaves do not enjoy rights and privileges. The slave is
practically at the disposal of his master. He is the property of his master. The
slave can always be brought and sold, though his treatment and the degree of
protection accorded him vary from place to place and from time to time.
 He comes from various sources: war, slavecapture, purchase, birth or seizure for
debt.
In the middle ages in Europe serfs usually possessed some plot of land and they
 might cultivate the land for themselves. But they were bound to till the fields of
their immediate land lord and pay additional dues under certain circumstances. In
Europe society was divided into land lords and serfs. A serf is less unfree than a
slave.
2. Class: Class is a principal basis of social stratification found specially in the
modern civilised countries. In societies where all men are free before the law,
stratification may be based upon accepted and self estimation of superiority or
inferiority. Social classes, says Ginsberg, may be described as portions of the
community, or collection of individuals, standing to each other in the relation of
quality and marked of from other persons by accepted standards of superiority
and inferiority. A social class as defined by Maclver and Page, “is any portion of a
community forked off from the rest by social status”.
 A structure of social class involves
1. A hierarchy status groups,
2. The recognition of the superior – inferior positions and
3. Some degree of permanency of the structure. Where a society is composed of
social classes, the social structure looks like a truncated pyramid.
 At the base of the structure lies the lowest social class arranged in a hierarchy of
rank. Individuals composing a particular class stand to each other in the relation
of equality and are marked off from other classes by accepted standards of
superiority and inferiority. A class system involves inequality, inequality of status.

3. Caste: Social stratification is also based on caste. In open society individuals can
move from one class or status level to another, that is to say equality of
opportunity exists. The class structure is ‘closed’ when such opportunity is
virtually absent.
 The Indian caste system provides a classic example, A ‘caste’ system is one in
which an individual’s rank and its accompanying rights and obligations are
ascribed on the basic of birth in to a particular group. Hindu society in traditional
India was divided into five main strata: four Varnas or caste and a fifth group, the
out caste, whose members were known as untouchables.
 Each class is subdivided in to sub castes, which in total number many thousands.
The Brahmins or priests, members of the highest caste, personify purity, sanctity
and holiness. They are the sources of learning, wisdom and truth. At the other
extreme, untouchables are defined as unclean and impure, a status which affects
all other social relationships. They most be segregated from members of other
castes and live on the outskirts of the villages, In general the hierarchy of prestige
based on notions of ritual purity is mirrored by the hierarchy of power. The
Brahmins were custodian of law and the legal system which they administered
was based largely on their pronouncements. Inequalities of wealth were usually
linked to those of prestige and power.
4. Estate and Status: Estate system is synonymous with feudalism, which remained
basis of social stratification in Europe from the fall of Roman Empire to the rise of
the commercial classes generally and to the French Revolution (1989) particularly.
 In Russia, in one form or another it continued to exist down to the October
Revolution (1917). Under the system, the land was taken to be the gift of God to
 King, who in the absence of any local administrative systems made grants of it,
called Estates or fiefs, to nobles, called lords temporal, for military service; they in
turn made similar grants to the inferior class on oath of loyalty and military
support. The holder of the land was called vassal; the multitudes who cultivated
were the serfs and the people still lower to the serfs were slaves.
 These grants with the privileges attached to them in the beginning, were personal
in character. Latter with the weakening of the central authority, the estate and
the privileges attached to it became hereditary. The church followed suit. Over
the time there developed the three estates – the lords temporal, lord spiritual
and the commons. The multitudes were serfs. They were somewhat better than
slaves who in law, were chattels. They had no civic rights. In Russia, for example,
about nine-tenth of arable land consisting of large estates belonged to the Czar,
the royal family and to about one lakhs of the noble families. It was cultivated by
the millions, called serfs. The serfdom continued till 1861, when it was finally
abolished.
 The Estate system was the basis of social stratification in all the countries of
Europe. It was based on inequality of all sorts; Economic – there were few
landlords and the multitudes of serfs and slaves; social – estate determined the
social status and role, and the landless worked just for their protection.
 They were a mere service class; Political – the estate having been given for
military service, made the holder the prop and pillar of the state, and allowed him
full authority over men and goods within his estate. The nobility and their
important vassals enjoyed the privileges and the rest lived in misery. Mobility
paid no taxes, neglected the feudal duties but secured all the dues for
themselves. They had juristic immunities and political privileges; they made law
their handmade and held men under bondage.

5. Occupation and Income: Occupation is an aspect of economic systems which

influences social class structure.
 Rogoff in her study of “Social Stratification in France and United States” stressed
that “of all the criteria mentioned in determining class position, occupational
position is the most consistently named among the various strata in both
societies.
 Talcott Parsons also confirmed this for United States by saying that “the main
criteria of class status are to be found in the occupational achievements of men,
for prestige is attached to occupation. In advanced societies occupations are
related to social status. Attempts have been made by P.K Hatt and C.C. North to
rank occupations in USA.
 In this state of nationwide sample of adult was asked to rate ninety occupations
in accordance with prestige associated with each occupation. The ‘physician’ had
the highest prestige and shoe shiner, the lowest. In between them were other
occupation like clerical and sale occupation etc. Society is also stratified on the
basis of income. Difference in income leads to very unequal standard of life.
 The distribution of income, both cash and real income among individuals or
families, in all capitalist countries takes the form of a gradient, with a relatively
small group at the top receiving huge amounts and at the other extreme, a
 somewhat larger but still a small number of persons in the “negative income”
bracket.
6. Race and Ethnicity: Over the time, and at some places even now, race and
ethnicity was and is taken to be the basis of inequality and stratification.
 The Western people, wherever they went, claimed racial superiority and
attributed their success to it. They took the ‘natives’ to be of inferior racial origin.
The race conflict in Africa, the U.S.A. and in some of the European countries
remains a dominant factor in stratification and inequality.
 In South Africa, the whites constitute a status- group; membership of which
cannot be acquired by Africans; no matter how wealthy or skilled they may be.
The Greeks and the Romans had also the racial notions; and the Turks in our
country had no less.
 The Turko-Afghans considered Indian Mussalmans to be an inferior class and
offices of responsibility and trust were not generally conferred upon them. Balban
(1266- 86), a Turk by origin, was full with the notion of racial superiority, and held
that a Turk alone had the qualities to rule. The British in their heyday of
imperialism had similar notions. They gave to all others in theirs colonies, and to
us an unequal treatment.
7. Ruling Class: The ruling class always holds itself superior to those over whom it
rules. This explains the psychology behind the ‘lord’ and ‘servant’ relationship.
 Democracy did not demolish the distinctions. The political parties and pressure
groups are the instruments in the hands of the ruling class to influence the
community and to keep themselves in power. In newly independent countries
such as ours, political power rests with a political class of ‘new men’ of no great
substance who by founding and dominating the party and the Government,
become a new ruling elite.
 They have acquired such areas of influence, that a new entrant can hardly
proceed on his own. He needs their support: the ‘blessings’ of the establishment
the masses have hardly any say. They have to agree with what they are told is
good for them.
8. Administrative Position: Stratification is sometimes based on administrative
position.
 The Civil service personnel command a status higher than the members of the
provincial Service. Within the services too, members of higher rank command
greater respect The stratification is more distinctly clear in police and military
service where the uniform, badges and ribbons distinguish the officers. Sprott has
indicated that “in the Civil Services, grades are distinguished by the shape of chair
upon which the official sits and the size of the desk at which he writes”.

Function of Social Stratification:

 For the proper functioning of society, it has to work out some mechanism by
which people engaged in different occupations get different recognition. If each
activity is associated with same type of economic returns and prestige, there will
be no competition for different occupations.
  Stratification is that system by which different positions are hierarchically
divided. Such a system has given rise to different classes like Upper, Middle,
Working and Lower or caste groups like Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and
Sudras. The importance of stratification can be seen with regard to the functions
it performs for the individual and society.

For the Individual:

No doubt system of stratification is applicable to the whole society yet it serves some
functions for the individual also.

1. Competition: Individuals based on their attributes compete with each other and
only those individuals who have better attributes get greater recognition. This
may be in the field of sports, education, occupation etc.
2. Recognition of Talent: The persons with more training skills, experience and
education are given better positions. The deserving individuals are not treated at
par with deserving candidates. Such a system helps people to acquire better
talents.
3. Motivation: The system of stratification motivates the individuals to work hard so
that they can improve upon their social status. It is more true in case of those
societies in which statuses are achieved.
4. Job Satisfaction: As the jobs are given to the individuals according to their skills
and education, the workers get job satisfaction. In case, a person with higher
qualification is not allowed to move higher in the social ladder, he feels
dissatisfied with his job.
5. Mobility: The system of achieved status also provides an opportunity for upward
and downward mobility. Those persons who work hard and are intelligent move
up in the social ladder. On the other hand, those who fail to come up to the
expectations move downward. Hence, the possibility of change in the position
keeps the people always alert and makes them work hard.

Functions for the Society:

The system of social stratification is also useful for the progress and the well-being of
the society. This can be seen if we take into account two forms of stratification.

Ascriptive Form of Stratification: Under the caste system, the status of the individual is
fixed at birth and different castes are hierarchically arranged.

 However, even within the caste system those members who perform their caste
roles effectively and efficiently occupy higher’ status. On the other hand, those
members who do not perform their role properly occupy lower status even when
they belong to the same caste.
 This functional base has given rise to sub castes. In other words, one caste is
further divided into different sub castes and these sub castes are hierarchically
divided within a caste group. Fixation of status of a caste group also facilitates
 better training of the members. As the members are made aware about the
future roles, they start getting training from the childhood.
 Such a situation was more applicable in the traditional societies where knowledge
was foil knowledge and it could be acquired through membership of a caste
group. In this way we find that under ascriptive form of stratification, society was
being well-served and there was interdependence of the caste because of the
specialization of their roles.

2. Achieved Form: Under the achieved form of social stratification, the social
statuses are assigned according to the worth of the individual. This system serves
the following functions for the society:
 Occupational Hierarchy: Depending upon the importance of a particular
occupation, different occupations are hierarchically divided. The occupations
which are very important for the well-being of the society are associated with
high prestige and those occupations which do not need specialized training are
given low status. Such a system is free from confusion, and motivates the people
to work hard, so that they could take up occupations of high prestige.
 Division according to Intelligence: All persons are not equal with regard to their
intelligence. Those persons with higher level of intelligence can perform more
complicated functions of the society. Hence they are provided with different
opportunities and high prestige.
 Training: Society makes elaborate arrangements for the training of younger
generation. Those who spend more time on training and acquiring new skills are
compensated with high returns. Even though such persons start working later yet
the economic returns and social prestige associated with their work is higher than
others.
 Work Efficiency: Persons with appropriate knowledge and training occupy
appropriate positions. Hence, their work efficiency is also higher. Under this
system there is no place for parasites and those who shirk work. The fittest to
survive is the rule which is followed.
 Development: The competition to move higher in the social ladder has resulted
into new inventions, new methods of work and greater efficiency. This system has
led to progress and development of the country. The Western societies are highly
developed; it is attributed to the fact that these societies adopted open system of
stratification. In this way we find that system of stratification helps in the
progress of the society. There are some sociologists who are of the opinion that
social stratification is also associated with dysfunctions e.g. giving rise to
frustration, anxiety and mental tension. In short, we can say that social
stratification has both positive and negative functions. But no society can survive
unless it has some system of stratification.
Theories of Social Stratification
Structure Functionalist Theory

1. The Structural- functionalist perspective seeks to explain social stratification in

terms of its contribution to the maintenance of social order and stability in
society.
2. TALCOTT PARSONS believed that order and stability depends upon the value
consensus in the society. Individuals who conduct themselves in accordance with
these values are ranked above others. A successful business executive would be
ranked above others in a society which values individual achievement while
individuals who fight battles and wars would be ranked above others in a society
which values bravery and gallantry.
3. Functionalists uphold that relationship between social groups in society is one
of cooperation and interdependence. Parsons explains that in a highly
specialized industrial society, some people specialize in organization and
planning while others follow their directives. Certain positions are functionally
more important in society than others. These are often ranked higher in the social
hierarchy and fetch greater rewards than others. This inevitability leads to
inequality in distribution of power and prestige.

KINSLEY DAVIS AND WILBERT MOOR:

1. They discussed the issues of functional necessity of stratification, determinants of

positional rank, societal functions and stratification, and variation in stratified
system at length. They explained that unequal distribution rights and perquisites
making for social inequality provides the motivation to people to perform duties
associated with a given position and to achieve position that affords more
prestige and esteem.
2. Social inequality therefore ensures that “the most important positions are
conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons. Hence every society, no
matter how simple or complex, must differentiate persons in terms of both
prestige and esteem, and must therefore possess a certain amount of
institutionalized inequality” (Davis and Moore). The positions that carry the best
reward and highest rank are those that are excessively important for society, and
require greatest training or talent. They clarify that in effect, a society needs to
accord sufficient reward to position of high rank only to ensure that they are filled
competently. It may also be understood that a position important in one society
may not be equally important in another one.
Kinsley Davis and Wilbert Moor summarizes their central argument in the following
words :

1. “Certain positions in any society are functionally more important than others,
and require special skills for their performance. Only a certain number of
individuals in any society have the talents which can be trained into the skills
appropriate to these positions.
2. The conversion of talents into skills involves a training period during which
sacrifices of one kind or
another are made by those undergoing the training. In order to induce the
talented persons to
undergo these sacrifices and acquire the training, their future positions must
carry an inducement value in the form of differential reward, i.e., privileged and
disproportionate access to the scarce and desired rewards which the society has
to offer.
3. These scarce and desired goods consist of the rights and perquisites attached to,
or built into, the positions, and can be classified into those things which
contribute to a sustenance and comfort, (b) humor or diversion, (c) self-respect
and expansion.
4. This differential access to the basic rewards of the society has a consequence the
differentiation of the prestige and esteem which the various strata acquire.
5. Therefore, social inequality among different strata in the amounts of scarce and
desired goods, and the amounts of prestige and esteem which they receive, is
both positively functional and inevitable in any society”.

Melvin Tumin Criticises the functional proposition of Davis and Moore.

1. He argues that at the outset it is not proper to treat certain positions as

functionally more important than others, e.g. it is not appropriate to judge that
the engineers in a factory are functionally more important because of special
skills than unskilled workmen. Surely, some labour force of unskilled workmen is
as important and indispensable to the functioning of the factory as some labour
force of engineer furthermore, relative indispensability and respectability of a
set of skills among a people largely depends upon the bargaining power of
those who possess it. This power depends on the prevalent system of
rating. Motivation is determined by several factors out of which rewards and
other inducements are only some.
2. The other criticism is regarding ranges of talent and the presence of limited
number of individuals with talents. This proposition is contested by Tumin on the
ground that in any society there is no adequate knowledge to determine and
judge that amount of talent present in society. He explains that societies that are
rigidly stratified are less likely to be able to discover new facts about the talents
of its members. If the differential rewards and opportunities are socially
inherited by the subsequent generation, then the discovery of talents in the
 next generation becomes particularly difficult. More importantly, motivation
depends on distribution of rewards in the previous generation. This means that
unequal distinctive motivation in a generation is because of unequal distribution
of rewards in the preceding generation. Access to privileged position is restricted
by the elites in society. For example Indian Caste System.
3. The other proposition of Davis and Moore introduce the concept of sacrifice
which Tumin States. He challenges the prevalence of sacrifice by talented people
undergoing training since it involves losses that arise out of surrender of earning
power and cost of the training. One of the basis issues here is the presumption
that the training period in a system is essentially sacrificed. This is not always true
because the costs involved in training people may be born by the society at large.
If this happens, the need to compensate someone in terms of differential rewards
when the skilled positions are staffed makes no sense.
4. Tumin argues that even if the training programme is sacrificed and the talent in
society is rare, the other proposition of Davis and Moore suggesting differential
access to desired rewards does not hold. The allocation of differential rewards is
not the only the most efficient way of inviting appropriate talent for top position
is itself questionable. The joy in work, work satisfaction, institutionalized social
important positions. This aspect has been overlooked by Davis and Moore.
5. Davis and Moore classify rewards into three categories, those that contribute to
sustenance and comfort, those that contribute to humor and diversion, and
those that contribute to self respect and ego-expansion. He says that it is not
possible to determine whether one type of reward or all three of them induced
motivation. Societies, emphasis different kinds of rewards in order to maintain
balance between responsibility and record. The other proposition of Davis and
Moore focuses on social inequality among different strata in term of scarce and
desired goods and the amount of prestige and esteem they incur. These are
positively functional and inevitable in society. Tumin writes, “If such differential
power and property are viewed by all as commensurate with the differential
responsibilities, and if they are culturally defined as resources and not as rewards
then, no differentials in prestige and esteem need to follow.

Davis and Moore’s Argument:

1. Davis, in turn, asserts that Tumin seeks to demolish the concept of

institutionalized inequality. He offers no explanation of the Universality of
stratified inequality. While the interest of Davis and Moore lay in understanding
why stratification exists in society, Tumin argues that stratification does not have
to be. Evidently, they are addressing different issues further; Davis alleges that
Tumin’s critique suffers from confusion about abstract or theoretical reasoning
with raw, empirical generalizations. He defends his own position by stating that
the chief concern was with stratified inequality as a general property of social
systems involving high degree of abstraction again.
 2. Tumin’s critical appraisal of the theory proposed by Davis and Moore is based on
only one article conveniently ignoring other publications that answer several
question raised by him. His own understanding and presentation of Davis and
Moore theory is inadequate. This in fact, is why Tumin’s concept of stratification
is inconsistent. Moore too explicitly states that Tumin has not defined social
stratification clearly. This led him to wrongly assume that differential rewards and
inequality of opportunity was the same thing.

Critique to Structural-Functional Theory of Stratification:

Tumin proposed the following critique:

1. “Social stratification systems function to limit the possibility of discovery of the

full range of talent available in a society. This results from the fact of unequal
access to appropriate motivation, channels of recruitment and centers of training.
2. In foreshortening the range of available talent, social stratification systems
function to set limits upon the possibility of expanding the productive resources
of the society, at least relative to what might be the case under conditions of
greater equality of opportunity.
3. Social stratification systems function to provide the elite with the political
power necessary to procure acceptance and dominance of an ideology which
rationalizes the status quo, whatever it may be as “logical”, “natural”, and
“morally right”. In this manner social stratification systems function as essentially
conservative influences in the societies in which they are found.
4. Social stratification systems function to distribute favorable self-image
unequally throughout a population. To the extent that such favorable self- image
are requisite to the development of the creative potential inherent in men, to
that extent stratification systems function to limit the development of this
creative potential.
5. To the extent that inequalities in social reward cannot be made fully acceptable
to the less privileged in a society, social stratification systems function to
encourage hostility, suspicion and distrust among the various segments of a
society and thus to limit the possibilities of extensive social integration.

THE MARXIST PERSPECTIVE:

The Marxist perspective differs from the functionalist perspective in focusing on
divisive rather than
integrative aspect of social stratification. Marxists regard social stratification as a
means through which the group in the upper rungs exploits those in the lower rungs.
Here the system of stratification is based on the relationship of social groups to the
forces of production.

1. More clearly stated Marxists identify two major strata in society: one that
controls the forces of production (Bourgeoisie) hence rules over others, second
that works for the ruling class (Proletariat). Form Marxian standpoint, economic
Power governs political power. The ruling class derives its power form ownership
 and control over forces of production. The relations of production prevail over
major institutions, values and belief systems. Evidently the political and legal
system pursues the interests of the ruling class. The ruling class oppresses the
serving class. Thus, stratification in society serves to foster exploitation and
hostility between the two major strata.
2. According to Karl Marx in all stratified societies there are two major social
groups: a ruling class (Haves) and a subject class(Have Nots). The ruling class
derives its power from its ownership and control of the forces of production.
The ruling class exploits and oppresses the subject class. As a result there is a
basic conflict of interest between the two classes. The various institutions of
society such as the legal and political system are instruments of ruling class
domination and serve to further its interests. Marx believed that western society
developed through four main epochs-primitive communism, ancient society,
feudal society and capitalist society.
3. Primitive communism is represented by the societies of pre-history and provides
the only example of the classless society. From then all societies are divided into
two major classes – master and slaves in ancient society, lords and serfs in
feudal society and capitalist and wage labourers in capitalist society.
4. The critical terms in the Marxian framework of social stratification are :
 Class consciousness by which is meant the awareness, the recognition by the
people belonging to a class (e.g., workers) of their place in the production process
and of their relation with the owning class. Class consciousness also subsumes the
awareness of the extent of exploitation by the owning class in terms of their
deprivation of and appropriate share in the ‘surplus value’ of goods produced by
them. Over time, workers realize that the way to relieve themselves of the
exploitation and oppression is overthrowing the capitalist owners through
unified, collective revolution
 Class solidarity by which is meant the extent to which the workers join together
in order to achieve their economic and political objectives; and
 Class conflict by which is meant struggle when class consciousness has not
matured or it may be conscious struggle in the form of collective assertions and
representations of workers intended to improve their lot.(Detail in ‘Sociological
Thinker’s )

THE WEBERIAN PERSPECTIVE:

The third is the Weberian perspective according to which social stratification is based
on Class, Status and Power. class is based on market situation (Economic)-, Individuals
position in the market. Those who share common class situation also share similar life
chances. They constitute a strata.
The crucial characteristics of class are;

 Individuals share a particular causal facet of their lives;

 These facets are represented exclusively by economic drive in the possession of
goods and opportunities for property accrual, and
  Class situation is essentially a market situation. Classes are not communities; they
merely represent possible bases for communal action.

Weber identified four groups in a capitalist society;

 The propertied upper- class

 The property- less, white collar worker class
 The petty bourgeoisie and
 The manual working class.

Status groups

1. Weber did agree with Marx on the significance of the economic dimension of
stratification. He, however, added the aspects of prestige(Status) and Power
(Party) to the understanding of social stratification. Weber was convinced that
differences in status led to differences in lifestyles. “As distinguished from the
consequences of property differences for life chances, status differences,
according to Weber, lead to differences in life styles which form an important
element in the social exclusiveness of various status groups. Status groups acquire
honour primarily by usurpation. They claim certain rewards and act out their
claims in terms of certain manners and styles of behavior and certain socially
exclusive activities. status groups are usually communities.
2. Status situation is determined by a specific, positive or negative, social estimation
of honor; it is not necessarily linked with class situation. The highest prestige in
particular social group does not always belong to the richest. Status symbols,
special attire, exclusive clubs and unique lifestyles distinguish the status groups.
Much like Marx, Weber agreed that property differences are important in forming
of Class. Property differences also define the lines of distinction and privileges
among them. Unlike Marx, Weber assigned greater importance to status groups.

Party:

1. Weber also laid stress on party which often represents interests determined
through ‘class situation and status situation. According to Weber, the economic
aspect is crucial in classes, honour is crucial in status groups, and power is crucial
in parties. Party arise form the nature of domination which is present in one form
or another in all the societies
2. Weber analytically distinguished there orders within society—economic, social
and political—and corresponding to these, identified three dimensions of
stratification: class, status and power. On the fundamentals, there was little
difference between Weber and Marx in defining class. Denying that a unified
theory of social stratification was even possible, Weber went beyond a critical
rejection of Marx’s simplistic unilinear theory of class.

Dimensions – Social Stratification of Class, Status groups, Gender, Ethnicity, and Race.
Social Stratification of Class and Status groups:

 The class system is universal phenomenon denoting a category or group of

persons having a definite status in society which permanently determines their
relation to other groups. The social classes are de facto groups (not legally or
religiously defined and sanctioned) they are relatively open not closed. Their
basis is indisputably economic but they are more than economic groups. They
are characteristic groups of the industrial societies which have developed since
17th century. The relative importance and definition of membership in a
particular class differs greatly over time and between societies, particularly in
societies that have a legal differentiation of groups of people by birth or
occupation.
 Marx defined class in terms of the extent to which an individual or social group
has control over the means of production.In Marxist terms a class is a group of
people defined by their relationship to the means of production.Classes are
seen to have their origin in the division of the social product into a necessary
product and a surplus product.
 Marxists explain history in terms of a war of classes between those who control
production and those who actually produce the goods or services in society (and
also developments in technology and the like). In the Marxist view of capitalism
this is a conflict between capitalists (bourgeoisie) and wage workers (proletariat).
Class antagonism is rooted in the situation that control over social production
necessarily entails control over the class which produces goods — in capitalism
this is the exploitation of workers by the bourgeoisie. Marx saw class categories
as defined by continuing historical processes.
 Classes, in Marxism, are not static entities, but are regenerated daily through the
productive process. Marxism views classes as human social relationships which
change over time, with historical commonality created through shared productive
processes. A 17th-century farm labourer who worked for day wages shares a
similar relationship to production as an average office worker of the 21st century.
In this example it is the shared structure of wage labour that makes both of these
individuals “working class”.

In the well-known example of socioeconomic class, many scholars view societies as

stratifying into a hierarchical system based on occupation, economic status, wealth, or
income.

1. “Maclver and Page defines social class as any portion of the community marked
off from the rest by social status. Maclver says whenever social intercourse is
limited by the consideration of social status by distinctions between higher and
lower there exists a social class. According to Ogburn and Nimkoff a social class
is the aggregate of persons having essentially the same social status in a given
society.
2. Max Weber suggests that social classes are aggregates of individuals who have
the same opportunities of acquiring goods, the same exhibited standard of living.
 He formulated a three component theory of stratification with social, status and
party classes (or politics) as conceptually distinct elements.
 Social class is based on economic relationship to the market (owner, renter,
employee, etc.)
 Status class has to do with non-economic qualities such as honour and prestige
 Party class refers to factors having to do with affiliations in the political domain
3. According to Weber a more complex division of labour made the class more
heterogeneous. In contrast to simple income–property hierarchies, and to
structural class schemes like Weber’s or Marx’s, there are theories of class based
on other distinctions, such as culture or educational attainment.
4. At times, social class can be related to elitism and those in the higher class are
usually known as the “social elite”.For example, Bourdieu seems to have a notion
of high and low classes comparable to that of Marxism, insofar as their conditions
are defined by different habitus, which is in turn defined by different objectively
classifiable conditions of existence. In fact, one of the principal distinctions
Bourdieu makes is a distinction between bourgeoisie taste and the working class
taste.Social class is a segment of society with all the members of all ages and
both the sexes who share the same general status.

Status Groups:

1. Max Weber formulated a three-component theory of stratification-class, status

and power- in which he defines status class (also known as a status group) as a
group of people (part of a society) that can be differentiated on the basis of
non-economical qualities like honour, prestige, education and religion. Weber
says bureaucracy is the most powerful of all status groups.
2. Since Max Weber, the issue of status inconsistency has been the object of many
studies because the phenomenon has itself been multiplied, particularly in the
post-industrial societies and also because of an intervening factor, religion,
particularly in emerging nations.
3. Weber rejects the notion that economic phenomena directly determine the
nature of human ideals, he distinguishes such conceptualizations independent of
class interests and hence the distinction of ‘status’ groups from ‘class’ groups. By
status situation Weber refers to that part of a person’s life chances, which are
decided by the social esteem in which he/she is held, such esteem might be
positive or negative. The status situation of an individual refers to the
evaluations which others make of an individual of her/his social position. They
normally manifest their distinctions upon the manner in which others may
interact with them.
4. The status groups are conscious of their group identity. Along with the social
esteem there occurs a specific lifestyle and restrictions and this becomes the
characteristics of particular status group. In Weber’s view class distinction and
status distinction remained separable in analysis and in fact. But they were also
linked and they moved across each other in patterned ways.
 5. Social class and status groups are often regarded as objective entities
determined by ranking according to economic criteria or other indicators. In the
sociological tradition established by Weber, however, the objective definitions of
class and status are distinguished from their subjective manifestations.The
approach taken here is to consider that social class may reflect objective
behavior, not as attributes judged by outsiders, but by actions taken and relations
formed by insiders relative to other insiders.

Social Stratification of Gender:

Like many questions of interest to sociologists, the nature of maleness and femaleness
is not so easily classified. In general, sociologists use the term sex to refer to the
anatomical and physiological differences that define male and female bodies. Gender,
by contrast, concerns the psychological social and cultural differences between males
and females. Gender is linked to socially constructed notions of masculinity and
femininity; it is not necessarily direct product of an individual’s biological sex.

The distinction between sex and gender is fundamental one, since many differences
between males and females are not biological in origin. Contrasting approaches have
been taken to explain the formation of gender identities and the social roles based on
those identities.

1. Broadly speaking, the term ‘gender’ refers to cultural ideas that construct
images and expectations of both females and males. Nature has divided human
race between men and women, but their status and role in society are
determined by out culture. When we speak of women as ‘fair sex’ or ‘weaker sex’
or when invoke the etiquette of ‘ladies first’, our attention is not confined to the
biological fact, have already entered the realm of culture.
2. In social sciences and literary criticism the term ‘gender’ is used to indicate the
differences in social status of man and woman, particularly to refer to the fact
that women are placed in a lower status in relation to their intrinsic worth.
Feminist thus focuses on gender perspective that calls for cultural transformation
of society. It implies the right ordering of status of women in relations to men in
social and political life. Culture usually refers to certain distinctive features of
different groups. However, some typical attitudes towards gender can be found
throughout the civilized world. These attitudes tend to divide male and female
personality traits and behavioural tendencies into two opposite patterns. These
patterns may be described as masculinity and femininity respectively.
Masculinity, for example, typically includes aggressiveness, logical outlook,
control of emotional expression, and attitude of dominance, while femininity is
associated with peacefulness, intuitiveness, emotional expressiveness, and
submissiveness. (Some variations in these characteristics are possible in different
social contexts. For example, a wife may be relatively submissive to her husband,
but as a mother she may not be so towards her children. Moreover, the degree of
submissiveness of a woman may vary from one case to another.)
 3. In any case, relative dominance of man and relative submissiveness of women
represent almost universal cultural traits, which are not directly based on
biological differences. Broadly speaking, these are the products of the social
organization based on patriarchy and its institutions, the division of labour in
the family and the competitive and exploitative character of capitalism. From
this perspective, the concepts of masculinity and femininity serve as instruments
of social Control that reinforce male dominance. So if a woman tends to behave
in an authoritarian manner, particularly towards men, her behaviour is termed to
be indecent. In short, the expectations attached to differential roles of men and
women serve as the foundation of gender inequality in society.
4. J.J. Rousseau in his essay A discourse on the Origin of Inequality had distinguished
between natural inequality and conventional inequality. Natural inequality
describes the inequality of age, health, beauty, physical and intellectual capacities
of different people, which were created by nature. These inequalities are largely
unalterable. On the other hand, conventional inequalities represent disparities of
wealth, prestige and power among different individuals. These inequalities are
the product of our social arrangements. We can undertake a critical examination
of these inequalities from the point of view of justice, and can reduce them by
altering our social arrangements. In other words, conventional inequalities are
alterable. While the division of society into two sexes- male and female-
represent natural inequality, gender inequalities are the product of convention
and culture. These inequalities can be questioned and removed wherever they
are found objectionable.

Gender socialization :
Another route to take in understanding the origins of gender differences is the study of
gender socialization, the learning of gender roles with the help of social agencies such as
the family and the media. Such an approach makes a distinction between biological sex
and social sex.

1. Through contact with various agencies of socialization, both primary and

secondary, children gradually internalize the social norms and expectations
which are seen to correspond with their sex. Gender differences are not
biologically determined, they are culturally produced. According to this, view,
gender inequalities result because men and women are socialized into different
roles. These positive and negative reinforcements to boys and girls in learning and
conforming to expected sex roles leades to gender differentiation. If an individual
develops gender practices which do not correspond to his or her biological sex –
that is, they are deviant – the explanation is seen to resist inadequate or irregular
socialization. According to this functionalist view, socializing agencies contribute
to the maintenance of social order by over seeing the smooth gender socialization
of new generations.…………This rigid interpretation of sex roles and socialization
has been criticized on a number of fronts. Many writers argue that gender
socialization is not an inherently smooth process; different ‘agencies’ such as the
family, schools and peer groups may be at odds with one another. Moreover,
 socialization theories ignore, the social expectations surrounding sex roles. As
Connell has argued : ‘Agencies of socialization’ cannot produce mechanical
effects in a growing person. What they do is invite the child to participate in social
practice on given terms’.
2. Social influences on gender identity flow through many diverse channels; even
parents committed to raising their children in a ‘non-sexist’ way find existing
patterns of gender learning difficult to combat (Statham 1986). Studies of parent
– child interactions, for example, have shown distinct differences in the treatment
of boys and girls even when the parents believe their reactions to both are the
same. The toys, picture books and television programmes experienced by young
children all tend to emphasize differences between male and female
attributes. Male characters generally outnumber females in most children’s
books, television programmes and films. Male characters tend to play more
active, adventurous roles, while females are portrayed as passive, expectant and
domestically oriented. Clearly, gender socialization is very powerful. Once a
gender is assigned, society expects individuals to act like ‘females’ or ‘males’. It is
in the practices of everyday life that these expectations are fulfilled and
reproduced.

According to Connell, gender relations are the product of everyday interactions and
practices. The actions and behaviour of average people in their personal lives are
directly linked to collective social arrangements in society. These arrangements are
continuously reproduced over lifetimes and generations.

Perspectives on Gender Stratification:

1. In almost all societies, gender is a significant form of social stratification. Gender

is a critical factor in structuring the types of opportunities and life chances faced
by individuals and groups, and strongly influences the roles they play within social
institutions from the household to the state. Although the roles of men and
women vary from culture to culture, there is no known instance of a society in
which females are more powerful than males. Men’s roles are generally more
highly valued and rewarded than women’s roles: in almost every culture, women
bear the primary responsibility for child care and domestic work, while men have
traditionally borne responsibility for providing the family livelihood. The
prevailing division of labour between the sexes has led to men and women
assuming unequal positions in terms of power, prestige and wealth.
2. Despite the advances that women have made in countries around the world,
gender differences continue to serve as the basis for social inequalities.
Investigating and accounting for gender inequality has become a central concern
of sociologists. Many theoretical perspectives have been advanced to explain
men’s enduring dominance over women- in the realm of economic, politics, the
family and else where.
Functionalist Approaches:

1. The functional approach sees society as a system of interlinked parts which

operate smoothly to produces social solidarity. Thus, functionalist and
functionalist inspired perspectives on gender seek to show that gender
differences contribute to social stability and integration. While such views once
commanded great support, they have been heavily criticized for neglecting social
tensions at the expense of consensus and for promulgating a conservative view of
the social world.
2. Writers who subscribe to the natural differences school of thought tend to argue
that the division of labour between men and women is biologically based.
Women and men perform those tasks for which they are biologically best
suited. Thus, the social anthropologist George Murdock saw it as both practical
and convenient that women should concentrate on domestic and family
responsibilities while men work outside the home. On the basis of a cross-
cultural study of more than two hundred societies. Murdock (1949) concluded
that the sexual division of labour is present in all cultures. While this is not the
result of biological ‘programming’, it is the most logical basis for the organization
of society.
3. Talcott Parsons, a leading functionalist thinker, concerned himself with the role
of the family in industrial societies. He was particularly interested in the
socialization of children, and believed that stable, supportive families are the key
to successful socialization. In Parsons’s view, the family operates most efficiently
with a clear-cut sexual division of labour in which females act in expressive roles,
providing care and security to children and offering them emotional support.
Men, on the other hand, should perform instrumental roles namely, being the
breadwinner in the family. Because of the stressful nature of men’s role, women’s
expressive and nurturing tendencies should also be used to stabilize and comfort
men. This complementary division of labour, springing from a biological
distinction between the sexes, would ensure the solidarity of the family.
4. Another functionalist perspective on child-rearing was advanced by John Bowlby
(1953), who argued that the mother is crucial to the primary socialization of
children, If the mother is absent, or if a child is separated from the mother at a
young age- a state referred to as maternal deprivation – the child runs a high risk
of being inadequately socialized. This lead to serious social and psychological
difficulties later in life, including antisocial and psychopathic tendencies. Bowlby
argued that a child’s well- being and mental health can be best guaranteed
through a close, personal and continuous relationship with its mother.

Socialist and Marxist feminism:

Engels argued that under capitalism, material and economic factors underlay women’s
subservience to men, because patriarchy (like class oppression) has its roots in private
property. Engels argued that capitalism intensifies patriarchy men’s domination over
women- by concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a small number of men.…
Capitalism intensifies patriarchy more than earlier social systems because it creates
enormous wealth compared to previous eras which confers power on men as
wagearners as well as possessors and inheritors of property………… Second, for the
capitalist economy to succeed, it must define people- in particular women- as
consumers, persuading them that their needs will only be met through ever- increasing
consumption of goods and products……… Last, capitalism relies on women to labour for
free in the home, caring and cleaning. To Engels, capitalism exploited men by paying low
wages and women by paying no wages.

Socialist feminist:
Socialist feminist have argued that the reformist goals of liberal feminism are
inadequate. They have called for the restructuring of the family, the end of domestic
slavery and the introduction of some collective means of carrying out child-rearing,
caring and household maintenance. Following Marx, many argued that these ends
would be achieved through a socialist revolution, which would produce true equality
under a state-centre economy designed to meet the needs of all.

Radical feminism:

1. At the heart of radical feminism is the belief that men are responsible for and
benefit from the exploitation of women. The analysis of patriarchy- the
systematic domination of females by males- is of central concern to this branch
of feminism. Patriarchy is viewed as a universal phenomenon that has existed
across time and cultures. Radical feminists often concentrate on the family as one
of the primary sources of women’s oppression in society. They argue that men
exploit women by relying on the free domestic labour that women provide in the
home. As a group, men also deny women access to positions of power and
influence in society.
2. S. Firestone (1971), an early radical feminist writer, argued that men control
women’s roles in reproduction and child- rearing. Because women are biologically
able to give birth, they become dependent materially on men for protection and
livelihood of child. This ‘biological inequality is socially organized in the nuclear
family. Firestone speaks of a ‘sex class’ to describe women’s social position and
argues that women can be emancipated only through the abolition of the family
and the power relations which characterize it.
3. Other radical feminist points to male violence against women as central to male
supremacy. According to such a view, domestic violence, rape and sexual
harassment are all part of the systematic oppression of women, rather than
isolated cases with their own psychological or criminal roots. Even interactions in
daily life- such as non-verbal communication, patterns of listening and
interrupting, and women’s sense of comfort in public – contribute to gender
inequality.
4. Moreover, popular conceptions of beauty and sexuality are imposed by men on
women in order to produce a certain type of feminity. For example, social and
cultural norms that emphasize a slim body and a caring, nurturing attitude
towards men help to perpetuate women’s subordination. The objectification’ of
 women through the media, fashion and advertising turns women into sexual
objects whose main role is to please and entertain men. Radical feminists do not
believe that women can be liberated from sexual oppression through reforms or
gradual change. Because patriarchy is a systemic phenomenon, they argue,
gender equality can only be attained by overthrowing the patriarchal order.
5. The use of patriarchy as a concept for explaining gender inequality bas been
popular with many feminist theorists. In asserting that ‘the personal is political,
radical feminists have drawn widespread attention to the many linked dimensions
of women’s oppression. Their emphasis of women has brought these issues into
the heart of mainstream debates about women’s subordinations.
6. Many objections can be raised, however, to radical feminist views. The main
one, perhaps, is that the concept of patriarchy as it has been used is inadequate
as a general explanation for women’s oppression. Radical feminists have tended
to claim that patriarchy has existed throughout history and across cultures- that it
is a universal phenomenon. Critics argue, however, that such a conception of
patriarchy does not leave room for historical or cultural variations. It also ignores
the important influence that race, class or ethnicity may have on the nature of
women’s subordination. In other words, it is not possible to see patriarchy as a
universally phenomenon; doing so risks biological reductionism – attributing all
the complexities of gender inequality to simple distinction between men and
women.

Black feminism:

1. Many black feminists argue that ethnic divisions among women are not
considered by the main feminist schools of thought and are oriented to the
dilemmas of white, predominantly middle- class women living in industrialized
societies.
2. Moreover, the very idea that there is a ‘unified form of gender oppression that is
experienced equally by all women’ is problematic. Dissatisfaction with existing
forms of feminism has led to the emergence of a strand of thought which
concentrates on the particular problems facing black women.
3. The writings of American black feminists emphasize the influence of the powerful
legacy of slavery, segregation and the civil rights movement on gender
inequalities in the black community. They point out that early black sufferers
supported the campaign for women’s rights, but realized that the question of
race could not be ignored: black women were discriminated against on the basis
of their race and gender. Explanatory frameworks favoured by white feminists
for example, the view of the family as a mainstay of patriarchy- may not be
applicable in black communities, where the family represents a main point of
solidarity against racism. In other words, the oppression of black women may be
found in different locations compared with that of white women.
4. Black feminists contend, therefore, that any theory of gender equality which
does not take racism into account cannot be expected to explain black women’s
oppression adequately. Class dimensions are another factor which cannot be
 neglected in the case of many black women. Some black feminists have held is its
focus on the interplay between race, class and gender concerns. Black women are
disadvantaged, they argue, on the basis of their colour, their sex and their class
position. When these three factors interact, they reinforce and intensify on
another (Brewer).

Postmodern feminism:

1. Like black feminism, postmodern feminism challenges the idea that there is a
unitary basis of identity and experience shared by all women. This strand of
feminism draws on the cultural phenomenon of postmodernism in the arts,
architecture, philosophy and economics. Some of the roots of postmodern
feminism. are found in the work of Continental theorists like Derrida, Lacan and
de Beauvoir. Postmodern feminists reject the claim that there is a grand theory
that can explain the position of women in society, or that there is any single,
universal essence or category of ‘woman’ consequently, these feminists reject the
accounts given by others to explain gender inequality- such as patriarchy, race or
class as ‘essentialist’ .
2. Rather than there existing an essential core to womanhood, there are many
individuals and groups, all of whom have very different experiences
(heterosexuals, lesbians, black women, working-class women, etc.). The
otherness of different groups and individuals is celebrated in all its diverse forms.
Emphasis on the positive side of otherness is a major theme in postmodern
feminism, and symbolizes plurality, diversity, difference and openness: there are
many truths, roles and constructions of reality. Hence, the recognition of
difference (of sexuality, age and race, for example) is central to postmodern
feminism.
3. As well as the recognition of difference between groups and individuals,
postmodern feminists have stressed the importance of ‘deconstruction. In
particular, they have sought to deconstruct male language and a masculine view
of the world. In its place postmodern feminists have attempted to create fluid,
open terms and language which more closely reflect women’s experiences. For
many postmodern feminists, men see the world in terms of pairs or binary
distinctions (good versus bad right versus wrong’ beautiful versus ugly, for
example). Men, they argue, have cast the male as normal and female as a
deviation from it. The founder of modern psychiatry Sigmund Freud, for example,
saw women as men who lacked a penis and argued that they envied males for
possessing one. In this masculine world- view, the female is always cast in the role
of the other. Deconstruction involves attacking binary concepts and recasting
their opposites in a new and positive manner.

Social Stratificationon of Ethnicity and Race:

RACE : Sociologists define race as a vast collectivity of people more or less bound
together by shared and
selected history, ancestors, and most importantly physical features. These people are
socialized to think of
themselves as a distinct group, and others regard them as such.

Most biologists and social scientists have come to agree that race is not a biological
fact. The reason is that parents from different racial categories can produce offspring.
The offspring, by definition, are mixtures of the two categories and therefore cannot be
placed in just one category. But they are socially placed in one category. For example
children born of American and African (two racial stock) are put in one category i.e.
African-American.

1. Racial Groups sharing certain physical features believed to belong to certain

broad categories of ancestors, such as Africans, Europeans, Asians, and Native
Americans. The social significance of race is also a product of emphasizing
or feeling connected to a history shared by a certain broad category of
ancestors, who were commonly forced by laws and other social practices to
become socially distinct from others.
2. The social significance of race is also a product of emphasizing or feeling
connected to a history shared by a certain broad category of ancestors, who
were commonly forced by laws and other social practices to become socially
distinct from other broad categories of ancestors.
3. The racial and ethnic categories to which people belong are a product of three
interrelated factors: chance, context, and choice. Chance is something not subject
to human will, choice, or effort. We do not choose our biological parents, nor can
we control the physical characteristics we inherit from them. Context is the social
setting in which racial and ethnic categories are recognized, created, and
challenged. Choice is the act of choosing from a range of possible behaviors or
appearances. The choices one makes may emphasize or reject the behaviors and
appearances that have come to be associated with a racial or ethnic group.
4. The premise of racial superiority and Differentiation lies at the heart of other
rationalizations used by one group to dominate another. Sociologist Larry T.
Reynolds (1992) observes that race, as a concept for classifying humans is a
product of the 1700s, a time of widespread European exploration, conquest,
and colonization that did not begin to subside until the end of World War
II. Racist ideology also supported Japan’s annexation and domination of Korea,
Taiwan, Karafuto and other Pacific islands prior to World War II. Both Japanese
and Europeans used racial schemes to classify people they encountered; the idea
of racial differences became the “cornerstone of self-righteous ideology,”
justifying their right by virtue of racial superiority to exploit, dominate, and even
annihilate conquered peoples and their cultures.

Ethnicity:
Sociologists study systems of racial and ethnic classification, which divide people into
racial and ethnic
categories that are implicitly or explicitly ranked on a scale of social worth. They study
the origins of these racial and ethnic categories and their effect on life chances.
Ethnicity is derived from the ancient Greek work ethnos, which refers to ‘a range of
situations where there is a “sense of collectivity of humans that live and act together”
(Ostergard). The notion is often translated today as ‘people’ or ‘nation’ (Jenkins).
Ethnicity relates to ascriptive identities like caste, language, religion, region etc.
Inequality in terms of sharing power between two ethnic groups’ results into conflict.

Its use in contemporary sociology and in popular conception is relatively recent. The
term was popularized in common American usage with the publication of Yankee city
series of Warner published in 1941.Warner used the term ethnicity as a ‘trait’ that
separates the individuals from some classes and identities him with others’.

1. The ethnicity is socially mobilized and territorially confined. It has numerically

sufficient population and is a pool of symbols depicting distinctiveness.
2. It has a reference group in relation to which /whom a sense of relative
deprivation is aggregated among members of ethnic group..
3. Ethnicity causes ethnic movements after being left out of the developmental
process or even being a victim of uneven development.
4. Ethnicity is manifested in society not merely due to grass root discontent but
sometime it is also a creation of vested political interest.
5. Ethnic groups that use ethnicity to make demands in the political arena of society
for alteration in their status, in their economic well being etc. are engaged very
often in a form of interest group politics. The focus of interests of an ethnic
group is to get some benefits for itself.
6. The group often uses ethnic criterion like religion, language or caste to mobilize
itself and to give identity to itself which separates it from other group or
groups.
7. The delineation of boundary of an ethnic group is an important aspect of
ethnicity. The nature of identity shifts along with changing circumstances and
calls for change in boundary or a change in identification.
8. An ethnic community does not strictly have a racial connotation. A community
can be distinct from others in many ways: Their racial stock or origin being one
of them. A community may distinguish itself from others by way of a particular or
distinctive culture, language, religion or a combination of these. These features
lead ethnic communities to conflict with other communities with whom they
come in contact.

The term ethnicity has been defined in broader sense to signify self-consciousness of a
group of people united or closely related by shared experience such as language,
religious belief, common heritage etc. While race usually denotes the attributes of a
group, ethnic identity signifies creative response of a group who consider themselves
marginalized in society. The identity of a group is defined vis a vis another community
and how this identity becomes psychologically and socially important for a member or
members of a community.

Ethnicity refers to people who share, believe they share, or are believed by others to
share a national origin; a common ancestry; a place of birth; distinctive concrete social
traits (such as religious practices, style of dress, body adornments, or language); or
socially important physical characteristics (such as skin color, hair texture, or body
structure). Unlike race, which emphasizes physical features and geographic origin,
ethnicity can be based on an almost infinite number of traits. Unlike race, which
emphasizes physical features and geographic origin, ethnicity can be based on an almost
infinite number of traits.

Social Stratification and Ethnic Inequality (Ethnicity):

Notions of ‘ethnicity’ and ‘ethnic group’ travel together. If ethnicity emerged as a key
sociological and political concept only in the early 70s it was in operation in sociological
reality much before that and was commonly addressed in solidarities and differences
that marked social and cultural groups.

The concept of class rooted in Marxian dictum of hierarchies also encompasses within
its scope notions of
‘class consciousnesses’ – an idea that talks about building in-group solidarity. Ethnicity
as a social construct has also evolved on perceptions of ‘bonding’ and
‘collectivity’. Class theorists use ‘exploitation’ by the ‘others’ as an instrument for
strengthening ‘class solidarity’ in a similar vein those subscribing to constructs of ‘ethnic
consciousness’ use ‘exploitation’ by the ‘others’ as an instrument for strengthening
“ethnic solidarity”. Irrespective of these common features many in sociological and
social sciences has argued that ethnicity is not class. However, at the same time none
of them would deny the crucial relationship that ethnicity has with class.

 Daniel Bell (1975) argues that, “The “reduction of class sentiment” is one of the
factors one associates with the rise of “ethnic identification”. He further
suggests that ethnicity has become more salient because it can combine interest
with an effective theme. Ethnicity provides a tangible set of common
identifications – in language, food, music, names – when other social roles
become more abstract and impersonal”
 In support of Ethnic Inequality and Conflict, Glazer and Moynihan argues- “As
against class-based forms of social identification and conflict-which of course
continue to exist – we have been surprised by the persistence of ethnic based
forms of social identification and conflict”.
 Richard Jenkins argues that, since the early decades of this century, the linked
concepts of ethnicity and ethnic group have been taken in many directions,
academically. The Concept of ethnicity has passed into everyday discourse, and
become central to the political group differentiation and advantage, in the
culturally diverse social democracies of Europe and North America. With the
notions of ‘race’ gaining public and scientific disrepute since 1945, ethnicity has
stepped in the reorganization of the post-cold war world. The obscenity of ‘ethnic
cleansing’ stands shoulder to shoulder with earlier euphemism such as ‘racial
hygiene’ and ‘the final solution’.
 Jenkins also refers to advantages that accrue because of ethnic affiliations.
Sometimes these advantages are granted to groups because they are perceived
 to be marginal to the other groups in the societies (Reservation to Backward
Communities). It is important to understand here that ‘being part of an ethnic
group’ provides a sense of belonging and an assertion of ‘identity’. This sense of
belonging and identity also accompany certain advantages and disadvantages.

Max Weber: Construction of Ethnicity:

Max Weber regards an ethnic group to be “a group whose members share a belief that
they have a common ancestor” or to put it differently ‘they are of common descent’.

 He qualifies his statement by suggesting that “ethnic membership facilitates

group formation of any kind, particularly in the political sphere. It is primarily
the political community, no matter how artificially organized; it inspires the
belief in common ethnicity”. It is apparent from Weber’s statement that biology
had little role to play in cultivating ‘sense of belonging’.
 Weber also perceived Ethnic group as status group. A status group may
be rooted in perceptions of shared religion, language of culture. Members of
the group on the basis of shared community tend to form ‘monopolistic social
closure’ – that is they refuse to let others enter their exclusive domain.
 Every member of the group knows what is expected of him in “situations of
collective participation”. They also function together to protect each other’s
honour and dignity. It is on these perceptions that ‘suicide squads’ operate in
political struggles.

Weber Concludes that since the possibilities for “collective action” rooted in ethnicity
are ‘indefinite’ the ethnic group, and its close relative “nation”, cannot easily be
precisely defined for sociological purposes’. This profound statement by Weber enables
us to understand how political acts of subversion under one regime are celebrated as
heroic and patriotic by those who are seeking political sovereignty; and are condemned
as acts of treason by those governing the national states. (You must be reading articles
in Newspapers about ongoing struggle between Israel and Palestine and various other
so called insurgent groups and the nation states.) Ethnicity forms complex equations
and “simple cultural or ethnological explanations” are not enough to unfold its
mysteries. Ethnicity as a theoretical tool for understanding “complex questions of social
interaction and political formations” holds equal interest not only for sociologists but
also for anthropologists and political scientists.

Socio-biological or Primordialist Approach to :

1. Socio-biological interpretations of ethnicity assume that there are tangible

explanations for ethnicity. The Primordialist approach recognizes “biology as
the fundamental for establishing ethnic identity”. The biological roots are
determined by genetic and geographical factors. These linkages result in the
formation of close knit kin- groups. Kinship loyalties demand that ‘near relatives
are favored by those in situations of command and controlling resources’. In
contemporary terminology such favours are rebuked for being nepotistic.
 Nepotism is defined as the ‘tendency to favour kin over non-kin’. This principle of
kin-selection based on conception of socio-biology is not acceptable in societies
that claim to be democratic and follow principles of meritocracy.
2. Some of the followers of this school (Socio-biological or Primordialist school) are
convinced about genetic linkages itself are responsible for accentuating ethnic
ties. Another group within the same school thinks that biological and kinship ties
evolve and are furthered by cultural influences. The explanations offered by
various scholars suggest that this schools of thought is primarily rooted in
evolutionary construction of human societies. Shaw and Wong (1989) argue that
‘recognition of group affiliation is genetically encoded, being a product of early
human evolution, when the ability to recognize the member of one’s family
group was necessary for survival.

Primordialist Concludes that “kinship bonds and cultural attachments” would always
reign supreme and govern social and political actions.

Instrumentalist Approach:

1. Fredrik Barth and Paul Brass is commonly associated with popularizing

instrumentalist position in social science literature. Also sometimes referred to
as Situationalist perspective. It emphasizes plasticity in maintaining ethnic
group boundaries.
2. It argues that people can change membership and move from one ethnic group
to another. The change can take place either “because of circumstances or
because of manipulation by Political elites”. He regarded ethnicity: ‘As a
product of political myths created and manipulated by cultural elites in their
pursuit or advantages and power.
3. “The cultural forms, values and practices” of ethnic groups become resources for
elites in competition for political power and economic advantage. They become
symbols and referents for the identification of members of group, which are
called up in order to ease the creation of political identity’.
4. Fredrik Barth was always convinced that the focus for the investigation of
ethnicity should be ‘the ethnic boundary that defines the group’. Adapting the
definition that ethnicity is social organization of cultural differences’, Barth
regarded ‘ascription’ critical to the process of establishing group boundaries.
5. Sociologists and social anthropologists have argued that this model of ethnicity
is essentially borrowed from the works of Max Weber. Barth facilitated its
understanding by differentiating it from notions of race and culture. According
to Vermeulen and Grovers, ‘Barth presented ethnicity or ethnic identity as an
aspect of social organization not of culture’.
6. Wallman furthered Barth’s understanding and argues that: “Ethnicity is the
process by which ‘their’ difference is used to enhance the sense of ‘us’ for
purposes of oganisation or identification. Ethnicity can only happen at the
boundary of ‘us’, in contact or confrontation or by contrast with ‘them’. And as
the sense of ‘us’ changes, so the boundary between ‘us’ and ‘them’ shifts. Not
only does the boundary shift, but the criteria which mark it change”.
Post-Modernist Model of Ethnicity:

1. The constructivist model of ethnicity is located in the interpretive paradigm based

on postmodernism. In this interpretation emphasis has shifted to ‘negotiation of
multiple subjects over group boundaries and identity’.
2. Sokolovski and Tishkov stress that: In this atmosphere of renewed sensitivity to
the dialectics of the objective and subjective in the process of ethnic identity
formation and maintenance, even the negotiable ethnic character of ethnic
boundaries stressed by Barth was not proper. It was argued that terms
like ‘group’ boundary’ still can not fix identity, and Barth’s concern with
maintenance tends to defy it still more.
3. The mercurial nature of ethnicity was accounted for when it was defined ‘as a set
of sociocultural diacritics [physical appearance, name language, history religion,
and nationality] which define a shared identity for members and nonmember.

Jenkins’ Model of ethnicity:

Jenkins has offered ‘a basic social anthropological model of ethnicity which is equally
relevant for sociological understanding. The model is summarized as follows :

1. Ethnicity is about cultural differentiation- although, to retreated the main theme

of Social Identity, identity is always a dialectic between similarity and difference;
2. Ethnicity is centrally concerned with culture- shared meaning – but it is also
rooted in, and to a considerable extent the outcome of, social interaction;
3. Ethnicity no more fixed or unchanging than the culture of which it is a
component or the situations in which it is produced and reproduced;
4. Ethnicity as a social identity is collective and individual, externalized in social
interaction and internalized in personal identification.

According to Jenkins, “It is essential for us to remember that ethnicity or culture is not
something that people have or they belong but it is a complex repertories which
people experience, use, learn and ‘do’ in their daily lives, within which they construct
ongoing sense or themselves and an understanding of their fellow”.

Race and Ethnicity:

Relationship between race and ethnicity is complex. Genesis of the term race are traced
to Latin words ‘generation’, ‘ratio’, nation’ and ‘radix’ to Spanish and Castilian ‘razza’,
Italian ‘razza’ and old French ‘haraz with such diverse meanings as generation, root,
nobility of blood, patch of threadbare or defective cloth, taint or contamination, or
horse breeding” (Sollors). The term race has been in popular use much before ethnicity
was adapted in popular and academic vocabulary.

1. Race came into scientific academic parlance as a classificatory feature. Physical

Anthropologists used physical features to classify what some may describe as
‘human types’. However man’s lust to conquer his fellow being and subordinate
them resulted in tremendous abuse of these so called classificatory studies that
 were promoted to facilitate scientific research. Magnus Hirschfield in 1938
described racial abuse as ‘racism.
2. The genocide that was unleashed in World War II in the name of protection of
purity of races made academicians and politicians equally shy of using it in
public domain. The concept of “ethnic group” introduced in the mid fifty’s was
an acknowledged attempt to provide a neutral system of classifying human
groups on the basis of ‘cultural differences’ rather than distinguishing them on
the basis of ‘racial characteristic’.
3. It was argued that the terminology of ethnic group would provide a value
neutral construct and avoid prejudiced and stereotypical categorization of
people in hierarchical and discriminatory categories. Many scholars believed in
the usefulness of this distinction but others think there was hardly any merit in
this distinction as “race” is only one of the markers through which “ethnic”
differences are validated and ethnic boundary markers established. Those
authors supporting the expediency of making this distinction would argue that
while “ethnic” social relations are not necessarily hierarchical and conflictual, race
relations would certainly appear to be.
4. One may reason that even when race is often constructed and conceived in
terms of physical or phonotypical difference, prejudices and stereotypes
accompanying this perception are socially articulated and perceived. In this
sense, many would argue that ‘race’ is an allotrope of ‘ethnicity.
5. Jenkins prefers to argue the other way suggesting that “ethnicity” and “race” are
different kinds of concept; they do not actually constitute a true pair. The most
that can be said is that, at certain times and in certain places, culturally specific
conception of ‘race’ or more correctly ‘racial’ differentiation have featured,
sometimes very powerfully in the repertoire of ethnic boundary maintaining
devices.

 Banton has argued that primary difference between race and ethnic group is
that membership in an ethnic group is voluntary whereas membership in a
“racial group” is not’ and this would empty that an “ethnic group” is all about
inclusion whereas race is all about exclusion. We are once again returning to the
basic categories of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ critical to our understanding of ethnicity as
well as race. But as perceived by Jenkins “ethnicity” is about group identification
whereas “race” is about social categorization.

It is important for the students to note here that sociological conceptions of race takes
specific note of ‘visible and physical features’ as suggested by Gordon or as described
by Berghe than that of ‘innate and immutable distinctions’ from those described as ‘
cultural’. The most discerning contribution made by these scholars is that distinctions
whether ‘racial’ or ‘ethnic’ are a matter of both ‘physical’ and verbal perception.
Qualifying this insight Berghe reasons: In practice, the distinction between a ‘racial and
ethnic group’ is sometimes slurred by several facts. Cultural traits are often regarded as
genetic and inherited (e.g. body odor, which is a function of diet, cosmetics, and other
cultural items); physical appearance can be culturally changed (by scarification, surgery,
and cosmetic); and the sensory perception of physical differences is affected by cultural
perception of race (e.g. a rich Negro may be seen as lighter than an equally dark poor
Negro, as suggested by the Brazilian proverb; ‘Money bleaches’). This rhetoric of
making distinctions on the basis of ‘cultural content’ or ‘descent’ overlooks the fact
that matters relating to descent accentuate cultural crux on which cultural differences
are constructed and boundaries defined. Sollors sums up this admirably saying ‘it is a
matter of a ‘tendency’, not of absolute distinction

SOME IMPORTANT INSIGHTS OBJECTIFIED

1. What are the basic patterns of race and ethnic group relations? The basic
patterns of race and ethnic relations are amalgamation (blending two or more
groups into a society that reflects the cultural and biological traits of the group),
assimilation, pluralism, structured inequality, population relocation and
extermination.
2. How do conflict theorists define inter group conflict and what are the five major
factors that might contribute to it? When conflict exists between two groups the
group that gains the most power, wealth and prestige becomes the majority
regardless of its size. The five major factors that contribute to such conflict are
visible differences between groups, competition for resources, racist ideology,
potential for exploitation and the minority -group response to the majority
definition of the situation.
3. What are some of the possible sources of prejudice and
discrimination? Prejudice may be formed through both individual and group
influences including socialization, rationalizing through stereotypes, the
scapegoating process, reinforcement of a self-fulfilling prophecy ramification of
an authoritarian personality and degree of contact with minority groups.
4. Ethnicity and Plurality in India India has a cultural, economic and social
heterogeneity. The complex ethnic plurality is visible with ethnic groups varying in
size, culture and consciousness and no clear demarcation is present between
different groups. The system is highly segmented and heterogeneous. However
emergence of ethnicity all around primarily on cultural grounds has put the
boundary of nation state under severe stress. Usually the quest for larger identity
is emphasized as it also serves some political purposes. But at the same time, this
emphasis on a large identity like nation ignores the reality of plural identities and
their possible interplay and thus reverts back to the nation where religion,
language etc become static categories of ethnic attributes.

Social Mobility – Open and Closed Systems, Types of Mobility, Sources, and Causes of
Mobility
Social Mobility:
Individuals are recognized in society through the statuses they occupy and the roles
they enact. The society as well as individuals is dynamic. Men are normally engaged in
endless endeavor to enhance their statuses in society, move from lower position to
higher position, secure superior job from an inferior one. For various reasons people
of the higher status and position may be forced to come down to a lower status and
position. Thus people in society continue to move up and down the status scale. This
movement is called social mobility. The study of social mobility is an important aspect
of social stratification. In fact it is an inseparable aspect of social stratification system
because the nature, form, range and degree of social mobility depends on the very
nature of stratification system. Stratification system refers to the process of placing
individuals in different layers or strata.

1. According to Wallace and Wallace social mobility is the movement of a person or

persons from one social status to another.W.P Scott has defined sociology as the
movement of an individual or group from one
2. In Other words, Social mobility is movement across the social structure.
Concept of social mobility is classically defined by Pitrim A. Sorokin. According
to Sorokin, the shift of position may be undertaken by an individual or social
object or value. That is to say, anything that has been created or modified by
human activity can experience social mobility. Social mobility is the
reorganization of gradation in a society. The gradation is normally done in terms
of power, prestige and privileges. That is to say, a hierarchical structure
operates in such societies.

THE CLOSED SYSTEM:

THE CLOSED SYSTEM emphasizes the associative character of the hierarchy. It justifies
the inequality
in the distribution of means of production status symbols and power positions and
discourages any
attempt to change them. Any attempt to bring about changes in such a system or to
promote mobility is permanently suppressed. In closed system individuals are
assigned their place in the social structure on the basis of ascriptive criteria like age,
birth, sex. Considerations of functional suitability or ideological
notions of equality of opportunity are irrelevant in deciding the positions of
individuals to different
statuses.

OPEN SYSTEM:
In the OPEN SYSTEM the norms prescribed and encourage mobility. There are
independent principles of ranking like status, class and power. In an open system
individuals are assigned to different positions in the social structure on the basis of
their merit or achievement. Open systems mobility is generally characterized with
occupational diversity, a flexible hierarchy, differentiated social structure and rapidity
of change. In such systems the hold of ascription based corporate groups like caste,
kinship or extended family etc declines. The dominant values in such a system
emphasize on equality and freedom of the individual and on change and innovation For
example caste system in India provides little scope for social mobility. By comparison,
social class, system of stratification, in industrial societies provides immense scope for
social mobility.
In Broader perspective there are four forms of social stratification having specific
patterns of social mobility.

1. SLAVERY SYSTEM: Mobility was possible only in two ways – through

manumission and through rebellion. In manumission was a practice where by a
slave was unconditionally released from the stating of slavery. Becoming
rebellion a slave could and his sufferings by placing to country side or becoming
pending. So there was unique pattern of social mobility in slavery system.
2. ESTATE SYSTEM: Mobility was possible through the act of grace the monarch. He
could bestow a person in rank of mobility. Other avenue of mobility was
occupational guild. Sometimes emperor adds new loyal supporters by bestowing
position of high rank, this results in social mobility. Marriage also was an
important avenue of social mobility in estate system especially for women.
3. CASTE SYSTEM : is an example of closed stratification system where an
individual’s position is largely ascribed. Often it is fixed at birth and there is
little he can do to change his status. There is little scope of social mobility.
Though avenues are available for social mobility:
 Flexibility in the political system.
 Availability of land cultivation.
 Sanskritisation.
 Hypergamy.
 Normatively caste system has following characteristics :
 Proscribes mobility;
 Membership of caste: Ascriptive, based on birth;
 Legitimized by Karma theory (because of bad Karma in previous birth-low birth);
 Strict endogamy.
4. CLASS SYSTEM : is an example of open system of stratification. It offers numerous
opportunities for mobility. Persons are placed class hierarchy primarily on the
basis of their achievement. So achievement is the most imp avenue of social
mobility in class system.
 In Class based societies :
 Membership depends on achievement.
 Norms envisage mobility.
 Equality of opportunity.
 Open model of mobility.

Some barriers and restrictions to mobility is still there in Class system alsoe.g. in
America, no Negro has become the President of America, though egalitarianism is
emphasized. Most of the high ranking positions in corporate sector are held by men.
The rate of social mobility may have an important effect on class formation. For
example, Anthony Giddens suggests that if the rate of social mobility is low, class
solidarity and cohesion will be high. Most individuals will remain in their class of origin
and this will ‘provide for the reproduction of common life experiences over
generations’.
Lipset emphasize that rate of social mobility displays basic similarity across industrial
societies. According of them, among industrial societies, no association is apparent
between mobility rates and rate of economic growth. Social mobility becomes relatively
high once their industrialization reaches a certain level.

TYPES OF MOBILITY:
Horizontal And Vertical Social Mobility:

1. A distinction is made between horizontal and vertical social mobility. The former
refers to change of occupational position or role of an individual or a group
without involving any change in its position in the social hierarchy, the latter
refers essentially to changes in the position of an individual or a group along the
social hierarchy. When a rural laborer comes to the city and becomes an
industrial worker or a manager takes a position in another company there are no
significant changes in their position in the hierarchy. Those are the examples of
horizontal mobility. Horizontal mobility is a change in position without the change
in statue. It indicates a change in position within the range of the same status.
2. It is a movement from one status to its equalivalent. But if an industrial worker
becomes a businessman or lawyer he has radically changed his position in the
stratification system. This is an example of vertical mobility. Vertical mobility
refers to a movement of an individual or people or groups from one status to
another. It involves change within the lifetime of an individual to a higher or
lower status than the person had to begin with.

Forms Of Vertical Social Mobility:

 The vertical mobility can take place in two ways – individuals and groups may
improve their position in the hierarchy by moving upwards or their position might
worsen and they may fall down the hierarchy. When individuals get into seats of
political position; acquire money and exert influence over others because of their
new status they are said to have achieved individual mobility. Like individuals
even groups also attain high social mobility. When a dalit from a village becomes
an important official it is a case of upward mobility. On the other hand an
aristocrat or a member of an upper class may be dispossessed of his wealth and
he is forced to enter a manual occupation. This is an example of downward
mobility.

Inter-Generational Social Mobility

Time factor is an important element in social mobility. On the basis of the time factor
involved in social
mobility there is another type of inter-generational mobility. It is a change in status
from that which a child began within the parents, household to that of the child upon
reaching adulthood. It refers to a change in the status of family members from one
generation to the next. For example a farmer’s son becoming an officer. It is important
because the amount of this mobility in a society tells us to what extent inequalities are
passed on from one generation to the next. If there is very little inter-generational
mobility .inequality is clearly deeply built into the society for people’ life chances are
being determined at the moment of birth. When there is a mobility people are clearly
able to achieve new statuses through their own efforts, regardless of the circumstances
of their birth.

Intra-Generational Mobility

 Mobility taking place in personal terms within the lifespan of the same person is
called intra-generational mobility. It refers to the advancement in one’s social
level during the course of one’s lifetime. It may also be understood as a change in
social status which occurs within a person’s adult career. For example a person
working as a supervisor in a factory becoming its assistant manager after getting
promotion.

Structural mobility:

 Structural mobility is a kind of vertical mobility. Structural mobility refers to

mobility which is brought about by changes in stratification hierarchy itself. It is a
vertical movement of a specific group, class or occupation relative to others in the
stratification system. It is a type of forced mobility for it takes place because of
the structural changes and not because of individual attempts. For example
historical circumstances or labor market changes may lead to the rise of decline
of an occupational group within the social hierarchy. An influx of immigrants may
also alter class alignments -especially if the new arrivals are disproportionately
highly skilled or unskilled.

Apart from this there have been other ways through which sociologists have
frequently difference the social mobility.

1. Firstly, its’ absolute- vs- relative social mobility. Absolute Social Mobility is the
actual change in position that occurs whereas relative social mobility is judged in
comparison to others.
2. Secondly, objective and subjective social mobility. Objective social mobility is
actual change in terms of objective criteria whereas subjective social mobility is
individual’s own or other’s perception about social mobility.
3. Structural vs. Circulation Mobility: Structural social mobility is the mobility of
people who are already part of occupational structure. By virtue of change in
technology, skills, education, policy such people become socially mobile. On the
other hand, there are people who are outside the social structural when such
people enter into occupation it is referred to as circulation mobility.
4. Sponsored Vs. Contested – R.H. Turner, Sponsored social mobility is one which a
person acquires due to some policy decision, e.g. policy of reservation is known as
sponsored social mobility. On the other hand, contested mobility is one based on
open competition.
Mobility in India-through time:
During Rig Vedic period: There was no restriction on mobility. Ranking was on the basis
of merit e.g. those
good at learning (Brahma) were called as Brahmins. On the basis of Military called as
Rajanya.

During Mughal’s rule, it was not fully closed; e.g. rise of Rajputs-actually Sakas and Huns
tribes from Central Asia came to acquire political power and acquired title of Rajputs.
Kayasthas took to service of Mughal emperors, became court scribes. Marathas political
mobilization of Kunbis; later on acquired Kshatriya lifestyle. Artisans moved to urban
areas and acquired wealth and became Vaishyas.

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF MOBILITY:

There are certain primary factors that affect mobility in all societies, and secondary
factors that are specific to particular societies at particular times. These factors include:

1. The mobility of parents and children.

2. The faulty distribution of individual in social position.
3. The change of the environment.
4. Birth rate of higher group is lower than that of lower groups.
5. Loss of lives in the war, necessitating a high, degree of mobility.
6. Rapid industrialization.
7. Migration

Social mobility is a product of social change and also it initiates social change Social
Mobility in different
societies:

1. Till Horticulture, there existed ranked societies, and not stratified. In agriculture,
due to surplus productioninequality started crystallizing. People felt relative
deprivation which led to social movement.
2. Irrigated agriculture: Disparity increase; centralization of power increases and
allocation of position is on ascriptive basis.
3. Industrial society: Skills start becoming specialized. Formal education develops;
economy becomes de-linked to domestic unit. The amount of movement from
one stratum to another-is significantly higher in industrial as compared to pre-
industrial societies. Industrial societies are therefore described as ‘open’, as
having a relatively low degree of ‘closure’.
4. In particular, it is argued that status in pre-industrial societies is largely ascribed
whereas in industrial societies, it is increasingly achieved. Advanced industrial
society. So, mobility is a product of social change.
Other Factors Responsible For Mobility :

1. Personal talent : Gifted individuals acquire mobility in their respective society.

Simple societies-military skills are valued. So, those high in this, gain mobility.
Trend continues in Industrial society. By sheer individual talent, mobility at
individual level can be achieved. But such cases are exceptions rather than the
rule. For mobility to take place on a sizable scale, structural change should be
there in society.
2. Industrialization and Urbanization : one of determinants of social mobility. There
is expansion and diversification of occupation in Pre-industrial society. Diversity of
occupational opportunities leads to economic growth. Economic growth is
significant factor in increasing mobility. Sustained eco growth results in expansion
of tertiary sector. It is not eco growth per se which makes significant impact; it
should be accompanied with rapid expansion of education. India: Jobless growth
in 1990s. Growth was in areas with specialized skills. So capital intensive growth
did not make significant improvement in quality of life of population.
3. Politicization/Democratization : Gives access to political power opportunity to
gain power. It can be used for further eco power and prestige. Social changes in
these directions contribute to mobility. Mobility can be seen as an index of
modernization=-eco develop and politicization.

City and village: Continuity And Change In Social Mobility

1. More striking than new opportunities for group mobility within the traditional
status hierarchy has been the appearance in recent decades of new status
hierarchies-new arenas for status competition. They have emerged from the
impact of urbanization and westernization but are not independent of the
traditional social organization in which they are based.
2. Urbanism is nothing new in India but rapid urbanization is new. The emergency of
industrial employment, of easy communication over long distances, of
increasingly efficient distribution of goods and services and of more effective
centralized administration has made urban living a more accessible alternative to
more people in India than ever before.
3. Urban life affords a measure of independence from the ties and constraints of
membership in rural based social groups by granting a degree of individual
anonymity and mobility quite unattainable in rural communities.Caste, religion,
ritual, tradition and the social controls implicit therein are not as rigid or
pervasive in the city. People are increasingly able to seek status and other
rewards on an individual or small family basis largely independent of caste or the
other larger social entities of which they are also a part. They do this primarily by
going to the city although the values of the city also extend into the country-side
and have loosened the hold of tradition even there.
4. To a great extent urban Indians can achieve status as a result of behaviors and
attributes rather than simply as a result of birth. According to Harold Gould
industrialization brought about the transfer of specialized occupations of all kinds
 from the context of the kin groups to factories organized on bureaucratic
principles. This meant that occupational role and role occupant would be in
principle separated and that the preponderant criteria for determining
occupations would be performance qualities and that economic rewards and
social mobility would constitute the principle standards for evaluating the worth
or the status of any given role.
5. Traditional status -caste status does not disappear in the city. It remains
important in the most private contexts; the family and neighborhood. Some
neighborhoods essentially reproduce the village setting in personnel as well as
social structure; others do not.
6. A very large proportion of city dwellers are in close touch with their native
villages. Tradition and ascription are important in the city in those relationships
upon which the day to day functioning and future composition of the family
depends of which the epitome is marriage. In the city primary relationships
occupy a diminishing proportion of most people’s time, attention and energies.
Much of the individual’s interaction takes place on the basis of particular or even
fragmented roles. He can often behave in a way consistent with the requirements
of the situation without reference to his group membership. He is even able to
pass if that is his desire by learning the superficial symbols of the status such as
that of white collar worker, student, middle class householder or professional. In
these statuses skill in handling the language, in pursuing the occupation or
success in acquiring money or an appropriate life style may be socially recognized
and rewarded irrespective of caste and family.
7. Contemporary urban life has available more means to mobility and suggests to
those who seek it a greater likelihood of success that the highly structured closely
controlled traditional village setting. Mobility occurs in all settings. Some low
status groups have been victims of technological displacement with the result
that their economic, political and social statuses have declined. They drift either
into the status of rural landless laborers or into unskilled urban employment,
both of which are overpopulated and underpaid. The result is underemployment,
unemployment, poverty and lack of opportunity for improvement. For examples:
water carriers comprise a caste whose members have been displaced in many
parts of Northern India with the advent of handpumps.In some instances new
occupations have been created and with them opportunities for enhancement of
economic and social status thus allowing certain mobility.

Consequences of Mobility :

1. High mobility adds to social cohesion because there were no class wars in
America as social structure was open. Europe had a rigid social structure and the
class inequality was far more pronounced.
2. Frank Parkin has seen the relatively high rate of upward mobility as a ‘political
safety-valve’. It provides opportunities for many able and ambitious members of
the working class to improve their situation. As a result, the frustration which
 might result, if opportunities for upward mobility were absent, is prevented from
developing.
3. Greater innovation, creativity and productivity. Thus, people who are upwardly
mobile are more efficient. It hastens eco growth.
4. Anomie of infinite aspiration, illegitimate means are used to climb up the ladder
by people with achievement motivation.
5. Weakens kinship ties. Suicide rate increases.

Case Studies for quality improvement of answers

1. Fox and Miller studied 12 industrial nations. He found that moving from Blue
collars jobs to – white collar jobs, is the basis of assessing mobility. Those
countries which registered a sustained high growth in economy, accompanied
with increase in school enrolment, increase in urbanization and also political
stability, experienced highest rate of mobility. But it was only confined to those
sections which had high achievement motivation.
2. A study by Willmott and Yong conducted in 1970, in the London areas, included
a sample of 174 managing directors. It revealed that 83% were the sons of
professionals and managers. A survey by Stanworth and Giddens designed to
investigate the social origins of company chairman revealed a high degree of elite
selfrecruitment.
3. A study by Halse and Crewe shows that in 1967, only 17% of the higher
administrative grades in the civil service were filled with individuals from manual
working-class backgrounds.
4. The Oxford study, while showing a relatively high rate of mobility into class 1,
does not indicate the degree of elite self-recruitment. Firstly, there is
considerable change in the occupational structure. For each succeeding
generation, there are more white-collar and fewer blue-collar jobs available. This
helps to account for, the finding of the oxford study, that upward mobility
considerably exceeds downward mobility. Secondly, manual and non-manual
fertility rates differ. In particular, working-class fathers have generally had more
children than middle-class fathers. Recruitment from lower strata was essential to
fill those positions. Thirdly, many sociologists have argued that occupational
status in industrial society is increasingly achieved on the basis of merit. Jobs are
allocated in terms of talent and ability rather than through family and friendship
connections. Education is seen to play a key part in this process.
5. Educational opportunities are increasingly available to all young people, no
matter what their social background; the result is a more open society and a
higher rate of social mobility. The nature and extent of social mobility, in Western
industrial societies, pose a number of questions concerning class formation and
class conflict. Marx believed that a high rate of social mobility would tend to
weaken class solidarity.
6. Peter Saunders-Longitudinal study: same sample studied over a long period of
time. National child survey data was used. He collected 17,414 children sample;
born in 1958 and monitored their progress through records till 1991. Among
 these, 6795 were in full time employment and he located them. He used
Goldthorpe model. He found that 52% was Inter-generational mobility; so
majority is moving up, society is meritocratic. He concedes that men with service
class fathers were 2.6 times more likely to be in service class than those in
working class; so beginning did matter. But moving towards a more meritocratic
society, merit and class position are getting linked more. It was challenged
by Savage and Egerton. National Child development survey sample was used.
40% of intermediate class children were themselves in service class. 25% of
children with parents in working class were themselves in working class. It shows
that class matters and questions the ability criterion. Among high ability children,
school performance is the result of family background and upbringing matters.
7. Among meritorious those who scored high, 75.5% of high ability students from
service class joined service class (Both parents+high ability). High ability students
from working class-only 45% joined service class (class inequality). The6refore,
class background matters. Society is not wholly meritocratic.
8. Ralf Dahrendorf believes that the situation has arrived in modern western
societies, where, there are considerable opportunities for individual
advancement. There is therefore less need for people to join together as
members of a social class, in order to improve their situation. In Dahrendorf’s
words, ‘Instead of advancing their claims as members of homogeneous groups,
people are more likely to compete with each other as individuals for a place in the
sun’. ‘Although mobility diminishes the coherence of groups as well as the
intensity of class conflict, it does not eliminate either’.
WORK AND ECONOMIC LIFE

Social organization reflects the normative structure at work place in form of stratified
order in society, power relations, social mobility, and alienation and so on.

 Modern societies have secular or technical component as dominating one while in

traditional societies work is organized more on normative lines.
 Factory system and Jajmani system are two contrasting examples of different
organization of work.

VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF ORGANISATION OF WORK

 I. Activities of production – hunting gathering, agriculture, mass production.

II. Nature of work – simple or complex, formal or informal etc.
III. Source of power – land, capital etc. Classical elite theories locate source of power
in individual qualities. Marx see source of power in control over mode of production.
IV. System of stratification – master-slave in ancient mode, in feudal lord-serf, haves-
haves not in capitalism, in caste system chatur-varna. Stratification is a result of
pattern of inequalities which
exist in society.
V. Social mobility – avenues of social mobility are also different in different modes of
production. When division of labor is low and work is ascriptive in nature, mobility is
poor as in case of feudal and ancient mode of production.
VI. Degree of alienation – according to Marx it peaks in capitalism and according to
Weber it is a result of increasing rationalization of work.

ORGANISATION OF WORK IN SLAVE SOCIETY

 Major economic activity – hunting and food gathering

 Mode of production is ancient – where some have mastered over skills of hunting
and gathering etc and others are enslaved by them
 Low division of labor
 No specialized economic organization – the occupational differentiation being limited
primarily to birth, sex and age
 Little or no surplus
 No private ownership
 Religion dominates economic life
 Low level of innovation
 Family plays an important role in production Inanimate source of power is used in
form of human labor and animal power
 Alienation from work is low as workers enjoy fruit of their production
 There is no clear separation between domestic economy and community economy

ORGANISATION OF WORK IN FEUDAL AGRARIAN SOCIETY

 Major economic activity – agriculture

 Mode of production is feudalistic – based upon control over land
 Division of labor is enhanced over slave society – there are three estates – nobility,
clergy and serfs
 Surplus is there, but not much. Markets are slowly emerging.
 Social mobility is very low as society is almost closed in nature – roles of clergy,
nobility and serfs were defined by birth and hence ascriptive in nature.
 Alienation was still very low as workers have significant autonomy in work in absence
of strict organization of work and lesser specialization.
 Religion was still important part of life and family still played a part in production.

ORGANISATION OF WORK IN CAPITALIST AND INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

 Major economic activity – mass production of goods and services in factories

 Complex division of labor as specialization increases
 Importance is given to capital and less to labor
 Production is for exchange and profit Production is based on competition and not on
cooperation
 Alienation is high as workers lose control over produce and monotony of work is also
very high
 Multiplicity of economic institutions – e.g. factories, banks and markets.
 High surplus as now production is for market, not for self consumption
 Money economy replaces barter system and even labor is commoditized
 Use of inanimate power replaces use of labor, leading to higher production on one
hand and reduced human role on the other
 There is high mobility of workforce as means of communication improve
 Domestic and commercial activities are clearly separated
 Level of innovation is high as individual has more freedom to be creative
 Laws in such society are no longer repressive and religion no longer influences
economic
activities
 Work is organized rationally and not on the basis of customs and values
 Though production is complex, exchange is simple as money economy facilitates easy
exchange

Social organization of work also depends upon the cultural values of societies as
highlighted by Weber in his famous ‘Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism’. Political
systems also affect social organization of work. For example, in Japan, after Meiji
Restoration, rapid industrialization took place and it made a rapid shift from a feudal
agrarian economy to industrial economy. Geographical factors also determine social
organization of work. In case of India, different regions have different social
organization of work.

 Work, from a sociological perspective, is anything that a person undertakes with a

goal of being productive in a way that meets human needs.
 But in economic sociology, it is generally an activity which results in paid
employment, reward or contract.
 An organization is made up of a group of people who are working together to achieve
certain goals.
 These organizations have individuals who are connected through their relationships
with one another, therefore, to know which organization is formal or informal is to
look into the nature of the relationship between these individuals.

FORMAL ORGANISATION OF WORK

 Formal Organization of Work is the one in which the worker is governed by the
formal rules and regulations.
 Rules and regulations may be defined by a contract between the employee and
employer or by various legislations, statutes and rules of the government.
 A formal organization is rationally designed.
 It has explicit objectives and for them, there are explicitly defined means as well.
 One of the most prevalent formal organizations of work is bureaucracy which is
based on rational organization of work where workers work on the basis of legal
rational basis.
INFORMAL ORGANIZATION OF WORK

 Informal Organization of Work is the one in which workers are not governed by fixed
rules, but by directions of employer.
 It generally includes casual labor, contract labor, child labor, domestic labor etc.
 Informal organization is based on social contracts in which rule are implied rather
than stated.
 Informal organization also escapes the legislations and rules of the land.
 They may also be organizations which are developed on the basis of personal linkages
and rapport.
 It is largely a feature of society where labor supply is higher and workers accept
whatever is given to them in any conditions of work.

CONCLUSION

 At the macro level, work is informally organized in traditional societies, but in modern
societies, work is formally organized.
 Distinction is also understood in terms of intrinsic characteristics of work, sometimes
formal organizations develop within itself informal structure and vice-versa.
 Even big formal organizations employ contract labor at times.
 Formal and informal organization of work also depends upon the task which is to be
accomplished.
 Tasks which are to be accomplished in a project or mission mode have greater scope
of informal working as the team has to improvise new strategies, make new plans
and have to work in a flexible manner.
 Informal organization working offers more flexibility over formal organization
working.

Labour and Society

1. Man according to Marx is a creative being .He with his labor acts upon the nature
and tries to change it. Man can never get satisfied with the existing conditions
and always look out for a change. Work provides the most important and vital
means for man to fulfill his basic needs, his individuality and humanity. Man uses
his labor which is the essence of human being. In the process of acting upon
nature with the help of his labor and transforming it for his benefit man gets
satisfaction. At this stage his work becomes a fully satisfying activity,
encompassing both himself and the community of fellow human beings. Work
through an individual activity becomes a social activity as well.
 2. In the process of acting upon nature man gets involved in interaction process with
other human beings and gradually society moves towards the stage of
complexity. In the process man engages himself in social production.
3. All type of relationships and institutions emerge in society in this process with the
economic process as infrastructure and other sub systems including culture,
religion etc as super structure. According to Marx without culture there can be no
production possible. The mode of production includes the social relations of
production which are relations of domination and subordination into which
human beings are either born or enter involuntarily.
4. Class is an economic as well as cultural formation. Thus human beings are also in
the process of social production which is a very wide concept including almost all
the subsystems of society, culture, religion, economic production etc.
5. The interaction between man and nature produce significant consequences as in
his social production man is in constant touch with the nature. (More from Other
sections of the syllabus)

Special Notes on Social determinants of Economic Development:

Economic development implies two things: Economic growth which leads to increase in
production and generation of income and equitable distribution of this income among
the population to improve the quality of life. Although economic development does not
necessarily imply industrialization there is no historical precedent for substantial
increase in percapita income without diversion of both capital and labour from
agriculture. Economic development is synonymous with industrialization.

1. Economic development is very much influenced by various social factors. Nation

states are created with common language and culture.
2. Economic development of any country hinges on the efficient employment of
factors of production such as labour, land, capital and organization. There is
commercialization of production with monetization of economy. The employment
of factors of production is conditioned by cultural and social factors.
3. The people must have the required ability, experience and knowledge to make
the best use of the facilities that are made available.
4. There is decline of the proportion of the working population engaged in
agriculture. The technology plays very important role when appropriate social
conditions are present.
5. There is trend towards urbanization of society with growth of scientific
knowledge. A new value system emerges which emphasis individual initiative and
responsibility and enables the individual to function without any control.
6. The exclusiveness of clan, kin or caste breaks down and provides norms of
behavior suited to the secondary group type of relationship characteristic of an
industrial society.
7. There is widespread spread of education. The social stratification emerges based
on achievement criteria and permitting occupational mobility.
Medium of Exchange:
A medium of exchange is the means by which people value and exchange goods and
services. Hunting and gathering and pastoral and horticultural societies produced little
surplus, and people bartered, directly exchanging one item for another. In later
societies, surpluses grew and trade expanded people then developed new ways of
placing values on goods and services so they could trade them.

1. Although bartering continued in agricultural societies, people increasingly came

to use money, a medium of exchange that places a value on items. In most places,
money consisted of gold and silver coins. A coin’s weight and purity determined
the amount of goods or services it could purchase.
2. Toward the end of the agricultural period, currency (paper money) came into
existence. Each piece of
paper represented a specific amount of gold or silver stored in a ware- house.
Currency represented
stored value. Gold and silver coins continued to circulate alongside the deposit
receipts and currency.
3. When fiat money replaced stored value, coins made of precious metals
disappeared from circulation.
People considered these coins more valuable, and they were unwilling to part
with them. Then as inferior metals (copper, zinc, and nickel) replaced the smaller
silver coins, people began to hoard these silver coins, and they, too, disappeared
from circulation.
4. Even without a gold standard that restricts the amount of currency issued to the
amount of stored value, governments have a practical limit on the amount of
paper money they can distribute.
5. In general, prices increase if a government issues currency at a rate higher than
the growth of its gross domestic product (GDP), the total goods and services that
a country produces. This condition inflation means that each unit of currency will
purchase fewer goods and services. Governments try to control inflation, for high
inflation is a destabilizing influence.
6. During the first part of the postindustrial society, paper money circulated freely.
Paper money then
became less common, gradually being replaced by checks and credit cards. The
next development was the debit card; a device that electronically withdraws the
cost of an item from the cardholder’s bank account. Like the check, the debit card
is a type of deposit receipt, for it transfers ownership of currency on deposit.
7. The latest evolution of money is e-cash, money stored on a company’s computer
that can be transferred over the Internet to anyone who has an account with that
company. E-cash can be used for making purchases and for paying bills.
8. We can use the term e-currency to refer to the most common form of e-cash. E-
currency represents an amount recorded in a government’s paper money, such as
so many dollars or euros.
 9. The second form of e-cash is electronic gold, which represents a balance in units
of gold. A transaction in e-gold is actually the transfer of ownership to a specified
amount of gold that the owner has stored in a bank’s vault.

Globalization and Organization of Work:

The globalization of capitalism may be the most significant economic change in the past
100 years. According to Louis Gallambos this new global business system will change the
way everyone lives and works.

1. From the functionalist perspective, work is a basis of social solidarity. According

to Emile Durkheim as the farmers do the same type of work; they share a similar
view of the world. He used the term mechanical solidarity to refer to the sense of
unity that comes from doing similar activities.
2. When an agricultural society industrializes, people work at many different types
of jobs. As the division of labor grows, people come to feel less solidarity with one
another. As they are like the separate organs that make up the same body,
Durkheim called this type of unity organic solidarity.
3. This process has continued to the point that we now are developing a global
division of labor as each of us now depends on workers around the globe.
Corporations, with their separation of ownership and management, underlie the
success of capitalism.
4. We may not feel a sense of unity with one another, but the same global economic
web links all of us. The globalization of capitalism has forged a new world
structure. Three primary trading blocs have emerged: North and South America,
dominated by the United States; Europe, dominated by Germany; and Asia,
dominated by Japan and China. Functionalists stress that this new global division
benefits not only the multinational giants but also the citizens of the world.
5. That capitalism could become the world’s dominant economic force can be traced
to a social invention called the corporation. A corporation is a business that is
treated legally as a person. A corporation can make contracts, incur debts, sue
and be sued. Its liabilities and obligations, however, are separate from those of its
owners. One of the aspects of corporations is their separation of ownership and
management. It is not the owners those who own the company’s stock who run
the day-to-day affairs of the company instead, managers run the corporation. The
result is the “ownership of wealth without appreciable control, and control of
wealth without appreciable ownership”
6. Conflict theorists stress how power is concentrated in the capitalist class. They
note that global capitalism is a means by which capitalists exploit workers. From
the major owners of the multinational corporations comes an inner circle. While
workers lose jobs to automation, the inner circle maintains its political power and
profits from the new technology. The term corporate capitalism indicates that
giant corporations dominate capitalism today. Power and wealth have become so
concentrated that a global superclass has arisen.
7. A tool that unites and magnifies their power is interlocking directorates.
Individuals serve on the board of directors of several major companies, and so do
their fellow board members. Like a spider’s web that starts at the center and fans
out in all directions, these overlapping memberships join the top companies into
a single network. The overlapping memberships of the globe’s top multinational
companies enfold their leaders into a small circle that are called the global
superclass. The superclass is not only extremely wealthy but it is also extremely
powerful. These people have access to the top circles of political power around
the globe.
Politics and Society

Sociological Theories of Power

Although power is a universal phenomenon in human activities and social

relationship, there is no uniform conceptualization of this concept. Power implies the
ability of an individual or a group to influence or change the behavior of other
individuals or groups. Weber defines power as the chance of a man or a number of men
to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who
are participating in the action. Power is an aspect of social relationships. An individual or
a group does not hold power in isolation. They hold it in relation to others. To say that
power is relational is also to imply it is behavioral. For if power consists in an inter-
relationship between two actors. Then that inter relationship can only be understood in
terms of one actor’s manifest behavior as affecting the manifest behavior of others.
Further power is also situational. To know power one has necessarily to relate it to a
specific situation or a specific role and an actor’s power in one particular situation or
role may vary from that in another.

Authority and Legitimacy:

1. The concept of authority in general terms implies the right to command. It is not
to be identified with persuasion or influence. The expressions like the parental
authority, authority of tradition, authoritative opinion, political authority, legal
authority or the constitutional authority are familiar expressions and they clearly
convey that authority is exercised more characteristically within a net work of
clearly defined roles. It is exercised according to the established and well
recognized pattern. Political authority specifies the governing authority and
defines the manner the power is to be exercised. It determines the nature of
relations between the government and the governed. The doctrine of legitimacy
implies that the authority should be used according to well recognized and
accepted pattern.
2. The natural sequence of happenings following the usage or custom or the
established procedure invests the authority with legitimacy. Command and
obedience relationship is based on the assumed legitimacy in the exercise of
authority. Force and coercion are not legitimate but these are used either to
establish legitimacy or by the legitimate authority for legitimate purpose. The
legitimate authority if it fails in its objective may be challenged and a
revolutionary authority may come into being. In case the newly established
authority may fail there may be the counter-revolution. The authority that may
come into existence finally has to establish its legitimacy. It is therefore the
foundation of all governmental power. The government can itself function only
with the understanding that it has the power to function. At a given time the
 authority that has come into existence may not have the legitimacy but it shall
have to secure such legitimacy as the society would recognize and as could secure
to it the international recognition.

Marxian Theory of Power (Karl Marx):

Marx does not give a clear definition of power, for him, power means coercion. Marx
views power to be held by a particular group in society at the expense of the rest of the
society. According to him the source of power in society lies in economic
infrastructure and those who own the modes of production i.e. the dominant group
uses power to further its own interest and there by exploiting those who subject to
power.

1. Marx argues that although from time to time dominant classes do have to resort
to naked force to maintain their power and supremacy, the absence of such
obvious coercion should not be taken to signify an absence of exploitation, lack of
naked oppression does not indicate lack of oppression and the lack of any need to
force. Lack of naked oppression does not mean that domination is not taking
place. It is only that the dominated are unaware of their condition, because of the
effectiveness of the ideologies into which they have been socialized.
2. How do such dominant idea, which hails the dominating power of the dominant
class and the exploitation of the subordinate class, gain such general
acceptance? Marxists argue that particular ideas come to prevail through various
key agencies of socialisation. FOR EXAMPLE, institution like the family, education
system and the mass media play a crucial role in the promoting generally held
beliefs and values. For Marxists through these institutions of socialization the real
character of class society is justified and thus it ensures social inequality and
domination and thereby the acceptance of the power structure in the society.
This is the key element in Marxist approach to the superstructure, a society’s
noneconomic institutions and the ideas and beliefs they promote. The
assumption is that they exist to prop up a class-based mode of production. Thus
are power inequality in the economic infrastructure is reflected in the
superstructure.
3. Marxist theorist argue that institutions like education, state and mass media
justify the stereotypical images of superiority and inferiority coinciding with
class position. Thus in terms of Marxian theory “the relationship of dominance
and subordination in the infrastructure is justified and legalized by the super
structure”. FOR EXAMPLE, in capitalist society and the unequal relationship
between employees and employers will be reflected and legitimated in the legal
system. A range of legal status protect the rights of property owners and in
particular their right to a disproportionate share of the wealth produced by their
employees. Marxists argue that such an analysis of the relationship between the
infrastructure and super structure tells in great deal about power in a class
society. That means, FOR EXAMPLE, in capitalist society the infrastructure
produce particular kind of state, education system, family structure etc. All
 institutions of super structure that reflect the domination of class structure
reinforce the power and privilege of the ruling class in the society.
4. Marx views power as to be held by a particular group (dominant class) in society
at the expense of the rest of the society (subordinate class). This is a CONSTANT
SUM CONCEPT OF POWER since a net gain in the power of the dominant group
represents a net loss in the power of the next in society. The dominant group
uses power to further its own interests and these interests are a direct conflict
with the interests of their subject to its power.
5. Thus for Marx the source of power in society lies in the economic infrastructure.
The basis of dominance or power is the ownership of forces of production. The
ruling class, those who own the forces of production uses power to exploit and
oppress the subject class in all societies. The case of power to exploit others is
defined by Marx as coercion. It is seen as an illegitimate use of power since it
forces the subject class to submit to a situation which is against its interests.
6. The only way to return power to the people is communal ownership of the
forces of production. Since everyone will now share the same relationship to
the forces of production, power will be shared by all members of society. Here
Marx’s concepts of false consciousness and class-consciousness are of
importance. When the exploited class realizes their exploited status and start
recognizing themselves to belonging to the same class, there originates class
consciousness among them. In their subjective views of themselves and their
condition comes to match its objective reality.
7. It is the emergence of a true class consciousness by a subordinate class that is
the key which unlocks the revolution which over throws the existing power
structure of the society to replace it with one which suits to the new economic
arrangements.

Max Weber’s Theory on Power:

Max Weber deals power primarily in the context of society and state. Weber defines
power as the probability that an actor will be able to realize his own objectives
against opposition from others with whom he is in social relationship). This is a broad
definition.

1. His definition of domination (Authority) is more specific. It refers only to those

cases of exercises of power where an actor obeys a specific command issued by
another. In making the distinction between power and domination (authority)
Weber put forward two types of solution to the problem of order. Power
represents action likely to succeed even against the opposition and resistance
of those to whom it is applied. This solution is typically found in warfare and class
conflict, but it has the limitation of being unstable as long term source of order.
Legitimate domination, by contrast, involves an element of voluntary compliance
from those to whom it applied and therefore embraces the issue of meaningful
action. Domination can be legitimized in terms of the appeal to the different
principles, namely tradition, national legality as embodies in enacted law and
charisma (Turner 1996).
2. Weber’s concept of class, status and party along with his analysis of state and
bureaucracy are the centre of his concept of power. Each grouping is focused
around or oriented towards power as an independent point of conflict. Each
represents an aspect of and a basis for power.
3. Weber’s discussion of ‘class’, ‘status’ and ‘party’ are three dimensions of
stratification in society, each of which conceptually separate from the others, and
specifies that, on an empirical level, each may casually influence each of the
others. Weber did not ignore economic sources of power, CLASS and considered
these to be among the more important sources, especially in capitalism. But
unlike Marx, he claimed that power did not emerge only from economic
sources, and he certainly does not restrict power relationships to ownership or
nonownership of the means of the production. Power can also emerge from
STATUS OR PARTY (associations concerned with acquiring power) or can a also
be pursued for its own sake. Among these different forms of power, there are
cross-cutting influences and effects, so that power obtained in one of these
spheres may lead to power or a change in situation in another sphere.
4. For Weber class is an expression of economic order to be more precise it is
determined by a person market situation. Here a class denotes an aggregate of
individuals who share the same Market situation. So as per the identification of
class situation with the market situation there could be as many class division as
there are minute gradations of market (economic) position. But similar to Marx,
Weber also argues that the ownership versus non-ownership of property is the
most important basis of class division in a competitive market. Weber
distinguishes two types of classes, positively privileged class who are the property
owners and non-owners or commercial class. He also identifies middle class, a
group that can be placed between these two. For him property or lack of property
is the composed of the plurality of the class statuses between which an
interchange of individuals on a personal basis or in the course of generation is
readily possible typically observable. For Weber power is associated with
property class in terms that they enjoy more status and privilege in the society.
The acquisition classes are in a negatively privileged situation and they are
workers of the various principal types. They are less powerful in the society.
Social mobility is possible between different classes or strata in the society. But
this movement is possible only to a limited extent according to Weber. He says
moving into a wider range of position is blocked by power differentials between
different classes (Crib)
5. Weber considers both class and status group membership as basis of social
power. But the formation of political party has more influence upon power in
modern society. For Weber a party refers any voluntary association, which has
the aim of securing directive control of an organization in order to implement
certain definite policies within the organisation. Parties are organisation, rather
than communities or groups, and they involve striving for a goal in a planned
manner.
6. Weber notes that classes are in the economic order, status groups in the social
order, and parties in the sphere of power. In some senses, power is not a
 separate order, in that classes and status groups are concerned with power. The
difference between PARTIES on the one hand, and STATUS GROUPS and
CLASSES on the other, is in the level of analysis, Parties are organisation,
whereas classes and status groups are groupings of people. If status groups of
classes become well organized, they may form parties, or their parties may
become the organizational wings of the class or status group. Trade unions,
professional association, ethnic organizations, and religious institutions are
examples. Parties represent power at the macro level. For Weber all three – class,
status and party are sources of power. Thus his view on power is extensive
cutting across economy, social and political parameters.
7. When it comes to his perception of power at macro level, his concepts of power
and domination are closely associated. He distinguishes between these types of
domination: charismatic, traditional and legal rational. In CHARISMATIC
LEADERSHIP the basis of power is the charisma of the leader. The term charisma
is applied to certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set
apart from ordinary individual personality and treated as endowed with
supernatural or specifically exceptional powers and qualities. In TRADITIONAL
DOMINATION the basis of power is age-old traditions. Patriarchalism is a good
example of traditional domination. The basis of power in LEGAL-RATIONAL
DOMINATION is legitimate law.

Talcott Parsons Theory of Power

Parsons regards power as something possessed by society as a whole. As such power
is a generalized facility of resources in the society. It is the capacity to mobilize the
resources of the society for the attainment of goals for which a general public
commitment has been made. In this sense the amount of power in society is
measured by the degree to which collective goals are realized. Thus the greater
efficiency of a social system for achieving the goals defined by its members, the more
power exists in society. This view is known as variable sum concept of power
(different from Weberian and Marxian constant sum concept of power), since power
in society is not seen as fixed as contrast. Instead it is
variable in the sense it can increase or decrease.

1. Parsons view of power is developed from his general theory of the nature of
society. He believes that order, stability and cooperation in society are based on
value consensus, that is a general agreement by members of society concerning
what is good and worthwhile. He assumes that this value consensus is essential
for the survival of social system. From shared values desire the collective goals,
that is goals shared by members of society. For example if materialism is a major
value of the Western Industrial society, collective goals such as economic
expansion and higher living standards can be seem to these goals, the greater the
power that resides in the social system. Steadily rising living standards and
economic growth are therefore the indications of an increase of power for the
society as a whole.
2. Parson view of power differential within society also derives from his general
theory of social system. He argues since goals are shared by all members of
society, power will generally be used in the furtherance of collective goals.
Thus, for Parsons, power is an integrative face in social system just as social
stratification. Parsons argues that as value consensus is an essential component
of all societies, if follows that some form of stratification results from the ranking
of individuals in terms of society, values will be ranked highly and accorded high
prestige and power sicken they exemplify and personify common values. And
Parsons, a functionalist, believes that this differential distribution of power and
prestige among the different strata of society is just, right and proper since they
are basically an expression of shared values.
3. Parsons views relationship between the social groups in a society as one of
cooperation and interdependence rather than conflict and
confrontation. Particularly in complex industrial societies different groups
specialize in particular activities. As no one group is self sufficient it cannot meet
the needs of its members and hence each group enter interaction with other
groups for exchange of goods and services which makes the relationship between
different social groups one of reciprocity. This relationship extends top the strata
in a stratification system. In individual societies, which exhibit highly specialized
division of labour some members, will specialize in organization and planning
(those who govern), others will follow their directions (those who governed).
Parsons argues that this inevitably lead to inequality in terms of power and
prestige.
4. Parsons’ later work on power involved a conscious modification of his previous
views (Giddens 1995). In his later works criticizing C.W. Mills’ power theory
Parson viewed power as generated by social system in much the same as wealth
was generated in this productive organization economy. The parallels, which
Parsons developed between power and money, were based upon the supposition
that each had similar role in the two of the four functional subsystems of the
socials systems evolved by Parsons.
5. Power for Parsons is a direct derivative of authority. Authority for him is
institutionalized legitimation which underlay power and was defined as the
institutionalization of the rights of leaders to expect support from the members
of the collectivity (Parsons 1960). By speaking of binding obligation, Parsons
deliberately brought legitimation into the very definition of power, so that for
him there was no such thing as illegitimate power (Giddens 1995).
6. Parsons argues that inequalities of power are based on shared values. Power is
legitimate authority in that members of society as a whole generally accept it as
just and proper. Parsons views power and prestige differentials associated with
social stratification is both inevitable and functional for the society. It is inevitable
because it derives from shared values, which are necessary part of all social
system. It is functional because it serves to integrate various social groups.
7. Parsons stressed that the use of power is only one among several different ways
in which one party might secure the compliance of another to a desired course
of action. Parsons says compliance can be secured by applying positive (rewards)
 or negative (coercion) sanction. But in most cases when power was being used,
there was no overt sanction (either positive or negative) employed. Parsons
argues it was particularly necessary to stress that possession and use of power
should not be identified directly with use of force.

Other Theoretical Models on State and Power:

The state and power, both concepts essential are contested concepts. There are a
number of sociological theories/models of state and power each offering different
accounts of its origin, development and impact. Liberal theory, plural theory, elite,
theory, neo-Marxist and anarchist theory are some of the theories explained here in
brief.

1. The liberal theory of power dates back to the writings of the social contract
theorists such as Hobbes and Locke. These thinkers argued that the society had
risen out of voluntary agreement, or a social contract, made by individuals who
recognized that only the establishment of sovereign power could safeguard
them from the insecurity, disorder or brutality of the ‘state of nature’. Here
state is a neutral arbiter amongst competing groups and individuals in society
capable of protecting each citizen from the encroachment of his or her fellow
citizens. The state is therefore a neutral entity, acting in the interests of all
representing what can be called the ‘common good’ or ‘public interest’.
2. The liberal theory has been elaborated by modern writers into a pluralist theory
of state. Pluralist theory argues that political power is dispersed amongst a wide
variety of social groups rather than an elite of ruling class. It is decentralized,
widely shared, diffused and fragmented deriving from many source, Arnold
Rose, Peter Bentley, Robert Dahl, Talcott Parsons, Neil Smelser are some of the
key pluralist theorists. Robert Dahl, an advocate of this theory who termed rule
by many as ‘oligarchy’. According to pluralist perspective be competition
between two or more political parties is an essential feature of representative
government.
3. According to pluralists interest groups and pressure groups representing various
interest play a major role in affecting the decision making process of
state. Pluralists believe that a rough equality exists amongst organized groups
and interests in that each enjoys some measure of access to government and
government is prepared to listen impartially to all. They claim that competition
for office between political parties provides the electorate with an opportunity to
select its leaders and a means of influencing government policy. Pluralist theory
explains the origin of liberal democratic state. For pluralists, state represents
institutionalized power, an authority and it is in the supreme guardian of
representative democracy in the modern society.
4. The primary task of state is to balance interests of a multitude of competing
groups, represents interests of society as a whole and coordinating other major
institutions. They vies the state itself as a set of competing and conflicting
institutions rather than a monolithic entity which exerts its power over the rest of
the society (Smith 1995). They argue that power exists only in situations of
 observable conflict and that people’s interests are simply what these overt
preferences reveal.
5. The elite theory of power argues that all societies are divided into two main
groups the ruling and the ruled. The classical elite theorists such as Vilfredo
Pareto (Italian thinker) Gaetano Mosca and Robert Michels argued that the
political power always lies in the hands of small elite and the egalitarian ideas
such as socialism (Marxist theory) and democracy (pluralist theory) are a myth.

Pareto is highly impressed by Italian social system. On this basis Pareto has presented
the following outline of social system. Social system is made up of 2 kinds of people:

1. Elite class (Governing class ruling class)

2. Non-elites (Mass-ruled class)

Governing class is made up of two groups:

1. Residues of combination
2. Residues of Group Persistence

People of first group work on the principle of maximum gains and so are very selfish.
They want to bring substantial change in the system, for which they easily mix up with
the people. The second group puts lot of thrust on stability in the system. They are
idealistic, therefore neither they are selfish nor believe in the immediate gain. Unlike
first group, they are more contained and so do no easily mix up with people.

They could be better understood under political, economic and idealistic aspects.

The political aspect of first group is Fox because they are equally clever and
manipulative and diplomatic, whereas that of the second group is Lion, a symbol of
stability and idealism. The power rotates between the two, which Pareto called
‘circulation of Elites’.

Pareto places particular emphasis on psychological characteristics as the basis of elite

rule. Major change in society occurs when one elite replaces another, a process which
Pareto calls “circulation of elites” and he believes history is a never-ending circulation
elites. For him state is a tool in the hands of the ruling elite. He saw modern
democracies as merely another form of elite domination.
Gaetano Mosca believed that rule by a minority is an inevitable feature of social life.
He claims that in all societies two classes of people appear a class that ruled. The first
class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions and monopolises
power and the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, there numerous
class is directed and controlled by the first. He viewed that there are important
differences between democracies and other forms of rule. By comparison with close
systems such as caste and feudal societies the ruling elite in democratic societies is
open. There is, therefore, a great possibility of an elite drawn from a wide range of
social background. As a result the interests of various social groups may be represented
in the decisions taken by the elites. The majority may therefore have some control over
the government of society.

Theory of Power Elite:

C. Wright Mills explains elite rule (Theory of Power Elite) in institutional terms.

Mills explains elite rule in institutional rather than psychological terms. He rejected
the view that members of the elite have superior qualities of the population. Instead
he argues that the structure of institutions is such that those at the top of the
institutional hierarchy largely monopolize power………….. Certain institutions occupy
key ‘pivotal positions’ in society and the elite comprise those who hold ‘command
posts’ in those institutions. Mills identifies three key institutions: Those who occupy the
command posts in these institutions from three elites. In practice, however, the
interests and activities of the elites are sufficiently similar and interconnected to form a
single ruling minority which Mills claims that ‘American capitalism is now in
considerable part military capitalism’. Thus as tanks, guns and missiles pour from the
factories, the interests of both the economic and military elites are served. In the same
way Mills argues that business and government ‘cannot now be been as two distinct
worlds’. He refers to political power is a powers elite which dominates American society
and takes all decisions of major national and international importance.

However, things were not always thus. ………….The power elite owes its dominance to
a change in the ‘institutional landscape’. In the nineteenth century economic power
was fragmented among a multitude of small businesses. By the 1950s, it was
concentrated in the hands of a few hundred giant corporations ‘which together hold
the keys to economic decision’…………… Political power was similarly fragmented and
localized and, in particular, state legislatures had considerable independence in the face
of a weak central government. The federal government eroded the autonomy of the
states and political power became increasingly decentralized…………. The growing threat
of international conflicts has led to a vast increase in the size and power of the military.
The local, state controlled military have been replaced by a centrally directed military
organization. There developments have led to a centralization of decision making
power. As a result, power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of those in the
command posts of the key
institutions.

The cohesiveness and unity of the power elite is strengthened by the similarity of the
social background of its members and the interchange and overlapping of personnel
between and three elites. Members are drawn largely from the upper strata of
society: they are mainly protestant, native-born Americans, from urban areas in the
eastern USA. They share similar educational backgrounds and mix socially in the same
high-prestige clubs. As a result they tend to share similar values and sympathies which
provide a basis for mutual trust and cooperation. Within the power elite there is
frequent interchange of personnel between the three elites. For example, a corporation
director may become a politician and vice versa. At any one time, individuals may have
footholds in more than one elite. Mills notes that ‘on the boards of directions we find a
heavy overlapping among the members of these several elites’. Thus a general may sit
on the board of a large corporation. Similarity of social origin and the interchange and
overlapping of personnel strengthens the unity of the power elite.

1. Mills argues that American society is dominated by power elite of

‘unprecedented power and unaccountability’. He claims that momentous
decisions such as American entry into World War II and the dropping of the
atomic bomb on Hiroshima were made by the power elite with little or no
reference to the people. Despite the fact that such decisions affect all members
of society, the power elite is not accountable for its actions either directly to the
public or to any body-which represents the public interest. The rise of the power
elite has led to ‘the decline of politics as a genuine and public debate of
alternative decisions’.
2. Mills sees no real differences between the two major political parties, the
Democrats and the Republicans, and therefore the public are not provided with
a choice of alternative policies. The bulk of the population is pictured as a passive
and quiescent mass controlled by the power elite which subjects it to
‘instruments of psychic management and manipulation’. Excluded from the
command posts of power the ‘man in the mass’ is told what to think, what to feel,
what to do and what to hope for by mass media directed by the elite.
Unconcerned with the major issues of the day, he is preoccupied with his
personal world of work.
3. Leisure, family and neighborhood. Free from popular control, the power elite
pursue its own concerns power and selfaggrandizemeMill says that owing to
importance of political reasons that Hiroshima, Nagasaki (Japan) was attacked
with nuclear bomb and was completely devastated. However, Cambodia, Iraq
and now Afghanistan are suffering from the autocratic tendency and activities of
American power-elite. Viewing their nature of this kind Mills predicted that
whenever there happens a third world war, they would be responsible for it. Mills
further opines that in internal matters the power elite is not committed to the
 mass. It means if their policies favour the mass, it is merely incidental. That is why
American mass is always unhappy with governmental procedures.
4. Robert Dahl criticized Mills that his statements are only suggestive and not
conclusive. According to Dahl, Mills has emphasized only on one aspect of
power-elite whereas their second aspect is equally important that they work for
the welfare of the mass with full commitment. It is not appropriate here to
assume that power elite possesses the complete control. In this reference only
Dahl has talked about plural interest groups who get the policies turned in favour
of the mass.
5. Mills’ conclusions about the nature and distribution of power on the national
level are largely echoed in an investigation of power on the local level by Floyd
Hunter, Community Power Structure is a study of a large southern city in the
USA given the pseudonym of ‘Regional City’ but generally believed to be
Atlanta, Georgia. Hunter claims that power rests in a small decision making
group which is dominated by ‘the businessmen’s small decision making group
which is dominated by ‘the businessmen’s class’. This primarily economic elite
rules by ‘persuasion, intimidation, coercion and if necessary force’. Through its
finance of local political parties, it directly influence who is elected and largely
controls local politicians from the state governor on down. With its power to
regulate finance, the economic elite can control the granting of mortgages and
level to influence decisions in its favour. Hunter examine a number of important
local policy decisions including urban renewal and a sales tax. He claims that the
economic elite formulated policy on these issues which was then translated into
legislation by the politicians.

Iron law of oligarchy:

Michels took the concentration of power in the hands of elite to be a necessary
outcome of complex organizations. His famous ‘iron law of oligarchy states that, in
modern societies, parties need to be highly organized and so inevitably become
oligarchic, being hierarchically run by party leaders and bureaucracy such that the bulk
of members are excluded from decision-making.

1. Neo-MarxistsTheories: The classical Marxists stressed the coercive role of the

state. But neoMarxists took account of the apparent legitimacy of the
bourgeoisie state particularly in the light of the achievement of universal suffrage
and the development of the welfare state. According to Antonio Gramsci , in the
modern conditions it is the political party, which forms the state. He was an
advocate of arbiter theory of state. He emphasized that the degree to which the
domination of the ruling class is achieved not only by open coercion but is also
elicited by consent. He argued that ideological and political superstructures are
relatively autonomous of the superstructure. He believed that bourgeoisie had
established hegemony, ideological leadership or domination, over the proletariat
and insisted that the state played an important role in this process. By hegemony,
a key term propounded by Gramsci, he meant the way in which the dominant
class gains consent for its rule through compromises and alliances with some class
 fractions and the disorganization of others, and also the way in which it maintains
that rule is a stable social formation. According to him hegemony is gained in the
first place in civil society where ideology is embodied in communal forms of the
life in such a way that it becomes the taken for granted common sense of the
people. For him all relations of civil society involve issues of power and struggle,
not just class relations.
2. The French Marxists Louis Althusser gives a functionalist interpretation to the
Marxian conception of state. Although he viewed the state as relatively
autonomous of the economic base, for him the state is fully implicated in the
logic of capitalism where it functions to reproduce the mode of production. He
adds, since the capitalist mode of production requires the state to reproduce its
conditions of existence, there is a reciprocal determination between the
economic and political levels (Althusser 1971)
3. Although the neo-Marxist theory echoes liberalism in seeing the state as an
arbiter is nevertheless emphasizes the class character of the modern state by
pointing out that it operates in the longer term interests of capitalism and
therefore perpetuate a system of unequal class power.
4. Anarchists condemned the state power and they believed that the state and all
forms of political authority are both evil and unnecessary. They view the state as
concentrated form of oppression; it reflects nothing more than the desire of
those in power often loosely referred to as a ruling class, to subordinate others
for their own benefits.

Relevance of these Theories:

Marx and Parsons both have tried to interpret power in specific situations and so
tended to be more extreme in their course. Generally people do neither use the power
only in self interest to create conflict or for only welfare of the mass. However, the
power is used for both the things together. Therefore, both Marx and Parsons are not
completely universally relevant in this aspect.

In the context of constant and variable sum of power:

These two seemingly opposite concepts are given by Karl Marx and T. Parsons
respectively. Both of them have their own view points, therefore, none of them could
be said to be irrelevant. Parsons views it in the context of power-holder only and so its
growth proves the concept of ‘variable sum of power’ whereas Marx sees it as a relation
between haves and have-nots and finds it to be constant forever.

Pareto’s:

1. In the context of two opposite ideologies

2. In the form of non-governing elites
3. In the form of multi-party system
Mills’:
The relevance of Mills’ power-elite is clearly visible at international level, which is not
only seen in the political relations of other countries, but its affectivity is felt in the
conventions of UNO, WTO, World Economic Forum, G-8, etc. However, it does not seem
relevant completely at domestic level. This is corroborated by Dahl’s concept of plural
interest group. Also at many issues the mass is highly appreciative of Federal govt.

Power elite:
Discussed in the chapter of Sociological Theories of Power

Bureaucracy:
Covered in Thinker’s Section

Pressure groups:
Theoretically a pressure group may be defined as any association, organization or group
which seeks through a variety of methods to influence public policy and decisions at
local, national, or international levels usually [but certainly not always] within a
particular, quite limited sphere. We may note also that many pressure groups may in
some circumstances seek to defend their members interests or to advance their
particular cause via appeals to the Courts ..

1. Pressure Group is any group that ‘attempts to influence legislative or governing

institutions in behalf of its own special interests or interests of larger public that
it represents. These are the groups influencing Government’s decision is their
favour without participating in politics as such.
2. Pressure Groups play a Indirect role in political life of society. Members of
society organize pressure groups in order to influence the government policies
and initiatives. Ethnic and racial groups, religious and linguistic minority groups all
act collectively to influence governmental decisions. In this sence such groups are
referred as pressure groups.
3. Pressure groups are an interest group which tries to safe-guard and promotes
the interests of its members. It is not a political group seeking to capture political
power though it may have a political character of its own. In other words, a
pressure group can be understood as an association of persons with a common
interest who try to influence governmental decisions. These pressure groups also
known as interest groups pursue their political goals through lobbying- the
process by which individuals and groups communicate with public officials in
order to influence decisions of government. They also distribute persuasive
literature and launch public campaigns to build grass -root support for their
political objectives.
4. PRESSURE GROUP act behind the seen as not trying to capture the power. They
support their candidate, parties in election and ensure the winning candidate
favour their demands and represent their interest in related bodies. PRESSURE
 GROUPS give collective expression to the groups demand and also ensure that
the demand should be met. They change their political allegiance quickly as to
suit their conditions.
5. According to ANTHONY GIDDENS pressure groups are the carriers of
democracy. With the increase in Industrialization, division of labour also increase,
thus emerged various sections with specialized interest. But modern democracy
demands harmonization of interest due to which minority or sectional interest
tend to get ignored. Pressure Groups represent this interest.
6. Its presence shows existence of pluralism making power dispersed and
decentralized in the political system.
7. Pressure groups also aggregates and articulate interest thus making
government aware of public opinion and interest and work for them. The
participation of all sections in governance is indirectly achieved. Pressure
groups can work in anonymity out of the glare of public. So they may prevent
public censure. They may use imitative, educative, non-formal methods to protect
and promote their interest.
8. According to Functionalists such groups play a constructive role in decision-
making. They prepare the ground for the orderly political participation. In the
theoretical framework of democratic pluralism states are assumed to be neutral
arbiters [or impartial referees] evaluating the claims of a vast number of possibly
competing social groups in accordance with the national interest. States are
assumed to attempt to represent the interests of societies as a whole rather than
the interests of a different class or ruling elite. In Such situation pressure groups
are said to make important contributions to the democratic process.
9. Thus whereas POLITICAL PARTIES represent the general interests of voters
across a range of issues PRESSURE GROUPS provide for the representation of
citizens’ views on particular issues relating to their own personal well-being as
in the case of sectional groups and/or to their particular causes for concern as in
the case of promotional or interest groups.
10.As a result of the resources at their disposal PRESSURE GROUPS can represent
individuals more effectively than they could do themselves, a point which may
be especially relevant to more disadvantaged individuals such as the poor or the
disabled and to minority groupings such as immigrants.
11.It is possible that PRESSURE GROUPS can address controversial issues which
political parties might initially seek to avoid and likely also that as new issues
reach the political agenda new pressure groups can be formed to address these
issues .
12.PRESSURE GROUPS enable their members and supporters to participate more
fully in the political process on a continuing basis between general elections and
this is likely to enhance political understanding and thereby to strengthen support
for the liberal democratic system as a whole.
13.The existence of rival PRESSURE GROUPS for example supporting or opposing the
increased use of nuclear power, liberalisation of abortion regulations or the war
in Iraq will help to ensure that both sides of these controversial issues can be fully
debated .
 14.PRESSURE GROUPS may also sometimes be able to provide governments with
important information not otherwise available to them thereby improving
government decision making. For example governments may be aided in the
development of health or education policy by information provided for example
by the Indian Association and the various teaching unions.
15.Once policy has been decided relevant PRESSURE GROUPS may also encourage
their members to carry out government policy and may also scrutinise
government performance to assess whether policies are being implemented
effectively.
16.By the provision of opportunities for political participation via ”the normal
channels” pressure groups may indirectly help to ensure that citizens do not turn
to more radical methods in their attempts to pressurise the government so that
pressure groups are seen as providing a safety valve preventing destabilising
opposition to government and thereby increasing the overall legitimacy of the
liberal democratic political system.

In summary pressure groups may contribute to government effectiveness by

stimulating debate, by the provision of useful information by help with the
implementation of policy and by scrutiny of government performance.

1. Pressure groups aim to inform and educate both their members and the overall
population about political issues.
2. They provide an organised channel through which individuals may participate in
the political process and seek to influence policies of local government ,devolved
assemblies, national government, European political institutions and wider
international institutions such as the UN. Increasingly also some pressure groups
seek to influence the activities of multinational corporations.
3. Whereas political parties represent voters’ views over a wide range of political
issues, pressure groups can represent individuals’ views on particular issues such
as animal rights or poverty.
4. Pressure groups serve as a pool of talent for political recruitment in that many
party politicians begin their careers as pressure group activists.
5. Pressure groups may seek to raise controversial issues and to support minorities
which political parties neglect for fear of electoral unpopularity. Thus for example
pressure groups were more active than political parties in early campaigns in
support of gay rights although all main political parties are nowadays committed
to the protection of gay rights.
6. Pressure groups provide opportunities for individuals to influence government
policy between elections which obviously strengthens the overall democratic
process.
7. Pressure groups scrutinise the activities of government and publicise cases of
government mismanagement and government activities which may be “ultra
vires” *i.e. actions which exceed the powers granted in current legislation.+ They
therefore provide an important mechanism for the limitation of excessive
executive power .
 8. Pressure groups may provide governments with useful information although ,at
the same time, a government will wish to take account of possible bias in this
information.
9. Once policy decisions have been arrived at following negotiation between
government and relevant pressure groups leaders, the leaders may then
encourage their members to accept these decisions, as when Trade Union leaders
in the corporatist 1970s encouraged their members to accept relatively low pay
increases in exchange for government promises to protect employment and to
increase the scope of the Welfare State. These strategies were not especially
successful but it is clear that they could not have been devised without the
support of the trade union movement.

However it has also been argued by more CRITICAL ANALYSTS that PRESSURE GROUP
activity may in some cases undermine in various respects the principles of liberal
democracy.

1. Conflict theorists on the other hand argue that although a few organizations
work on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged most of the PRESSURE GROUPS
represent the vested interests of the business leaders, the lobbies of
multinational companies, rich professionals and political leaders. They further
assert that these powerful lobbies discourage political participation by the
individual citizens. The pressure groups have greater say in democracy than in the
totalitarian setup..
2. Marxists especially claim that liberal democratic governments favour
disproportionately the interests of well funded, well organised pro-capitalist
PRESSURE GROUPS. This is because governments depend for their very survival
on the profitability and efficiency of private capitalism on which in turn levels of
employment, living standards and economic growth depend. Governments are
therefore unlikely to introduce policies which are not supported by private
enterprise.
3. Furthermore PRO-CAPITALIST PRESSURE GROUPS are likely to be granted insider
status which means that their negotiations with government are often secret
which undermines both their own and the government’s accountability to the
general public.
4. Furthermore most PRESSURE GROUPS, apart from trade unions, are joined
mainly by relatively affluent middle class people and most pressure group
leaders [who may not be chosen by especially democratic methods] are even
more likely to be middle class. Although we cannot automatically assume that
pressure groups’ middle class members and leaders will not attempt to represent
the interests of other social groups.
5. However these points taken together do suggest that the poor and otherwise
disadvantaged groups such as many disabled people and members of some
ethnic minority groups are themselves relatively unlikely to be involved directly
in PRESSURE GROUP activity and relatively more likely to be represented by
under-funded outsider pressure groups which despite their best efforts may be
unable to greatly influence government. Indeed it has also been argued that the
 existence of so many pressure groups persuades people to believe that they have
influence when in fact they have very little.
6. It has been suggested that from the 1940s onward national political decision
making world over operated within a framework of so-called corporatism or
tripartism in which government decisions were influenced much more by
business and trade union leaders than by the leaders of other PRESSURE
GROUPS. Critics of corporatism have argued that it gave excessive political
powers to business and trade union leaders who had not necessarily been fairly
elected; that business and trade union leaders did not necessarily have the
interests of the country at heart; that they each possessed considerable veto
power enabling them to force governments to accept particular policies rather
than facing ,say, a prolonged strike or reduced private sector investment; and
that the excessive power of these groups undermined the pluralist claim that
power was distributed among many separate pressure groups.
7. From the 1970s theorists influenced by New Right ideology accepted the above
criticisms of corporatism. They argued in particular that the trade unions had
excessive powers which they used to weaken the economy via damaging
restrictive practices, inflationary wage demands and strikes and that welfare
oriented pressure groups such as Shelter and the Child Poverty Action Group
raised unrealistic expectations of increased spending on the welfare state which
when they were not met served only to undermine confidence in
government. Fewer criticisms were made of the activities of private industry
although there were sometimes significant disagreements over economic policy
but critics of New Right ideology rejected this analysis of both trade unions and
welfare pressure groups.
8. Professor Finer characterized them as anonymous empires. For Lambert these
are unofficial government which implies that no government can run without
taking them into consideration. It organizes itself around a common interest of a
section.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF PRESSURE GROUPS:

Pressure groups have been classified in a variety of ways such that we may distinguish in
principle between the following different kinds of pressure groups although individual
pressure groups may well fall into more than one of these categories so that for
example the trade unions might be described as primary, sectional and permanent
pressure groups which have sometimes but not always attained insider status , which
may operate at local, national and international levels and also has a peak organisation
known as the T.U.C. [Trades Union Congress].

1. Primary pressure groups and secondary pressure groups

2. Sectional pressure groups [sometimes called interest groups or protective
groups] and cause or promotional pressure groups….and hybrid groups
3. Insider pressure groups and outsider pressure groups
4. Local, national and international pressure groups
5. Permanent and temporary pressure groups
Primary pressure groups and secondary pressure groups:
Although political analysts are concerned mainly with the capacities of pressure groups
to exert political influence and with the methods by which they attempt to do so we
must recognise also that most pressure groups engage in a mixture of “political” and
“non-political” activities. PRIMARY PRESSURE GROUPS are organisations which involve
themselves in political activities designed to influence public policy
whereas SECONDARY PRESSURE GROUPS engage mainly in nonpolitical activity and
involve themselves in actual political processes only rarely. EXAMPLES of primary
pressure groups include organisations such as the Electoral Reform Society, India
Against Corruption etc whereas churches and many [but not all] charities would be seen
as mainly secondary pressure groups. Charities may face the threat of a loss of
charitable status if their objectives are seen as excessively political.

Sectional or Protective pressure groups and cause or promotional pressure

groups….and hybrid groups
SECTIONAL OR PROTECTIVE GROUPS aim to protect the interests of their members. For
example, Trade Unions seek to increase the earnings and improve the living standards
of their members, while the Confederation of Indian Industry (the CII) aims to influence
the government to adopt policies such as the reduction in business taxation or
increased government grants to industry which are likely to improve the prospects for
private industry within the economy. Membership of sectional or protective pressure
groups is confined to those who are personally involved in the sector of activity which
the pressure groups represent: thus for example the trade union movement represents
only trade unionists and specific trade unions represent only the trade union members
employed in specific industries or trades and professional associations such as the
Indian Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing represent only doctors and
nurses respectively.

PROMOTIONAL OR CAUSE GROUPS do not aim to protect the interests of their

members but to advance causes that their members consider to be important. Examples
of Promotional or Cause groups include Amnesty International, the Child Poverty Action
Group etc. Membership of promotional or cause groups is open to any individuals who
wish to identify with the causes advanced by particular groups.

This is a useful distinction but some groups may be seen as partly Sectional and partly
Cause groups in that, for example, the Trade Unions have in the past supported a wide
variety of causes such as the ending of Apartheid in South Africa and, in some cases,
unilateral nuclear disarmament as well as trying to protect the living standards of
their members. Also some pressure groups such as FOR EXAMPLE the Rural
Associations or Caste Groups might be seen by some as a sectional pressure group
concerned to protect the interests of landowners, farmers and other rural interests but
they may themselves claim that they are a promotional or cause groups standing for the
protection of local democracy in rural areas and
against the imposition of policies designed by a metropolitan political elite which has no
understanding of countryside issues. Obviously if such groups succeeds in promoting
itself as a champion of local democracy its support and hence, perhaps, its political
influence is likely to increase.

Insider pressure groups and outsider pressure groups:

INSIDER PRESSURE GROUPS are those groups which are most likely to be consulted
regularly by governments and pressure groups are most likely to achieve Insider group
status if they can demonstrate that they possess at least some of the following features.

1. High membership and high membership density suggesting that a pressure group
represents a large number and proportion of people concerned about a particular
issue. Membership density is the ratio of actual members to potential members.
2. The compatibility of its own objectives with the objectives of government and
with public opinion.
3. The willingness to operate through the “normal political channels” rather than to
engage in high profile demonstrations or direct action.
4. The capacity to provide reliable , accurate information which might otherwise be
unavailable and which facilitates government decision making.
5. A significant role in the legitimation and/or implementation of government
policies.
6. Economic leverage and veto power. Governments cannot ignore business
interests since government success depends in many ways upon the existence of
a strong economy and trade unions have also been able to exercise veto power in
the past although less so nowadays.

It is argued that insider groups with these characteristics are especially likely to be
able to influence government policy decisions. Examples of Insider groups include the
Indian Medical Association, CII, Automobile Association etc.

OUTSIDER GROUPS are essentially the reverse of Insider groups.

 Their membership or membership density may often [but not always] be

relatively small.
 Their objectives and/or methods may be unpopular with the general public and
seen by government as unacceptable and non-legitimate.
 They are not seen by governments as valuable sources of information and advice;
they are unlikely to be involved in the legitimation and/or implementation of
government policies; and they possess little or economic leverage or veto power.

OUTSIDER GROUPS may actively prefer outsider status because they themselves
recognise that their own objectives are never likely to be shared by governments and
believe that closer links with government will result only in the moderation of the
groups’ fundamental objectives. Instead they choose to involve themselves in various
forms of direct action in the hope of increasing mass public support which, they hope,
will lead eventually to fundamental changes in government policy. Outsider groups such
as India Against Corruption which, in the fairly recent past, have been able to mobilise
very large demonstrations always stressed the need for transparancy so as not to
alienate public support but other groups such as the PETA, Green Peace are prepared to
use potentially disorderly.

Local, national and international pressure groups:

1. Pressure groups may concern themselves primarily with local, national or

international issues and negotiation or with a combination of all three types of
activity. A small local pressure group may, for example, seek to influence local
council decisions on a variety of specifically local issues such as decisions
whether to license the building of new supermarket branches, to permit the
opening of new music venues ,r to introduce speeding restrictions and/or
“speed bumps” in roads close to schools or to extent recycling arrangements.
2. A large national trade union may sometimes be involved in negotiations
affecting wages or working conditions in one particular firm but at other times
may be obliged to negotiate with a national employer’s association and national
government and/or with the political institutions of the EU and with
multinational corporations.
3. Business pressure groups and large environmental pressure groups may similarly
be involved at various times in negotiations at local, national and international
levels.

Permanent and temporary pressure groups…including episodic groups and fire

brigade groups:

1. Whereas some pressure groups are likely to be permanent because they have
been formed to address issues which are seen as likely to dominate the political
agenda for the foreseeable future others are formed to address issues which are
essentially temporary. Thus it is to be expected that there will always be
economic issues in a capitalist society which are perceived differently by
employees and employers so that both trade unions and business pressure
groups are likely to be permanent fixtures on the political landscape. Similar
conclusions apply to pressure groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth
and Oxfam, Action Aid related organisations now that environmental issues and
world poverty occupy a more permanent position on the political agenda.
However even in relation to pressure groups regarded as permanent there may
be important organisational changes: in recent years there have been union
mergers as unions attempted to protect their bargaining power in response to
the general decline in trade union membership which has occurred since the
1970s and new environmental pressure groups have emerged which are critical
of what they perceive to be the incorporation of the once radical Friends of the
Earth and Greenpeace.
2. Other pressure groups are very likely to be temporary because they have been
set up to address essentially temporary issues such as a hospital or school
closure or a road building scheme or a building project on a green field
 site. Once final decisions have actually been taken for or against these particular
initiatives the pressure group loses its reason for existence.
3. In their analyses of temporary pressure groups theorists also sometimes
distinguish between EPISODIC GROUPS AND FIRE BRIGADE GROUPS. Episodic
groups are groups which have been formed for non political purposes but which
may involve themselves in political questions if they feel that their interests are
threatened [e.g. the local amateur soccer leagues may register their opposition to
proposals to sell off playing fields and then return to their usual non-political
stance once this “episode” has been resolved.
4. Fire brigade groups are groups which are set up in response to a particular
political issue and which may disappear completely once the issue has been
resolved because they no longer have any reason to exist although the group
might continue if, FOR EXAMPLE, some of its members decide to support similar
campaigns possibly in nearby areas .

Anomic Pressure Group.

1. Mmodern democracy they can be dysfunctional too as by representing self-

sectional interest at times other interests get marginalized. It may be possible
that sectional interest goes contrary to national interest. Certain pressure groups
have also emerged using illegal methods e.g. terrorists organizations. Such
Pressure Groups are referred as ANOMIC PRESSURE GROUP.
2. Thus, being inevitable phenomena in democracy pressure Groups have
strengthened & weakened democracy side by side. Inspite of their limitations
and defects Pressure Groups have become an essential part of the modern
democratic process. We may conclude that theorists influenced by democratic
pluralism have been most likely to praise the democratic activities of pressure
groups but that theorists influenced by Marxism, Elitism, Corporatism and the
New Right have adopted a more critical approach. While recognising the
importance of these criticisms one only has to imagine a political system with no
independent pressure groups to see that they do on balance make a significant
contribution to the operation of liberal democracy.

POLITICAL PARTY:
What is a political party?

1. Political parties are a special form of social organisation. “A political party is a

team of men seeking to control the governing apparatus by gaining office in a
duly constituted election” (Antony Downs,).
2. The Italian scholar Giovanni Sartori defined a party as: “any political group
identified by an official label that presents at elections, and is capable of placing
through election, candidates for public office.”
3. Political party is a group of people who come together to contest election and
hold power in the government. They agree on some policies and programmes for
the society with a view to promote the collective good. Since there can be
 different views on what is good for all, parties try to persuade people why their
policies are better than others. They seek to implement these policies by winning
popular support through these elections.
4. Even if these definitions demonstrate some difference in the understanding of
political parties, they all emphasize the participation in elections and the
interest to gain public offices and mandates as essential elements that
characterise political parties. They must meet certain criteria which can be
summarized as follows.
5. In other words we can define Political party as an organization of people
interested in and working to control or influence the power structure of a
community or society in a way they regard as best for their interest and
presumably for the best interest of the community.
6. Thus, parties reflect fundamental political divisions in a society. Parties are
about a part of the society and thus involve partisanship. Thus a party is know by
which part it stands for, which policies it supports and whose interests it upholds.
A political party has three components:
 The leaders,
 The active member and
 The followers
7. Political parties are visibly one of the most visible institutions in a
democracy. For most ordinary citizens, democracy is equal to political parties. If
we travel to remote parts of our country and speak to the less educated citizens,
we could come across people who may not know anything about our Constitution
or about the nature of our government. But chances are that they would know
something about our political parties. At the same time this visibility does not
mean popularity. Most people tend to be very critical of political parties. They
tend to blame parties for all that is wrong with our democracy and our political
life. Parties have become identified with social and political divisions.

CRITERIA TO IDENTIFY POLITICAL PARTIES:

1. A party strives to influence the formation of political opinion and aims to have a
general political impact. The active influence of political opinion-making is aimed
at a longer period of time as well as a wider region and should not be
concentrated on a local level or a single issue.
2. A party is an association of citizens holding individual memberships, and shall
have a minimum number of members, so that the seriousness of its targets and
the prospects of success remain clear.
3. A party has to demonstrate the will to consistently take part in the political
representation of the people during elections. It, therefore, distinguishes itself
from unions, non-governmental organisations and other initiatives that do not
want to carry any political responsibilities for larger sectors but only try to have
selective influence, and that do not participate in elections.
4. A party has to be an independent and permanent organisation; it shall not be
formed only for one election and cease to exist afterwards.
 5. A party must be willing to appear in public.
6. A party does not necessarily need to win a seat in parliament, but it has to fulfil all
the other criteria.

Parties can therefore be understood as permanent associations of citizens that are

based on free membership and a programme, and which are anxious to occupy
through the path of elections, the politically decisive positions of the country with
their team of leaders, in order to materialize suggestions for resolving outstanding
problems. The means of elections implies the competition of at least two parties.

Parties not only strive to participate in the formation of political opinion. They also
aspire to participate in the representation of the people in parliament. This presumes
that parties take part in elections. A party’s political contribution as well as its political
“weight” is closely tied to elections. The will of the voters is of significant importance
for the parties. Typical for parties is their “fighting spirit”—their readiness for political
action and political confrontation—and their aspiration to takeover and retain
governing power. This competition among parties is the instrument to gain political
power and the whole organisation of a party is ultimately subject to this aim. Only those
parties that participate successfully in this competition can obtain posts of political
representation. This is also the main stimulation to participate in party activities and
makes a party especially interesting once it is a part of a government.

Even the less attractive opposition role offers interesting elements for active
participation. Political parties are always the centre/ for debates and discussions about
political reforms and political change. Those interested in politics will mostly find a party
that reflects the own perception, may it be a party in government or opposition. Parties
in opposition exercise an important function in a democratic system as a “watchdog” of
government policy and as a political alternative in the future. Opposition may be
considered awful, but it is essential for the functioning of democracy.

Contrary to INTEREST GROUPS, a party is expected to express itself on all issues

relevant for government. One expects parties to propose views on domestic and
foreign policies, economic and social policies, and youth and civil policies etc. In order
to meet these requirements, each party should have a programme, in which its
fundamental positioning in various areas is retained. Furthermore, one expects a
party to have a consistent organisation.

WHY DO PARTIES EXIST?

1. Within every society there are different opinions, needs, expectations and
views over daily issues; likewise “big” questions on the social organisation, its
norms and procedures also exist. Something like a common will of the people or
a predetermined common good does not exist. In contrast, in every society there
are rivalling interests that often collide very hard. In order to peacefully mediate
conflicts, the formation of political views must take place in an open process of
debate between different opinions. A minimum of common conviction is
 necessary. This is the common sense of democracy. It is based on the principle
that each citizen has the right to represent his opinion and conviction in a
peaceful competition of minds.
2. This assumption of conflicting interests within every society, which in principle
are legitimate, is called pluralism or “competition theory” of democracy.
According to this theory, the formation of political opinion in the pluralistic
society is achieved through an open process of competition between
heterogeneous interests. Due to the diversity of opinions and social conflicts
there is no perfect solution to problems. Decisions have to be made on the basis
of consent and approval of a majority of the citizens. Nevertheless, there may be
no “tyranny of the majority” that offends democratic rules and violates
inalienable human rights. Even majority decisions may imply deficiencies or even
injustice. Therefore, a distinct and constitutionally guaranteed protection of
minorities on the one hand, as well as the recognition of voting or election defeat
of the losing side on the other hand—provided that it is a (largely) free and fair
poll—are constitutive elements of this concept of democracy.
3. Within the context of democratically managed conflicts of interests, political
parties represent particular interests. Only once the contrasting interests are
openly expressed and the parties accord other parties the right to represent
particular interests too, and when the parties agree to the principles of the
political game—for instance, if they agree principally on the democratic
constitution—then it is possible to resolve conflicts in a society and form political
compromises in an appropriate manner.
4. We can also think about it by looking at the non-party based elections to the
Panchayats in many states. Although, the parties do not contest formally, it is
generally noticed that the villages get split into more than one faction, each of
which puts up a ‘panel’ of its candidates. This is exactly what the party does. That
is the reason we find political parties in almost all countries are big or small, old
or new, developed or developing.
5. The rise of political parties is directly linked to the emergence of representative
democracies. As we have seen, large societies need representative democracy. As
societies became large and complex, they also needed some agency to gather
different views on various issues and to present these to the government. They
needed some ways, to bring various representatives together so that a
responsible government could be formed. They needed a mechanism to support
or restrain the government, make policies, justify or oppose them. Political
parties fulfill these needs that every representative government has. We can say
that parties are a necessary condition for a democracy.

PARTIES AND PARTY SYSTEMS:

1. Of course, the freedom of parties must be ensured in the process. That means
that the creation of political parties has to be free of political
constraints. Nevertheless, there may be some limitations with regard to the
creation of parties who openly reject the democratic constitution of a country. In
 principle, however, citizens must posses the right to create a party, to belong to a
party and to express themselves freely in it. Freedom of parties also includes the
notion that nobody can be forced to adhere to a specific party or to remain in it
against his will—as was the case in some countries and still may be. The
affirmation of the diversification of parties is a corollary of the recognition of
pluralistic democracy.
2. This competitive concept of democracy stands opposed to the vision of
homogeneity, which supposes a uniformity of the will of the people. The French
political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 78) had created this vision
that in theory denies the legitimacy of conflicts and defines democracy as the
identity of the government and the citizens. This concept does not accept a for a
plurality of parties. They are not regarded as legitimate, as they would
inevitably falsify the “common will” by their particular behaviour.
3. Deviations from the imposed and mandatory common good are not tolerated
by this theory. However, it is obvious that this concept is characteristic of
totalitarian states where the diversity of parties is banned and where the
“common will” is defined only by a small ruling elite. Consequently, totalitarian
states are identified with Rousseau. It should be noted that even Rousseau could
not clarify how this “common sense” would be discovered and decided. We have
to be aware that modern societies are characterized by a diversity of interests
and world-views. They need political parties as central instances for the
representation of this diversity of interests within the political system.

FUNCTIONS OF POLITICAL PARTIES:

To participate successfully in the political process and to contribute to the consolidation
of democracy, political parties have to demonstrate certain capacities. In political
science, these capacities are called “functions”.

Important Functions of political parties are:

1. They articulate and aggregate social interests: Parties express public

expectations and demands of social groupings to the political system (= function
of political opinion-making).
2. They recruit political personnel and nurture future generations of
politicians: They select persons and present them as candidates for elections (=
function of selection).
3. They develop political programmes: Parties integrate various interests into a
general political project and transform it into a political programme, for which
they campaign to receive the consent and support of a majority (= function of
integration).
4. They promote the political socialisation and participation of citizens: Parties
create a link between citizens and the political system; they enable political
participation of individuals and groupings with the prospect of success. (=
function of socialization and participation).
 5. They organise the government. They participate in elections to occupy political
charges. Normally in party democracies, a good part of government authorities
arise from political parties (= function of exercising political power).
6. They contribute to the legitimacy of the political system: in establishing the
connection between citizens, social groupings and the political system, the parties
contribute in anchoring the political order in the consciousness of the citizens and
in social forces (= function of legitimating).
7. Parties contest elections. In most democracies, elections are fought mainly
among the candidates put up by political parties. Parties select their candidates
in different ways. In some countries, such as the USA, members and supporters of
a party choose its candidates. Now more and more countries are following this
method. In other countries like India, top party leaders choose candidates for
contesting elections.
8. Parties put forward different policies and programmes and the voters choose
from them. Each of us may have different opinions and views on what policies are
suitable for the society. But no government can handle such a large variety of
views. In a democracy, a large number of similar opinions have to be grouped
together to provide a direction in which policies can be formulated by the
governments. This is what the parties do. A party reduces a vast multitude of
opinions into a few basic positions which it supports. A government is expected to
base its policies on the line taken by the ruling party.
9. Parties play a decisive role in making laws for a country. Formally, laws are
debated and passed in the legislature. But since most of the members belong to
a party, they go by the direction of the party leadership, irrespective of their
personal opinions.
10.Parties form and run governments. As we noted last year, the big policy decisions
are taken by political executive that comes from the political parties. Parties
recruit leaders, train them and then make them ministers to run the government
in the way they want.
11.Those parties that lose in the elections play the role of opposition to the parties
in power, by voicing different views and criticizing government for its failures or
wrong policies. Opposition parties also mobilize Opposition to the government.
12.Parties provide people access to government machinery and welfare schemes
implemented by governments. For an ordinary citizen it is easy to approach a
local party leader than a government officer. That is why they feel close to parties
even when they do not fully trust them. Parties have to be responsive to people’s
needs and demands. Otherwise people can reject those parties in the next
elections.

POLITICAL PARTY SYSTEMS:

1. The entire group of parties in a country forms the political party system. The
party system reflects the pattern of relationships between individual parties in
relation to each other. The composition of a party system results mainly from
two factors. On the one hand it is the structure of social conflicts and interests.
 Classical conflicts are for instance those between capital and labour or those
between secular and religiously oriented parties. On the other hand, the party
and electoral laws also exercise considerable influence on the configuration of the
party system depending on how liberal and free or restrictive the creation of new
parties have been laid out and if the electoral system facilitates the
representation of a larger number of parties in the parliament or not. Yet, in pre-
democratic times the existence of one party provoked at least the emergence of
another party.
2. Throughout history, party systems have in principle developed along social
and/or ideological lines of conflict. Party systems can be classified by different
criteria. Most frequently it is the number of parties that are fighting for power
that serves as the criteria for the description of a party system. In this way, one
can differentiate one, two and multi-party systems. In a “singleparty” system only
one party dominates and there is practically no political competition between
parties. A “single-party” system is, as mentioned before, a contradiction in itself
since a “party” should only be part of a larger group. Single party systems are
therefore characterised by the oppression of political competition and democratic
freedom. “Two-party system” means that two parties primarily dominate the
political competition, while other, smaller parties only play a subordinate role. In
a “multi-party system”, more than two parties have an effect on the political
competition.
3. The existence of a two-party or a multi-party system depends on several
different factors: political traditions, the development of political institutions, the
socio-economic circumstances, and the relevance of regional cleavages, and
ethnical or confessional conditions. The specifications of the electoral law can
have certain, but not decisive, influence on the composition of the party system.
The majority voting systems (first-past-the-post-systems) rather favour the
evolution of a two party system (or a system comprising only of a few dominant
parties), whereas a proportional voting system is more likely to favour a multi-
party system. However, there is no distinct connection between electoral and
party systems.
4. The system of government influences the development of parties and party
systems insofar as a parliamentary system offers more influence for political
parties because the government emerges directly from the parliament, which is
dominated by the parties. In a presidential system, it is the head of
government—the president—who is directly elected by the people and thus its
legitimacy is based not primarily on the parliament.
5. In addition, he mostly exercises, beside the parliament, also legislative and
other functions, and he normally has a right to veto parliamentary decisions or
even has the authority to dissolve the parliament. So, at first glance, in
presidential systems parties play a minor role. On the other hand, in presidential
systems the separation of powers is usually more evident because the parties are
not linked so closely with the government. In parliamentary systems, however,
the identity and especially the relationship between the government and the
ruling party or parties is greater. Even so, in a presidential system the president
 also needs the approval of parliament and a parliamentary majority. The relative
independence from the government which the parties enjoy in a presidential
system is of considerable relevance. The number of parties represented in
parliament is only slightly influenced by the system of government. This is rather
a question of social cleavages, eventually also the ethnic and other cleavages in a
country, the structure of conflicts and interests and the electoral system.

TYPOLOGIES OF POLITICAL PARTIES:

Likewise party systems, also the political parties itself can be distinguished by certain
criteria. Such typologies help to sort the heterogeneity of social phenomena, in order to
better understand it. To identify parties, one can consider the characteristic features in
order to note commonalities and differences between individual parties.

Parties can be classified according to a number of different criteria: according to their

level of organisation, their socio-political targets, the social classes that they want to
represent and approach, or their positioning towards the political system. Some
parties can be classified also by their names, which often express special socio-
political objectives that the parties want to be identified with. By their names, parties
demonstrate how they want to be perceived, and that means how they want to be
classified. This confirms that the classification or construction of typologies is not a
mere academic exercise, but part of the political competition of parties. The typologies
emerged initially in view of the multi-party systems in Europe but can also be applied to
other regions. Several typologies are introduced below:

1. Differentiation of parties by their degree of organization:

 ELECTORATE PARTIES: such parties attach less importance to a large
membership, but are particularly active in the scope of elections. The bond of the
voters to such a party is usually weak.
 MEMBERSHIP PARTIES: such parties seek a large membership, preferably in all
parts of the country. Traditionally, it is usually the popular parties and labour
parties that strive for a wellorganised party apparatus and a large membership
(“mass political party”). At the minimum, this facilitates the financing of the party
through membership fees.
2. Differentiation by socio-political objectives: With regard to the criteria of socio-
political objectives, which are aspired to by political parties, one can distinguish
between those parties that seek social or political changes in the frame of the
existing democratic order and parties that strive for changes by radical, extremist
or revolutionary means. The first group is composed of conservative, liberal,
Christian democratic, social democratic, in-part socialist, and also parties that
define themselves by religion or confession as long as they do not represent
extremist positions. To the second group belong mainly extreme rightist or leftist
parties and among those the communist parties, beside others.
 CONSERVATIVE PARTIES: Such parties want to retain the “approved” order or
restore it; they are sceptical of innovations and changes, for instance, with regard
to the perception and the role of the family, and alternative models of life (for
 example, same-sex marriages). They also do not like the transfer of national
sovereignty to supranational institutions, but they do acknowledge that
traditional ideas, values and principles cannot be continuously maintained
without moderate reforms.
 LIBERAL PARTIES: such parties espouse the rights of individual freedom and
emphasise the democratic character of the constitution. Traditionally, they are
anti-clerical and mostly committed to a free market economy.
 SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTIES: such parties mostly emerged in close relation to
the labour movement and their political concepts are based on social equality of
the people; they assign the state with a strong regulating role in the economy and
society.
 SOCIALIST PARTIES: such parties also emerged in close contact to parts of the
labour movement, but they represent a more radical approach to achieving social
equality; the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and a
state-driven economy are central targets of these parties.
 PARTIES DEFINED BY RELIGION are special forms of parties that are characterized
by their social-political objectives. Worldwide, a vast number of parties are more
or less strongly based on religious convictions. There are Christian or Christian
democratic, Islamic and Hindu parties that establish their programmes on the
values and standards of their religion or confession. This can lead to considerable
differences in the political programmes and political objectives of such parties,
depending on how individual parties consider their respective religion’s stand
with regard to individual human rights and individual freedom or to political
democracy. The European Christian Democratic parties, for instance, are
committed to individual freedom, social solidarity and justice, self-responsibility
of the citizens and a discrete role for the state under the supervision of economic
and social actors.
 EXTREME RIGHT-WING PARTIES: such parties preach nationalistic ideologies,
which are often inter mixed with a vague ethnic ideology and possibly racist
perceptions.
 COMMUNIST PARTIES: such parties propagate the dictatorship of the proletariat
and assume a predetermination of history.
3. Differentiation according to the social classes which they intend to approach:
 POPULAR PARTIES: such parties attempt to consider the interests and needs of as
many social groups as possible and therefore try to integrate as many citizens as
possible of various social origins within their party rank and file and to aggregate
different social and political aspirations in their programme.
 PARTIES OF SPECIAL INTEREST: such parties feel responsible for the interests of a
very specific group (a social, confessional, or regional group) and do not claim to
be equally eligible for all parts of the population.
4. Differentiation according to their positioning towards the political system:
 PARTIES CONFORMING TO THE SYSTEM: such parties accept the political system
in which they are active and wish to either stabilize the political order or improve
it gradually with reforms.
  PARTIES OPPOSED TO THE POLITICAL SYSTEM: such parties do not accept the
basic principles of their political system and pursue a change of the system,
mostly with aggressive programmatic proposals.

Political parties rarely correspond completely to one of these classifications. There are
fluent transitions and mixed forms. A membership or mass party for instance can also
be an “interest party” if it represents only the interest of a certain social sector or class
(the labour class for example). Furthermore, other criteria are also possible: for
example, government and opposition party, regional party, protest party, etc.
Nevertheless, the classifications allow the identification of the typical attributes of a
party, which is a relevant element in the process of political competition.

PARTIES AND IDEOLOGIES:

1. Ideologies and specific worldviews are of particular relevance for political

parties. Ideologies are comprehensive visions of societies and social
developments, which contain explanations, values, and goals for past, present
and future developments. Ideologies inspire and justify political and social action.
They are an essential element for political orientation. The term “ideology” has
been and is still used mainly by leftist, communist and socialist parties to
characterize their worldviews and political positions. Nevertheless, other streams
of political thinking can also be denominated as “ideologies”, like, for instance,
liberalism, conservatism, nationalism or fascism.
2. Sometimes, there are comments about a supposed “des-ideologization” of
politics. This refers to the fact that nowadays many parties are stressing their
ideological roots less than their pragmatic approach with regard to social and
political challenges.
3. The above-mentioned concepts, however, make it clear that ideologies still are
of considerable relevance for the identification of worldviews and political
positions. We never reached the “end of ideologies” as has been proclaimed by
the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama at the end of the Cold War. He
supposed that liberal democracy would finally be enforced against all other forms
of governance, and therefore all ideological debates could come to an end.
4. Those who are, or will become, politically engaged should know the different
ideological strands. This is relevant not only for defining one’s own political
position, but also for evaluating other political positions and eventually for
combating them.

CHALLENGES BEFORE POLITICAL PARTIES:

We have seen how crucial political are for the working of democracy. Since parties are
the most visible face of democracy, it is natural that people blame parties for
whatever is wrong with the working of democracy. All over the world, people express
strong dissatisfaction with the failure of political parties to perform their functions
well. This is the case in our country too.
No matter how democracy has been organised in any individual case, and in any
political system, the political parties are the main institutions of democracy. Without
parties, there can be no democracy. The basic functions of political parties have already
been discussed. However, the parties do not have a monopoly in carrying out these
functions and are nowadays—more than in the past—in competition with other
organisations that also carry out these functions, at least in certain areas, and thereby
compete with the parties. The essential differentiating characteristic of a party is and
remains therefore its participation in elections.

Even though parties fulfil essential functions for the political system and democracy,
they also face special challenges in modern democracies. Political parties need to face
and overcome these challenges in other to remain effective instruments of democracy.
Social change and the efficiency (or inefficiency) of dealing with the consequences of
changing societies in the area of politics are the main reasons for these new challenges
for political parties.

1. A classic dilemma for political parties is the impossibility to meet all

expectations directed at them at the same time. As they occupy the political
decision-making instances, people expect concepts and decisions for problems
and demands. Several groups, however, will always feel disadvantaged or develop
new demands, which can usually never be completely satisfied. One just has to
think of the expectation that the state should provide public goods at the same
time as internal and external security, a well-developed road network, public
schools, hospitals, and public housing or benefits, without increasing taxes or
pushing up the national debt. Parties, therefore, are caught in a constant
conflicting relationship between unfulfilled expectations and solutions perceived
to be inadequate.
2. New challenges has emerged from social change and the development of
fragmented societies, which are characterized by the dissipation of traditional
milieus, the erosion of previously stable value systems and the commitments
based on it, a higher level of education, the pluralism of informative sources, as
well as the individual organisation of personal relationships. “Shifting values”,
“individualisation”, “event society”, and “fragmentation of interests” are notions
to describe social phenomena that are directly reflected on the attitude of the
citizens towards the parties. Where social relationships become lost, the
commitment with political parties also gets weaker. Parties feel this effect not
only in the form of decreasing memberships, but also in the decline of stable
voter milieus and unpredictable election forecasts and election outcomes.
3. The change in the mass media and the way of reporting, the growing
competition for attention and audience, as well as the extension of
“investigative” journalism have led to a new form of reporting about politics, in
which ideas, values and results are less important than emotionalisation,
moralisation, scandalisation and personalisation in the form of “infotainment”.
Political scandals and personal behaviour and misbehaviour of politicians are
known faster nowadays. This is certainly a gain in transparency and democratic
control but it can also contribute to the disenchantment and sometimes also the
 trivialisation of politics and its players. The first to feel the negative consequences
of that are the parties.
4. The “modern” dilemma of political parties stems from globalisation. At a
national level, globalisation and its consequences have reduced the room for
political manoeuvres and have shifted decision-making power and management
capabilities to supra-national or international players. Although citizens expect
national political actors to decide on their demands and expectations, important
issues cannot be resolved by national political decision makers. Consequently,
political parties face a loss of confidence in their capacity to decide on important
issues of national interest.

These developments have serious consequences for parties and party systems:

1. Party systems are nowadays much more prone to modifications and more
fragmentised.
2. The time of big mass parties seems to be over. At the very least, although some
parties can still maintain large memberships, it is today much more difficult to
organise large mass rallies.
3. The past virtual monopoly of the parties as the source and place of political
information and reflection has been negated in the era of mass media, modern
information techniques like the internet and alternative areas for political
participation outside of the parties.
4. Parties find it very difficult to retain so-called loyal voters of certain milieus in the
long term.
5. The overall trust level of the population in the parties and in politicians has
dropped and the willingness to engage politically has declined, especially among
young people.
6. Mass media publish more reports about political scandals and about the real or
alleged shortcomings of parties and their top leaders’ inability to manage and
resolve problems. In the same way that the difficulties of political management
have increased in the era of financial, political or ecological globalization, the
technical possibilities for critical reporting has also increased.
7. The increased competition among TV channels and print media has also
contributed to the tendency to report more about real or alleged misbehaviour of
politicians.
8. The respective roles played in the past by the governing and opposition parties
are not as clear anymore, as the big opposition parties do not necessarily benefit
from voters’ dissatisfaction, but instead also lose votes to small or newer protest
parties.
9. Lack of internal democracy within parties. All over the world these is a tendency
in political parties towards the concentration of power in one or few leaders at
the top. Parties do not hold organizational meeting, and do not conduct internal
elections regularly. Ordinary members of the party do not get sufficient
information on what happens inside the party. They do not have the means or the
connections needed to influence the decisions. As a result the leaders assume
greater power to make decisions in the name of the party. Since few leaders
 exercise paramount power in the party, those who disagree with the leadership
find it difficult to continue in the party. More than loyalty to party principles and
politics, personal loyalty to the leader becomes more important.
10.Dynastic succession is related to the first one. Since most political parties do not
practice open and transparent procedures for their functioning, there are very
few ways for an ordinary worker to rise to the top in a party. Those who happen
to be the leaders are in a position of unfair advantage to favour people close to
them or even their family members. In many parties, the top positions are always
controlled by members of one family. This is also bad for democracy, since people
who do not have adequate experience or popular support come to occupy
positions of power. This tendency is present in some measure all over the world,
including in some of the older democracies.
11.The growing role of money and muscle power in parties, especially during
elections. Since parties are focused only on winning elections, they tend to use
shot-cuts to win elections. They tend to use nominate those candidates who have
or can raise lots of money. Rich people and companies who give funds to the
parties tend to have influence on the policies and decisions of the party. In some
cases, parties support criminals who can win elections. Democrats all over the
world are worried about the increasing role of rich people and big companies in
democratic politics.
12.Very often parties do not seem to offer a meaningful choice to the voters. In
order to offer meaningful choice, parties must be significantly different. In recent
years there has been a decline in the ideological differences among parties in
most part of the world. For example, the difference between the Labour Party
and the Conservative Party in Britain is very little. They agree on more
fundamental aspects but differ only in details on how policies are to be framed
and implemented. In our country too, the differences among all the major parties
on the economic policies have reduced. Those who want really different policies
have no option available to them. Sometimes people cannot even elect very
different leaders either, because the same set of leaders keep shifting form one
party to another.
13.The Iron Law of Oligarchy: In a classical work on party research, Robert Michels
had, in 1911, demonstrated the “iron law of oligarchy” (“Reign of a few”).
According to the research, every organisation inevitably brings forth a ruling class,
which it cannot control effectively in the longterm. Accordingly, party leaderships
and party structures also become more and more independent, given the
advance in information technology and the increasing specialisation of politics.
The accumulation of responsibilities and monopoly of power are symptoms of
increasing oligarchy, which constitutes a problem for the democratic formation of
opinion within a party. An improvement in democratic procedures and in the
exchange of views can contribute to the removal of stiff party structures.

CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE AND SUCCESSFUL PARTY WORK

Parties have to be continuously striving to perform their functions under changing social
circumstances. Independent of the regional or national social peculiarities, or the
electoral and government system, there are several criteria that every party should
respect and fulfil, in order to participate successfully in the political competition.

1. A party needs a sufficient, identifiable electoral base. It needs to strive to root

itself in the electoral and interest groups that it wants to represent, in alignment,
obviously, with its basic values and its programmatic profile.
2. A party has to build an extensive organisation in order to practice closeness to
citizens and to be able to mobilise voters.
3. A party has to build an open membership organisation. Membership is
fundamental for the recruitment of its future leaders and should also be a
relevant element for its financial basis. An active membership organisation,
however, requires inner-party democracy, i.e., members who participate
politically and who are able to determine the party leadership and set the course
of the party.
4. A party has to be communicative, both internally and externally. It needs a
functional inner-party information system for all its rank and file on all levels and
for its members. Furthermore, a constant link to the media is necessary. They are
the “gatekeepers” of the political system in the developed media democracy,
generating public awareness.
5. A party has to develop its own programmatic profile, differentiating itself from
others by formulating targets and ways of solution in keeping up to the real
problems of the time. The objective of the programme work is to enable the party
to integrate public expectations and demands and to promote identification with
the party by the citizens.
6. A party has to show a high degree of inner party governability. This is the capacity
to balance between a unified appearance towards the public and the inner-
party’s controversial dialogue. Part of this governability is the selection and
support of the younger generation of party members and party leaders.
7. A party has to be capable of integration. This is the actual key to success and to
the growth of a party. What is meant here is the constant strive to expand its
electoral base, to win over new voters with different interests and young voters
with other lifestyles and to establish a constant connection to these voters.
8. A party must be capable of campaigning. It has to be able to present important
topics and its own profile effectively in public and it must lead flawless election
campaigns with few topics and a clear message for “focused communication”.
9. A party must be capable of forming coalitions. As it is difficult for a party, if not
impossible, especially in the context of past-thepost voting systems, to obtain
absolute majorities in parliament, a party has to be able to form stable coalitions
with other parties to demonstrate governability. The problems of governability
reflect directly on the reputation of the parties. In coalition formation it can be
necessary to overcome deep programmatic and/or personal rifts. This is a
moment where political leaders may show their competency.
10.A party must prove its governability and capacity for solving problems at the local
level. In all countries, the citizens should have the most direct contact with the
parties and its representatives in local politics. Only if the parties can prove
 competency and citizen proximity at this level, can they can expect trust on a
national level.
11.A party must be capable of learning the expectations, and implementing political
programmes that meet the demands within the society. Considering the
increased significance of social nongovernmental organisations and interest
associations, the parties have to intensify their efforts to be in touch with these
intermediate organisations, to understand the expectations of the people, and to
translate them into policies.
12.A law should be made to regulate the internal affairs of political parties. It should
be made compulsory for political parties to maintain a register of its member to
follow its own constitution, to have an independent authority, to act as a judge in
case of party disputes, to hold open election to the highest posts.
13.It should be made mandatory for political parties to give a minimum number of
tickets, about one-third, to women candidates. Similarly, there should be a quota
for women in the decision making bodies of the party.
14.There should be state funding of elections. The government should give parties
money to support their election expenses. This support could be given in kind:
petrol, paper, telephone etc. Or it could be given in cash on the basis of the votes
secured by the party in the last election.
15.Citizens can put pressure on political parties. This can be done through petitions,
publicity and agitations. Ordinary citizens, pressure groups and movement and
the media can play an important role in this. If political parties feel that they
would lose public support by not taking up reforms, they would become more
serious about reforms.
16.Political parties can improve if those who want this join political parties are pro-
reform. The quality of democracy depends on the degree of public participation.
It is difficult to reform politics if ordinary citizens do not take part in it and simply
criticize it from the outside. The problem of bad politics can be solved by more
and better politics. But we must be very careful about legal solutions to political
problems. Over-regulation of political parties can be counterproductive. This
would force all parties to find ways to cheat the law. Besides, political parties will
not agree to pass a law that do not like.

Quota for women and minorities:

1. Even though most constitutions all over the world stipulate equal treatment of
men and women, women are under-represented worldwide in parties and
political leading functions. In many countries efforts are being made to achieve
stronger participation of women in politics. An intensified contribution in parties
is a basic requirement for this purpose.
2. In order to give women a larger space for political contribution and involvement,
a statutory female quota has been set up in many countries with different
regulations. Usually, the point is to reserve a minimum number of party offices
and positions for women during elections. Experience shows that such quota
 regulations—where they work!—can in practice actually contribute to a higher
percentage of women in politics.
3. However, experience has also shown that quota regulations are often not put into
practice, so the outcome is that there are no more women in the parliaments
than before. Hence, there must be effort to ensure that the female quotas take
effect and that there is an increase in the percentage of women in politics, i.e.
also in parliaments. This is certainly a question of political culture that needs time
to develop.
4. Some parties apply quota regulations to guarantee certain minorities’ appropriate
cooperation within their rank and file. Policies to guarantee ethnic minority
representation take place in two forms: candidate nomination quotas in political
parties and legislative reservation. Legislative reservation includes reserving seats
for specific groups and only members of a group can vote for the representative
of the group.
5. This leads to a separate voters roll for the minorities. This system is not very
favourable in a multicultural society as it undermines any incentive for political
inter-mixing between communities. The participation of ethnic or racial minorities
in legislatures often raises the questions as to what level these groups are
represented in the parties and legislatures and to what extent they can influence
policy and decision-making.
6. There have been significant efforts among political parties to increase support by
ethnic minorities. They are recruited through the establishment of ethnic liaisons
units by political parties in order to increase the parties’ profiles within the ethnic
communities. This can play an important part in local elections because unless the
ethnic minorities get their share in representation, no aspiring ruling party is
going to get their support in return.

Let us look at some of the recent efforts and suggestions in Indian Society to reform
political parties and its leaders:

1. The Constitution was amended to prevent elected MLAs and MPs from changing
parties. This was done because many elected representatives were indulging in
defection in order to become ministers or for cash rewards. Now the law says
that if any MLA or MP changes parties, he or she will lose the seat in the
legislature. This new law has helped bring defection down. At the same time has
made any dissent even more difficult. MPs and MLAs have to accept whatever the
party leaders decide.
2. The Supreme Court passed an order to reduce the influence of money and
criminals. Now, it is mandatory for every candidate who contests elections to file
an affidavit giving details of his property and criminal cases pending against him.
This information is now available to the public. But there is no system to check if
the information given by the candidates is true. As yet we do not know if it has
led to decline in the influence of the rich and to decline in the influence of the
rich and the criminals.
3. The Election Commission passed an order making it necessary fore political
parties to hold their organizational elections and file their income tax returns. The
 parties have started doing so but sometimes it is mere formality. It is not clear if
this step has led to greater internal democracy in political parties.

CONCLUSION:

1. Despite all the weaknesses of parties and in spite of all the challenges that parties
have to face, one thing remains certain: without parties, democracy cannot
function. In a democracy the parties are still the most important connecting link
between state and society. But indeed they have to adapt to the social changes so
as to make sure they are not swallowed by them.
2. The formation of political opinion and consensus in mass democracy are an
endlessly laborious, partly ungratifying and constantly endangered process
involving the lacklustre everyday life of committees, commissions and assemblies.
The formation of political opinion, consensus building and government for the
benefit of the whole society cannot bypass or even be against the political
parties, but can only involve them.
3. As much as citizens’ initiatives and social movements are necessary for political
innovation, opposition and criticism, in the end, they depend very much on the
parties to carry the responsibility in the long-term and the parties are the ones
that therefore have to face the population at regular intervals in the context of
elections.
4. Parties carry out a political leadership role that a modern democracy cannot do
without. Especially in times of changethis political leadership must be responsible
and visible for the citizens and connected to the interests and demands of the
citizens. As Konrad Adenauer, the first chancellor and prime minister of the
Federal Republic of Germany after the Second World War has stated: “Each
political party exists for the benefit of the people and not for itself. Political
parties, their members and leaders are therefore more than ever required to face
this responsibility.”

Nation, State, Citizenship, Democracy, Civil society, Ideology

State and Nation:
Aristotle defined state as A UNION OF FAMILIES AND VILLAGES HAVING, FOR ITS END,
A PERFECT AND SELF-SUFFICING LIFE, WHICH MEANS HAPPY AND HONORABLE
LIFE. According to MacIver the state is an association, which acting through law as
promulgated by government, endowed to this end with coercive power, maintains
within a community territorially demarcated universal external conditions of social
order. It can otherwise be said that WHEN A GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE PERMANENTLY
SETTLED ON A DEFINITE TERRITORY AND HAVE GOVERNMENT OF THEIR OWN, FREE
FROM ANY KIND OF EXTERNAL CONTROL, THEY CONSTITUTE A STATE AND IT HAS
SOVEREIGN POWER UPON ITS PEOPLE.

According to MACIVER’S DEFINITION, the following elements can be considered as the

important ones for state:
  A specific region and its inhabitants(ii) The region free from outer control
 Requirement of a sovereign Goventernmt.
 The state applies power to control and unify the people and the means are:
legislature, judiciary and executive and armed forces.

Normally, four elements are universally accepted:

1. Territory
2. Population
3. Government
4. Sovereignty

State uses power as a mechanism to keep the society bound together. The state uses
power as legislative, judicial, military and planning function. Through legislative
function it enforces the norms of the society, judicial function uses power to exert
physical force for the protection of citizen’s lives and property military function uses
power to establish relations with other societies and planning function is
related to the allocation of scarce goods and resources.

Concept of state as elaborated in different theoretical models:

KARL MARX ON STATE:
Although Marx had no fully developed theory of state, he did discuss it in various ways
throughout his writings. Marx traces the development of the state of the division of
labour in the society. Primitive societies are simple and less complex. So state is non-
existent in primitive Societies. With change in forces of production, surplus wealth
and private propert appears in society. And there arises some central organizing
agency to control. This ultimately leads to the formation of state. His views on state are
closely related to his classification of society.

1. For MARX the STATE IS FORCE AND STATE EXERCISES POWER AND AUTHORITY
FOR PROMOTING THE INTERESTS OF THE DOMINANT CLASS AND SUPPRESSING
AND EXPLOITING THE WEAKER CLASSES WHO ARE COLLECTIVELY CALLED AS
PROLETARIAT IN THE CONTEXT OF CAPITALIST SOCIETY. He views state as a
manmade institution rather than a natural institution. The Marxists look at the
state as a product of class struggle and as an instrument of class rule. Thus, for
Marx, the state is essentially as class structure, an organization of one class
dominating over other classes. He views that state as originated at a certain stage
of economic development in the history of humanity, when society was broken
into two classes, namely ‘haves’ and have-nots’.
2. In Marxist theory the most important activity of human beings is economic
activity. According to him understanding the way a society organizes its
production is the key to understand the whole of its social structure. His view is
that the production of the means of subsistence forms the foundation upon
which various institutions; the legal conception, art and even the ideas on religion
of the people concerned have been evolved. Marx stresses economic production
 as they key structural feature of any society and he called the way it organizes it
production as its INFRASTRUCTURE. The rest of its social organization – its
noneconomic activities such as ideas, beliefs and philosophies, legal system, the
state etc. – he called SUPERSTRUCTURE. The super structure of any form of
society is affected by its infrastructure i.e., the economic activities of the society.
State according to Marx is a noneconomic institution and hence a part of
superstructure. The formation and functioning of the state is therefore depend
on the way the society organizes its economic production. (Marx called the
different ways of production of goods in the society as MODES OF
PRODUCTION. And based on the modes of production Marx distinguished five
historical epochs in the development of humanity. These in chronological order
are primitive communist, ancient, feudal, capitalist and communist, each
depicting its own characteristic state and government.
3. Apart from the first and last modes of production i.e. the primitive communist
and communist mode, each mode of production has one crucial characteristic in
common. Each of them produces goods based on class. In each of the historical
epochs there are two classes; one is the minority dominant class, the one which
owns the modes of production and the other majority subordinate class, the class
that does not own means of production or the exploited class which do the
productive work.
4. Those who own means of production control the state. Whenever there is
change in the mode of production in a society, the government (the physical
form of state) also undergoes simultaneous change. And irrespective of the form
of the society (ancient, feudal or capitalist) the state invariably is, according to
Marx, an instrument for exploitation in the hands of dominant class.
5. Marx’s deliberation of state as an institution is mainly based on the capitalist
form of society. For him state is a centralized organizing agency, which was
necessarily involved in the domination of one class over the others. The
prominent classes Marx talks about in relation to capitalist society are
bourgeoisie and proletariat. According to Marx, capitalism is an inherently
expanding system and the social class at its helm (bourgeoisie) is carried into
political power not because of any deliberate or conscious action but because
that is the way the society develops.
6. It is argued that Marx believed the state to be a sort of conspiracy against the
working class, or that the wealth of the bourgeoisie could be used to ensure
that whoever is in power pursues its interests (Miller 1991). For Marx, the
concern of the state of individual liberty could be seen as an attempt to enforce
the right of the individual property owner (bourgeoisie) against those without
property (Proletariat) whose only power lay in their banding together to take
collective action. The political struggle for trade union rights represents the
collective action of proletariat.

MAX WEBER ON STATE:

Marx Weber suggested in Politics as a Vocation that the STATE IS A HUMAN’S
COMMUNITY OR A SPECIAL KIND OF INSTITUTION THAT CLAIMS THE MONOPOLY OF
LEGITIMATE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE WITHIN A GIVEN TERRITORY. By this he meant
not ONLY THAT THE STATE HAD THE ABILITY TO ENSURE THE OBEDIENCE OF ITS
CITIZENS BUT ALSO THE ACKNOWLEDGED RIGHT TO DO SO. A monopoly of legitimate
violence is therefore the practical expression of the state sovereignty. He saw the
state as the most powerful institution in modern society it has gained the legitimate
monopoly of force over a given territory.

CHARACTERISTICS OF MODERN STATE:

 First, it has A LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, which is subject to change by

legislation only. It has an administration which works in accordance with
legislation. This means that civil servants and judiciary do not make up their own
rules but implement those formed by the legislature.
 Secondly the state has BINDING AUTHORITY ON ALL ITS MEMBERS AND OVER
THE ACTS carried out in its territory.
 Third the MEMBERSHIP is usually given by birth.
 Finally state can use FORCE if that is legally prescribed and permitted.

1. For Weber the ‘POLITICAL SOCIETY’ is one whose EXISTENCE AND ORDER is
continuously SAFE-GUARDED within a given TERRITORIAL AREA by THE THREAT
AND APPLICATION OF PHYSICAL FORCE on the part of THE ADMINISTRATIVE
STAFF. And a ‘political Society’ becomes a ‘STATE’ where it is able to exercise
successfully a legitimate monopoly over the organized use of force within a
given territory.
2. WEBER OPPOSED TO MARX’S ECONOMIC DETERMINISM. According to Weber
legal, religious and political institutions and their inter relationship has decisive
significance to economic structures and economic development not vice-versa as
seen by Marx. He took CONCENTRATION OF THE MEANS OF
ADMINISTRATION as most important factor in the state. This in turn has close
association with his typology of domination. Weber talks about three types of
domination: charismatic, traditional and legal-rational. According to him these
three types of domination coexist in any situation but it is likely that one or other
will be domination. Weber says-rational domination is more predominant in
modern state.
3. According to Weber THE MODERN STATE IS LEGITIMATE IF PEOPLE BELIEVE IN
ITS LEGITIMACY. Any three kind of domination can exist in modern state. We
cannot choose between the three on any rational ground, each can be justified on
its own ground. Each system justifies on itself; traditional domination justified by
tradition, charismatic domination by charisma and in rational legal domination
laws are legitimate if they are enacted according to the law. There is no overall or
superior set of values by means of which we choose better or worse system.
4. WEBER believed that in modern state any norm could be enacted as law with the
expectation that it would be obeyed; government and government apparatus are
bound by the abstract system that these laws comprise and justice is the
application of this laws. In such a system of governance people hold authority,
doing so by virtue of being temporary office bearers rather than possessing
 personal authority and people obey laws not the office bearers who enforced
them. The state with a rational legal authority could not interfere with individual
rights without the consent of the people through the duly elected
representatives.
5. For Weber BUREAUCRACY IS THE ORGANIZATIONAL APPARATUS OF THE
MODERN STATE and the modern capitalist state is completely dependent upon
bureaucratic organization for its continued existence. Weber describes the state
as gaining its power in modernity by concentrating the means of administration in
the hands of an absolute monarch. Bureaucratic set up developed, for example in
ancient Egypt, when the monarch needed a permanent army, to ensure supplies
of arms and military equipment.
6. According to Weber these developments were the most important factors
promoting the emergence of the modern state in which the expert officialdom,
specialization based division of labour is wholly separated from ownership of its
means of administration. Officials in modern, rational bureaucracies have little or
no control over what they do since the rules and procedures of bureaucracies
take on a life of their own, restricting the activities and decisions of those who
work in them to the functions of the offices they fill. The bureaucracy become the
‘steel-hard housing’ in modern state.
7. This growth of MODERN-RATIONAL STATE, which has its corpus of bureaucratic
officials, IS NOT WHOLLY DERIVATIVE OF ECONOMIC RATIONALIZATION, but to
some extent PRECEDED THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM AS WELL AS
CREATED CONDITION, WHICH PROMOTED ITS RISE. The head of the system of
the legal authority or bureaucracy is the head of the state. And it can hold a
position through appropriation, election or designated by succession. But even
then his or her power is legally limited.
8. ACCORDING TO WEBER, THOUGH RATIONALIZATION IS EVIDENT IN ECONOMIC
LIFE, CULTURAL LIFE ETC. OF A SOCIETY IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY EVIDENT IN THE
MODERN INSTITUTION OF ADMINISTRATION, MORE ESPECIALLY
BUREAUCRACY. He says neither capitalism with its connection with liberalism nor
state socialism with its formal commitment to social justice, can avoid the use of
bureaucratic means of administrative domination. The impersonality and
calculability characters of the bureaucracy are seen not only as constraining but
also as extremely efficient in securing the popular compliance with the structures
of domination. They are for Weber a key instance of the typical modern form of
legitimate domination that is replacing the appeal of tradition as society’s
predominant legitimating principle.

EMILE DURKHEIM ON STATE:

Durkheim discusses THE NATURE AND FEATURES OF THE STATE in his work Professional
Ethics and Civic Morals. According to him the opposition of governing and the governed
is central in political life. HIS VIEWS ON STATE ARE VERY MUCH ASSOCIATED TO HIS
EXPLANATION OF DIVISION OF LABOUR AND TYPES OF SOLIDARITY. Durkheim traced
the development of the state to the division of labour in the society, AS SOCIETIES
BECAME MORE COMPLEX there occurred the distinction between GOVERNING AND
GOVERNED, which in turn resulted in the FORMATION OF STATE.

For Durkheim THE FUNCTION OF STATE was to MEDIATE BETWEEN DIFFERENT

INTERESTS and in particular TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST THE POWER OF
SMALLER GROUPS. That is how state protects individual and balance group interests.

1. Mechanical solidarity is the trademark of less developed or primitive society

where division of labour is very little. Whereas societies with highly developed
division of labour are held together by organic solidarity. For Durkheim there was
no politics or state existed in primitive societies because there was no or little
division of labour and hence no grouping into government and governed.
2. At the same time he argues that the division of a social group into governing
and governed to not only exist in states; there is a similar division in the
patriarchal household as well. Durkheim tries to make a distinction between
state and such organization. The size and control of a determinate territory will
distinguish state from such organization.
3. For Durkheim the crucial feature of a state is that IT CONTROLS NOT
NECESSARILY LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE but a number of different
SECONDARY SOCIAL GROUPINGS. THE STATE IS THE ORGANIZATION OF
OFFICIALS CONCERNED WITH GOVERNING THESE SECONDARY GROUPS. It is not
an embodiment of society as whole, but specialized institutions.
4. Durkheim next takes up THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE STATE OF THE INDIVIDUAL.
This according Durkheim, is not an issue in societies where
MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY dominated where individuals were absorbed into the
social whole; But as ORGANIC SOLIDARITY develops, the power of the state
develops so also the rights of the individuals. THE GROWTH OF THE STATE DOES
NOT THREATEN BUT ENABLES THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.
5. Durkheim makes a clear distinction between SOCIETY AND THE STATE. Every
society is dynamic. As societies become more complex, then there is a need for
individuals to move from one group to other group and need to prevent the
secondary groups exercising despotic control over its members, it is the function
of the state to provide this need. Durkheim’s argument was that the individual
members of society felt their commitment to society, the function of the state
was to create and protect the space where the individuals could exercise such
responsibility.
6. For Durkheim society is ‘sui generous’. His notion of society dominated
everything else’ society exists over and above the individual over whom it
exercises an immense power. This notion of society reflects in his idea about
state also. For Durkheim STATE essentially is a MEDIATOR BETWEEN
INDIVIDUAL AND SECONDARY GROUPS. The secondary groups are developed in
society, as the division becomes more sophisticated as in modern society. The
secondary groups mediate between society and the individual just as state
mediates between the individual and secondary group.
THE NATION:
In modern times the nation is THE LARGEST EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY WHICH IS
PERMEATED BY A CONSCIOUSNESS OF A COMMON KIND. Some writers equate nation
with statehood and opine that people of a state are a nation. Hans Kohn, Frederick
Hertz, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels have recognized that the nation is distinctly an
historical phenomenon. All these writers and thinkers agree that the nation is an
historical and sociological phenomenon and the nation evolved out of the amalgam of
various racial and kinship groups after the break up of slavery and feudal societies.

 NATION is defined as A GROUP OF PEOPLE COHESIVELY ATTACHED WITH EACH

OTHER by the fact of BELONGING TO ONE RACE, LANGUAGE, RELIGION,
CULTURE, GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION etc. and have SIMILAR POLITICAL
AMBITIONS AND UNIFORM HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT. The feeling attached
with it is called NATIONALITY.
 But this definition connotes a narrow meaning, which when applied in the state
as a whole, divides it in different nations which eventually create many bad
consequences. FOR EXAMPLE, emergence of many conflicting and separatist
activities and related demands, subsequently the state faces many serious
problems, e.g., in India, demands of Khalistan, Kashmir, North-East states etc.
 Such Problems have been seen worldwide. Therefore some symbols were used
as a solution to bring uniformity so that a nationality could develop for the
whole state, eg., national emblem, national anthem, national language,
national game, animal and bird etc. to develop one culture in a state.

FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR EMERGENCE OF NATION:

There are some objective factors whose presence has been helpful in evolving the
nation. It is at the same time asserted that the presence of each or any of them is not
absolutely indispensable. The more important of such factors are: THE COMMUNITY
OF COMMON LANGUAGE, GEOGRAPHICAL AND COMMON ECONOMIC TIES AND
COMMON HISTORY AND TRADITIONS. But there is no unanimity even in respect of
them. According to PROFESSOR MACLVER there are scarcely any two nations which
find their positive support in the same objective factors.

1. RACE AND KINSHIP: While it is true that ‘unity of race and kinship helps in
cementing people together’, to argue that ‘such unity is an indispensable
objective factor is unacceptable’. F.Schuman points out if pure races ever existed
they have long since disappeared as a result of migrations, wars, conquests,
travels over thousands of years. All modern nations have been formed out of
peoples of diverse racial and tribal groups. India’s unity in Diversity and
America’s ‘Melting Pot’ theories are the best examples.
2. COMMUNITY OF RELIGION: Unity of religion has been and can be a great
cementing force and has played a significant role in the past in consolidating
nations. The modern nation is a territorial community. It includes and embraces
all persons of ethnic stock and religious faith residing on a permanent basis on the
same territory and therefore also participants in the history and traditions of the
 land. In this age of democracy and secularism to advance religion as an objective
factor indispensable for the formation of a nation is to encourage religious bigotry
and persecution and thereby to undermine the very foundations of secular
democracy.
3. COMMON HISTORY OR TRADITIONS: The possession of a common language,
geographical contiguity and common economic ties are bonds which make the
people living together share same experiences and develop a certain amount of
common outlook and also have common aspirations. This creates among them a
common psychological make-up or character. The character of people is a
reflection of the conditions of life they have lived and led together. The reference
to national character does not negate the existence of individual variations.
4. COMMUNITY OF ECONOMIC TIES: This point was emphasized by Karl Marx. Since
then its significance has been realized. When it was conceded that the nation was
a historical and a sociological phenomenon, attention began to be paid to the
conditions under which nations arise. A nation as a territorial community could
not exist in the ancient period or in the ages of slavery and feudalism. The nation
arises out of the fusion of clans, tribes and ethnic groups. It is the growth of
exchange between regions and the creation of a home market which leads to the
creation of nationalities.
5. In MODERN SOCIETY, viewing nation and state separately would keep on creating
anomalies, its realisation led the thinkers and planners to INTEGRATE THE TWO
TO UNDERSTAND THE REAL MEANING OF THESE TWO CONCEPTS. In this way,
the concept that developed, would understand state in reference to nation and
nation in reference to state as NATION-STATE. Therefore, no step would be taken
to create regional and so cultural imbalance. Finally, integration would be the
best effort to tackle any problem related with unadjustment. In this context,
India’s unity in Diversity and America’s ‘Melting Pot’ theories are the best
examples.

NATION- STATE:

1. A NATION is a nationality which has organized itself into a political body either
independent or desiring to be independent. The state is a territorially organized
people. NATION is a group of people who feel their uniqueness and oneness
which they are keen to maintain. If this group of people happen to organize
themselves on a particular territory and desire independence or are independent
they form a nation state.
2. THE MEMBERS OF A STATE MAY BELONG TO DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES.
 Nationality is subjective, statehood is objective.
 Nationality is psychological, statehood is political.
 Nationality is a condition of mind whereas statehood is a condition of law.
 Nationality is a spiritual possession whereas statehood is an enforceable
obligation.
 Sovereignty is emphasized as an essential element of state but not of nation.
 3. NATION SIGNIFIES CONSCIOUSNESS OF UNITY PROMPTED BY PSYCHOLOGICAL
AND SPIRITUAL FEELINGS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE SOVEREIGN. The
physical element of sovereignty is not as important as the psychological element
of the feeling of oneness.

The Growth of Nation State- Competition and Conflict Theory:

Nation state was born of competition and conflict. The Hundred Years War gave rise to
two rival groups across the English Channel each feeling a consciousness of kind –the
English and the French. The War of Roses gave rise to a united English nation under the
Tudor dictatorship. Rivalry in discovery and piracy on the high seas cemented national
solidarity among the participants –the English, the French, the Portuguese, and the
Spaniards. The American nation was born of conflict. Liberty, Equality and Fraternity of
French Revolution overran most of Europe and thereby sowed the seeds of national
consciousness among the defeated countries. The German nation was born of conflict
of war with France. The Italian nation under Mazzini and Garibaldi came into being as a
resurgent movement in protest against Austrian domination.

The Growth of Democratic Nation State:

The idea of democratic nation state is of recent growth. POLITICALLY THE FIRST STEP
WAS THE UNIFICATION OF ALL AUTHORITY IN THE HANDS OF POWERFUL
CENTRALIZED INDEPENDENT MONARCHIES which took the place of ineffective and
petty feudal authorities. After innumerable conflicts the principle of state absolutism
became supreme in Europe. All the great reformers of enjoined on their followers
passive obedience to the state. They held that the rulers to whom obedience was due
ruled by divine right. In England their teaching paved the way for Tudor and Stuart
despotism.

1. Such despotism however did not remain unchallenged. THE PEOPLE WITH THE
GROWTH OF ENLIGHTENMENT AND REALIZATION OF THEIR POWER AND
IMPORTANCE SLOWLY STARTED OBTAINING CERTAIN RIGHTS FROM THE
RULERS. THE MONARCH LOST HIS STATUS OF A SUPERIOR BEING WITH DIVINE
RIGHTS. Royal absolutism was no longer necessary once the object of bringing
order and unity was fulfilled. POLITICAL PARTIES grew stronger and developed
into open organizations representing liberal attitudes on various questions of
interest to the constitutional group.
2. THE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT STARTED IN SOME COUNTRIES, somewhere it
was violent whereas in some monarchs willingly yielded to the popular will and
were content to remain as figureheads under a democratic government. The
sovereignty of the people became recognized and the democratic nation state
came to be established.

NATIONALISM: Nationalism is a state of mind that seeks to make the nation an effective
unity and the object of man’s supreme loyalty. It has developed in the western world
and is today growing in the other parts of the world. It has prepared the way for
modern democratic nation states. It has extended the area of national liberty and
individual freedom. Nationalism serves as a source of integration within the state but it
is dangerous when it denies the common interest that binds nation to nation. Then it
becomes ethnocentrism or chauvinism which is intolerant or imperialism which seeks
territorial expansion and political domination. When nationalism cuts one people from
another ,it impedes the development of harmonious intergroup of international
relations and sows the seeds of international rivalry and wars. In its pure form,
nationalism may be binding ideal but in its narrow form it becomes a cause of serious
division between nations. Nationalism is a long historical process with strong sentiments
attached to it. In the words of Hayes: nationalism when it becomes synonymous with
the purest patriotism will prove a unique blessing to humanity and to the world.

NATIONALITY IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL DISPOSITION OR SENTIMENT. According to

ZIMMERMANN nationality like religion is subjective psychological, a condition of mind,
a spiritual possession, a way of feeling, thinking and living. Nationality is an instinct. It is
a cultural concept. It springs from a heritage of memories whether of great achievement
and glory of disaster and suffering. MACLVER defined nationality as a type of
community sentiment created by historical circumstances and supported by common
psychological factors to such an extent and so strong that those who feel it desire to
have a common government peculiarly or exclusively their own.

CITIZENSHIP:
The state exists to promote the welfare of the individual. The individual members of a
state have been called, in recent times, its citizens. Etymologically considered,
‘citizenship’, implies the fact of residence in a city (i. e., a city-state). A ‘citizen’ means
one who lives in a city. But, now-a-days, the world has come to have a much larger
meaning. We say ‘a citizen of India’ although India is not a city. So a citizen means
member of a community, or a State. Just as a man owes a duty to his father and mother,
so a citizen owes a duty to the State. For the State is more than father and mother.
When one is young one goes on making demands on one’s parents. But when one
grows up one realizes that one owes service and sacrifice to one’s parents and elders. It
is the same with a citizen. When a citizen is young in citizenship, he makes a demands
on the State and expects everything to be done for him.

Citizenship consists not merely in enjoying certain rights and guarantees, but also in
discharging one’s obligations conscientiously. There should be a desire to contribute
one’s mite to the welfare of society manifested in an active participation in public
affairs for the improvement of cultural, political and material aspects of social
life. Without such participation citizenship is meaningless. It aims at the common good
as distinct from exclusively sectional good. It depends not only upon enlightenment but
also on a high average of character—a character essentially social in its make-up, a
spontaneous regard for the happiness and welfare of others as LASKI puts it, “the
contribution of one’s instructed judgment to public good.”

Citizenship has been defined as the LEGAL STATUS OF MEMBERSHIP OF A STATE. THE
LEGAL STATUS signified a SPECIAL ATTACHMENT BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE
POLITICAL COMMUNITY. With the creation of the modern state, CITIZENSHIP came to
signify certain equality with regard to the rights and duties of membership to the
state. The modern state began to administer citizenship. State determines who gets
citizenship, what the associated benefits are, and what rights and privileges it entails.
As a legal status, citizenship has come to imply a unique, reciprocal, and unmediated
relationship between the individual and the political community. Citizenship, in short,
is nothing less than the right to have rights.

WHO IS A CITIZEN?
In brief a citizen is A PERSON WHO ENJOYS RIGHTS AND PERFORMS HIS DUTIES IN A
STATE. Anyone who lives in India is not an Indian citizen. Because besides citizens,
aliens also live here. Therefore, EVERY INHABITANT OF THE COUNTRY IS NOT
A CITIZEN.

1. A citizen is one who is a MEMBER OF THE STATE AND WHO PARTICIPATES IN THE
PROCESS OF GOVERNMENT. In a democratic society THERE MUST BE TWO WAY
TRAFFIC BETWEEN THE CITIZENS AND THE GOVERNMENT.
2. All GOVERNMENTS DEMAND CERTAIN DUTIES FROM ITS CITIZENS AND ALL
CITIZENS HAVE TO OBSERVE THOSE DUTIES. But in turn, THE STATE MUST ALSO
ADMIT SOME DEMANDS OF ITS CITIZEN ON ITSELF.
3. SUBJECT in Non DEMOCRATIC STATES: People who live in States which are not
democratic often do not enjoy political right. In such a State the government
expects the SUBJECTS to perform their duties to pay taxes, to obey laws do
whatever else the government wants of them. But they cannot question STATE
RULES or ask them to explain their STATE ACTION. Politics in these societies is like
one way traffic. The government tells the people what to do and what not to do
but does not listen to them in return. Only the rulers have rights. The ruled have
none and hence they are not citizens.

DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP:

Historically, the term ‘CITIZEN’ WAS LINKED WITH THE RISE OF DEMOCRACY. The
demand for democratic government came up first in a few western societies, like
England, France and the United States of America. Democracy means that everybody
should have political rights. When one has political rights, the right to vote and the
right to participate in decisionmaking on important questions facing one’s society, one
is a CITIZEN.

1. Of course, all these ideas did not grow up all of a sudden. It took a long time for
them to mature. They grew up gradually. UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE A SYSTEM in
which literally everybody can vote – is a fairly recent development. THE IDEALS
OF DEMOCRACY MADE PEOPLE FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS AGAINST
MONARCHICAL GOVERNMENT. Many of the ideas of which democracy is made
up are accepted after great revolutions. For instance, after the revolution of 1789
France became a republic. All citizens, it was said, were equal: they had equal
rights. Not surprisingly, the word ‘citizen’ was made popular by the French
 Revolution in 1789. Later on, this word was used whenever democracies were set
up.
2. At present IT IS COMMON TO TREAT PEOPLE IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES AS
‘CITIZENS’. It means that in relation to the government, THE INDIVIDUALS ARE
ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROCESS OF GOVERNANCE. They not only obey
and listen to what the government says the government must also listen to them
in turn.
3. IN democratic state CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINION
FREELY, TO BE CONSULTED AND TO BE INVOLVED IN THE POLITICS OF THE
COUNTRY. In democratic politics, the common human being no longer is treated
as an outsider.
4. A DEMOCRATIC STATE PARTICULARLY DEPENDS ON THE QUALITY OF ITS
CITIZENS. If citizens do not take interests in politics, a democratic state might also
gradually become undemocratic.
5. Conversely DEMOCRACY CAN BE STRENGTHENED IF THE CITIZENS HAVE A CLEAR
VIEW OF OTHER OWN RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS; if they demand
what they can claim from the government; and if they know what the
government can claim from them.
6. Many social evils cannot be fought only by the government passing laws against
them. There is a NEED TO CREATE AN INTENSE SOCIAL OPINION AMONG
CITIZENS AGAINST SUCH SOCIAL EVILS. A society is after all made by humans and
not by laws.
7. One essential condition for A DEMOCRATIC STATE IS THAT CITIZENS MUST
PARTICIPATE IN THE GOVERNING PROCESS. The quality of democracy improves if
citizen from all walks of life participate in its activities and if they take interest in
the basic processes of making importance decisions for their society. Democracy
implies that the decisions affecting the whole society should be taken as far as
possible by the whole society by citizens participation.
8. In a democracy, A GOOD CITIZEN IS ONE WHO IS CONSCIOUS OF BOTH RIGHTS
AND DUTIES. For EXAMPLE, the right to vote is one of our most important rights
and it is our duty also to exercise the right to vote. If a person does not vote she
or he cannot be considered a good citizen, though otherwise she or he may be a
good person.
9. In a democracy, GOOD CITIZEN SHOULD NOT ONLY BE CONSCIOUS OF THEIR
OWN RIGHTS ALONE, BUT ALSO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IS ITS DUE THEY
SHOULD OBEY LAWS THAT ARE MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE AND PAY
TAXES. These are their duties towards the government. But they must also
perform their duties to other citizens. And the most important duty of every
citizen is to respect the rights of others. FOR EXAMPLE, Our Constitution gives
everyone the right to practice one’s religion. Every citizen, should practice religion
in her/his own way; but in doing so one must respect the right of other citizens to
practice their religion in the way they like. The qualities of good citizens must,
therefore, include a consciousness of their own right tolerance for others and
respect for laws.
CITIZENSHIP: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:
In the 19thC. Britain and USA provided the voting right even to commoners and
eventually CIVIL RIGHTS were completed. In the countries like Sweden citizen’s rights
were denied even till the advent of 20th C., which saw people fighting for their rights
under socialist ideology and leadership, which subsequently created revolutionary
socialism on the one hand, and achievement of citizen’s rights on the other. Similarly till
Russian Revolution people were not provided equal rights to vote and freedom. In
Germany civil rights were achieved late in 19th C. under the dominance of Reformative
Democracy and non-revolutionary socialism.

British sociologist T.H. MARSHAL has first time wrote in details about citizenship and
given the prime importance to class-struggle in modern states in which he included
the ideas of Marx and Weber. Marshal envisages that CAPITALISM HAS INCREASED
CLASS-STRUGGLE IN MODERN SOCIETIES. T. H. Marshall wrote a seminal essay on
citizenship, titled “Citizenship and Social Class”. This was published in 1950. He
analysed THE DEVELOPMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AS A DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIL, then
POLITICAL, then SOCIAL RIGHTS. These were broadly assigned to the eighteenth,
nineteenth and twentieth centuries respectively.

1. His distinctive contribution was to introduce THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL

RIGHTS understood as the welfare rights. Social Rights are awarded not on the
basis of class or need, but rather on the status of citizenship. He claimed that
the extension of social rights does not entail the destruction of social classes
and inequality. In Britain, citizenship was obtained at three stages:
 Urban Citizenship (Civil) – 18th Century: Equality before law, individual freedom,
right of speech and religion, right to possess property and to obtain contracts.
 Political citizenship-19th Century: Right to vote and to be voted.
 Social Citizenship-20th Century : Complete participation of individuals in state.
2. CRITICS CRITICIZED MARSHAL’S MODAL as only the description of British
experiences and that it is silent on the issue of economic citizenship.
3. Marxist critics point out that Marshall’s analysis is superficial as it does not
discuss the right of the citizen to control economic production, which they argue
is necessary for sustained shared prosperity.
4. From a feminist perspective, the work of Marshall is highly constricted in being
focused on men and ignoring the social rights of women and impediments to
their realisation.
5. There is a debate among scholars about whether Marshall intended his historical
analysis to be interpreted as a general theory of citizenship or whether the essay
was just a commentary on developments within England.
6. The essay has been used by editors to promote more equality in society, including
the “Black” vote in the USA, and against Mrs. Thatcher in a 1992 edition prefaced
by Tom Bottomore. It is an Anglo-Saxon interpretation of the evolution of rights in
a “peaceful reform” mode, unlike the revolutionary interpretations of Charles
Tilly, the other great theoretician of citizenship in the twentieth century, who
bases his readings in the developments of the French Revolution.
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP:
Basically citizenship provides an identity which further gives opportunity for some evils
like regionalism, communalism etc to develop. Global citizenship can play an important
role in abolishing these evils. In fact, globalization is creating a cultural uniformity
worldwide and this would further nationality to diminish the identity related with soil
and blood.

DUAL CITIZENSHIP:
Great efforts are made to maintain one’s cultural identity in dual citizenship which is an
indication of narrow-mindedness. In most of the cases it is provided for material gains
and facilities. There is hardly the feeling of love and attachment to the soil in it. But it
can be used to strengthen relation between any two countries.

CITIZENSHIP: RIGHTS AND DUTIES:

 Harold J. Laski opines that every state is recognized by its rights. The state is not
only a sovereign institution liable for citizen’s discipline having the power of
 obeying the orders but some additional powers and morality are also instilled in
the state.
 The way citizens have certain responsibilities towards the state, state also has
certain responsibilities towards citizens like availing them those opportunities
necessary for their physical, mental and moral development. In this way it is a
two-way process which develops and maintains a healthy and balanced society.

DEMOCRACY:
The Term ‘Democracy’ has been in use in the tradition of Western political thought
since ancient times. It is derived form the Greek root ‘demos which means ‘the people’;
‘cracy’ stands for ‘rule’ or ‘government’. Thus, literally, democracy signifies ‘the rule of
the people’. Abraham Lincoln’s definition of democracy is very close to its literal
meaning. It reads; ‘Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, and for
the people.’ In short, democracy as a form of government implies that the ultimate
authority of government is vested in the common people so that public policy is made
to conform to the will of the people and to serve the interests of the people.

Democracy in its basic meaning is therefore a political system in which the people, not
monarch or aristocracies, rule. This sounds straightforward enough, but it is not.
Democratic rule has taken contrasting forms at varying periods and in different
societies, depending on how the concept is interpreted……. For example, ‘the people’
has been variously understood to mean all men, owners of property, white men,
educated men, and adult men and women. In some societies the officially accepted
version of democracy is limited to the political sphere, whereas in others it is extended
to broader areas of social life.

The form that democracy takes in a given context is largely an outcome of how its
values and goals are understood and prioritized. Democracy is generally seen as the
political system which is most able to ensure political equality, protect liberty and
freedom, defend the common interest, meet citizens’ needs, promote moral self-
development and enable effective decision-making which takes everyone’s interests
into account (Held). The weight that is granted to these various goals may influence
whether democracy is regarded first and foremost as a form of popular power (self-
government and self regulation) or whether it is seen as a framework for supporting
decision-making by others (such as a group of elected representatives.)

Participatory democracy:

1. In participatory democracy (or direct democracy), decision are made

communally by those affected by them. This was the original type of democracy
practiced in ancient Greece. Those who were citizens, a small minority of the
society, regularly assembled to consider policies and make major decision,
Participatory democracy is of limited importance in modern societies, where the
mass of the population have political rights, and it would be impossible for
 everyone actively to participate in the making of all the decisions that affect
them.
2. Yet some aspects of participatory democracy do play a part in modern societies.
Small communities in New England, in the north-eastern part of the United
States, continue the traditional practice of annual ‘town meetings’.
3. Another example of participatory democracy is the holding of referenda, when
the people express their views on a particular issue. Direct consultation of large
numbers of people is made possible by simplifying the issue down to one or two
questions to be answered. Referenda are regularly used at the national level in
some European countries to inform important policy decisions. There were
referenda in several European countries in 2005 over whether they should sign up
to the proposed European Constitution.

Representative democracy:

1. Practicalities render participatory democracy unwieldy on a large scale, except

in specific instances such as a special referendum More common today is
representative democracy, political system in which decisions affecting a
community are taken, not by its members as a whole, but by people they have
elected for this purpose. In the area of national government, representative
democracy takes the form of election to congresses, parliaments of similar
national bodies. Representative democracy also exists at other levels where
collective decisions are taken, such as in provinces or states within an overall
national community, cities, counties, boroughs and other regions. Many large
organizations chose to run their affairs using representative democracy by
elective a small executive committee to take key decisions.
2. Countries in which voters can choose between two or more parties and in which
the mass of the adult population has the right to vote are usually called liberal
democracies. Britain and the other Western European countries, the USA, Japan,
Australia and New Zealand and fall into this category. Many countries, in the
developing world, such as India, also have liberal democratic systems, and, as we
shall see, this number is growing.

CLASSICAL NOTION OF DEMOCRACY:

Democracy has a long tradition. But the notions regarding its essence and grounds of its
justification have been revised from time to time. Plato and Aristotle saw democracy at
work in some of ancient Greek city-state, especially at Athens. Its salient features were:

1. Equal participation by all freemen in the common affairs of the polis (city-state)
which was regarded as an essential instrument of good life;
2. Arriving at public decisions in an atmosphere of free discussion; and
3. General respect for law and for the established procedures of the community.
The Greeks took pride in their customary law and admiringly distinguished it from
the ‘arbitrary rule’ prevalent among the ‘barbarians’.
However, the form of democracy prevalent in ancient Greek city-states was by no
means regarded as an ideal rule. Plato decried democracy because the people were not
properly equipped with education ‘to select the best rulers and the wisest courses’.
Democracy enabled the men with the gift of eloquence and oratory to get votes of the
people and secure public office, but such men were thoroughly selfish and incompetent
who ruined the state. Then, Aristotle identified democracy as ‘the rule of the many’,
that is, of the more numerous members of the community, particularly, the poor ones.
In his classification of governments into normal and perverted forms, Aristotle placed
democracy among perverted forms since it signified the rule of the mediocre seeking
their selfish interests, not the interests of the state. Aristotle observed that no form of
government prevalent during his times was stable and this led to frequent upheavals. In
his search for a stable form of government.

CONCEPT OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY:

Liberal democracy today is distinguished from other forms of political system by certain
principles and characteristics, that is, its procedure and institutional arrangements.
Institutions are necessary for the realization of principles; without principles, the
institutions might be reduced to a mere formality. The two must go together. Liberal
democracy works on certain principles and certain mechanisms. Broadly speaking,
principles of liberal democracy include;

 Government by consent;
 Public accountability;
 Majority rule;
 Recognition of minority rights; and
 Constitutional Government.

1. Government by Consent: Democracy is government by consent of the people.

Rational consent can be obtained by persuasion for which an atmosphere of free
discussion is essential. Any regime where the consent of the people is sought to
be obtained without freedom expression of divergent opinions, does not qualify
for being called a ‘democracy’ even if it maintains certain democratic institutions.
In view of the highly technical nature, the large volume and urgency of
governmental decision, it is impractical to consult the people on every detail of
every policy. However, discussion of the broad issues is indispensable. Discussion
is usually held at two levels
 Among the representatives of the people in the legislative assemblies where
members of the opposition have their full say; and
 At the public level where there is direct communication between the leadership
and the people. Democratic lines of policy as the ruling parties are bound to seek
a fresh mandate of the people at regular intervals.
2. Public Accountability: Liberal democracy, based on the consent of the people,
must constantly, remains answerable to the people who created it.
 John Locke who thought of governments as a ‘trustee’ of the power vested in it
by the people for the protection of their natural right of life, liberty and property,
 nevertheless, felt that it could. not be fully trusted. He wanted the people to
remain constantly vigilant. He thought of the people as a householder who
appoints a watchman for protecting his house, and then, he himself keeps awake
to keep a watch on the watchman’.
 Jeremy Bentham envisaged liberal democracy as a political apparatus that would
erasure the accountability of the governors to the governed. For Bentham both
governors and the governed, as human beings, want to maximize their happiness.
Then governors, who are endowed with power, may tend to abuse it in their self-
interest. Hence, in order to prevent the abuse of their power. Governors should
be directly accountable to an electorate who will frequently check whether their
objectives have been reasonably net.
 John Stuart Mill significantly observed that ‘the only purpose for which power
can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his
will, is to prevent harm to others’. Mill identified the appropriate region of human
liberty as including liberty of thought, feeling, discussion and publication, liberty
of tastes and pursuits, and liberty of association or combination, provided it
causes no harm to others. He asserted that liberty and democracy, taken
together, create the possibility of ‘human excellence’.
 Jean-Jaques Rousseau the exponent of popular sovereignty postulated public
accountability of government in a different way. In his concept of the ‘social
contract’, sovereignty not only originates in the people, it continues to stay with
the people in the civil society. People give their consent to vest their sovereignty
in the ‘general will’ which represents their own higher self. As a votary of ‘direct
democracy’ Rousseau is convinced that sovereignty cannot be represented. In his
words, “the people’s deputies are not, and could not be, its representatives; they
are merely its agents; and they cannot decide anything finally.” Rousseau
commended an active, involved citizenry in the process of government and law-
making.
3. Majority Rule: In Modern representative democracies, decisions are taken in
several, bodies – legislatures, committees, cabinets and executive or regulative
bodies. Majority rule means that in all these decision-making bodies, from the
electorate to the last committee, the issues are to be resolved by voting. Political
equality is secured by the principle of ‘one man, one vote’, which implies that
there will be no privileged section whose voice is ignored. No discrimination is
allowed on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, ownership of
property, and even educational qualifications. Any restriction of suffrage should
be based on sound reason, that is, where the ballot cannot be used in a rational
and responsible manner, such as, in the case of convicted criminals, mental
patients, and person below a legally fixed age. The principle of majority rule relies
on the wisdom of the majority. Minority opinion has the option to enlist the
support of larger numbers by persuasion in an atmosphere off free discussion.
4. Recognition of Minority Rights: The principles of majority rule by no means
implies the suppression of minorities. In modern nation-states, there may be
several racial, religious, linguistic or cultural minorities who fear discrimination or
the tyranny of the majority. Minority grievances may take many forms ranging
 from psychological insults over discrimination in housing, education and
employment to physical persecution and genocide. Legal safeguards are,
therefore, considered essential for the realization of the democratic principles
because their presence helps to raise the level of awareness of both majority and
minority and thus promote a favourable climate for democratic politics.
5. Constitutional Government: Constitutional government means a ‘government by
laws’ rather than by men. Democracy requires an infinitely complex machinery of
process; procedures and institutions of translate the majority will into action. It
makes enormous demands on the time, goodwill and integrity of its citizens and
public servants. Once the prescribed procedure is set aside, even for a legitimate
purpose, it can set a precedent that may be followed for pursuing illegitimate
purposes, and the flood-gates of corruption might be thrown wide open. It is
therefore, essential to have a well-established tradition of law and constitution
for the stability of a democratic government.

THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY:

1. More than One Political Party Freely Competing for Political Power: Liberal
democracy seeks reconciliation between varying interests and ideologies of
different groups. There is no fixed method of securing the reconciliation. When
there is a free competition between more than one political party for power, the
people get an opportunity to consider various alternative policies. Programmes
and personalities to exercise their choice. According to this test singleparty
system do not qualify as democracies. The former Soviet Union and the present
People’s Republic of China cannot be treated as democracies as they conceded
monopoly of power of their respective Communist Parties, in spite of a facade of
periodic election.
2. Political Offices Not Confined to any Privileged Class: In a liberal democracy a
political office or public office can be acquired only through the support of the
people, not by birth, tradition of anybody’s favour. This feature of democracy
distinguishes it from feudalism, monarchy and despotism, etc. In a democracy all
citizens enjoy equal rights and status. Any citizen can have access to political
office by following the prescribed procedure and fulfilling certain conditions.
Political office can be held only for a limited period which must be relinquished on
completion of one’s term or other exigency, such a s dissolution of the legislature,
one’s own resignation, etc. Some qualifications, such as, age, education, etc. may
be prescribed for the candidates of a political office, but nobody can be declared
unfit for any office on grounds of caste, creed, sex, language, region, etc.
However, in order to secure due representation for all strata of the population,
some seats in the decision-making bodies can be reserved for minorities or
weaker section, It is believed that such provision would strengthen democracy
rather than weaken it.
3. Periodic Election Based on Universal Adult Franchise: Since representative
government is the only practicable method of establishing democracy in the
present-day world, periodic elections become necessary for this purposes. Each
 citizen should have the right to vote on attaining the prescribed age (say, 18
years); nobody should be disqualified on grounds of caste, creed, sex, language,
region, etc. It is true that the principle of universal adult franchise was introduced
in modern democracies only gradually, but today it is regarded a necessary
condition of democracy. Periodic elections require that the people’s
representatives should be chosen for a limited period (say four or five years) so
that the party that comes to power is able to implement its policy and
programme, but it is obliged to renew the confidence of the people to continue in
power. At the same time, the opposition should have an opportunity to bring any
shortcomings of the ruling party to the notice of the people, to offer alternative
policy and programme with a view to winning the next election.
4. Protection of Civil Liberties: The protection of civil liberties, such as freedom of
thought and expression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and
association, and personal freedom, i.e. freedom from arbitrary arrest, is an
essential characteristic of liberal democracy. On the one hand, these freedoms
enable the citizens to form interests groups and other organizations to influence
government decisions; on the other hand, they ensure independence of the mass
media, particularly the press, from government control. Without civil liberties,
will of the people cannot be translated into public policy and decision. Civil
liberties, therefore, constitute the core of democracy.
5. Independence of the Judiciary: Freedom of the people cannot be secured in the
face of concentration of governmental powers in any organ. Liberal democracy,
therefore, insists on the separation of powers between different organs of
government. While the legislature and executive in a democracy are dominated
by politicians, Judges are appointed on merit and they cannot be removed from
office in consequence of sudden changes in the political climate of the country.
Independence of judiciary enables the judges to pronounce their verdict without
fear or favour.

CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL WORKING OF DEMOCRACY:

Democracy as a form of government cannot function properly unless it is supported by
suitable socio-economic and cultural factors. In the contemporary world, democracy has
been adopted as a form of government in a large number of countries. It is not equally
successful everywhere. The successful working of democracy depends upon many
conditions. Some of the important conditions may be described as follows:

1. National Sentiment: Some thinkers have pointed out that national homogeneity
is essential condition for the success of democracy. For instance, John Stuart Mill
(1806-73) in his Representative Government (1861) suggested that a mono-
national state is essential for the success of democracy. A large number of states
have emerged on the globe since J.S. Mill wrote his Representative Government.
Most of these states include people belonging to different races, religions,
languages and cultures. Democracy is working successfully in many such states.
What is therefore needed for the success of democracy is not the uniformity of
the people as a nationality but the sense of belonging to a single nation, inspired
 by the feeling of having a common history, common life in the present and a
common future as also a common centre of loyalty.
2. Spirit of Toleration: True national sentiment cannot be created without the spirit
of toleration. In fact, the spirit of toleration is the keynote of democracy. In a
democracy we do not demand conformity nor assimilation, but different groups
are expected to coexist in spite of their differences. We are free to win others by
persuation and discussion, not by force or blackmail. The minority is expected to
respect the majority; the majority is expected to accommodate minority with full
dignity.
3. High Moral Character: High moral character of the people as well as leaders is
another condition for the success of democracy. If people are led by their narrow
self interests, or leaders are led by mere opportunism, democracy is bound to
give way to demagogy, that is, the practice of leaders playing with the emotions
of the people instead of appealing to reason. On the country, a sense of morality
and discipline will make the people active in solving social problems more
effectively.
4. Widespread Education: An educated electorate is an asset to democracy.
Generally the people could be literate if not highly educated so that they are able
to learn more and exercise their judgment in the matters of common concern.
Free access to the media of mass communication is provided within the
democratic structure itself. Only a literate, preferably an educated, electorate can
make best use of this facility. For the fulfillment of this condition, the state itself
should provide for universal education.
5. Economic Security and Equality: Lack of economic security in the masses is bound
to undermine the people’s faith in democracy. Similarly, vast economic disparities
are bound to destroy the sense of equal dignity of individuals. In fact, democracy
without a reasonable level of economic security and equality is a force.

In addition to this, other scholars have also come out with their view point on the
subject. Borrowing from Robert Dahl’s classic work on democracy, Alfred Stepan, states
that among the basic requirements for democracy “is the opportunity to formulate
preferences, to signify preferences, and to have these preferences weighted
adequately in the conduct of government.” According to Robert Dhal for the proper
functioning of the government, it should ensure the following institutional guarantees
which includes;

1. Freedom of association and expression :

2. The right to vote :
3. run for public office;
4. free and fair elections;
5. the right of political leaders to complete for support and votes;
6. alternative sources of information;
7. policy making institutions dependent on votes;
8. Other expression of preference.
However, while accepting the importance of these institutional
guarantees, Stepan considers them as a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the
functioning of democracy. Not sufficient, because no matter how free and fair the
elections, and no matter how large the majority of the government, the political society
lacks quality unless it is able to produce a constitution that provides for fundamental
liberties, minority rights, and a set of institutions and checks and balances that limit
state power and ensure accountability, necessary for any given democratic system.

CIVIL SOCIETY:
Think about the country that you live in – what does it take to make that country
operate smoothly? The government takes care of law and order and businesses offer
goods and services in exchange for money, which both help to keep a society moving.
But what about other groups, like temples, churches or the NGOs, how do they
contribute to your society? These other groups actually play a very big part in how your
country operates, and they fall into a category known as civil society.

1. A civil society is comprised of groups or organizations working in the interest of

the citizens but operating outside of the governmental and for-profit sectors.
Organizations and institutions that make up civil society include labor unions,
non-profit organizations, churches, and other service agencies that provide an
important service to society but generally ask for very little in return.
2. Civil society is sometimes referred to as the civil sector, a term that is used to
differentiate it from other sectors that comprise a functioning society. For
example, the United States is made up of three sectors: the public sector, which is
the government and its branches; the private sector, which includes businesses
and corporations; and the civil sector, which includes the organizations that act in
the public’s interest but are not motivated by profit or government.
3. According to definition of civil society developed by a number of leading research
centers: “the term civil society to refer to the wide array of non-governmental
and not-for-profit organizations that have a presence in public life, expressing
the interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural,
political, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations. Civil Society
Organizations (CSOs) therefore refer to a wide of array of organizations:
community groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), labor unions,
indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations,
professional associations, and foundations”.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:

1. The term ‘civil society’ can be traced through the works of Cicero and other
Romans to the ancient Greek philosophers. IN ITS CLASSICAL USAGE civil society
was largely equated with the state. THE MODERN IDEA of civil society found
expression in the Scottish and Continental Enlightenment of the late 18th
century.
2. A range of political philosopher, from THOMAS PAINE TO GEORGE HEGEL,
developed the NOTION OF CIVIL SOCIETY AS A DOMAIN PARALLEL TO BUT
SEPARATE FROM THE STATE WHERE CITIZENS ASSOCIATE ACCORDING TO THEIR
OWN INTERESTS AND WISHES.
3. HEGEL’S nineteenth-century notion of civil society included the market in
contrast to contemporary concepts of civil society as a non- profit sector. This
new definition reflected changing economic realities: the rise of private
property, market competition and the bourgeoisie. It also resulted in the
mounting popular demand for liberty, as manifested in the American English and
French Revolutions.
4. The terms, however, lost its concurrence in the mid-19th century as political
philosopher and sociologists turned their attention to the social and political
consequences of the industrial revolution. It bounced back into fashion after
World War II through the writings of the Marxist theorist ANTONIO GRAMSCI
who REVIVED THE TERM TO PORTRAY CIVIL SOCIETY AS A SPECIAL NUCLEUS OF
INDEPENDENT POLITICAL ACTIVITY, A CRUCIAL SPHERE OF STRUGGLE AGAINST
TYRANNY. Although Gramsci was concerned about dictatorships of the right, his
books were influential in the 1970s and 1980s amongst persons fighting against
dictatorships of all political stripes in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Czech,
Hungarian, and Polish activists also wrapped themselves in the banner of civil
society, endowing it with a heroic quality when the Berlin wall fell.
5. IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY, The rise in popularity of civil society was LARGELY
DUE TO THE STRUGGLES AGAINST TYRANNY WAGED BY RESISTANCE GROUPS IN
LATIN AMERICA, AFRICA AND THE FORMER COMMUNIST WORLD. The period of
1980s and 1990s witnessed the advent of a global democratic revolution of
unprecedented proportions, unions, women’s organisations, student groups and
other forms of popular activism provided the resurgent and often rebellious civil
societies in triggering the demise of many forms of dictatorship. There
developments encouraged the rise of the complex notion that if an invigorated
civil society could force a democratic transition, it could consolidate democracy as
well.
6. Recently DAVID HELD tried to give shape to the concept of civil society through a
sociological definition. In his words, “Civil society retains a distinctive character
to the extent that IT IS MADE UP OF AREAS OF SOCIAL LIFE- THE DOMESTIC
WORLD, THE ECONOMIC SPHERE, CULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND POLITICAL
INTERACTION – which are organisation by private or voluntary arrangements
between individuals and groups outside the direct control of the state”. IN THE
1990S, CIVIL SOCIETY BECAME A MANTRA FOR EVERYONE FROM POLITICIANS
TO POLITICAL SCIENTISTS. The global trend toward democracy opened up space
for civil society in formerly dictatorial countries around the world. In the United
States and Western Europe, PUBLIC FATIGUE WITH TIRED PARTY SYSTEMS
SPARKED INTEREST IN CIVIL SOCIETY AS A MEANS OF SOCIAL RENEWAL.
7. Especially IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD In Contemporary Society, PRIVATIZATION
AND OTHER MARKET REFORMS OFFERED CIVIL SOCIETY THE CHANCE TO STEP IN
AS GOVERNMENTS RETRACTED THEIR REACH. And the information revolution
 provided new tools for forging connections and empowering citizens. Civil society
became a key element of the post- cold-war society.

THE SCOPE OF CIVIL SOCIETY:

1. The much of the current enthusiasm about civil society is its fascination with non-
governmental organisations, especially ADVOCACY GROUPS DEVOTED TO PUBLIC
INTEREST AND CAUSES AND ITS CONCERN FOR ENVIRONMENT HUMAN RIGHTS,
WOMEN’S ISSUES, RIGHTS OF THE DISABLED, ELECTION MONITORING,
ANTICORRUPTION, ETC.
2. Whereas civil society is a much broader concept, ENCOMPASSING POLITICAL
PARTIES AND THE MARKET ORIENTED ORGANISATION IT INCLUDES THE
PLETHORA OF ORGANISATIONS THAT APART FROM NGOS LABOUR UNIONS
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS SUCH AS THOSE OF DOCTORS AND LAWYERS,
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE ETHNIC ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHERS. The list is all
comprehensive.
3. It also incorporates many OTHER ASSOCIATIONS THAT EXIST FOR PURPOSES
OTHER THAN ADVANCING SPECIFIC SOCIAL OR POLITICAL AGENDAS, SUCH AS
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, STUDENT GROUPS, CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS
SPORTS CLUBS AND INFORMAL COMMUNITY GROUPs.
4. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS do play important role in developed and
developing countries. They help in formulating policy by exerting pressure on
governments and by furnishing technical expertise to policy makers. They induce
citizen participation and civic education. They provide leadership training to
young people who want to engage in civic life but are apathetic towards political
parties. In theocratic and dictatorial Religious organisation, cultural organisations
and other groups often have a mass base in the populations and secure domestic
sources of funding. Here, advocacy groups usually lack domestic funding.
5. The burgeoning NGO sectors in such countries are often dominated by elite run
groups that have only weak ties with the citizens and for their functioning they
largely depend on international funders for budgets they cannot nourish from
domestic source.
6. Apart from these positive contours of civil society formation, IT IS WORTH
POINTING OUT THAT THE MAFIA AND MILITIA GROUPS ARE ALSO AS MUCH AS
PART OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY AS THE OTHER HUMANE ORGANISATIONS
ARE. Some civil society enthusiasts have propagated the one sided notion that
civil society consists only of noble causes and welfare action oriented
programmes. Yet civil society everywhere is a mixture of the good, the bad, and
the outright bizarre. If one limits civil society to those actors who pursue higher
humane aims, the concept becomes a theological notion, not a political or
sociological one which could inure the notion of society itself.
FUNCTIONS OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN A DEMOCRATIC ORDER:
LARRY DIAMOND in his article, ‘Rethinking Civil society, says, “Civil society plays a
significant role in building and consolidating democracy. In Diamond’s view, civil
society performs following important functions:

1. TO LIMIT STATE POWER – By checking its political abuses and violations of the
law and subjecting them to public scrutiny. Diamond maintains, “A vibrant civil
society is probably more essential for consolidating and maintaining democracy
than initiating it.”
2. TO EMPOWER CITIZENS by “increasing the political efficacy and skill of the
democratic citizen and promoting an appreciation of the obligations as well as
rights of democratic citizenship”.
3. TO INCULCATE AND PROMOTE AN ARENA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
DEMOCRATIC ATTRIBUTES AMONGST THE CITIZENS SUCH AS TOLERANCE,
MODERATION, WILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE AND RESPECT FOR OPPOSING
VIEWPOINTS. According to Diamond, this is an important function as it allows
“traditionally excluded groups – such as women and racial or ethnic minorities –
access to power that has been denied them in the upper echelons of formal
politics.
4. TO PROVIDE AVENUES FOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS
ALLOWING THEM OF ARTICULATE, AGGREGATE, AND REPRESENT THEIR
INTEREST. This enhances the quality of democracy as “it generates opportunities
for participation and influence at all levels of governance, not the least the local
government.
5. TO FUNCTION AS A RECRUITING, INFORMATIONAL AND LEADERSHIP
GENERATING AGENCY ESPECIALLY IN ECONOMICALLY DEVELOPED SOCIETIES –
where, Economic reform is sometimes necessary, but often difficult to bring
about if it threatens vested economic interests. The massive economic collapse in
Indonesia unleashed mass discontent and made President Suharto suddenly
vulnerable. This transformed the environment to allow civil society groups and
opposition parties to mobilize citizens in an unprecedented fashion.
6. A WELL FOUNDED CIVIL SOCIETY COULD ACT AS A SHOCK OBSERVING
INSTITUTION, where wide ranges of interest that may cross- cut and mitigate the
principal polarities of political conflict.
7. TO GENERATE PUBLIC AND POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR SUCCESSFUL ECONOMIC
AND POLITICAL REFORMS which require the support of coalitions in society and
the legislature.
8. A WELL ROOTED CIVIL SOCIETY ALSO HELPS IN IDENTIFYING AND TRAIN NEW
POLITICAL LEADERS as such; it can “play a crucial role in revitalizing the narrow
and stagnant party dominated leadership recruitment patterns.
9. ELECTION MONITORING – Many non- partisan organisations engage in election
monitoring at home and abroad. Such efforts, sys Diamond, “have been critical in
detecting fraud, enhancing voter confidence, affirming the legitimacy of the
result, or demonstrating an opposition victory despite, government fraud. The
Philippines in the mid 1980s and Panama in 1989s are cited as examples.
 10.STRENGTHENING CITIZEN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE STATE- civil society
enhances “the accountability, responsiveness, inclusiveness, effectiveness, and
hence legitimacy of the political system”. In so doing it gives citizens respect, for
the state and positive involvement in it. Here civil society is crucial to the
development and maintenance of stable, quality sensitive democracy.

In an article, ‘Civil society and Democracy in Global Governance’, DR. JAN AART
SCHOLTE makes a comprehensive analysis of the concepts. She Scholte identifies six
areas where civil society could advance democracy:

1. PUBLIC EDUCATION – Awareness is key to any democratic system. The civil

society might enhance democracy through educating the public. An informed
citizenry could sustain effective democracy; civic associations can contribute a lot
by raising public awareness and understanding of world wide existing laws and
regulatory institutions. To accomplish this goal civil, society groups can prepare
handbooks and information kits, produce audio visual presentations, organize
workshops, circulate newsletters, supply information to and attract the attention
of the mass media, maintain websites of the internet and develop curricular
materials for schools and institutions of higher education.
2. VOICE TO STAKEHOLDERS – Civil society could promote democratic governance
by giving voice to stakeholders. Civic associations can opportune the concerned
parties to relay information, testimonial, and analysis to governance agencies
about their needs and demands. Civil society organisation can give voice to
neglected social circles like the poor, women and persons with disability who tend
to get a limited hearing through other channels including their elected
representatives in executive and legislative bodies. In this way civic activism could
empower stakeholders and mould politics toward greater participatory
democracy.
3. POLICY INPUTS – Government Policy formulation is considerably influenced from
the inputs given by the civil society not only at home but also in sparking debate
about the so- called ‘Washington Consensus. They have qualitative assessments
of poverty, and pressurized for the schemes of debt reduction in the South.
4. TRANSPARENCY OF GOVERNANCE – Vigilant civic mobilization can cause public
transparency in governance. Constant pressure from civil society can help in
bringing regulatory frameworks and operation into the open, where they could be
accessed for public scrutiny. Generally citizens do not have the awareness about
what decisions are taken by the government, by whom, from what options, on
what grounds, with what expected results, and with what resources to support
implementation. Civic groups through their well lit networks can question the
currently popular official rhetoric of ‘transparency’ by asking critical questions
about what is made transparent, at what time, in what forms, through what
channels, on whose decision, for what purpose, and in whose interest.
5. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY – Civil society can hold various concerned agencies
accountable to public. Civic groups can keep an eye on he implementation and
effects of policies regarding people and press for corrective measures when the
consequences are adverse. For example independent civic agencies have
 impartial policy evaluation mechanisms for the World Bank and the IMF.
Whereby, they have more often criticized their policies towards the less
Developed countries. The Western countries, which claim to be democratic in the
behaviour, often while as a part of global player some times become far more
dictatorial than those whom they criticize and put sanctions against them. Here,
the civic agencies through an accountability function can push authorities in
global governance to take greater responsibility for their actions and policies.
6. LEGITIMACY – The sum total of the preceding actions by the civil society could
lead to a legitimate democratic rule. Legitimate rule prevails when people
concede that an authority has a right to govern and that they have a duty to obey
its directives. As a result of such consent, legitimate governance tends to be more
easily, productively and nonviolently executed than illegitimate and dictatorial
authority.

Relationship between Civil Society and Democracy:

The civil society should have a larger AGENDA OF DEMOCRACY AS A POLICY OF GLOBAL
GOVERNANCE. The civil society not only could promote democracy at home, their
impact could be clearly seen in the democratization of global order. Apart from this, the
international concerns for human rights, women rights, rights of the disabled and
concerns for environment have great impact on the domestic policy formulation and
its implementation too. For example, various development related NGOs and think –
tanks, who lobby for global debt relief and socially sustainable structural adjustment,
have gone on to scrutinize public finances in national and local governments. In addition
to this, women’s movements have often used international laws and institutions in their
favour to democratize the state on gender lines. The rights of the persons with disability
also get impetus from international concerns for human rights. In all these matters civil
society Civil society can offer a means for citizens to affirm that global governance
arrangements.

1. It is emphasized here that in certain conditions civil society can contribute to

the democratization of authoritarian regimes and can help to sustain a
democratic system of governance once it is established. For example in the
Eastern European countries, South Africa, Serbia, Philippines, in Georgia, recently
in Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, citizens have used civil society organisations to wage
struggle for political independence by learning about democracy and by
mobilizing millions of their fellow citizens against repressive regimes.
2. Democratic setup, civil society organisations provide basis for citizens to pursue
common interests in political, social, or spiritual, domain, citizens learn about
fundamental democratic values of participation and collective action and they
further disseminate these values within their community civil society
movements that represent citizen interests can considerably influence both
government policy and social attitudes. Independent activities of the civil society
can pause a counter weight to state power.
THE DEMOCRATIC DANGERS OF CIVIL SOCIETY:
Civil society’s contribution to democracy in domestic as well as global governance is well
placed in context. But here it must be noted that civil society might in certain ways
actually detract from democratic governance of international relations. Seven general
negative possibilities can be identified.

1. CIVIL SOCIETY ACTIVITIES MAY NOT ESSENTIALLY PURSUE DEMOCRATIC

PURPOSEThough the term civil society at the outset seems to convey elements of
civility and virtue, but in practice, elements of such organisations may themselves
in subverting democracy for example, some civic organisations can work to
promote their private petty interests and privileges. The destructive groups
engaged in promoting racism, ultra- nationalism and religious fundamentalism
work contrary to the democratic rights of others. Thos parts of the Islamic sector
that are politically relevant, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, have not pushed for
democracy in a comprehensive fashion.
2. CIVIL SOCIETY MIGHT DRAW AWAY FROM DEMOCRACY IF ITS EFFORTS ARE
POORLY PLANNED AND DESIGNED OR EXECUTED – if the said activist function
without understanding the institutional arrangement of governance, they could
cause real harm to the very objectives of their organisation. Even academicians
may fail to link their theoretical models of universal application of democracy to
empirical evidence and political exigencies of that particular area.
3. ILL- EQUIPPED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES CAN NOT HANDLE CIVIL SOEITY
INPUTS Regulatory bodies may lack relevant staff expertise, adequate founds
suitable procedures or the necessary receptive attitudes to take advantage of the
benefits on offer fro civil society. Government officials my consult civic
associations only in the later stages of policymaking when they key decision have
already been taken. Instead of promoting democracy this could lead to friction in
the society and cause turmoil.
4. THE STATE FUNDING AND BENEFITS COULD CORRUPT THE VOLUNTEERS OF THE
CIVIC ORGANISATION – Instead of focusing on there aims and objectives they
could run in short terms gains.
5. INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION COULD SERIOUSLY UNDERMINE THE VERY
FABRIC OF DEMOCRACY- if civil society has to realize its promises fully, then all
stratus of civil society should be duly allowed to access authorities and more over
equality of opportunity in terms of participation otherwise civil privileges
connected with class, gender, nationality, race, religion, urban versus rural
location and so on.
6. CIVIL SOCIETY CONCERN FOR GLOBAL DEMOCRACY COULD BE INSENSITIVE
TOWARDS THE LOCAL CULTURAL PRACTICE- Here, civil society may not respond
to all of the contexts of local populations. In particular there is a danger that civil
society in the South and the former communist ruled countries could come under
the strong influence of westernstyled, western- funded NGOs led by the
westernized. Such campaigners might criticize prevailing conditions of global
governance; they have stronger cultural affinities with global mangers than with
local communities. Thus NGOs and other professionalized civil society bodies may
 perhaps quite unintentionally marginalize grassroots circles that could give better
voice to the diverse life –worlds that global governance affects.
7. CIVIL SOCIETY MAY LACK INTERNAL DEMOCRACY – Civil society groups –
including those that specifically campaign for greater democracy, can fall short of
democratic behaviour in their own functioning. A lack of internal democracy
within civil society circles is not only objectionable in itself, but also contradicts its
very goal of bringing democracy to society at large. It is an often realized
situation, where civic associations offer their members little opportunity for
participation beyond the payment of subscriptions. Civil society organisations
may advocate on behalf of certain constituencies without adequately consulting
them. The leadership of a civic organisation may suppress debate in the name of
welfare. Civic groups may lack transparency as some times they do not publish
financial statements or declarations of objectives of their organisation, let along
full- scale reports of their activities.

Given these potential problems, one should not be swayed by much of the alluring
fantasies with civil society. Much can go right but much can also go wrong. Civil society
can be a means to good ends, but it is not the end itself. There are circumstances where
civic involvement may detract from democracy or sabotage the very fabric of
democracy. It should be the first demand of the society that civic associations should
not merely assert but also demonstrate their democratic legitimacy.

CIVIL SOCIETY: CONCLUSIVE ANALYSIS:

There is so much of academic assertion on this point that some anthropologists even
question whether the concept of civil society even applies outside the West. In a
comparative study of China and Taiwan, for example, Robert P Weller writes, “I have
studiously avoided the term civil society while writing about many of its core issues. The
term ‘civil society’ while writing problematic theoretical assumptions and historical
connotations, which have strong roots in a particular European philosophical tradition.
“With the arrival of European colonialism, the state becomes and undeniable,
unavoidable part of the business of social living; and the institutional organisation of the
modern state invites a discourse in terms of state/ civil society distinction.”.

To further evaluate the subject in more theoretical context, the following points could
be of use for understanding the existing complexities in the subject.

1. Firstly, advocates often depict civil society as wholly positive, even flawless. For
example, in a article, ‘Civil Society and Building Democracy: Lessons from
International Donor Experience’ Harry Blair says that civil society organisations
increase citizens’ participation in the policymaking process, enhance the state’s
accountability to its citizenry, and provide civic education in democratic politics.
This describes an ideal- an ideal that since 1989 has helped motivate hundreds of
millions of dollars in international grants to civil society organisations in
lessdeveloped countries, with mixed result.
 2. Secondly, those who idealize civil society often talk about citizen engagement
without mentioning citizen conflict. Yet conflict over resources, laws, policies,
influence is central and inherent to the plurality of interests is at the heart of civil
society. For this reason, fundamentalist societies that believe in a single source of
truth, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin and other communist countries in the
letter part of 20th century or Iran under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, are
much less tolerant of civil society than societies that welcomes plural points of
view.
3. Third, from Tocqueville onward, Westerners have generally place individualisms
at the heart of civil society. Ernest Gellner, for example describes the building
block of civil society as modular man, an individual who is autonomous yet willing
and able to associate. In much of the world, however, individuals do not consider
themselves modular. They regard their identities as members of particular
communities (determined by family, religion, ethnicity, caste, race, or something
else) as fundamental, not choices easily made and unmade. For example, in
Saekete Center, Muslims, Christian, and worshippers of local gods live together
and Muslims and Christians often sacrifice to local gods when facing particularly
vexing problems. Yet this openness to different practices does not mean that
individuals are modular and can easily exchange one faith for another. Religion,
like family and ethnicity, embeds the individual in a web of social connections and
cultural meanings that can be severed only at significant cost. The basic thesis of
civil society rests with the presumption that man being social is challenged. If
individuals are considered modular, how do we fashion a definition of civil society
that works trans- nationally?
4. Fourthly, concept of civil society is placed with too broad parameters. Some have
argued that civil society consists of all forms of non-state organisation other than
the family which is unacceptable proposition because it includes within civil
society many social forms that are essentially private, and thereby fails to
distinguish civil society from society at large. To make the concept more useful for
the purpose, civil aspect of civil society must limit the category to those networks,
movements and organisations the have a public dimension.
5. Fifthly, here it is stressed that civil society is essentially two-fold in nature: private
in origins but public in focus. Civil society groups represent private interests by
employing more often nonviolent public means, such as association, education
and demonstration to influence policy and polity, whether at the neighborhood,
city regional, state, or national level. The interests pursued can be individualistic,
or they can be oriented toward religion, race, or other social groupings. In a way
that might generate pressure on government.

To conclude our discussion on civil society with positive academic note the essential
idea that has been put into practice is that democracy requires a healthy and active civil
society. The international community, by providing resources and training to different
civic groups, can help to build up domestic civil society in democratizing countries.
However, at the same time caution should be duly taken in imposing one’s ideas and
culture in the name of civil society or as matter of fact democracy. Though democracy is
one of the healthiest systems of governance both in domestic and international arena
yet there is no final world in social sciences. There are so many ancient cultural systems
and practices in the East which are far better than the existing western way of life. They
should not be discarded merely because we have fantasies and fondness for the West.
More importantly, the debate and enthusiasm for promoting better life style should
continue in order to benefit the people who are living in authoritarian societies with
abysmal poverty and sufferings.

IDEOLOGY:
In the realm of political theory the term ‘ideology’ is applied in two contexts:

 A set of ideas which are accepted to be true by a particular group, party or

nation without further examination; and
 The science of ideas which examines as to how different ideas are formed, how
truth is distorted, and how we can overcome distortions to discover true
knowledge.

IDEOLOGY AS A SET OF IDEAS:

1. In First context, ideology means a set of those ideas which are accepted to be
true by a particular group without further examination. These ideas are invoked
in order to justify or denounce a particular way of social, economic or political
organization. In this sense, ideology is matter of faith; it has no scientific basis.
Adherents of an ideology think that its validity need not be subjected to
verification.
2. Different groups may adhere to different ideologies; hence differences among
them are inevitable. Ideology, therefore, gives rise to love- hate relationship,
which is not conductive to scientific temper. Examples of some ideologies are:
Liberalism, capitalism, socialism, Marxism, communism, anarchism, fascism,
imperialism, nationalism, internationalism, etc.
3. WHEN AN IDEOLOGY IS USED TO DEFEND AN EXISTING SYSTEM OR TO
ADVOCATE A LIMITED OR A RADICAL CHANGE IN THAT SYSTEM, IT BECOMES A
PART OF POLITICS. A political ideology may lend legitimacy to the ruling class or it
may involve an urge for revolution. It therefore signifies the manipulative power
of a dominant class or of a social movement.
4. AN IDEOLOGY IS ACTION- ORIENTED. It presents a cause before its adherents and
induces them to fight for that cause, and to make sacrifices for its realization. FOR
EXAMPLE, nationalism may inspire people to sacrifice their wealth or life for
defending the freedom of their nation. But communalism may induce hatred
among people towards members of another community and prompt them to
base on obscurantism, has given rise to worldwide terrorism.
5. IN THE SPHERE OF POLITICS, CONFLICTING IDEOLOGIES MAY BE INVOKED TO
DEFEND CONFLICTING NORMS OR IDEALS. Of these, some ideals may be
designed to serve some vested interests, and some ideals may sack to challenge
irrational beliefs and conventions, and thus pave the way for progress. FOR
EXAMPLE, ideology of imperialism may be invoked to facilitate the exploitation of
 colonial territories and their and their people, while environmentalism may be
invoked to save humanity from the curse of atmospheric pollution and depletion
of valuable natural resources.

IDEOLOGY AS THE SCIENCE OF IDEAS:

1. The term ‘ideology’ was originally devised to describe the science of ideas. IN
THIS SENSE, IT SEEKS TO DETERMINE HOW IDEAS ARE FORMED, HOW THEY ARE
DISTORTED, AND HOW TRUE IDEAS COULD BE SEGREGATED FROM FALSE
IDEAS. It was Destutt de Tracy (1954-1836), a French scholar, who first used the
word ideology during 1801-15 in his writings on the Enlightenment. He defined it
as a study of the process of forming ideas- a science of ideas. TRACY OBSERVED
THAT IDEAS ARE STIMULATED BY THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT; HENCE
EMPIRICAL LEARNING (GAINED THROUGH SENSEEXPERIENCE) IS THE ONLY
SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE. Supernatural or spiritual phenomena have no role to
play in the formation of real ideas. Science is founded on these ideas. PEOPLE
COULD USE SCIENCE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
CONDITIONS.
2. Although Tracy was the first to use the term ‘ideology’ in this sense, he was not
the first to study the process of formation of ideas. FRANCIS BACON (1561-
1626), an English philosopher, before him, insisted that KNOWLEDGE SHOULD
COME FROM CAREFUL AND ACCURATE OBSERVATION AND EXPERIENCE. HE
HELD THAT THE KNOWLEDGE DEDUCED FROM LESS SCIENTIFIC METHODS OF
INQUIRY WAS DISTORTED BY FALSE IMPRESSIONS OR ‘IDOLS’. In short, Bacon
and Tracy focused on the validity of knowledge obtained by scientific method,
and cautioned us against distorted forms of knowledge.
3. In contemporary literature, the term ‘IDEOLOGY’ IS APPLIED TO THE SET OF
IDEAS WHICH ARE ADOPTED BY A GROUP IN ORDER TO MOTIVATE IT FOR THE
ACHIEVEMENT OF PREDETERMINED GOALS. Science of ideas is described by
different terms, like “SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE” (the term introduced by Karl
Mannheim). Science of ideas is used to identify the causes of distortion in the
prevailing ideologies. A systematic attempt in this direction began with Marx.
Later Lukacs and Mannheim also made significant contributions to this effort.

VIEWS OF Karl MARX:

1. Karl Marx (1818-83) in “German Ideology (1845-46)” and “A contribution to the

Critique of Political Economy (1859)” dwelled on the nature of ideology.
According to him, ideology is a manifestation of false consciousnesses.
2. ACCORDING TO MARX, in the process of social development material needs of
people advance, but their social consciousness lags behind. This distorted
consciousness or false consciousness is reflected in their IDEOLOGY. Dominant
class at any stage of social development marks use of ideology to maintain its
authority. FOR EXAMPLE, makers of the French Revolution (1789) raised the
slogan of ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ to enlist support of the masses. But they
 settled for liberty which served their interest, i.e. the interest of the new
entrepreneurial class of those days. They did not proceed to win freedom for
common man, but stopped after winning freedom for a new dominant class to
ensure inviolability of property.
3. Marx and Engels (1820-95) held that IDEOLOGY IS AN INSTRUMENT FOR
PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF THE DOMINANT CLASS. Thus bourgeoisie (the
capitalist class) needs ideology to maintain itself in power. On the contrary,
when PROLETARIAT (THE WORKING CLASS) comes to power after the socialist
revolution, it has no vested interest in maintaining itself in power. It strives to
create such conditions where the state will ‘wither away’. It does not want to
continue as the dominant class but works for the creation of a classless society.
4. However, V.I. Lenin (1870-1924) in his what is conceal the prevailing
contradictions, but it has become a neutral concept which refers to the political
consciousness of different classes, including, the proletarian class. He argued that
the class struggle will continue for a very long time during the socialist phase. So
proletariats also need an ideology- the ideology of scientific socialism for their
guidance, lest they are overpowered by the bourgeois ideology.

VIEWS OF LUKACS:

1. Georg Lukacs (1885-1971), a Hungarian Marxist, held that CONSCIOUSNESS WAS

ALWAYS CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS. The proletariat, by virtue of its increasing
estrangement within the socio-economic sphere, occupied a unique historical
position from which it could achieve universal consciousness.
2. On the nature of ideology Lukacs maintained that it REFERS BOTH TO
BOURGEOISIE AND PROLETARIAN CONSCIOUSNESS, WITHOUT IMPLYING A
NECESSARY NEGATIVE CONNOTATION. MARXISM ITSELF IS THE IDEOLOGICAL
EXPRESSION OF THE PROLETARIAT. Lukacs held that BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY IS
FALSE, not because ideology itself is false consciousness, but because bourgeois
class situation is structurally limited. IN OTHER WORDS, BOURGEOISIE (THE
CAPITALIST CLASS) CANNOT STAND ON ITS OWN. IT MUST EXPLOIT PROLETARIAT
(THE WORKING CLASS) TO MAINTAIN ITSELF. Bourgeois ideology is deplorable
because it dominates and contaminates the psychological consciousness of
proletariat. However, Lukacs has warned that ideological struggle should not
become a substitute for class struggle.

VIEWS OF Karl MANNHEIM:

Karl Mannheim (1893-1947), a German sociologist, in his famous work “Ideology and
Utopia” REJECTS MARX’S THEORY OF IDEOLOGY ON THREE GROUNDS;

1. STYLE OF THOUGHT (CONSCIOUSNESS) of any group is only indirectly related to

its interests; there is no direct correlation between its consciousness and its
economic interests;
2. All thought (CONSCIOUSNESS) is shaped by its social background; hence Marxism
itself is the ideology of a class; and
 3. Apart from classes, other social groups, like different generations, also have a
significant influence upon CONSCIOUSNESS.

Mannheim introduced term ‘sociology of knowledge’ to focus on social determination

of knowledge or style of thought (Consciousness). He sought to generalize Marxist
framework as a tool of analysis.

1. He held that the FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS MAY BE MANIFESTED IN TWO FORMS;

IDEOLOGY AND UTOPIA. IDEOLOGY REPRESENTS THE TENDENCY OF
CONSERVATION. IT RELIES ON FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS TO MUSTER SUPPORT
FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STATUS QUO. One the other hand, UTOPIA
REPRESENTS THE IMPETUS TO CHANGE. IT RELIES ON FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS BY
PROJECTING UNREALIZABLE PRINCIPLES to muster support for the forces of
change.
2. A RULING CLASS MAKES USE OF IDEOLOGY; THE OPPOSITION MAY PROJECT A
UTOPIA. Mannheim declared that Marxist vision of a classless society was nothing
of utopia. Hence it also makes false consciousness its tools.
3. The relative character of all knowledge as postulated by Mannheim makes the
knowledge of objective truth extremely difficult. Is there no hope, then, to
discover truth? Well, there is a silver lining. MANNHEIM HINGES ON THE
POSSIBILITY OF A ‘FREE FLOATING STRATUM OF INTELLECTUALS BETWEEN THE
CONTENDING CLASSES TO ACHIEVE DISINTERESTED KNOWLEDGE. He hopes that
some enlightened individuals within the conflicting groups will realize that their
perception of truth is partial; it could be complemented by understanding their
opponent’s view. SUCH INDIVIDUALS FROM BOTH SIDES WILL COME TOGETHER
WITH AN OPEN MIND; THEY WILL ENTER INTO A DIALOGUE AND INCESSANTLY
STRIVE TO ARRIVE AT THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH. Thus they will open the way to
achieve synthetic common knowledge of the prevailing historical situation and a
realistic assessment of actual possibilities.
4. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO GRASP A REALISTIC VISION BETWEEN
IDEOLOGY AND UTOPIA. Mannheim identifies these intellectuals as social
scientists. He recommends that these social scientists, who have proved their
ability to grasp the objective truth, should be given authority to rule.
5. CRITICS ARGUE THAT MANNHEIM HAS CREATED CONFUSION BETWEEN THE
ORIGIN AND VALIDITY OF KNOWLEDGE. His extreme relativism contemplates the
existence of ideas without upholders. Moreover, giving power to social scientists
is fraught with danger of absolutism. Let these social scientists function as critics
of power holders instead of wielding power themselves. They would better serve
as organizers of agitations and demonstrations, journalist and writers, and as
conscience- keepers of society.

IDEOLOGY AND TOTALITARIANISM:

WHEN IDEOLOGY IS CONCEIVED AS AN INSTRUMENT OF MOTIVATING PEOPLE FOR
THE ACHIEVEMENT OF PREDETERMINED GOALS, IT COMES CLOSE TO
TOTALITARIANISM. Some writers, therefore, assert that IDEOLOGY IN THIS SENSE IS
FOUND ONLY IN TOTALITARIAN SYSTEMS; it has no place in an open society.

1. Famous Austrian philosopher Karl Popper (1902-94) in “The Open Society and
Its Enemies” argued that ideology is the characteristic of totalitarianism; it has
nothing to do in an open society. He maintained that SCIENCE AND FREEDOM
FLOURISH TOGETHER IN A SOCIETY WHICH IS OPEN IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS
WILLING TO ACCEPT NEW IDEAS. In contrast, a TOTALITARIAN SOCIETY CLAIMS
THAT IT HAS ALREADY FOUND THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and strives, to implement
it ruthlessly. IDEOLOGY IS THE TOOL WHICH ENABLES THE STATE TO MOBILIZE
ITS MANPOWER AND OTHER RESOURCES FOR A GOAL WHICH IS DECLARED TO
EMBODY THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. It does to allow anyone to oppose.
2. In Popper’s view, Western liberal- democratic societies are open societies;
hence they do not need an ideology for working smoothly. Citizens of these
societies are absolutely free to criticize the existing institutions and structures of
power.

THE HANNAH ARENDT (1906-75), a German Jew philosopher, in “The Origins of

Totalitarianism” (1951) defined TOTALITARIANISM AS A SYSTEM OF TOTAL
DOMINATION, CHARACTERIZED BY IDEOLOGY AND TERROR. It was made possible in
recent Europe by three factors:

1. THE SPECIFIC POLITICAL AND SOCIAL POSITION OF THE JEWS which had given
antiSemitism (the tendency of hatred toward Jews) a new force;
2. IMPERIALISM which generated racist movements and worldwide expansion of
power; andDISSOLUTION OF EUROPEAN SOCIETY INTO UPROOTED MASSES, so
lonely and disoriented that they could be mobilized behind ideologies.

 Thus Popper and Arendt focused on the role of ideology as a tool of

totalitarianism. It is interesting to recall that Marx had evolved the concept of
ideology in late nineteenth century in order to expose capitalism. Concept of
totalitarianism was evolved in early twentieth century to describe the dictatorial
way to working of communist regime of the Soviet Union till the end of Stalin era
(1953) and fascist regime of Italy (under Mussolini) and Germany (under Hitler) till
the end of Second World War (1945).
 BOTH COMMUNIST AND FASCIST REGIMES MADE AMPLE USE OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE IDEOLOGIES FOR THE MOBILIZATION OF THEIR CITIZENS TOWARD
THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE GOALS. Popper largely focused on the
communist regime and Arendt on the fascist regime to bring out the close
correlations between ideology and totalitarianism.

END OF IDEOLOGY DEBATE:

The Current status of ideology in the world was reviewed in mid – 1950s and in
1960s. IN WESTERN LIBERAL- DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES, IT WAS DECLARED THAT THE
AGE OF IDEOLOGY HAD COME TO AN END. These countries LOOKED AT IDEOLOGY AS
A TOOL OF TOTALITARIANISM which had no place in open societies.
1. ‘END OF IDEOLOGY’ ALSO IMPLIED THAT AT THE ADVANCED STAGE OF
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, A COUNTRY’S SOCIAL – ECONOMIC
ORGANIZATION IS DETERMINED BY THE LEVEL OF ITS DEVELOPMENT, AND NOT
BE ITS POLITICAL IDEOLOGY. In other words, capitalist and communist countries
were bound to evolve similar characteristics at the advanced stage of their
industrial development, irrespective of their ideological differences.
2. Early indication of this view may be found in the proceedings of a conference on
‘The Future of Freedom’ held in Milan, Italy, in 1955. EDWARD SHILLS
REPORT on this conference was published in Encounter (1955) under the title
‘The End of Ideology’. The conference urged its participants to forget their minor
differences and discover common grounds to face the danger of Communism.
DANIEL BELL observed in the course of his speech: “Today ideologies are
exhausted. In the Western World, there is today a rough consensus among
intellectuals on political issues, THE ACCEPTANCE OF A WELFARE STATE; THE
DESIRABILITY OF DECENTRALIZED POWER; A SYSTEM OF MIXED ECONOMY AND
OF POLITICAL PLURALISM. In that sense too the ideological age has ended.” This
view was confirmed and further elaborated by several Western writers.
3. DANIEL BELL, in his noted work the “End of Ideology (1960)” asserted
that POSTINDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES ARE PRONE TO SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT
IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR IDEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES. They have lesser proportion
of workers in industry than in services. In other words, at the advanced stage of
industrial development in any country the services sector expands at a faster rate
than the manufacturing sector. Besides, it is also characterized by
the INCREASING DOMINANCE OF TECHNICAL ELITES. The change in this direction
is not affected by its political ideology.
4. RALPH DAHRENDORF in “Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society
(1957)” argued that THE WESTERN SOCIETIES HAD ENTERED A NEW PHASE OF
DEVELOPMENT. THEY WERE NO LONGER CAPITALIST SOCIETIES; THEY HAD
BECOME POSTCAPITALIST SOCIETIES. The coincidence of economic conflict and
political conflict, which was the foundation of Marx’s theory, had ceased to exist
in THE POSTCAPITALIST SOCIETIES. In a CAPITALIST SOCIETY, the lines of
industrial and political conflict were superimposed.
5. The opponents within the industrial sphere- capitalist and workers met again as
bourgeoisie and proletarian, in the political arena. IN CONTRAST, industry and
society have been dissociated in the POST- CAPITALIST SOCIETY. The social
relations of the industrial sphere, including industrial conflict, no longer dominate
the whole society but remain confined in their patterns and problems to the
sphere of industry. In post-capitalist society, industry and industrial conflicts are
institutionally isolated. In other words, they remain confined within the borders
of their proper realm and do not influence politics and other spheres of social life.
Thus in Dahrendorf view, the framework of Marxian ideology was no longer
suitable for the analysis of the Western societies.
6. Then SEYMOUR M. LIPSET, in “Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (1960)”
significantly observed: Democracy is not only or even primarily a means through
which different groups can attain their ends or seek the good society; it is the
 good society itself in operation. LIPSET observed that in the Western democracies
the differences between the left and the right are no longer profound; the only
issues before politics are concerned with marginal increase in wages, marginal
rise in prices, and extension of old- age pensions, etc. He maintained that the
fundamental political problems of the industrial revolution have been solved: the
workers have achieved industrial and political citizenship; the conservatives have
accepted the welfare state; and the democratic left has recognized that an
increase in overall state power carries with it more dangers to freedom than
solutions for economic problems. THE TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY IN THE WEST
HAS MADE THE INTELLECTUALS REALIZE THAT THEY NO LONGER NEED
IDEOLOGIES OR UTOPIAS TO MOTIVATE THEM TO POLITICAL ACTION.
7. W.W. ROSTOW, in “The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non- communist
Manifesto (1960)” built A UNIDIMENSIONAL MODEL OF ECONOMIC GROWTH
WHICH WAS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTRIES IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR POLITICAL
IDEOLOGIES. He suggested that all societies pass through five stages of growth:
‘TRADITIONAL SOCIETY’, ‘PRECONDITIONS FOR TAKE- OFF’, ‘TAKE-OFF’, ‘ROAD
TO MATURITY’ AND ‘THE AGE OF HIGH MASS CONSUMPTION’. He believed that
the process of development going on at that time in Asia, Latin America, Africa
and the Middle East was analogous to the stages of preconditions for take off and
take-off which prevailed in the Western societies in late eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. Rostow asserted that the adoption of different political
ideologies played no role in determining the course of economic development in
different countries.
8. J.K. GALBRAITH, in “The New Industrial State (1967)” identified certain
characteristic of advanced industrial societies which correspond to the end of
ideology thesis. Galbraith observed that “ALL INDUSTRIALIZED SOCIETIES ARE
DESTINED TO SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT”. This involves GREATER
CENTRALIZATION, BUREAUCRATIZATION, PROFESSIONALIZATION AND
TECHNOCRATIZATION. These characteristics were visible in the Russian as well as
American system although they had adopted as divergent ideologies as
communism and capitalism respectively. It means that a country’s
technoeconomic structure is shaped by the level of its industrialization, and not
by its distinctive political ideology. Galbraith claimed that A NEW RULING CLASS
CONSISTING OF THE BUREAUCRATIC AND TECHNOCRATIC ELITE HAD EMERGED
IN ALL ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES. This class belonged neither to the
WORKING CLASS NOR TO THE CAPITALISTS. In liberal societies, the members of
this class occupied high position in an open meritocratic system. Because of high
rate of social mobility, they are not attached to particular capitalists. Power in
society is vested in bureaucracy and technocracy, and not in capitalists. Galbraith
comes to the conclusion that in the contemporary world, emancipation of
humanity should be sought in anti- capitalism.
9. THE END OF IDEOLOGY THESIS HAD A MESSAGE FOR THE NEW NATIONS OF
ASIA, AFRICA AND LATIN AMERICA. It implied that they should focus on their
industrial development, and should not run after the mirage of communism as a
remedy of their ills. With the collapse of communist systems in East European
 countries in 1989 (which was followed by a similar collapse in the Soviet Union in
(1991), this view got a new impetus in the form the ‘End of History’
thesis. FRANCIS FUKUYAMA, in his paper entitled ‘THE END OF HISTORY’, argued
that the failure of socialism (i.e. communism in the present context) meant an
unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism. IT MARKED THE END
POINT OF MANKIND’S IDEOLOGICAL EVOLUTION AND THE UNIVERSALIZATION
OF WESTERN LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AS THE FINAL FORM OF HUMAN
GOVERNMENT. FUKUYAMA maintained that the liberal democracy contains no
basic contradictions and that it is capable of fulfilling deepest aspirations of
mankind. Its victory has heralded an end to the long historical struggle which had
obstructed its expansion in the past. This thesis was given wide publicity in the
Western press and academic circles as it was suited to their mode of thought.

CRITICS of END OF IDEOLOGY DEBATE:

1. However, RICHARD TITMUSS, C. WRIGHT MILLS, C.B. MACPHERSON AND

ALASDAIR MACINTYRE severely criticized the end of ideology
thesis. TITMUSS observed that the champions of the end of ideology this overlook
the problems of monopolistic concentration of economic power, social
disorganization and cultural deprivation within the capitalist system. C. WRIGHT
MILLS dubbed the upholders of END OF IDEOLOGY THESIS the advocates of
status quo. In his view, it is an ideology of political complacency which appears to
be the only way now available for many social scientists to acquiesce in or to
justify the established social structure. So far as human and political ideas are
concerned, the END OF IDEOLOGY THESIS stands for a denial of their relevance.
C.B. MACPHERSON asserted that the champions of the END OF IDEOLOGY
THESIS make a futile attempt to solve the problem of equitable distribution
within the market society. ALASDAIR MACINTYRE (Against the self- Images of the
Age; 1971) significantly observed that the end of ideology theorists failed to
entertain one crucial alternative possibility: namely that the END- OF- IDEOLOGY,
far from marking the end-of-ideology, was itself a key expression of the ideology
of the time and place where it arose”.
2. IN SHORT, THE END OF IDEOLOGY DEBATE, AND ITS LATEST VERSION ARE
DESIGNED TO PROJECT THE SUPREMACY OF LIBERAL- DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM IN
THEORY AS WELL AS PRACTICE. In the contemporary climate of increasing urge
for liberalization, privatization and globalization, this idea seems to be riding high.
However, it needs a close scrutiny. Collapse of socialism in a large part of the
world could be the outcome of human faults in its implementation. Moreover,
Western democratic world is by no means an epitome of justice and
morality. Human emancipation is a complex venture. There are no readymade
answers to all human problems. In devising their solution, relevant ideas from
different ideologies may be drawn and examined. Of these liberalism, Marxism,
socialism, fascism, anarchism, Gandhism, and Feminism, are particularly
important.
CONCLUSION:

1. Ideology has been variously condemned as the reflection of false consciousness

or as an instrument of totalitarianism. But it is not fine to look at all ideologies in
this light. In actual practice, different ideologies as sets of ideas will continue to
exist as the vehicles of value- systems preferred by different groups. They will
be used for motivating people to achieve the goals cherished by their
upholders. They may also be used by some groups to convince others regarding
their rightful claims. Ideologies do not belong exclusively to dominate classes;
oppressed classes also have their own ideologies. They cannot be set aside as
‘false consciousness’.
2. Ideologies could serve as meeting ground for like- minded people, instead of
confining themselves to their tribe, caste, religion, region, etc. They may reflect
changing social consciousness on crucial issues. Some ideologies have given rise
to strong social movements for the emancipation of various oppressed
sections. Some ideologies manifest a deep concern with the future of humanity.
An ideology is identified by commitment to a cause. It rules out personal
interest, bias or submission to a particular person, group or dynasty. It signifies a
set of coherent ideas- perception of real and ideal from one’s own position. It
may also be used to make others realize that position. That is how, in the sphere
of world politics, developing nations strive to impress upon advanced nations to
adopt humanist attitudes and policies.

Protest, Agitation, Social movements, Collective action, Revolution

An ELEMENT OF DISSATISFACTION with the existing system can be found in every
society. Dissatisfaction may be caused by POVERTY, SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION,
EXPLOTATION OR LACK OF PRIVILEGE. People may develop a STRONG DESIRE TO
CHANGE THE SITUATION by raising their voices against the existing order. They may
start questioning established practices of society. This difference of opinion actually
reflects a desire for change. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS EMERGE UNDER THIS SITUATION.
However, a movement does not occur suddenly. It begins with DISSENT, moves
towards PROTESTS AND AGITATION and finally takes the form of a SOCIAL
MOVEMENT. This SEQUENCE-DISSENT, PROTEST AND AGITATION and SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS – represents different phases of social change. But in some cases all these
may be in operation at the same time.

1. DISSENT: The term DISSENT refers to ideas and activities which are different from
those prevailing in a society at a given point of time. DIFFERENCES OF OPINION
AND DISAGREEMENT on certain issues are bases of dissent. Dissent is thus the
beginning of a movement for change. FOR EXAMPLE, the struggle against the
inhuman practice of untouchability in India was initiated only when the people
who were suffering from this cruel practice raised their voices against it
(Expressed their Dissent).
2. PROTEST AND AGITATION is generally SPECIFIC IN NATURE. WHEN DISSENT IS
EXPRESSED OPENLY IT ASSUMES THE FORM OF PROTEST AND
AGITATION. When a dissenting opinion crystallizes further the situation
 of PROTEST AND AGITATION is created. Thus PROTEST AND AGITATION, in order
to be meaningful, has to be supported by dissent in respect of the institutional
arrangements prevailing in society at a given point of time. In fact,
a CONSCIOUSNESS OF INJUSTICE AND DEPRIVATION TAKES PLACE AT THIS
STAGE. Accordingly, we may say that THE SOCIAL SHARING OF DISCRIMINATION
AND DEPRIVATION IS THE STARTING POINT OF PROTEST AND AGITATION. Thus,
we may say that DISSENT expresses dissatisfaction with the existing situation and
registers disagreement. PROTEST AND AGITATION, on the other hand, is a formal
declaration of dissent and represents a more crystallized state of opposition and
conflict.
3. SOCIAL MOVEMENT: The term “social movements” was introduced in 1850 by
the German Sociologist Lorenz von Steinin his book “History of the French Social
Movement from 1789 to the Present”. A social movement is A SUSTAINED
COLLECTIVE EFFORT THAT FOCUSES ON SOME ASPECT OF SOCIAL
CHANGE. M.S.A RAO says that a social movement essentially involves SUSTAINED
COLLECTIVE MOBILIZATION THROUGH EITHER INFORMAL OR FORMAL
ORGANIZATION AND IS GENERALLY ORIENTED TOWARDS BRINGING ABOUT
CHANGE IN THE EXISTING SYSTEM. Rao considers ideology as an important
component of a social movement. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS are of great sociological
interest because they are a major source of social change. All societies undergo
changes. It may be radical i.e. some social institutions may be replaced by new
ones. There may be major changes in the existing social institutions. Social
movements are A TYPE OF GROUP ACTION TO BRING OR RESIST CHANGE. They
are large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on
specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out, resisting or
undoing a social change.

KEY PROCESSES LIE BEHIND THE HISTORY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:

1. Several key processes lie behind the history of social movements.

URBANIZATION led to larger settlements, where people of similar goals could
find each other, gather and organize. This facilitated social interaction between
scores of people, and it was in urban areas that those early social movements first
appeared.
2. Similarly, the process of INDUSTRIALIZATION which gathered large masses of
workers in the same region explains why many of those early social movements
addressed matters such as economic wellbeing, important to the worker class.
3. UNIVERSALIZATION of EDUCATION: Many other social movements were created
at universities, where the process of mass education brought many people
together.
4. SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION: With the development of communication technologies,
creation and activities of social movements became easier – from printed
pamphlets circulating in the 18th century coffeehouses to newspapers and
Internet, all those tools became important factors in the growth of the social
movements.
 5. DEMOCRATIZATION: Finally, the spread of democracy and political rights like the
freedom of speech made the creation and functioning of social movements much
easier.

NATURE OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:

1. TURNER & KILHAN define a social movement as a “COLLECTIVITY which acts with
some continuity to promote or resist change in the society or group of which it is
a part”. Toch emphasizes that a SOCIAL MOVEMENT is AN EFFORT BY A LARGE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO SOLVE COLLECTIVELY A PROBLEM THEY FEEL THEY
SHARE IN COMMON.
2. Although SOCIAL MOVEMENT involves COLLECTIVE ACTION by the people.
However, ANY FORM OF COLLECTIVE ACTION CANNOT BE LABELED AS A SOCIAL
MOVEMENT, even if it is directed towards changing the existing, social values. It
should be SUSTAINED AND NOT SPORADIC.
3. A SOCIAL MOVEMENT DIFFERS FROM a CROWD by being a long term collectivity,
not a quick spontaneous grouping.
4. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS are also different from other movements
like COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT or THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT. THESE
MOVEMENTS ARE INSTITUTIONALIZED MOVEMENTS i.e. they function under a
given set of rules. The membership of these organizations is not open to all.
Members function with a fixed structure and a hierarchy. This type of a hierarchy
is necessary for any institutionalized movement. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS on the
other hand, will not have any of the above features. The two features of social
movements, namely, SUSTAINED ACTION AND SPONTANEITY OPERATE
SIMULTANEOUSLY. These together distinguish a social movement from other
movements.
5. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN THE BEGINNING do not follow a fixed pattern of
hierarchy. They are thus able to innovate new features of organisation.
Institutionalization would prevent any form of innovation because of its fixed
structures.
6. A SOCIAL MOVEMENT constitutes a collective attempt not only to promote
change but also to resist change e.g. Sati movement.

TYPES OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:

1. REFORM MOVEMENTS: Collective attempt to change some parts of a society

without completely transforming it. It accepts the basic pattern of the social order
of that society and orients itself around an ideal. It makes use of those institutions
such as the press, the government, the school, the church and so on to support its
programme. These usually rise on behalf of some distressed or exploited group.
Reform movements are almost impossible in an authoritarian society. Such
movements are mainly possible in democratic societies where people tolerate
criticism.
 2. REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS: Such a movement seeks to overthrow the
existing system and replace it with a totally different one. Revolutionary
movements aim at reconstructing the entire social order. They Challenge the
existing norms and propose a new scheme of values.
3. RESISTANCE OF REACTIONARY MOVEMENTS: These arise among people who are
dissatisfied with certain aspects of change. The movement seeks to recapture or
reinstate old values.
4. MIGRATORY MOVEMENTS: When a large number of people migrate due to
discontent and or due to shared hope for a better future in some other land.
5. REVITALIZATION MOVEMENT:

FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:

According to TOURAINE social movements have three important functions:

1. MEDIATION: Help to relate the individual to the larger society. Give each person a
chance to participate, to express his ideas and to play a role in the process of
social change.
2. PRESSURE: Social movements stimulate the formation of organized group that
work systematically to see that their plans and policies are implemented.
3. CLARIFICATION OF COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS: Social movements generate
and develop ideas which spread throughout society. As a result group
consciousness arises and grows.

THEORETICAL STRANDS FOR ORIGINS OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:

1. DEPRIVATION THEORY: Deprivation theory argues that SOCIAL

MOVEMENTS have their foundations among people who feel deprived of some
good(s) or resource(s). According to this approach, individuals who are lacking
some good, service, or comfort are more likely to organize a social movement to
improve (or defend) their conditions. There are two significant problems with this
theory. FIRST, since most people feel deprived at one level or another almost all
the time, the theory has a hard time explaining why the groups that form social
movements do when other people are also deprived. SECOND, the reasoning
behind this theory is circular – often the only evidence for deprivation is the social
movement. If deprivation is claimed to be the cause but the only evidence for
such is the movement, the reasoning is circular.
2. MARXIST THEORY: (FOR DETAIL REFER THINKERS) Derived from Karl Marx,
Marxism as an ideology and theory of social change has had an immense impact
on the practice and the analysis of social movements. Marxism arose from an
analysis of movements structured by conflicts between industrial workers and
their capitalist employers in the 19th century. In the twentieth century a variety
of neo Marxist theories have been developed that have opened themselves to
adding questions of race, gender, environment, and other issues to an analysis
centered in (shifting) political economic conditions. Class based movements, both
revolutionary and labor-reformist, have always been stronger in Europe than in
 the US and so has Marxist theory as a tool for understanding social movements,
but important Marxist movements and theories have also evolved in the US.
Marxist approaches have been and remain influential ways of understanding the
role of political economy and class differences as key forces in many historical and
current social movements, and they continue to challenge approaches that are
limited by their inability to imagine serious alternatives to consumer capitalist
social structures.
3. MASS SOCIETY THEORY: Mass society theory argues that SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS are made up of individuals in large societies who feel their identity
insignificant or socially detached. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, according to this theory,
PROVIDE A SENSE OF EMPOWERMENT AND BELONGING THAT THE MEMBERS
WOULD OTHERWISE NOT HAVE FELT. However, Very little support has been
found for this theory. AHO (1990), in his study of Idaho Christian Patriotism, did
not find that members of that movement were more likely to have been socially
detached. In fact, the key to joining the movement was having a friend or
associate who was a member of the movement.
4. SOCIAL STRAIN THEORY: Social strain theory, also known as “value-added
theory”, proposes six factors that encourage social movement:
 structural conduciveness – people come to believe their society has problems
 structural strain – people experience deprivation
 growth and spread of a solution – a solution to the problems people are
experiencing is proposed and spreads
 precipitating factors – discontent usually requires a catalyst (often a specific
event) to turn it into a social movement
 lack of social control – the entity that is to be changed must be at least
somewhat open to the change; if the social movement is quickly and powerfully
repressed, it may never materialize
 mobilization – this is the actual organizing and active component of the
movement; people do what needs to be done
 This theory is also subject to circular reasoning as it incorporates, at least in
part, deprivation theory and relies upon it, and social/structural strain for the
underlying motivation of social movement activism. However, social movement
activism is, like in the case of deprivation theory, often the only indication that
there was strain or deprivation.
5. RESOURCE MOBILIZATION THEORY: Resource mobilization theory emphasizes
the importance of resources in SOCIAL MOVEMENT and it’s success. Resources
are understood here to include: KNOWLEDGE, MONEY, MEDIA, LABOR,
SOLIDARITY, LEGITIMACY, AND INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SUPPORT FROM
POWER ELITE. The theory argues that SOCIAL MOVEMENTS develop when
individuals with grievances are able to mobilize sufficient resources to take
action. The emphasis on resources offers an explanation why some
discontented/deprived individuals are able to organize while others are
not. Some of the assumptions of the theory include:
  there will always be grounds for protest in modern, politically pluralistic
societies because there is constant discontent among members of society (i.e.,
grievances or deprivation);
 Members weigh the costs and benefits from movement’s participation; members
are recruited through networks; commitment is maintained by building a
collective identity and continuing to nurture interpersonal relationships
 movement organization is contingent upon the aggregation of resources
 social movement organizations require resources and continuity of leadership
 social movement entrepreneurs and protest organisers are the catalysts which
transform
collective discontent into social movements;
 the form of the resources shapes the activities of the movement (e.g., access to a
TV
station will result in the extensive use TV media)
 movements develop in contingent opportunity structures that influence their
efforts to
mobilize; as each movement’s response to the opportunity structures depends on
the
movement’s organization and resources, there is no clear pattern of movement
development nor are specific movement techniques or methods universal
 CRITICS of this theory argue that there is too much of an emphasize on
resources, especially financial resources. Some movements are effective without
an influx of money and are more dependent upon the movement members for
time and labor (e.g., the civil rights movement in the U.S.).

M.S.A. RAO had done a great deal of research on SOCIAL MOVEMENTS and he
IDENTIFIED THREE FACTORS relating to the origins of SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

1. RELATIVE DEPRIVATION: People feel that they are deprived of something. THE
NAXALITE MOVEMENT would have this as a cause. Deprivation is relative and not
absolute. Social movements can arise out of relative expectations and not
necessarily out of extreme or absolute conditions.
2. STRUCTURAL STRAIN: When the prevailing value system and the normative
structure do not meet the aspirations of the people, the society faces strain. A
NEW VALUE SYSTEM IS SOUGHT SO AS TO REPLACE THE OLD LEADS TO
CONFLICTS AND TENSION CAUSING SOCIAL MOVEMENT. Usually individuals in
such a situation violate the social norms.
3. REVITALIZATION: Offer a positive alternative. MOVEMENTS ARE STARTED FOR
REVITALIZING THE EXISTING SYSTEM WHICH IS UNDERGOING STRUCTURAL
STRAIN. Urge for revitalization can generate a movement which promotes
patriotism and national pride could be caused by youth movements which
encourage young people to help and organize the oppressed or the literacy
movements are other examples. Movements are started in order to solve a
problem collectively. Not merely protest against what they define as wrong but
also try to provide an alternative.
CONDITIONS FOR ORIGIN OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:

1. Social movement represents an effort by a large number of people to solve

collectively a problem or problems.
2. The people must understand the problem.
3. The problem must be observable.
4. Problem must be objective i.e. it exists even if people are not aware of it.
5. Consciousness of the problem: When people become aware of the problem it
means that their consciousness of the problem is real. They are now subjectively
aware of the objective situation.
 Problems are not created by people out of nothing. Problems exist in reality but
it is only when people actually understand a problem that they try to find out
means to overcome it.• Social movements are not eternal. They have a life
cycle: they are created, they grow, they achieve successes or failures and
eventually, they dissolve and cease to exist.
6. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS are more likely to evolve in the TIME AND PLACE WHICH IS
FRIENDLY TO THE SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: hence their evident symbiosis with the
19th century proliferation of ideas like individual rights, freedom of speech and
civil disobedience.
7. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS occur in both liberal and authoritarian societies but in
different forms. However there must always be POLARIZING
DIFFERENCES between groups of people, FOR EXAMPLE in case of ‘old
movements’, they were the poverty and wealth gaps. In case of the ‘new
movements’, they are more likely to be the differences in customs, ethics and
values.
8. Finally, the birth of a social movement needs what sociologist Neil Smelser calls
an INITIATING EVENT: a particular, individual event that will begin a chain
reaction of events in the given society leading to the creation of a social
movement. FOR EXAMPLE, American Civil Rights movement grew on the reaction
to black woman, Rosa Parks, riding in the whitesonly section of the bus (although
she was not acting alone or spontaneously—typically activist Leaders lay the
groundwork behind the scenes of interventions designed to spark a movement).
The Polish Solidarity movement, which eventually toppled the communist
regimes of Eastern Europe, developed after trade union activist Anna
Walentynowicz was fired from work. The South African shack dwellers’
movement grew out of a road blockade in response to the sudden selling off of a
small piece of land promised for housing to a developer. Such an event is also
described as a “volcanic model” – a social movement is often created after a large
number of people realize that there are others sharing the same value and desire
for a particular social change.

SOURCES OF PROBLEMS IN SOCIAL MOVEMENT:

1. One of the main difficulties facing the emerging social movement is ‘spreading
the very knowledge that it exists’. Second is overcoming the ‘free rider problem’
 – convincing people to join it, instead of following the mentality ‘why should I
trouble myself when others can do it and I can just reap the benefits after their
hard work’.
2. Many social movements are created around some charismatic leader, i.e. one
possessing charismatic authority. After the social movement is created, there are
two likely phases of recruitment. The first phase will gather the people deeply
interested in the ‘primary goal’ and ideal of the movement. The second
phase, which will usually come after the given movement had some successes
and is trendy; it would look good on a résumé. People who join in this second
phase will likely be the first to leave when the movement suffers any setbacks
and failures.
3. Eventually, the social crisis can be encouraged by outside elements, like
opposition from government or other movements. However, many movements
had survived a failure crisis, being revived by some hardcore activists even after
several decades.

ROLE OF LEADERSHIP AND IDEOLOGY IN SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:

Social movements constitute people’s efforts to organize themselves to light against
inequalities, discrimination and deprivation. Widespread collective mobilization has led
to organized movements with defined ideologies and leaders who have brought
important changes in the societies from which they originate.

 Leaders are important for movements because THEY HELP CLARIFY THE ISSUES
and THUS SHAPE THE MOVEMENT.
 PROVIDE GUIDANCE to a movement.
 PREVENT IT FROM BECOMING A DESPERATE, UNRULY collection of people.
 Leadership is expected to REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PEOPLE.
 Leaders ARTICULATE THE VIEWS of the participants.
 They PRESENT PEOPLES VIEW IN AN ORGANIZED MANNER.
 How the participant attempt to achieve the stated objectives will be largely
determined by the leadership the movement can throw up.

Ideology:

1. People follow the leader because of what he represents i.e. the ideas that he
places before the people.
2. Ideology plays a role in SUSTAINING THE MOVEMENT.
3. It helps in UNDERSTANDING A SITUATION.
4. It LEGITIMIZES ACTIONS perused by the people.
5. Ideology makes people UNDERSTAND AND JUSTIFY THE IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR
ACTIONS.
6. Ideology indicates THE GOALS, MEANS AND FORMS OF PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES of
social groups and of individuals.
7. It supplies the JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIOUS SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND MORAL
IDEALS.
 8. Ideology DISTINGUISHES A SOCIAL MOVEMENT FROM MERE INSTANCES.
9. Leaders operate within ideological framework.

LIFE CYCLE OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:

1. STAGE ONE reflects the SOCIAL UNREST present in society. COLLECTIVE

TENSION builds up as a result of this.
2. STAGE TWO in which COLLECTIVE EXCITEMENT can be witnessed in the society,
where people feel they have a problem in common. CERTAIN SOCIAL
CONDITIONS ARE IDENTIFIED as the root cause of the misery and excitement sets
in. The movement gains support and a guiding ideology. AGITATION rise
everywhere. This period is generally brief and leads quickly to action.
3. STAGE THREE is the FORMALIZATION STAGE though some movements like
migratory movements may be able to operate without formal organisation.
DIVISION OF WORK among leaders and followers. FUND RAISING is systematized
and IDEOLOGY BECOMES CLEARER than before. The STRATEGY AND TACTICS
FOR PROTEST AND FOR ACTION are drawn and A MORAL JUSTIFICATION for
having adopted a particular course of action is established.
4. THE FOURTH STAGE is one of INSTITUTIONALIZATION. The
movement CRYSTALLIZES INTO A DEFINITE PATTERN. Efficient bureaucrats
replace agitators; buildings, offices are established. The AIMS OF THE
MOVEMENT become accepted in that society. This period may last indefinitely.
5. THE FIFTH STAGE is one of DISSOLUTION. Only some movements achieve full
institutionalization. Some movements’ ends early while some dissolve after the
objective has been achieved.

All social movements: Play a major part in social change. Help in quickening the pace
of change. Influence many aspects of the people’s lives: moral, political, social and
cultural.

REVOLUTION:
A revolution is a mass social movement. A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, “a turn
around”) is a fundamental change in political power or organizational structures that
takes place in a relatively short period of time when the population rises up in revolt
against the current authorities. A revolution leads to major process of reform or
change (Skocpol 1979).

1. JOHN DUNN has pointed out that this means that those who take power must
genuinely be more capable of governing the society over which they assume
control than those who have been over-thrown; the leadership must be capable
of achieving at least some its targets. A society in which a movement succeeds in
gaining the formal trappings of power but is then unable to rule effectively cannot
be said to have experienced a revolution; it is likely rather to be a society in chaos
or threatened with disintegration.
 2. Revolution involves the threat or use of violence on the part of those
participating. Revolutions are political changes brought about in the face of
opposition from the pre existing authorities who cannot be persuaded to
relinquish their power without the threatened or actual use of violence means.
3. Combining these three criteria, we can define A REVOLUTION AS THE SEIZURE,
OFTEN INVOLVING THE USE OF VIOLENCE, OF POLITICAL POWER BY THE
LEADERS OF A MASS MOVEMENT, WHERE THAT POWER IS SUBSEQUENTLY
USED TO INITIATE MAJOR PROCESSES OF SOCIAL REFORM. In these terms, the
events of 1989 in Eastern Europe were definitely revolutions. Mass social
movements were involved. Violence was threatened and sometimes (in Romania,
for example) used against the government authorities. And the events certainly
led to major processes of social reform.
4. The revolutions, however, are only the most recent in a history of revolutionary
change in modern societies that goes as far back as the eighteenth century. The
American and French revolutions, of 1776 and 1789 respectively, were the most
important examples during the eighteenth. The ideals of freedom, citizenship
and equality in the name of which those revolutions were fought, have become
fundamental political values. Indeed, these were the value that guided the
movements of 1989 in Eastern Europe. Eighteenth-century revolutions in fact
played a major role in establishing the political system of most
5. Western societies, not just the United States and France. But most of the
revolutions occurring across the world in the twentieth century, up to the events
of 1989, took place in developing societies such as Russia, China, Mexico, Turkey,
Egypt Vietnam, Cuba and other Third World countries.

THEORIES OF REVOLUTION:
Since revolution have been so important in world history over the past two centuries, it
is not surprising that a diversity of theories exist to try to account for them. Some
theories were formulated early in the history of the social sciences; the most important
was that of Karl Marx. Marx, who lived well before any of the revolutions undertaken in
the name of his ideas. He intended his views to be taken not just as an analysis of the
conditions of revolutionary change, but as a means of furthering such change. Whatever
is their intrinsic validity, Marx’s ideas have had an immense practical impact on
twentieth-century social change.

KARL MARX’S THEORY:

1. Marx’s view of revolution is based on his interpretation of human history in

general. According to Marx, THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETIES IS MARKED BY
PERIODIC CLASS CONFLICTS THAT, WHEN THEY BECOME ACUTE, TEND TO END
IN A PROCESS OF REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. Class struggles derive from the
contradictions – unresolvable tensions – in societies.
2. The main source of contradiction can be traced to economic changes, or changes
in the forces of production. In beginning was stability in society, there was a
balance between the economic structure, social relationship and the political
 system (PRIMITIVE CAPITALIST STAGE). As the forces of production altered,
contradiction appeared in society because of inequality between HAVE and
HAVENOT in respect to their relation with “Means of Production”. In Capitalist
stage contradictions further intensified, leading to open clashes between classes
– and ultimately to revolution.
3. MARX APPLIED THIS MODEL BOTH TO THE PAST DEVELOPMENT OF FEUDALISM
AND TO WHAT HE SAW AS THE PROBABLE FUTURE EVOLUTION OF INDUSTRIAL
CAPITALISM. The traditional, feudal societies of Europe were based on peasant
production; the producers were SERFS ruled by a class of LANDED ARISTOCRATS
AND GENTRY. Economic changes within these societies gave rise to towns and
cities, where trade and manufacture developed. This new economic system,
created within feudal society, threatened its very basis. Rather than being
founded on the traditional lord-serf relationship, the emerging economic order
encouraged industrialists to produce goods for sale in open markets. The
contradictions between the old feudal economy and the newly emerging
capitalist one eventually became acute, taking the form of VIOLENT
CONFLICT between THE RISING CAPITALIST CLASS and THE FEUDAL
LANDOWNERS. REVOLUTION WAS THE OUTCOME OF THIS PROCESS, THE MOST
IMPORTANT EXAMPLE BEING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 1789. Through such
revolution and revolutionary change occurring in other European societies, Marx
argued, the capitalist class managed to achieve dominance.
4. But the coming of industrial capitalism, according to Marx, set up new
contradictions, which would eventually lead to a further series of revolutions
prompted by ideals of communism. MARX MEANT BY COMMUNISM THE
OWNERSHIP OF INDUSTRY BY SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, RATHER THAN BY
INDIVIDUALS. Industrial capitalism is an economic order based on the private
pursuit of profit and on competition between firms to sell their products creates a
gulf between a rich minority who control the industrial resources and an
impoverished majority of wage workers. WORKERS AND CAPITALIST come into
more and more intense conflict with one another. Labour movements and
political parties representing the mass of the working population eventually
mount a challenge to the rule of the capitalist class and overthrow the existing
political system. When the position of a dominant class is particularly entrenched,
Marx believed, violent Revolution is necessary to bring about the required-
transition.

JAMES DAVIES THEORY:

1. Criticizing Marx, sociologist James Davies pointed out that there are many
periods of history when people have lived in dire poverty but have not risen up
in protest. Constant poverty or deprivation does not make people into
revolutionaries; rather, they usually endure such conditions with resignation or
mute despair. According to Davies, social protest, and ultimately revolution, is
more likely to occur when there is an improvement in people’s living conditions.
Once standards of living have started to rise, people’s levels of expectations
 also go up. If improvement in actual conditions subsequently slows down,
propensities to revolt are created because rising expectations are frustrated.
2. Thus, it is not absolute deprivation that leads to protest but relative deprivation
– the discrepancy between the lives people are forced to lead and what they
think could realistically be achieved. Davis’s theory is useful in understanding the
connections between revolution and modern social and economic development.
The influence of ideals of progress, together with expectations of economic
growth, tend to induce rising expectations, which, it then frustrated spark protest
Such protest gains further strength from the spread of ideas of equality and
democratic political participation.
3. As Charles Tilly has pointed out, however, Davies’s theory does not show how and
why different groups mobilize to seek revolutionary change. Protest might well
often occur against a backdrop of rising expectations; to understand how it is
transformed into revolutionary action; we need to identify how groups become
collectively organized to make effective political challenges.

CHARLES TILLY’S THEORY:

In From Mobilization to Revolution, Charles Tilly analysed process of revolutionary
change in the context of broader forms of protest and violence. He distinguished FOUR
MAIN COMPONENTS of COLLECTIVE ACTION, action taken to contest or overthrows an
existing social order LEADING TO REVOLUTION.

1. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GROUP OR GROUPS INVOLVED. Protest movements

are organized in many ways, varying from the spontaneous formation of crowds
to tightly disciplined revolutionary groups. FOR EXAMPLE, The movement Lenin
led in Russia began as a small group of activists.
2. MOBILIZATION, the ways in which a group acquires SUFFICIENT RESOURCES to
make collective action possible. Such resources may include supplies of material
goods, political support and weaponry. FOR EXAMPLE, Lenin was able to acquire
material and moral support from a sympathetic peasantry, together with many
townspeople.
3. THE COMMON INTERESTS of these engaging in collective action, what they see as
the gains and losses likely to be achieved by their policies. Some common goals
always underlie mobilization to collective action. FOR EXAMPLE, Lenin managed
to weld together a broad coalition of support because many people had a
common interest in removing the existing government.
4. OPPORTUNITY, CHANCE; events may occur that provide opportunities to pursue
revolutionary aims. Numerous forms of collective action, including revolution, are
greatly influenced by such incidental events. There was not inevitability to
Lenin’s success, which depended on a number of contingent factors – including
success in battle. If Lenin had been killed, would there have been a revolution?

Collective action itself can simply be defined as people acting together in pursuit of
interests they share – for example, gathering to demonstrate in support of their cause.
Some of these people may be intensely involved; others may lend more passive or
irregular support. Effective collective action, such as action that culminates in
revolution, usually moves through stages 1 to 4.

Social movements, in Tilly’s view, tend to develop as means of mobilizing group

resources either when people have no institutionalized means of making their voices
heard or when their needs are directly repressed by the state authorities. Although
collective action at some point. involves open confrontation with the political
authorities – ‘taking to the streets’ – only when such activity is backed by groups who
are systematically organized is confrontation likely to have much impact on established
patterns of power.

Typical models of collective action and protest vary with historical and cultural
circumstances. In today’s society, for example, most people are familiar with forms of
demonstration such as mass marches, large assemblies and street riots, whether or not
they have participated in such activities. Other types of collective protest, however,
have become less common or have disappeared altogether in most modern societies
(such as fights between villages, machine breaking or lynching). Protesters can also build
on examples taken from other countries; for instance, guerrilla movements proliferated
in various parts of the world once disaffected groups learned how successful guerrilla
actions can be against regular armies.

When and why does collective action become violent? After studying a large number
of incidents that have occurred in Western Europe since 1800, Tilly concludes that most
collective violence occurs depends not so much on the nature of the activity as on other
factors – in particular, how the authorities respond. A good instance is the street
demonstration. The vast majority of such demonstrations take place without damage
either to people or to property. A minority lead to violence, and are then labeled as
riots. Sometimes the authorities step in when violence has already occurred; more
often, the historical record shows, they are the originators of violence. In Tilly’s words,
‘In the modern European experience repressive forces are themselves the most
consistent initiator and performers of collective violence’ (1978). Moreover, when
violent confrontations do occur, the agents of authority are responsible for the largest
share of deaths and injuries; This is not surprising given their special access to arms and
military discipline. The groups they are attempting to control, conversely, do greater
damage to object or property.

Revolutionary movements, according to Tilly, are type of collective action that occurs
in situations what he calls multiple sovereignty – these occur when a government for
some reason lacks full control over the areas it is supposed administer. Multiple
sovereignty can arise as a result of external war, internal political clashes, or these two
combined. Whether a revolutionary takeover of power is accomplished depends on how
far the ruling authorities maintain control over the armed forces, the extent of conflicts
within ruling groups and the level of organization of the protest movements trying to
seize power.
Tilly’s work represents one of the most sophisticated attempts to analyse collective
violence and revolutionary struggle. The concepts he develops seem to have wide
application, and his use of them is sensitive to the variabilities of historical time and
place. How social movements are organized, the resources they are able to mobilize,
the common interests of groups contending for power, and change opportunities are all
important aspects of revolutionary transformation.

Tilly says little, however, about the circumstances that lead to multiple sovereignty.
This is such a fundamental part of explaining revolution that it represents a serious
omission. According to Theda Skocpol, Tilly assumes that revolutionary movements are
guided by the conscious and deliberate pursuit of interests, and successful processes of
revolutionary change occur when people manage to realize these interest. Skocpol, by
contrast, sees revolutionary movements as more ambiguous and indecisive in their
objectives. Revolutions, she emphasizes, largely emerge as unintended consequences of
more partial aims: In fact, in historical revolutions, differently situated and motivated
groups have become participants in complex unfolding of multiple conflicts. These
conflicts have been powerfully shaped and limited by existing social, economic and
international conditions. And they have proceeded in different ways depending upon
how each revolutionary situation emerged in the first place.

Political Socialization

1. Political socialization can be defined as a process of socializing in a political

system through information on political symbols, institutions and procedures and
internalizing the value system and ideology supporting the system. It is also a
process of acquisition of political culture. This process works at individual as well
as at community level through cultural transmission. It is one of the most
important functions of the political system. It is also part of the general
socialization which starts at the later life.
2. The two important components are 1.Inculcation of general values and norms
regarding political behavior and political matters and 2. The induction of an
individual or some people into a particular party and learning its ideology and
action programmes.

Political Modernization:

1. It is the transformation of political culture in response to changes in social and

physical environment. According to Huntington political modernization is a
multifaceted process involving change in all areas of human thought and activity.
Benjamin Schwartz views political modernization as the systematic, sustained and
powerful application of human energies to control man’s social and physical
environment. Claude Welch describes political modernization as the process
based on the rational utilization of resources and aimed at the establishment of
modern society.
Religion and Society
Sociological theories of religion

The study of religion is a challenging enterprise which place quite special demands on
the sociological imagination. In analyzing religious practices, we have to make sense
of the many different beliefs and rituals found in the various human cultures. We
must be sensitive to ideals that inspire profound conviction in believers, yet at the
same time take balanced view of them. We have to confront ideas that seek the
eternal, while recognizing that religious groups also promote quite mundane goals –
such as acquiring finance or soliciting for followers. We should not only recognize the
diversity of religious beliefs and modes of conduct, but also probe into the nature of
religion as a general phenomenon.

Sociologist define religion as A CULTURAL SYSTEM OF COMMONLY SHARED BELIEFS

AND RITUALS THAT PROVIDES A SENSE OF ULTIMATE MEANING AND PURPOSE BY
CREATING AN IDEA OF REALITY THAT IS SACRED, ALL-ENCOMPASSING AND
SUPERNATURAL. There are three key elements in this definition:

1. RELIGION IS A FORM OF CULTURE. Culture consists of the shared beliefs, values,

norms and ideas that create a common identity among a group of people.
Religion shares all of these characteristics.
2. RELIGION INVOLVES BELIEFS THAT TAKE THE FORM OF RITUALIZED
PRACTICES. All religions thus have a behavioral aspect – special activities in which
believers take part and that identify them as members of the religious
community.
3. PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANT, RELIGION PROVIDES A SENSE OF PURPOSE – A
FEELING THAT LIFE IS ULTIMATELY MEANINGFUL. It does so by explaining
coherently and compellingly what transcends or overshadows everyday life, in
ways that other aspects of culture (such as an educational system or a belief in
democracy) typically can not.

What is absent from the sociological definition of religion is as important as what is

included: NOWHERE IS THERE MENTION OF GOD. In common sense WE OFTEN THINK
OF THEISM, A BELIEF IN ONE OR MORE SUPERNATURAL DEITIES (the term originates
from the Greek word for God), BASIC TO RELIGION, BUT THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE
CASE. Some religions, such as Buddhism, believe in the existence of spiritual forces
rather than a particular God.

How sociologists think about religion:

1. Sociologists are NOT CONCERNED with WHETHER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE TRUE
OR FALSE. From a sociological perspective, RELIGIONS ARE REGARDED NOT AS
BEING DECREED BY GOD. But as BEING SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED BY HUMAN
BEINGS. As a result, sociologists put aside their personal beliefs when they study
religion.
 2. They are CONCERNED WITH THE HUMAN RATHER THAN THE DIVINE ASPECTS OF
RELIGION. Sociologists ask;
 How is the religion organized?
 What are its principal beliefs and values?
 How is it related to the larger society?
 What explains its success or failure in recruiting and retaining believers?
3. Sociologists are especially CONCERNED WITH THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF
RELIGION. Religions are among the most important institutions in society. THEY
ARE A PRIMARY SOURCE OF THE MOST DEEP-SEATED NORMS AND VALUES. At
the same time, RELIGIONS ARE TYPICALLY PRACTICED THROUGH AN ENORMOUS
VARIETY OF SOCIAL FORMS (SOURCE OF DIVERSITY IN SOCIETY). Within
Christianity and Judaism, FOR EXAMPLE, religious practice often occurs in formal
organizations, such Asian religions as
4. Hinduism and Buddhism, where religious practices are likely to occur in the home
or some other natural setting. THE SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION IS CONCERNED
WITH HOW DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS
ACTUALLY FUNCTION. In MODERN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY, however, religions
have become established in separate, often bureaucratic, organizations, and so
sociologists focus on the organizations through which religions must operate in
order to survive (Hammond 1992).
5. Sociologists OFTEN VIEW RELIGIONS AS A MAJOR SOURCE OF SOCIAL
SOLIDARITY. To the extent that RELIGIONS PROVIDE BELIEVERS WITH A
COMMON SET OF NORMS AND VALUES, they are an important source of social
solidarity. Religious beliefs, rituals and bonds help to create a ‘moral community’
in which all members know how to behave towards one another (Wuthnow
1988). If a single religion dominates in society there is stability. If a society’s
members adhere to numerous competing religions difference may lead to
destabilizing social conflicts. Recent EXAMPLES of religious conflict within a
society include struggles between Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims in India; clashes
between Muslims and Christians in Bosnia and other parts of the former
Yugoslavia; and ‘hate crimes’ against Jews, Muslims and other religious minorities
in the United States.
6. Sociologists tend to explain “THE APPEAL OF RELIGION” in terms of “SOCIAL
FORCES rather than in terms of purely personal, spiritual or psychological
factors”. For many people, religious beliefs are a deeply personal experience,
involving a strong sense of connection with forces that transcend everyday
reality. Sociologists do not question the depth of such feelings and experiences,
but they are unlikely to limit themselves to a purely spiritual explanation of
religious commitment.

Some researchers argue that people often ‘GET RELIGION’ WHEN THEIR
FUNDAMENTAL SENSE OF A SOCIAL ORDER IS THREATENED BY ECONOMIC HARD SHIP,
LONELINESS, LOSS OR GRIEF, PHYSICAL SUFFERING, OR POOR HEALTH (BERGER
1967); explaining the appeal of religious movements, sociologists are more likely to
focus on the problems of the social order than on the psychological response of the
individual.
Karl MARX’s THEORY OF RELIGION:
KARL MARX, the German scholar, has provided a CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE OF RELIGION.
Marx saw RELIGION AS A REFLECTION OF SOCIETY (not as an expression of “primitive”
or psychological needs as other theorists of his time presented). UNLIKE THEORISTS
LIKE DURKHEIM who emphasized the positive functions of religion, MARX STRESSED
THE DYSFUNCTIONS OF RELIGION AS A SOCIAL INSTITUTION? Whereas Durkheim saw
religion as benefiting all segments of society by promoting social commitment, MARX
SAW RELIGION AS SERVING THE INTERESTS OF THE RULING CLASS AT THE EXPENSE OF
THE POWERLESS MASSES.

1. MARX ARGUED that “RELIGION IS THE SIGH OF THE OPPRESSED CREATURE, THE
SENTIMENT OF A HEARTLESS WORLD, AND THE SOUL OF SOULLESS
CONDITIONS. IT IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE”.
2. MARX ARGUED that “JUST AS A ‘PAINKILLER’ MASKS THE SYMPTOMS OF
DISEASE, silencing the sick person into the illusory belief that he or she is well and
hearty, ‘SO RELIGION MASKS THE EXPLOITATION OF WORKERS, AND LULLING
THEM INTO THE FALSE BELIEF THAT EXISTING SOCIAL ARRANGEMENTS ARE
JUST-OR IF NOT JUST, INESCAPABLE”.
3. Thus MARX ARGUED that RELIGION as a social institution TEACHES THAT THE
INDIVIDUAL’S POSITION ON EARTH WILL BE REWARDED IN HEAVEN. In so doing,
RELIGION OBSCURES THE EXPLOITATIVE TENDENCIES HIDDEN WITHIN THE
CLASS STRUCTURE AND ELITE’S VESTED INTEREST IN THE STATUS QUO.
4. In this way, RELIGION becomes A TOOL IN THE HANDS OF THE ‘HAVES’ TO
EXPLOIT AND OPPRESS THE ‘HAVE-NOTS’.
5. MARX perceived religion as ‘THE PERSONIFICATION OF ALIENATION’: the
selfestrangement people experience when they feel they have lost control over
social institutions. The term ‘alienation’ was used by him to describe the modern
worker’s experience of being nothing more than a ‘cog in a machine’. HE ALSO
EMPLOYED THIS CONCEPT TO DESCRIBE WHAT HE SAW AS THE DEHUMANIZING
EFFECT OF RELIGION. ‘The more the worker expends himself in work, the more
powerful becomes the world of objects which he creates in the face of himself,
the poorer he becomes in his inner life, the less he belongs to himself. IT IS JUST
THE SAME AS IN RELIGION. ‘THE MORE OF HIMSELF MAN ATTRIBUTES TO GOD
THE LESS HE HAS LEFT IN HIMSELF’ WROTE MARX .
6. As the above quoted citations indicate MARX’S DENUNCIATION AND REJECTION
OF RELIGION IN SOCIETY WAS TOTAL. He argued that ONLY WHEN PEOPLE GIVE
UP THE ILLUSORY HAPPINESS OF RELIGION WILL THEY BEGIN TO DEMAND REAL
HAPPINESS.
7. In furthering his attack on religion as an exploitative social institution in the
clutches of the bourgeois class, he wrote: ‘The institution of religion disillusions
man so that he will think, act and fashion his reality as a man who has… regained
his reason”. He predicted that in a classless society with communistic form of
economic order, religion would become irrelevant and unnecessary. Like the
capitalist class itself, religion would die its natural death.
Thus, Karl Marx considered RELIGION AS AN UNCALLED FOR AND MANIPULATIVE
INSTITUTION FORMING AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE EXPLOITATIVE SUPERSTRUCTURE.
Both the religious and cultural institutions transform with the transformation of the
economic foundation or the base. Religion and culture are the result of the existing
power structure of society and religion would wither away once the class society
revolutionizes itself into a classless society.

FUNCTIONALISM AND RELIGIOUS RITUAL:

In contrast to Marx, EMILE DURKHEIM spent a good part of his intellectual career
studying religion. Concentrating particularly on religion in small-scale, traditional
societies, Durkheim’s work, “the Elementary Forms of the Religious Life”, is the one of
the most influential studies in the sociology of religion. DURKHEIM DOES NOT
CONNECT RELIGION PRIMARILY WITH SOCIAL INEQUALITIES OR POWER, BUT RELATES
IT TO THE OVERALL NATURE OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF A SOCIETY. He bases his work on
a study of TOTEMISM as practiced by Australian Aboriginal societies, and he argues that
totemism represents religion in its most ‘elementary’ or simple form – hence the title of
his book.

1. A TOTEM was originally an animal or plant taken as having particular symbolic

significance for a group. It is a sacred object, regarded with veneration and
surrounded by various ritual activities. DURKHEIM DEFINES RELIGION IN TERMS
OF A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SACRED AND THE PROFANE. SACRED OBJECTS
AND SYMBOLS, he holds, are treated as apart from the routine aspects of
existence, which are totemic animal or plant, except on special ceremonial
occasions, is usually forbidden, and as a sacred object the totem is believed to
have divine properties which separate it completely from other animals that
might be hunted, or crops gathered and consumed.
2. WHY IS THE TOTEM SACRED? According to Durkheim, IT IS BECAUSE IT IS THE
SYMBOL OF THE GROUP ITSELF; IT STANDS FOR THE VALUES CENTRAL TO THE
GROUP OR COMMUNITY. The reverence which people feel for the totem actually
derives from the respect they hold for central social values. IN RELIGION, THE
OBJECT OF WORSHIP IS ACTUALLY SOCIETY ITSELF.
3. Durkheim strongly emphasized that RELIGIONS ARE NEVER JUST A MATTER OF
BELIEF. ALL RELIGION INVOLVES REGULAR CEREMONIAL AND RITUAL ACTIVITIES
IN WHICH A GROUP OF BELIEVERS MEETS TOGETHER….. IN COLLECTIVE
CEREMONIALS A SENSE OF GROUP SOLIDARITY IS AFFIRMED AND
HEIGHTENED. Ceremonials take individuals away from the concerns of profane
social life into an elevated sphere, in which they feel in contact with higher forces,
attributed to totems, divine influence or goods, are really the expression of the
influence of the collectivity over the individual.
4. CEREMONY AND RITUAL, in Durkheim’s view, ARE ESSENTIAL TO BINDING THE
MEMBERS OF GROUPS NOT ONLY IN REGULAR SITUATIONS OF WORSHIP, BUT
ALSO IN THE VARIOUS LIFE CRISES WHEN MAJOR SOCIAL TRANSITIONS ARE
EXPERIENCED – FOR EXAMPLE, BIRTH, MARRIAGE AND DEATH. In virtually all
societies, ritual and ceremonial procedures are observed on such occasions.
 Durkheim reasons that collective ceremonials reaffirm group solidarity at a time
when people are forced to adjust to major changes in their lives. Funeral rituals
demonstrate that the values of the group outlive the passing of particular
individuals, and so provide a means for bereaved people to adjust to their altered
circumstances. Mourning is not the spontaneous expression of grief or, at least, it
is only so for those personally affected by the death. Mourning is a duty imposed
by the group.
5. IN SMALL TRADITIONAL CULTURES, Durkheim argued, ALMOST ALL ASPECTS OF
LIFE ARE PERMEATED BY RELIGION. Religious ceremonials both originate new
ideas and categories of thought, and reaffirm existing values. RELIGION IS NOT
JUST A SERIES OF SENTIMENTS AND ACTIVITIES; IT ACTUALLY CONDITIONS THE
MODES OF THINKING OF INDIVIDUALS IN TRADITIONAL CULTURES. Even the
most basic categories of thought, including how time and space are thought of,
were first framed in religious terms. The concept of ‘time’, for instance, was
originally derived from counting the intervals involved in the religious
ceremonials.
6. WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN SOCIETIES, Durkheim believed, the
influence of religion wanes. SCIENTIFIC THINKING INCREASINGLY REPLACES
RELIGIOUS EXPLANATION, AND CEREMONIAL AND RITUAL ACTIVITIES COME TO
OCCUPY ONLY A SMALL PART OF INDIVIDUALS’ LIVES. Durkheim agrees with
Marx that traditional religion – that is, religion involving divine force or gods – is
on the verge of disappearing. “The old gods are dead’, Durkheim writes. Yet he
says that THERE IS SENSE IN WHICH RELIGION, IN ALTERED FORMS, IS LIKELY TO
CONTINUE. Even modern societies depend for their cohesion on rituals that
reaffirm their values; new ceremonial activities can thus be expected to emerge
to replace the old. Durkheim is vague about what these might be, but it seems
that he has in mind the celebration of humanist and political values such as
freedom, equality and social cooperation.
7. Many other Social scientists, apart from Durkheim have analyzed religion in terms
of what it does for the individual, community or society through its functions and
dysfunctions. Many of these social scientists are known to belong to the tradition
of functionalist thought. A famous social anthropologist of early twentieth
century, MALINOWSKI, saw religion and magic as assisting the individual to cope
with situations of stress or anxiety. Religious ritual, according to him, may enable
the bereaved to REASSERT THEIR COLLECTIVE SOLIDARITY, TO EXPRESS THEIR
COMMON NORMS AND VALUES UPON WHICH THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF
THE COMMUNITY DEPENDS. Religion can also SUPPLEMENT PRACTICAL,
EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE, offering some sense of understanding and control in
areas to which such knowledge does not extent.
8. RADCLIFFE-BROWN argues that; Religious ceremonies, for example in the form of
communal dancing, PROMOTED UNITY AND HARMONY AND FUNCTIONED TO
ENHANCE SOCIAL SOLIDARITY AND THE SURVIVAL of the society. RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS contained in myths and legends, he observes, EXPRESS THE SOCIAL
VALUES OF THE DIFFERENT OBJECTS WHICH HAVE A MAJOR INFLUENCE ON
 SOCIAL LIFE such as food, weapons, day and night etc. They form the value
consensus around which society is integrated.
9. Recently FUNCTIONALISM while retaining this notion that religion has a central
role in maintaining social solidarity has rejected Durkheim’s view that religious
beliefs are merely symbolic representations of society. KINGSLEY DAVIS argues
that RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FORM THE BASIS FOR SOCIALLY VALUED GOALS AND A
JUSTIFICATION OF THEM. RELIGION PROVIDES A COMMON FOCUS FOR
IDENTITY AND AN UNLIMITED SOURCE OF REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS FOR
BAHAVIOUR.
10.FUNCTIONALIST THEORIES OF RELIGION FACE A PROBLEM IN THE APPARENT
DECLINE IN RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND PARTICIPATION. What is viewed as
secularization in other theories is seen as simply religious change in functionalist
terms. Functionalist theorists argue that RELIGION TAKES DIFFERENT FORMS IN
APPARENTLY SECULAR SOCIETIES: IT IS MORE INDIVIDUALIZED, LESS TIED TO
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS. The character of modern industrial capitalist society,
particularly its rampant individualism, is thus seen to be expressed in the
differentiated character of religion in a society like the USA. Although seemingly
having little basis for integration, the celebration of individualism is itself an
integrating feature of such diverse religious forms. Moreover, new and distinctive
forms of religion may perform latent functions for the system by deflecting
adherents from critical appraisal of their society and its distribution of rewards.
11.IN ANTI-RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES SUCH AS SOME COMMUNIST STATES THIS
ARGUMENT CANNOT HOLD, BUT HERE IT IS CLAIMED THAT FUNCTIONAL
ALTERNATIVES TO TRADITIONAL RELIGION OPERATE. Other systems of belief
such as communism itself fulfill the same role as religion elsewhere. National
ceremonial, ritual celebration of communist victories, heroes, etc., meets the
same need for collective rites, which reaffirm common sentiments and promote
enhanced commitment to common goals.
12.Finally, EVEN IN HIGHLY SECULARIZED WESTERN SOCIETIES CIVIL RELIGION
EXISTS. This consists in abstract beliefs and rituals, which relate society to
ultimate things and provide a rationale for national history, a transcendental basis
for national goals and purposes.
13.ROBERT KING MERTON, a twentieth century functionalist, introduced the
concept of dysfunction. Talking about religion, for instance, HE POINTED OUT THE
DYSFUNCTIONAL FEATURES OF RELIGION IN A MULTI-RELIGIOUS SOCIETY. In
such a society religion, instead of bringing about solidarity, could become the
cause of disorganization and disunity.
14.Apart from Merton, many other social thinkers have highlighted the dysfunctions
of religion. KARL MARX regarded RELIGION AS A SOURCE OF FALSE
CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE PROLETARIAT, WHICH PREVENTS THE ‘CLASS FOR
ITSELF’ FROM DEVELOPING. It prevents them from developing their real powers
and potentialities.
MAX WEBER’S THEORY OF RELIGION:
Durkheim based his arguments on a very small range of examples, even though he
claims his ideas apply to religion in general. MAX WEBER, by contrast, EMBARKED ON A
MASSIVE STUDY OF RELIGIONS WORLDWIDE. NO SCHOLAR BEFORE OR SINCE HAS
UNDERTAKEN A TASK OF SUCH SCOPE. Most of his attention was concentrated on what
he called the world religions – those that have attracted large numbers of believers and
decisively affected the course of global history. HE MADE DETAILED STUDIES OF
HINDUISM, BUDDHISM, TAOISM AND ANCIENT JUDAISM AND IN THE PROTESTANT
ETHNIC AND THE SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM and elsewhere, he wrote extensively about the
impact of Christianity on the history of the West. He did not, however, complete his
projected study of Islam.

1. WEBER’S writings on religion differ from those of Durkheim in that

they CONCENTRATE ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SOCIAL
CHANGE, something to which Durkheim gave little attention. They contrast with
the work of Marx because WEBER ARGUES THAT RELIGION IS NOT NECESSARILY
A CONSERVATIVE FORCE; on the contrary, RELIGIOUSLY INSPIRED MOVEMENTS
HAVE OFTEN PRODUCED DRAMATIC SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS. Thus
Protestantism – was the source of the capitalistic outlook found in the modern
West. THE EARLY ENTREPRENEURS WERE MOSTLY CALVINISTS. THEIR DRIVE TO
SUCCEED, WHICH HELPED INITIATE WESTERN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WAS
ORIGINALLY PROMOTED BY A DESIRE TO SERVE GOD. MATERIAL SUCCESS was
for them a sign of DIVINE FAVOUR.
2. HIS DISCUSSION OF THE IMPACT OF PROTESTANTISM ON THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE WEST IS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND THE
INFLUENCE OF RELIGION ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC LIFE IN CARRYING
CULTURES. Analyzing the Eastern religions, Weber concluded that they provided
insuperable barriers to the development of industrial capitalism, such as took
place in the West. This is not because the non-Western civilizations are backward;
they have simply accepted values different from those which came to
predominate in Europe. IN TRADITIONAL CHINA AND INDIA, Weber pointed out,
there was at certain periods a significant development of commerce,
manufacture and urbanism, but these did not generate the radical patterns of
social change involved in the rise of industrial capitalism in the West. RELIGION
WAS A MAJOR INFLUENCE IN INHIBITING SUCH CHANGE.
3. FOR EXAMPLE, HINDUISM is what Weber called on ‘other-worldly’ religion. That
is to say, ITS HIGHEST VALUES STRESS ESCAPE FROM THE TOILS OF THE
MATERIAL WORLD TO A HIGHER PLANE OF SPIRITUAL EXISTENCE. THE
RELIGIOUS FEELINGS AND MOTIVATIONS PRODUCED BY HINDUISM DO NOT
FOCUS ON CONTROLLING OR SHAPING THE MATERIAL WORLD. On the contrary,
Hinduism see material reality as a veil hiding the true concerns to which
humankind should be oriented. CONFUCIANISM also acted to direct effort away
from economic development, as this came to be understood in the West,
emphasizing harmony with the world rather than promoting active mastery of it.
Although China was for a long while the most powerful and culturally most
 developed civilization in the world, its dominant religious values acted as a brake
on a strong commitment to economic development for its own sake.
4. Weber regarded CHRISTIANITY as a salvation religion, involving the belief that
human beings can be ‘saved’ if they adopt the beliefs of the religion and follow its
moral tenets. The notions of sin and of being rescued from sinfulness by God’s
grace are important here. They generate a tension and an emotional dynamism
essentially absent from the Eastern religions. Salvation religions have a
‘revolutionary’ aspect. While the religions of the East cultivate an attitude of
passivity in the believes towards the existing order, Christianity involves a
constant struggle against sin, and hence can stimulate revolt against the existing
order of things. Religious leaders – like Jesus – arise, who reinterpret existing
doctrines in such a way as to challenge the prevailing power structure.

Critical assessment of the classical views:

1. Marx, Durkheim and Weber each identified some important general

characteristics of religion, and in some ways their views complement one
another. KARL MARX SEEMS TO BE RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT RELIGION OFTEN HAS
IDEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS, SERVING TO JUSTIFY THE INTERESTS OF RULING
GROUPS AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS: THERE ARE INNUMERABLE INSTANCES OF
THIS IN HISTORY. Take as an EXAMPLE the influence of Christianity on the
European colonialists’ efforts to subject other cultures of their rule. The
missionaries who sought to convert ‘heathen’ peoples to Christian beliefs were no
doubt sincere, yet the effect of their teachings was to reinforce the destruction of
traditional cultures and the imposition of white domination. The various Christian
denominations almost all tolerated, or endorsed, slavery in the United States and
other parts of the world up to the nineteenth century. Doctrines were developed
that claimed slavery was based on divine law, disobedient slaves being guilty of
an offence against God as well as their masters.
2. Yet MAX WEBER WAS CERTAINLY CORRECT TO EMPHASIZE THE UNSETTLING,
AND OFTEN REVOLUTIONARY, IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS IDEALS ON PRE-
ESTABLISHED SOCIAL ORDERS. FOR EXAMPLE, Despite the churches’ early
support for slavery in the United States, many church leaders later played a key
role in the fight to abolish it. Religious beliefs have promoted many social
movements seeking to overthrow unjust system of authority, playing a prominent
part, for instance, in the civil rights movements of the 1960s in the United States.
3. RELIGION HAS ALSO INFLUENCE SOCIAL CHANGE – OFTEN PROVOKING MUCH
BLOODSHED – through the armed clashes and ward fought for religious
motives. FOR EXAMPLE, KHALISTAN MOVEMENT, ISIS ETC.
4. THESE DIVISIVE INFLUENCES OF RELIGION, so prominent in history, find little
mention in DURKHEIM’S WORK. Durkheim emphasized above all the role of
religion in promoting social cohesion. YET IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO REDIRECT HIS
IDEAS TOWARDS EXPLAINING RELIGIOUS DIVISION, CONFLICT AND CHANGE AS
WELL AS SOLIDARITY. After all, much of the strength of feeling which may be
 generated against other religious groups drives from the commitment to religious
values generated within each community of believers.
5. Among the most valuable aspects of Durkheim’s writings is his stress on ritual
and ceremony. All religions involve regular assemblies of believers, which ritual
activities also mark the major transitions of life – birth, entry to adulthood
(rituals associated with puberty are found in many cultures), marriage and
death (Van Gennep 1977).

Types of Religious Practices: Animism, Monism, Pluralism, Sects, Cults.

Animism:
ANIMISM refers to THE BELIEF/FAITH that NOT ONLY HUMANS, BUT NON-HUMAN
ENTITIES ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS, OR AT LEAST EMBODY SOME KIND OF LIFE-
PRINCIPLE. Animism encompasses the beliefs that THERE IS NO SEPARATION
BETWEEN THE SPIRITUAL AND PHYSICAL (OR MATERIAL) WORLDS, AND SOULS OR
SPIRITS EXIST, NOT ONLY IN HUMANS, BUT ALSO IN ALL OTHER ANIMALS, PLANTS,
ROCKS, NATURAL PHENOMENA such as thunder, geographic features such as
mountains or rivers, or other entities of the natural environment.

1. ANIMISM IS PARTICULARLY WIDELY FOUND IN THE RELIGIONS OF INDIGENOUS

PEOPLES, perhaps most interestingly in Shinto and Sererism, and some forms of
Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Pantheism, Christianity.
2. Throughout European history, many philosophers such as Aristotle and Thomas
Aquinas, among others, contemplated the possibility that souls exist in animals,
plants, and people. However, the currently accepted definition of animism was
only developed in the 19th century by SIR EDWARD B. TYLOR, who created
ANIMISM as “one of social anthropology’s earliest concepts”.
3. According to SIR EDWARD B. TYLOR, ANIMISM MEANS THE BELIEF IN SPIRITS.
E.B. TAYLOR in his famous book “Primitive Culture” developed “the thesis of
animism” and subsequently he developed the distinction between “magic,
religion and science”. In his thesis of animism he advocated that ‘ANIMA’ means
‘SPIRIT’. “ANIMISM” refers to “A GIVEN FORM OF RELIGION IN WHICH MAN
FINDS THE PRESENCE OF SPIRIT IN EVERY OBJECT THAT SURROUNDS HIM”.
4. According to him, Man’s ideas of spirits primarily ORIGINATED from his dreams.
In his dreams man, for the first time, encountered with his double. He realized
that his double or duplicate is MORE DYNAMIC AND ELASTIC than his own self.
He further considered that his double, though resembled his body, IT IS FAR
MORE SUPERIOR IN TERMS OF QUALITY from his body. He generalized further
that the presence of soul in human body is responsible for the elasticity of images
in dreams.
5. Taking this fact into consideration ‘PRIMITIVE MIND’ CONSIDERED THAT WHEN
MAN SLEEPS THE ‘ANIMA OR SOUL’ MOVES OUT OF THE BODY OF MAN
‘TEMPORARILY’ AND WHEN HE IS DEAD IT LEAVES OUT THE BODY
‘PERMANENTLY’. Thereafter man generalized that “EVERY EMBODIMENT,
WHICH IS SUBJECTED TO BIRTH, GROWTH AND DECAY, IS OBVIOUSLY
ASSOCIATED WITH ANIMA OR SPIRIT”. Hence, trees, rivers, mountains, which are
 greatly subjected to decay and expansion, were considered as the embodiments
in which soul is present. Realizing this, “MAN STARTED WORSHIPPING ALL THESE
EMBODIMENTS AND THAT IS HOW ANIMISM AS A SPECIFIC FORM OF
RELIGIONS CAME INTO BEING”. According to Taylor, the most ancient form of
animistic practice is manifested in terms of ANCESTOR WORSHIP.
6. Man realized that his ANCESTORS AFTER THEIR DEATH CONVERT INTO SPIRITS
OR SOULS WHO MAY BE “BENEVOLENT” OR “MALEVOLENT”. Realizing this, in
order to convert these ‘spirits or souls’ as ‘protecting spirits’, man made them
‘periodic offerings’. In primitive communities this is known as Ancestor cult and
Ghost Worship.
7. According to TAYLOR, THE PRIMITIVE MAN WAS NOT IN A CONDITION TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ANIMATE AND INANIMATE OBJECTS. Therefore, he
conceived that like ‘life and soul’ associated with human body, they should be
associated with every object both animate and inanimate. Realizing this he
started worshipping rocks, trees, streams, everything surrounding him extending
the notion of soul and spirit to all of them. Taylor argues that religion in the form
of animism originated to satisfy man’s intellectual nature to meet his need to
make sense of death, dreams and vision.
8. IN MANY ANIMISTIC WORLD VIEWS, the HUMAN BEING IS OFTEN REGARDED AS
ON A ROUGHLY EQUAL FOOTING WITH OTHER ANIMALS, PLANTS, AND
NATURAL FORCES. Therefore, it is morally imperative to treat these agents with
respect. IN THIS WORLD VIEW, humans are considered a part of nature, rather
than superior to, or separate from it. In such societies, ritual is considered
essential for survival, as it wins the favor of the spirits of one’s source of food,
shelter, and fertility and wards off malevolent spirits. In more elaborate animistic
religions, such as Shinto, there is a greater sense of a special character to humans
that sets them apart from the general form of animals and objects, while
retaining the necessity of ritual to ensure good luck, favorable harvests, and so
on.
9. Most animistic belief systems hold that the spirit survives PHYSICAL DEATH. In
some systems, the “ANIMA OR SPIRIT” is believed to pass to an easier world of
abundant land or ever-ripe crops, while in other systems, the spirit remains on
earth as a ghost, often malignant. Still other systems combine these two beliefs,
holding that the soul must journey to the world without becoming lost and thus
wandering as a ghost. Funeral, mourning rituals, and ancestor worship performed
by those surviving the deceased are often considered necessary for the successful
completion of this journey.
10.FROM THE BELIEF IN THE SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD arose the practice of offering
food, lighting fires, etc., at the grave, at first, maybe, as an act of friendship or
filial piety, later as an act of ancestor worship. The simple offering of food or
shedding of blood at the grave develops into an elaborate system of sacrifice.
Even where ancestor worship is not found, the desire to provide the dead with
comforts in the future life may lead to the sacrifice of wives, slaves, animals, and
so on, to the breaking or burning of objects at the grave or to the provision of the
 ferryman’s toll: a coin put in the mouth of the corpse to pay the traveling
expenses of the soul.
11.But all is not finished with the passage of the soul to the land of the dead. THE
SOUL MAY RETURN TO AVENGE ITS DEATH BY HELPING TO DISCOVER THE
MURDERER, OR TO WREAK VENGEANCE FOR ITSELF. There is a widespread belief
that those who die a violent death become malignant spirits and endanger the
lives of those who come near the haunted spot. In Malay folklore, the woman
who dies in childbirth becomes a Pontianak, a vampire-like spirit who threatens
the life of human beings. People resort to magical or religious means of repelling
spiritual dangers from such malignant spirits. It is not surprising to find that
many peoples respect and even worship animals, often regarding them as
relatives. It is clear that widespread respect was paid to animals as the abode of
dead ancestors, and much of the cults to dangerous animals is traceable to this
principle; though there is no need to attribute an animistic origin to it.

Contemporary animist traditions:

1. African traditional religions, a group of beliefs in various spirits of nature,

2. In the Canary Islands (Spain), aboriginal Guanches professed an animistic religion.
3. Shinto, the traditional religion of Japan, is highly animistic. In Shinto, spirits of
nature, or kami, are believed to exist everywhere, from the major (such as the
goddess of the sun), which can be considered polytheistic, to the minor, which
are more likely to be seen as a form of animism.
4. There are some Hindu groups which may be considered animist. The coastal
Karnataka has a tradition of praying to spirits.
5. The New Age movement commonly purports animism in the form of the
existence of nature spirits and fairies.

MONISM AND PLURALISM:

Monism:

1. Monism is a religious-philosophical worldview in which all of reality can be

reduced to one “thing” or “substance.” This view is OPPOSED TO DUALISM (in
which all of reality is reducible to two substances, e.g., good and evil; light and
darkness; form and matter; body and soul) AND PLURALISM (all of reality is
comprised of multiple substances). In all of these philosophical views, the word
substance in a technical sense to mean “essence,”; in other words, something in
which properties adhere.
2. Many of the early, pre-Socratic philosophers tried to understand the underlying
nature of the reality that surrounded them. THEY WANTED TO DETERMINE
WHAT EVERYTHING COULD BE REDUCED TO. For THALES (624–546 BC), the first
principle of everything—that from which everything is derived—was water. FOR
ANAXIMENES (585–528 BC) it was air. Two more wellknown
monists, HERACLITUS (535–475 BC) AND PARMENIDES (FL. EARLY 5TH CENTURY
BC), attempted to ground reality in becoming (flux) and being (permanence),
 respectively. Heraclitus observed that all around him was in constant flux (or
change); therefore, all reality was becoming—things changing from one form into
another. His classic example was the observation that one can never step into the
same river twice because the water is in constant motion. Parmenides, taking the
opposite route of Heraclitus, said that ultimate reality can only reside in that
which is unchanging; for him, that was absolute being.
3. Moving from a metaphysical analysis to a more religious-spiritual
outlook, MONISM IS THE UNDERLYING WORLDVIEW OF THOSE WHO HOLD TO A
FORM OF PANTHEISM. Pantheism is THE WORLDVIEW THAT GOD (NOT
NECESSARILY THE CHRISTIAN GOD) IS THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF BEING, AND
THAT ALL OF REALITY IS A MANIFESTATION OF THIS GOD. Pantheism sees no real
distinction between God and the universe. PLOTINUS (AD 204– 270), the father
of neo-Platonism, was a popular pantheist. His brand of metaphysics taught that
ultimate being resided in the One. From a series of necessary emanations, out of
the One, comes the Divine Mind (Nous). The next level of emanations results in
the World Soul (Psyche), and finally the material world (Cosmos). Another famous
philosophical pantheist was the 17th-century rationalist philosopher Baruch
Spinoza.
4. MONISM CAN ALSO BE SEEN IN THE SCIENTIFIC REALM in those who subscribe to
a naturalistic materialism. According to this view, ALL REALITY IS LIMITED TO THE
MATERIAL WORLD. There is no such thing as spirit, soul, or God. ONLY THOSE
THINGS THAT CAN BE PERCEIVED BY THE FIVE SENSES ARE REAL. This is the
default position of many atheists (at least those who are consistent with their
worldview). One can see what happens if one takes this view to its logical
conclusion. If everything is essentially matter governed by physical laws, then
such things as love, morality, justice, etc., go out the window. What do those
things mean in a purely material world? They are basically feeble attempts to
construct meaning in a universe that is cold and deterministic.
5. All of these philosophies—whether monistic, dualistic, or pluralistic—are
attempting to deal with the problem of universals (or the problem of the one
and the many). The problem of universals can be simply illustrated. Take the
example of a chair. We can all conceptualize a chair in our minds and apply that
concept to different instances of “chair.” All of these particular instances of the
concept “chair” may differ—e.g., a simple wooden chair as compared to a fancy
office chair with soft cushions and a lift mechanism—but they all share the
essential characteristics of what constitutes “chair-ness.” The question that arises
is what is more real: the concept of “chair” or the particular chairs we see in the
world?
 Broadly speaking, the concept of monism refers to faith in one God, one body of
ritual, one set of ideology and moral doctrines. DURING MEDIEVAL PERIOD
RELIGION OFFERED A FOUNDATION TO THE FORMATION OF POLITICAL STATE. It
was believed that religious differences all over the world can only glorify the
variations in political identity of the state. FOR EXAMPLE Roman Empire emerged
as a Christian state. Middle East gave way to the rise of Islamic states what was
known as post Egyptian civilization.
  However during 18th century slave trade, expansion of the territorial
boundaries of the state because of warfare gave rise to THE EMERGENCE OF
CULTURALLY PLURALISTIC SOCIETIES. However the MAJOR CONCERN OF THE
STATE WAS TO TRANSFORM MULTICULTURALISM INTO CULTURAL
UNIFORMITY. Therefore the state patronized one religion, permitted missionaries
to lure ethnic minorities to go for religious conversions. As a result multi ethnic
groups because of coercion & persuasion became a part of artificially
constructed MONISTIC SOCIETIES. These monistic societies glorified one
sovereign ruler, one ideology, one culture developing intolerance to cultural
distinctions.
 18th century Europe explains how cultural minorities were pushed into ghettos
identified as slave race, forced to join warfare and heavy fines were imposed in
them on a refusal to commanders dictates. That subsequently gave way to the
rise of autocratic state striving for cultural unification.
 After the advent of INDUSTRY, FREE TRADE, THE CULTURE OF DEMOCRACY IN
19TH CENTURY EUROPE it was essential that people cutting across the
boundaries of NATION-STATE should be developing harmonic relationship with
each other. During 19th century Catholic Church, its orthodox values and nexus
with state was severely challenged. As a result new education system, free
market, rational political structure made appearance and state which had a
written guaranteeing no discrimination to the citizen of a society on the basis of
their ethnic & religious identities.

PLURALISM:
Religious pluralism generally REFERS TO THE BELIEF IN TWO OR MORE RELIGIOUS
WORLDVIEWS AS BEING EQUALLY VALID OR ACCEPTABLE. More than mere tolerance,
religious pluralism accepts multiple paths to God or gods as a possibility and is usually
contrasted with “exclusivism,” the idea that there is only one true religion or way to
know God.

Here are four points to begin our thinking:

1. First, pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with
diversity. Diversity can and has meant the creation of religious ghettoes with little
traffic between or among them. Today, religious diversity is a given, but pluralism
is not a given; it is an achievement. Mere diversity without real encounter and
relationship will yield increasing tensions in our societies.
2. Second, pluralism is not just tolerance, but the active seeking of understanding
across lines of difference. Tolerance is a necessary public virtue, but it does not
require Christians and Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and ardent secularists to know
anything about one another. Tolerance is too thin a foundation for a world of
religious difference and proximity. It does nothing to remove our ignorance of
one another, and leaves in place the stereotype, the half-truth, the fears that
underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we live today,
our ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly.
3. Third, pluralism is not relativism, but the encounter of commitments. The new
paradigm of pluralism does not require us to leave our identities and our
commitments behind, for pluralism is the encounter of commitments. It means
holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation,
but in relationship to one another.
4. Fourth, pluralism is based on dialogue. The language of pluralism is that of
dialogue and encounter, give and take, criticism and self-criticism. Dialogue
means both speaking and listening, and that process reveals both common
understandings and real differences. Dialogue does not mean everyone at the
“table” will agree with one another. Pluralism involves the commitment to being
at the table — with one’s commitments.
5. While religious pluralism has been in existence since at least the seventeenth
century, the concept has become more popular since the latter half of the
twentieth century in Western Europe and North America. Specifically, the idea
of religious ecumenism (religions working together as one) and the recently
popularized interfaith movement have led to the increased acceptance of
religious pluralism in popular culture. Studies by the Barna Group and others
have noted the growth of ideas related to religious pluralism in American culture
in recent years. In many cases, even significant numbers of people identified as
Christians believe there is more than one way to heaven.
6. Pluralism is more than the sharing of certain values or agreement on some
social issues. Buddhists and Christians both agree that helping the poor is
important, but such limited concord is not pluralism. Pluralism has to do with
lending credence to competing truth claims and accepting diverse beliefs
regarding God and salvation. In addition, two or more religions can share some
doctrinal beliefs yet remain fundamentally different as belief systems. For
example, Muslims and Christians agree that there is only one God—yet both
religions define God differently and hold many other irreconcilable beliefs.
7. THE EXISTENCE OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM depends on the existence of freedom
of religion. Freedom of religion is when different religions of a particular region
possess the same rights of worship and public expression. Freedom of religion is
consequently weakened when one religion is given rights or privileges denied to
others, as in certain European countries where Roman Catholicism or regional
forms of Protestantism have special status. Religious freedom has not existed at
all in some communist countries where the state restricts or prevents the public
expression of religious belief and may even actively persecute individual religions.
Religious pluralism has existed in the Indian Subcontinent since the rise of
Buddhism around 500 BC and has widened in the course of several Muslim
settlements (Delhi Sultanate1276-1526 AD and the Mughal Empire 1526-1857
AD). In the 8th century, Zoroastrianism established in India as Zoroastrians fled
from Persia to India in large numbers, where they were given refuge. The colonial
phase ushered in by the British lasted until 1947 and furthered conversions to
Christianity among low caste Hindus.
8. THE RISE OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM in the modern West is closely associated
with the Reformation and the Enlightenment. BLACKLEDGE and hunt in their
 book “From Uniculturalism to Multiculturalism” advocate that CULTURAL
PLURALISM is foundation to the rise of a multi cultural society. Multi culturalism
according to him is A EUROPEAN CONCEPT that did not get much of approval
from the African subcontinent where people preferred to go for ethnic diversity.
Cultural uniformity is as a coercive manner was induced into socialist societies
and most of the Islamic states of middle-east and the search for a homeland for
Jews at Israel glorified the idea of creation of political state on the basis of mono
cultural identities. When Europe went for pluralism this idea did not receive a
global endorsement. As a result MONISTIC SOCIETIES went for religious
revivalism and consolidation emphasizing on religious education, religious laws
are emerging as the civil laws of the state. Hence a great ideological difference
between monistic and pluralistic societies.
9. In case of PLURALISTIC SOCIETIES, DEPRIVATION AND INEQUALITY gave way to
sectarian mobilizations. In case of America blacks got unified as a challenge to
the political doctrine of pluralism during early 19th century that gave rise to the
integration of black immigrants from different parts of the world. Challenge to
pluralism comes from sectarian mobilization from within and the glorification of
monistic states from outside.
10.Clifford Geertz in his book “Islam Observed” mentions his case study of
Indonesia. He found out that their exposure to Spanish colonialism, Dutch
colonialism and subsequently western values did not offer their commitment to
Islamic values. Therefore instead of multiculturalism cultural monoism made
appearance in a big way in Indonesian society. He asserts that search for
monoism is a rebellion and revolution then being a myopic orientation to one’s
own culture and religion. Islamic revivalism was foundation to their independence
therefore cultural monoism came as a predominant force in Indonesia.
11.R. Robinson in her book “Sociology of Religion in India” advocates that Gandhi’s
call for Ramarajya was greatly driven by call for implicit monism and explicit
pluralism because Gandhi wanted that Hindus and Muslims should stay together
as equal partners to modern India. But he strongly believed that Hindu cultural
values can offer a right direction to the people to go for a disciplined life. In a
society where monism is close to heart but pluralism becomes the rule of law
people driven by emotion will stay committed to religion. She believes that anti
conversion movements, communal tensions in the country are the manifestation
of glorified monism challenging to state’s commitment to pluralistic ideology.
12.Amartya Sen in his article “Secularism in India” considers that India’s pluralism
has always been a doctrine of the state that mostly fails to internalize because of
illiteracy, rural living and commitment to tradition. He believes that these
orientations can only be transformed with the expansion of modern education,
rise of modern employment and expansion of urbanism to rural pockets of Indian
society.

SECTS AND CULTS

A SECT IS A SUBGROUP OF A RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEF
SYSTEM, USUALLY AN OFFSHOOT OF A LARGER RELIGIOUS GROUP. The word sect
comes from the Latin SECTA, MEANING AN ORGANIZED RELIGIOUS BODY OR
ORGANIZATION, oriented towards ‘a course of action or way of life’.

1. The CHIEF FEATURE of a religious sect is that IT IS A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.

It is A SMALL RELIGIOUS GROUP that has BRANCHED OFF OF A LARGER
ESTABLISHED RELIGION. Sects have MANY BELIEFS AND PRACTICES IN COMMON
WITH THE RELIGION But they have broken off from, but are DIFFERENTIATED BY
A NUMBER OF DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES. Many Sociologists use the word SECT
TO REFER TO A RELIGIOUS GROUP WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF TENSION WITH THE
SURROUNDING SOCIETY, BUT WHOSE BELIEFS ARE (WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF
THAT SOCIETY) LARGELY TRADITIONAL.
2. A SECT seeks to impose A RIGID PATTERN OF IDEAL CONDUCT ON ITS MEMBERS
but seeks toleration rather than change from the larger society. Sects are
concerned with PURITY OF DOCTRINE AND WITH THE DEPTH OF GENUINENESS
OF RELIGIONS FEELING. As a result, demands are made upon the member to be
an active participant, even a leader or missionary, as a warrant of his faith. The
emphasis on PURITY OF BELIEF tends to create intolerance toward other groups
and moves the sect toward critical assessment of the secular world in accordance
with the ideals of the gospel.

Characteristics of Sect:

1. A sect is A RELATIVELY SMALL RELIGIOUS GROUP. It is AN ORGANIZED BODY OF

PEOPLE developing A KIND OF RELIGIOUS CONSCIOUSNESS AND RAISING AS A
MAJOR CRITIC TO MAINSTREAM RELIGION.
2. Sect is IDEOLOGICALLY AND OPERATIONALLY CLOSED.
3. ITS MEMBERS are usually, though by no means always, DRAWN FROM THE
LOWER CLASSES AND THE POOR.
4. Sects often REJECT MANY OF THE NORMS AND VALUES OF THE WIDER SOCIETY
AND REPLACE THEM with beliefs and practices which sometimes appear strange
to the non-believer.
5. Sect EMERGE AS A CRITIC TO ORIGINAL RELIGION.
6. Sect is INITIALLY LEADER FOCUSSED BUT IT MAY CONTINUE AFTER LEADER’S
DEMISE. As a result, sects are, in Peter Berger’s words, ‘in tension with the larger
society and closed against it’.
7. Sects are INSULAR GROUPS WHICH ARE LARGELY CLOSED TO THOSE WHO HAVE
NOT GONE THROUGH THE INITIATION PROCEDURES for membership.
8. Sect institute A STRICT PATTERN OF BEHAVIOUR FOR MEMBERS TO FOLLOW AND
MAKE STRONG CLAIMS ON THEIR LOYALTY.
9. BELONGING TO A SECT is often the dominant factor in a member’s life.
10.The ORGANIZATION OF SECTS TENDS TO BE IN TERMS OF SMALL FACE TO FACE
GROUPS, without a hierarchy of paid officials and a bureaucratic structure.
11.Often worship is CHARACTERIZED BY AN INTENSITY AND OPEN COMMITMENT
which is lacking in main stream religion.
Origin of Sect:

1. MAX WEBER argues that sects are most likely to arise within groups which are
marginal in society. Members of groups outside the main stream of social life
often feel they are not receiving either the prestige and/or the economic rewards
they deserve. One solution to this problem is a sect based on what Weber calls
a ‘THEODICY OF DISPREVILIGED’ (a theodicy is a religious explanation and
justification). Such sects contain an explanation for the disprevilige of their
members and promise them a ‘sense of honour’ either in the afterlife or a in a
future ‘new world’ on earth.
2. ACCORDING TO OTHER SOCIOLOGISTS, an explanation of the sects must account
for the VARIETY OF SOCIAL BACKGROUND represented in their membership.
SECTS ARE NOT CONFINED TO THE LOWER STRATA OF SOCIETY. FOR EXAMPLE,
the Christian Science sect has a largely middle-class membership. The concept of
relative deprivation can be applied to members of all social classes. Relative
deprivation refers to subjectively perceived deprivation which people actually
feel. In objective terms the poor are deprived than the middle class. However, in
subjective terms certain members of the middle class may feel more deprivation
than the poor. Relative deprivation applies to THE MIDDLE-CLASS HIPPY IN
CALIFORNIA who rejects values of materialism and achievement and seeks
fulfillment in Transcendental Meditation. It applies equally to THE UNEMPLOYED
BLACK AMERICAN WHO JOINS THE BLACK MUSLIM. Both experience deprivation
in terms of their own particular viewpoints. Sects can therefore be seen as one
possible response to relative deprivation.
3. SECTS TEND TO ARISE DURING A PERIOD OF RAPID SOCIAL CHANGE. In this
situation traditional norms are disrupted, social relationships tend to lack
consistent and coherent meaning and the traditional ‘universe of meaning’ is
undermined. Thus BRYAN WILSON sees THE RISE OF METHODISM as A
RESPONSE BY THE NEW URBAN WORKING CLASS TO THE ‘CHAOS AND
UNCERTAINTY OF LIFE IN THE NEWLY SETTLED INDUSTRIAL AREAS’. He argues
that, ‘newly emergent social groups are , at least in the context of a society in
which the religious view of the world dominates, likely to need and to evolve new
patterns of religious belief to accommodate themselves to their new situation’. IN
A SITUATION OF CHANGE AND UNCERTAINTY, THE SECTS OFFERS THE SUPPORT
OF A CLOSE-KNIT COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION, WELL DEFINED AND STRONGLY
SANCTIONED NORMS AND VALUES AND A PROMISE OF SALVATION. It provides
a new and stable ‘universe of meaning’ which is legitimated by its religious
beliefs.

Life Span of Sect:

1. According to sociologists SECTS ARE SHORT LIVED. H. Richard Niebuhr argues

that sects are necessarily short-lived for the following reasons:
 The fervour and commitment of members cannot be sustained past the first
generation;
  The social marginality and isolation of the group, which was a major factor in the
formation of the sect, may disappear. Sects with an ascetic creed tend to
accumulate wealth which affords them entry into the mainstream of society.
2. The sect then either ceases to exist or develops into a denomination. Its
extreme teachings and rejection of the wider society no longer fit the social
situation of its membership. If it changes into a denomination, its beliefs are
modified to fit in with those of the mainstream of society; it develops a
bureaucratic organization with a hierarchy of paid officials. This is the path taken
by some sects. As the Methodists rose in status during the nineteenth century,
the strict disciplines of the sect and its opposition to the wider society were
dropped, and it became a denomination.
3. If large sects develop in response to major religions it may lead to
conflict/religious intolerance and/or rise of a pluralistic society (because of
tolerance).

THE CULT:
The concept of “cult” was introduced into sociology in 1932 by American sociologist
HOWARD P. BECKER as an expansion of German theologian ERNST TROELTSCH’S
church-sect typology. Troeltsch’s aim was to distinguish between three main types of
RELIGIOUS BEHAVIOR: churchly, sectarian and mystical. Becker created four categories
out of Troeltsch’s first two by splitting church into “ecclesia” and “denomination”, and
sect into “sect” and “cult”. Like Troeltsch’s “mystical religion”, BECKER’S CULTS WERE
SMALL RELIGIOUS GROUPS LACKING IN ORGANIZATION AND EMPHASIZING THE
PRIVATE NATURE OF PERSONAL BELIEFS.

1. Later formulations built on these characteristics while placing an additional

emphasis on cults AS DEVIANT RELIGIOUS GROUPS “DERIVING THEIR
INSPIRATION FROM OUTSIDE OF THE PREDOMINANT RELIGIOUS CULTURE”. This
deviation is often thought to lead to a high degree of tension between the group
and the more mainstream culture surrounding it, a characteristic shared with
religious sects.
2. The term often highlights smaller religious movements or movements involving
particularly intense religious devotion. The cult is a VOLUNTARY ORGANISATION
OPEN TO ALL WHO WISH TO JOIN OR PARTICIPATE IN IT. According to
Johnson, ‘In general the CULTS ARE NOT STRICT EXCEPT IN FINANCIAL MATTERS’.
Yet it tends to regulate its members as per its doctrine and system of rituals
which are well defined. A CULT EMPHASIZES ONE DOCTRINE (ABOVE ALL
OTHERS) OR IT FOCUSES UPON A GOD OR GODDESS WITH CERTAIN DEFINITE
CHARACTERISTICS.

Characteristics of Cult:

1. A cult, also has a high degree of tension with the surrounding society, but its
beliefs are (within the context of that society) NEW AND INNOVATIVE. It may
 seek to TRANSFORM SOCIETY BUT MORE OFTEN CONCENTRATE UPON
CREATING SATISFYING GROUP EXPERIENCE.
2. Cults are NOT REACTIONARY OR REVOLUTIONARY BUT INSTEAD ARE
REVISIONARY. Cult DOES NOT STAND OPPOSITE TO RELIGION.
3. Cult is A SUPPLEMENTATION OF RELIGION THAN BEING A CHALLENGE TO
RELIGION.
4. Cult’s EXISTENCE IS GREATLY LINKED TO LIFE SPAN OF CULT LEADER. He or she is
a charismatic person for his followers.
5. Cults are ENGAGED IN CATERING TO DAY-TO-DAY PROBLEMS OF PEOPLE. Cult
may have inherent contradictions but various questions posed by followers are
addressed by charismatic cult leader.
6. OVER A PERIOD CULT MAY DEVELOP INTO A SECT i.e. Calvinism to Protestantism.
7. In Indian society, according to K.M. Pannikar it was during Mughals rule that
sectarian division among Brahmins was greatly glorified i.e. SHAIVISM AND
VAISNAVISM, because Hinduism was loosing its great tradition because of loss of
political patronage.
8. If there is Distance between between people and Religion, people endorses
various cults

Origin of Cult:

1. Sociologists still maintain that unlike sects, which are products of religious schism
and therefore maintain continuity with traditional beliefs and practices, “CULTS”
ARISE SPONTANEOUSLY AROUND NOVEL BELIEFS AND PRACTICES.
2. The social reality of cult is essentially rooted in HEROIC ACT. This act is a system
of worship, a complex of feeling and attitudes of symbol (gestures, words, rites
and rituals) and primarily a relationship with sacred object and the world beyond.
It involves CO-ACTIVITY AND A SOCIAL BOUNDARY. In it, the relationship
between the deity and clergy is not negligible but secondary.
3. Cult seems to flourish in METROPOLITAN CENTRES WHERE CULTURALLY
HETEROGENEOUS POPULATIONS ARE THROWN TOGETHER AND THEY WIDELY
FEEL THE IMPACT OF MOST RAPIDLY IMPINGING SOCIAL CHANGE. It crates
situation of contingency and powerlessness and thus the problem of adjustment.
The cult of meet that situation..

Religion in Modern Society: Religion and Science, Secularization, Religious Revivalism,

Fundamentalism
Religion and Science:
Religion does not need science and science does not need religion but man needs
both. There are thinkers who believe that SCIENCE & RELIGION ARE INCOMPATIBLE
WITH EACH OTHER, whereas the other thinks otherwise. There are two major
opinions regarding the relationship between science and religion-“RELIGION AND
SCIENCE ARE MUTUALLY CONFLICTING” and “SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE NOT
MUTUALLY OPPOSING”.
Those who believe RELIGION ARE NOT MUTUALLY OPPOSING”. say that

1. RELIGION IS BASED ON FAITH AND RITUALS whereas SCIENCE DEPENDS ON

OBSERVATION, EXPERIMENTS, VERIFICATIONS,PROOFS AND FACTS.
2. Science deals with THE KNOWN OR THE EMPIRICAL WORLD. But religion is
concerned with the UNKNOWN OR SUPERNATURAL WORLD.
3. For Sumner and Keller it is difficult to find any type of religion which has
welcomed free enquiry.
4. Science insists that all phenomenon that is observed should not be accepted at
face value. Its value and meaning can be discovered through experimentation. All
factors (time, place, person, equipment) that can affect the result of such
experiments are controlled in laboratory conditions.
5. SCIENCE DIFFERS FROM RELIGION BECAUSE IT BELIEVES IN NEUTRALITY AND
OBJECTIVITY. Scientific method is claimed to have annulled the subjective
biases. SCIENCE BELIEVES IN PRECISION AND MEASUREMENT WHICH IS NOT
POSSIBLE FOR RELIGION.
6. SCIENCE BRINGS THE UNKNOWN TO THE LEVEL OF OBSERVABLE REALITY.
RELIGION CANNOT BRING GOD TO THE LEVEL TO OBSERVABLE
PHENOMENA. Scientific knowledge has more concrete application in the form of
the technology which might help in manipulating nature. RELIGION CANNOT
ESTABLISH SUCH CONCRETE AND IMMEDIATE RESULT.
7. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND METHOD ARE VALID UNIVERSALLY WHEREAS
PRINCIPLE OF RELIGIOUS LIFE DIFFERS FROM SOCIETY TO SOCIETY.
8. KINGSLEY DAVIS advocates that religion withers like a leaf before a flame when
the scientific attitude is brought to bear on it.

However those who say that SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE NOT OPPOSING believe that
:

1. SCIENCE DEALS WITH WHAT IS KNOWN. It is potential knowledge based on

sensory evidences. Religious beliefs REFER TO THE WORLD BEYOND THE SENSES.
THE KNOWLEDGE which cannot be proved by the methods of science, cannot be
disproved also.
2. RELIGION IS SOCIAL REALITY. The persistence of religion throughout the ages is
proof of its survival value. It has RENDERED UNDENIABLE SERVICES TO THE
HUMANITY AND IS STILL SERVING. Religion like other institutions has ITS ROOTS
IN CERTAIN HUMAN NEEDS. Hence it was felt to be a necessity and continues to
be a necessary thing. IF RELIGION IS CONSTRUED AS NOTHING BUT BELIEF IN
SUPERHUMAN FORCE OR POWER IT REMAINS INCOMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE. If
on the other hand it is understood as a kind of ethical philosophy serving the
cause of humanity then THE SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE COMPATIBLE.
1. H.E. Barnes says that EVEN IF THERE EXISTS CONFLICT BETWEEN
FUNDAMENTALS OF RELIGION AND MODERN SCIENCE none exists between THE
LATER AND HUMANISM because the HUMANISTS FRANKLY BASE THEIR
RELIGION UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE SCIENCE.
 2. Religion in its real sense is not conflicting with science. IT IS ONLY THE DOGMA
OR THEOLOGY OR THE DISTORTED VERSION OF RELIGION THAT CONFLICTS
WITH SCIENCE. If the religion respects and accepts the values of science and if
science recognizes and accepts the reality and necessity of religion then there
could be no conflict between religion and science.
3. EVEN IF THERE IS CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE, THE MAIN CAUSE
OF CONFLICT is that boundary between the two is shifting what was unknown
yesterday is known today. The SCIENTIFIC PURSUIT OF EMPIRICAL TRUTH is
OPPOSED TO RELIGIOUS PURSUIT OF NON EMPIRICAL TRUTH.
4. BOTH ARE TWO FACETS OF LIFE. One touches soul while other indicates material
advancement. Religion gives peace to scientifically advanced and worried
society. BOTH TRY TO PIERCE INTO THE REALM OF UNKNOWN. Thus CONFLICTS
AND COMPATIBILITY OF RELIGION AND SCIENCE CAN NOT BE STUDIED IS AN
ISOLATED MANNER as development of science can provide base for the
interpretation of ideas of religion. Science is a search for knowledge as well as
method of solving problems.
5. BOTH RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE FORMS OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING. Both
science and religion are human ways to relating themselves to reality.
6. BOTH SCIENCE AND RELIGION TRY TO MAKE EXPLICIT THE WORLD OF
UNKNOWN. RELIGION IS MORE COLLECTIVELY ORIENTED THAN SCIENCE, BUT
SCIENCE TOO EMPHASIZES TEAM SPIRIT AND COOPERATION OF SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY. Both science and religion claim access to truth.
7. ON MANY OCCASIONS IN PAST AS WELL AS PRESENT, BOTH SCIENCE AS WELL
RELIGION HAVE ACTED AGAINST HUMAN KIND. Both religion and science
prescribe qualification for their personnel.
8. Max Weber too considers religion as the root cause of rise of capitalism
subsequent to industrialization and technological development.

Science Religion

Science is considered as inquisitive, Religion is considered as imaginative and

deliberative speculative

Science drives man to shape his own destiny Religion push man towards fatalism

Science believes in precision and

Religion has no such provisions
measurement

Science brings the unknown to the level of Religion often depicts God as beyond reach
observable reality of normal human beings

Science is liberating and enlightening and Religion binds individuals and promotes
Science Religion

promotes questioning of everything status quo and tradition

Science is based on rationality Religion is based on the belief in sacred

Science promotes individual innovations,

Religion is more collectively oriented
though team works are also there

Religious principles are accepted within a

Scientific knowledge and method are valid
particular community only which believe in
universally
those principles

SECULARIZATION:
BRYAN WILSON defines SECULARIZATION as ‘THE PROCESS WHEREBY RELIGIOUS
THINKING, PRACTICE AND INSTITUTIONS LOSE SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE’. Like all key
concepts in sociology, the concept of secularization has been used in a variety of ways.

1. In other words SECULARIZATION IS THE PROCESS IN WHICH SOCIAL

INSTITUTIONS GAIN CONSIDERABLE AUTONOMY AND RELIGIOUS
CONSCIOUSNESS DECLINES whereby instead of being the pervasive, religion
becomes “a deportment of the social order”. WILSON gives THREE FEATURES of a
SECULAR SOCIETY:
 The prevalence of Instrumental Values
 The prevalence of Rational Procedures
 The prevalence of Technological Methods.
2. PETER BERGER defines SECULARIZATION as the “PROCESS BY WHICH SECTORS
OF SOCIETY AND CULTURE ARE REMOVED FROM THE DOMINATION OF
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND SYMBOLS”.
3. HARVEY COX gave the following Key characteristics of secularization,
 Urbanization
 Pragmatism
 This worldliness attitude
 PluralismTolerance.

In General Secularization is indicative of the following changes:

 Withdrawal of religion from social spheres like education, marriage etc.

 Development of pluralism in world views
 Emergence of rational and scientific view
 Development of critical consciousness.
SECULARISM:
SECULARISM on the other hand, can be defined on the basis of three perspectives

1. People-Centric,
2. State-centric and
3. India-centric (in the context of India)

1. PEOPLE-CENTRIC secularism emphasizes on the idea of separating religion from

politics, economy, education, social life and culture.
2. STATE-CENTRIC secularism emphasis on the need to keep the state protector to
all religions.
3. INDIA-CENTRIC secularism underlines the importance of the unity of all people
against communalism.

SECULARISM being an ideology consists of the following five ideas:

1. IT STRESSES ON HUMAN AUTONOMY. It recognizes INDIVIDUAL TO BE MASTER

OF HIS OWN LIFE. Human beings are responsible for their own destinies. It places
faith on human rationale, rather than divine guidance.
2. IT ASSERTS THAT SEPARATION OF RELIGION FROM STATES and stresses that
family relations, education, morality, knowledge and values are also free from
clutches of religion.
3. IT PUTS STRESS ON REASON and INQUIRY.
4. SECULARISM WELCOMES PLURALISM AND RELIGIOUS TOLERATION. Pluralism of
religion is supported by an attitude of tolerance towards other religions.
5. IT IS NOT ANTI-RELIGION.

SECULARISM : EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE :

SECULARISM WAS THE MAIN GOAL OF REFORMATION AND THE RENAISSENCE THAT
TOOK PLACE IN EUROPE in 15th and 16th centuries. MARTIN LUTHER, the principal
initiator of the protestant reformation, had advocated that it is the right of individual to
understand the words of God without taking the guidance of the church.

1. Reformation was basically a religious movement which later on becomes

reactionary. Two important features or effects of reformation were:
 It did not produce more toleration and religious liberty.
 Illiterate masses i.e. popular masses were unaware of the reformation process
religion continued to be a mainstay of talk.
2. The renaissance advocated rational thinking and challenged the theological uses
of cosmos. To make this idea reachable to people, mass education, free press and
social movement were used. CHARLES BRADLAUGH, the great secularist, belived
that extensive propaganda played crucial role in ensuring secularization.
Secularization Process:
Secularization for its development required social milieu. It can be further elaborated
in the following way:

1. In the context of feudal lords and bourgeoisie: In England and the Netherland,
the conflict between feudal lands and bourgeoisie started in eighteenth century.
Feudal lords led a lavish life. They made huge donation to religious institutions
and these institution prayed to God for lord’s well-being. Bourgeoisie in order to
attack feudal lords took the help of scientific and rational outlook. As a. result of
which, feudal privileges based on heredity, oppression on the basis of sovereignty
the “divine rights” of feudal lords to rule was challenged on rational grounds.
2. In the content of the capitalist class and the wage-earners : Disraeli divided the
capitalist society into two nations viz. the wage earners and the capitalists. The
wage-earners were devoid of means of ownership of production. After being paid
a subsistence wage, these workers were alienated from the fruits of their labour.
They welcomed religion in order to tolerate such a harsh situation. Capitalists also
made use of religion to bullet their brutal deeds. They also used religion to pacify
violent wage earners. However, in the emerging modern nation states,
democracy was proclaimed in England, France etc. The right of freedom of
conscience was granted to them which happened to pass through three stages.
 In first stage people struggled for religious tolerance
 In second stage religious freedom of conscience was asserted.
 In third stage genuine freedom of conscience was accomplished.

Secularization and Other Institutions:

1. The Church of England is subordinate to the British sovereign.

2. French government shows no preference for any religious group and prohibits
clerics from teaching in the public schools.
3. Monaco, where Catholics comprised 92% of the population in 2000, has
implemented the most anti-clergy legislation in the west.
4. Church property belongs to the state.
5. Worship services outside the church were forbidden.
6. The government can open any place of worship and determine the number of
clerics in it.
7. The clergy cannot vote, participate in politics.
8. The Church cannot own radio and television stations.

STUDIES OF SECULARIZATION have been classified in terms of some of the many ways
in which process has been conceptualized and measured.

1.THE DECLINE IN ORGANIZED RELIGIOUS PARTICIPATION:

1. Some researchers have seen RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ACTIVITY

ASSOCIATED WITH THEM AS THE KEY ELEMENT IN RELIGIOUS BEHAVIOUR. From
 this viewpoint they have measured THE IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION IN
SOCIETY in terms of factors such as church attendance and marriages performed
in church. From such measures they argue that secularization is occurring in most
Western societies. WILSON argues that, ‘THE DECLINE IN ORGANIZED RELIGIOUS
PARTICIPATION INDICATES THE WAY IN WHICH THE CHURCHES ARE LOSING
DIRECT INFLUENCE OVER THE IDEAS AND ACTIVITIES OF MAN’.
2. However THE DECLINE IN PARTICIPATION IN INSTITUTIONAL RELIGION can be
interpreted in a number of ways. DAVID MARTIN argues that in Victorian times,
Church attendance was more strongly motivated by non-religious factors such as
middle-class respectability. Today, church attendance is no longer an indication of
respectability for many members of the middle class. Thus, their absence from
church may have nothing to do with a change in their religious beliefs. ROBERT N.
BELLAH argues that the decline in institutional religion cannot be taken as an
indication of a decline in religious belief and commitment. Religion today may
simply be expressed in a different way. Bellah argues that THERE HAS BEEN A
MOVE FROM COLLECTIVE WORSHIP TO PRIVATIZED WORSHIP AND FROM
CLERICAL TO INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION OF DOCTRINE. He claims that, ‘The
assumption in most of the major Protestant denominations is that the Church
member can be considered responsible for himself’. While there is little dispute
that participation in institutional religion has declined over the past century in
most European countries, there is considerable disagreement over the
interpretation of this process.

2.DISENGAGEMENT AND DIFFERENTIATION:

1. A DISENGAGEMENT OF THE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS FROM THE WIDER

SOCIETY is seen as secularization. COMPARED TO ITS ROLE IN MEDIEVAL
EUROPE, THE CHURCH IN CONTEMPORARY WESTERN SOCIETY HAS
UNDERGONE A PROCESS OF DISENGAGEMENT. In the middle Ages, there was a
union of church and state. Today, apart from the right of bishops to sit in the
British House of Lords, the church is hardly represented in
government. ECCLESIASTICAL CONTROL OF EDUCATION AND SOCIAL WELFARE
HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY SECULAR ORGANIZATIONS UNDER STATE CONTROL.
CHURCH PATRONAGE OF THE ARTS & ARCHITECTURE was reflected by the fact
that most art in the Middle Ages was based on religious themes. Today secular
themes predominate.
2. BRYAN WILSON argues that the CHURCH OF ENGLAND TODAY PROVIDES LITTLE
MORE THAN TRADITIONAL RITUAL to dramatize important turning points in the
life cycle, namely, birth marriage and death. He sees its DISENGAGEMENT FROM
THE WIDER SOCIETY AS EVIDENCE OF SECULARIZATION. An alternative to the
view that disengagement equals secularization is provided by
3. TALCOTT PARSONS agrees that THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION HAS LOST
MANY OF ITS FORMER FUNCTIONS. He argues that THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIETY
INVOLVES A PROCESS OF STRUCTURAL DIFFERENTIATION. Various parts of the
social system become more specialized and so perform fewer functions.
 4. However, the differentiation of the units of the social system does not
necessarily lessen their importance. Parsons argues that religious beliefs still
give meaning and significance to life. Churches are still the fount of religious
ethics and values. As religious institutions become increasingly specialized,
Parsons maintains that their ethics and values become increasingly generalized. In
American society they have become the basis for more general social values. Thus
many of the values of American society are at once Christian and American. This
has resulted in the ‘endowment of secular life with a new order of religious
legitimation’.

3.RELIGIOUS PLURALISM:

1. Some researchers imply that the TRULY RELIGIOUS SOCIETY HAS ONE FAITH AND
ONE CHURCH. Thus picture is influenced by the situation in some small scale,
nonliterate societies, such as the Australian aborigines, where the community is a
religious community. IN TERMS OF DURKHEIM’S VIEW OF RELIGION, THE
COMMUNITY IS THE CHURCH. Medieval European societies provide a similar
picture. THERE THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH MINISTERED TO THE WHOLE SOCIETY.
BUT NOW A MULTIPLICITY OF DENOMINATIONS AND SECTS has replaced
common faith and the established church. In particular, it has been argued that a
range of competing religious institutions has reduced the power of religion in
society.
2. Bryan Wilson argues that if THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DENOMINATIONS IN
SOCIETY, EACH WITH ITS OWN VERSION OF THE TRUTH, THEY CAN AT BEST
ONLY REFLECT AND LEGITIMATE THE BELIEFS OF A SECTION OF THE
POPULATION. In this way, ‘RELIGIOUS VALUES CEASE NOW TO BE COMMUNITY
VALUES’. Religion no longer expresses and reinforces the values of society as a
whole and so ceases to perform its traditional function of promoting social
solidarity.
3. BERGER AND LUCKMANN make a similar point. Instead of one religious
institution with a single, unchallenged view of the supernatural, there are now
many with divergent views. BERGER argue that the emergence of denominations
weakens the influence of religion. No longer is a single ‘universe of meaning’
provided for all members of society. The continuing proliferation of sects has
been interpreted by some researchers in much the same way as the spread of
denominations. IT HAS BEEN SEEN AS A FURTHER FRAGMENTATION OF
INSTITUTIONAL RELIGION AND THE THEREFORE AS EVIDENCE OF
THE WEAKENING HOLD OF RELIGION OVER SOCIETY.
4. PETER BERGER sees the CONTINUING VITALITY OF SECTS AS EVIDENCE OF A
SECULAR SOCIETY. He argues that belief in the supernatural can only survive in a
sectarian form in a secular society. In order to maintain a strong religious belief
and commitment, individuals must cut themselves off from the secularizing
influences of the wider society, and seek out the support of others of like mind.
The sect, with its close-knit community organization, provides a context where
 this is possible. From this viewpoint, the sect is the last refuge of the supernatural
in a secular society. SECTS ARE THEREFORE EVIDENCE OF SECULARIZATION.
5. BRYAN WILSON takes a similar view maintaining that SECTS ARE ‘A FEATURE OF
SOCIETIES EXPERIENCING SECULARIZATION, AND THEY MAY BE SEEN AS A
RESPONSE TO A SITUATION IN WHICH RELIGIOUS VALUES HAVE LOST SOCIAL
PREEMINENCE’. Sects are therefore the last outpost of religion in societies where
religious beliefs and values have little consequence.
6. BRYAN WILSON is particularly scathing in his dismissal of the religious
movements of the young in the West, such as Krishna Consciousness, which
emerged during the 1960s in the USA. He regards them as ‘almost irrelevant’ to
society as a whole claiming that, ‘They add nothing towards the culture by
which a society might live’. By comparison, Methodism, in its early days as sects,
provided standards and values for the new urban working class, which helped to
integrate its. members within the wider society. In addition, its beliefs ‘steadily
diffused through a much wider body of the population’. The new religious
movements show no such promise. Their members live in their own enclosed,
encapsulated little worlds. There they emphasize ‘hedonism, the validity of
present pleasure, the abandonment of restraint and the ethic of “do your own
thing”.
7. Wilson is scornful of their ‘exotic novelty’ which he believes offers little more
than selfindulgence, titillation and short lived thrills. He believes that
movements which seek for truth in Asian religions and emphasize the
exploration of the inner self, for example Krishna Consciousness, can give little
to Western society. They simply ‘offer another way of life for the self-selected
few rather than an alternative culture for mankind’. Rather than contributing to
a new moral reintegration of society, they simply provide a religious setting for
‘dropouts’. They do not halt the continuing process of secularization and are
‘likely to be no more than transient and volatile gestures of defiance’ in the face
of a secular society.

4.THE SECULARIZATION OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS:

1. To HERGBERG, ‘authentic religion’ means an emphasis on the supernatural, a

deep inner conviction of the reality of supernatural power, a serious commitment
to religious teachings, a strong element of theological doctrine and a refusal to
compromise religious beliefs and values with those of the wider society. This is
just what HERGBERG does not find in the established denominations in America.
He claims that, ‘DENOMINATIONAL PLURALISM, ON THE AMERICAN PLAN
MEANS THOROUGH-GOING SECULARIZATION’. THE MAJOR DENOMINATIONS
HAVE INCREASINGLY EMPHASIZED THIS WORLD AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER
WORLD, THEY HAVE MOVED AWAY FROM TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE AND
CONCERN WITH THE SUPERNATURAL, THEY HAVE COMPROMISED THEIR
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TO FIT IN WITH THE WIDER SOCIETY. Because of this, they
have become more like the secular society in which they are set.
 2. Despite this relatively high level of participation in religious institutions,
Herberg argues that it is directed by secular rather than religious concerns.
Herberg claims that the major denominations in America have undergone a
process of secularization. They increasingly reflect the American Way of Life
rather than the word of God. For the typical churchgoer, religion is ‘something
that reassures him about the essential rightness of everything American, his
nature, his and himself’. But from Herberg’s viewpoint, this has little to do with
the real meaning of religion.
3. BERGER AND LUCKMANN are in general agreement with Herberg’s thesis.
Luckmann argues that DENOMINATIONS WERE FORCED TO UNDERGO A
‘PROCESS OF INTERNAL SECULARIZATION’ IN ORDER TO SURVIVE AND PROSPER
IN A SECULAR SOCIETY. If they retained their traditional teachings, their beliefs
would no longer have a ‘plausibility structure’ in a changed society. They would
appear irrational, irrelevant or contradictory in a new social setting.
Denominations have adapted to society and their teachings have, therefore,
remained ‘plausible’. However, this has required a sacrifice of considerable
religious content.
4. PETER BERGER likens American religious institutions to commodities sold in the
market place. A successful sales campaign means that ‘’the “supernatural”
elements are pushed into the background, while the institution is “sold” under
the label of values congenial to secularized consciousness’. DENOMINATIONS
HAVE SUCCEEDED IN ATTRACTING FULL HOUSES ‘BY MODIFYING THEIR
PRODUCT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSUMER DEMANDS’ THAT IS THE
DEMANDS OF A SECULAR SOCIETY. This accounts for the differences in
participation in organized religion between Europe and America. In Europe,
religious institutions have remained largely unchanged in the context of changing
societies. The result is empty churches. In the USA, religious institutions have
adapted to a changing society and the result is full churches.
5. HERBERG’S VIEWS ON AMERICAN RELIGION have been criticized by SEYMOUR
M. LIPSET. He argues that there is some evidence to suggest that Evangelical
Christianity is growing at a faster rate than the traditional denominations. The
debate on the secularization of religious institutions rests ultimately on the
observer’s judgment of ‘authentic religion’. Herberg’s view may reveal as much if
not more about his beliefs and values than it does about the nature of the religion
in the USA.

There is little question among sociologists that considered as a long-term trend, religion
in the traditional church has declined in most Western countries – with the notable
exception of the USA. The influence of religion has diminished much as nineteenth –
century sociologists predicted it would.

HAS THE APPEAL OF RELIGION LOST ITS GRASP WITH THE DEEPENING OF
MODERNITY?
Such a conclusion would be questionable for a number of reasons:
 1. First, the present position of religion in Britain and other Western countries is
much more complex than supporters of the secularization thesis
suggest. RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL BELIEF REMAIN POWERFUL AND
MOTIVATING FORCES IN MANY PEOPLE’S LIVES, EVEN IF THEY DO NOT CHOOSE
TO WORSHIP FORMALLY THROUGH THE FRAMEWORK OF THE TRADITIONAL
CHURCH. Some scholars have suggested that there has been a move towards
‘believing without belonging’ (Davie) – people maintain a belief in God or a higher
force, but practice and develop their faith outside institutionalized forms of
religion.
2. Second, secularization cannot be measured according to membership in main
stream Trinitarian church by the Communist leadership. This enthusiastic support
for religion around the globe is, unfortunately, mirrored by religiously inspired
conflicts as well. Just as religion can be a source of solace and support, it has also
been and continues to be at the origin of intense social struggles and conflicts.

 One can point to evidence both in favour of and against the idea of
secularization. It seems clear that secularization as a concept is most useful in
explaining changes that are occurring within the traditional religion today- both in
terms of the declining power and influence and in regard to internal secularizing
processes affecting, for example, the role of women and gays. Modernizing forces
in society at large are being felt within many traditional religious institutions.
 Above all, however, religion in the late modern world should be evaluated
against a backdrop of rapid change, instability and diversity. Even if traditional
forms of religion are receding to a degree, religion still remains a critical force in
our social world. The appeal of religion, in its traditional and novel forms, is likely
to be long-lasting. Religion provides many people with insights into complex
question about life and meaning that cannot be answered satisfactorily with
rationalist perspectives.

Religious revivalism (& Secularisation):

Religious revivalism is term applied to mass movements which are based upon intense
religious upheaval. PERIODIC RELIGIOUS REVIVALS which seek TO RESTORE
COMMITMENT AND ATTACHMENT TO THE GROUP are a regular observable feature of
religious traditions.

1. REVIVALISM happened in 18th century in WESTERN SOCIETY among

METHODISTS. In India ARYA SAMAJ is one of the most important REVIVALIST
MOVEMENTS which were based on SHUDHI MOVEMENT. It aimed at converting
Hindus back to the fold who had converted to other religions. This had profound
impact on Hindu especially lower caste Hindus. They sought to other religions to
improve their social status. They also gave equality to women especially in
education.
2. One view shared by early sociological thinkers was that traditional religion
would become more and more marginal to the modern world. MARX,
DURKHEIM AND WEBER all believed that a process of secularization was bound
 to occur as societies modernized and became more reliant on science and
technology to control and explain the social world.

SECULARIZATION describes the process whereby religion loses its influence over the
various spheres of social life.

1. The debate over the secularization thesis is one of the most complex areas in the
sociology of religion. In the most basic terms, there is disagreement
between supporters of the secularization thesis who agree with sociology’s
founding fathers and see religion as diminishing in power and importance in the
modern world and opponents of the concept, who argue that religion remains a
significant force, albeit often in new and unfamiliar forms.
2. THE ENDURING POPULARITY OF NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS presents a
challenge to the secularization thesis. Opponents of the thesis point to the
diversity and dynamism of new religious movements and argue that religion and
spirituality remains a central facet of modern life.
3. AS TRADITIONAL RELIGIONS LOSE THEIR HOLD, RELIGION IS NOT
DISAPPEARING, BUT IS BEING CHANNELED IN NEW DIRECTIONS. Not all scholars
agree, however. PROPONENTS OF THE IDEA OF SECULARIZATION POINT OUT
THAT THESE MOVEMENTS REMAIN PERIPHERAL TO SOCIETY as a whole even if
they make a profound impact on the lives of their individual followers. New
religious movements are fragmented and relatively unorganized; they also suffer
from high turnover rates as people are attracted to a movement for some time
and then move on to something new. COMPARED TO A SERIOUS RELIGIOUS
COMMITMENT, THEY ARGUE, PARTICIPATION IN A NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT
APPEARS LITTLE MORE THAN A HOBBY LIFESTYLE CHOICE.
4. REVIVALISM OF CATHOLICISM IN CASE OF AMERICA, GLORIFIED HINDUTVA
IDEOLOGY IN CASE OF INDIA ARE EMERGING AS THE MAJOR CHALLENGES TO
THE PLURALISTIC DOCTRINE OF MODERN SOCIETY. Therefore
RODNEYSTARK rightly points out that religion is not only providing a source for
integration. It is instrumental for the social division as well. Taking this view point
into consideration one can offer a critic to COMETIAN ARGUMENT that in
modern society use of science will continue for the decline of religion. In reality
religion is a universal force, it appears in different forms in the history of human
society differently influencing to political, social & cultural life of man in a
multidimensional manner.
5. IN CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT the rise of religious consciousness or the growth of
religious revivalism is offering a major challenge to the pluralistic secular &
egalitarian character of the civil society.

Causes of Religious Revivalism:

1. New insecurities and alienation that arise out of migration and urbanisation in a
globalised world are driving more people to religion as a way of establishing their
identities and validating their experiences
2. There is a revival of institutional religions across the world. In different parts of
the world religion has become more visible, both in its institutional form and as
an assertion of identity. This increasing prominence of religion and new forms of
religious formations can be located in the social psychology of communities and
people who are undergoing socio-economic and cultural transitions.
3. One of these transitions is the unprecedented migration of communities and the
increasing perception that there is socio-cultural and economic inequality across
the world. There is an increasing sense of multiple layers and a process of
alienation emerging out of multiple levels of ‘dislocations’ of the self, community
and identity. The increasing trends of urbanisation, of migrations within and
beyond country borders, consumerism and the aggressive construction of images
in the context of globalisation of the media, have created a new sense of
individual and collective insecurity and alienation.
4. However, the relative visibility of institutional religion may be due also to the
increasing role of the ‘image’ industry, rather than true conversion or
transformation of people from one faith to another. Religion has many
manifestations and we often tend to confuse institutionalised religion with other
aspects of religion (personal experience, belief, theology etc).
5. The revival of institutionalised religion is partly due to the high visibility it has
gained in the media explosion of the last ten years. As institutionalised religions
are historically strong in terms of institutionalised resources (money, network,
people, structures etc) they can make greater use of the new media, particularly
television, to acquire more visibility. The number of genuine Christians (in terms
of personal experience of a preferred personal faith) might not have increased,
but certainly TV marketing of faith has increased manifold. And the new visibility
of ‘images’ can create new delusions and illusions of an accentuated religion
without the necessary ‘spiritual’ transformation in the lives of people.
6. Then there are new insecurities arising out of social, economic and political
transitions and the consequent feeling of alienation they engender. For example,
there is enough evidence that those who belong to migrant communities tend to
be more religious. The reasons could be partly sociological and cultural. The same
way I feel happy to meet an Indian or South Asian in Oslo, a Sudanese would like
to meet fellow Sudanese. The nodal points of such an identity network often tend
to be religious venues. So, Tamil people residing abroad may come to know each
other in a temple, Bangladeshis in a Bengali mosque etc. This is to do with relative
marginalisation (in terms of space, cultural comfort zone etc) of migrant
communities.
7. There are also economic and social insecurities that arise out of the tension of
losing a job or being alone in a multicultural environment. These too add to the
quest for a ‘sense of belonging’, and ‘identity’ gets accentuated when one feels
marginalised in a given context. So many of the first generation of Malayali
migrants often feel more strongly about ‘being a Malayali’ than those who live in
Kerala. Hence the proliferation of Malayali organisations in the Gulf countries and
elsewhere (and many literary awards and Malayalam blogs etc). This also often
 takes a religious/denominational (caste, creed etc) dimension among newly
urbanised or migrant communities.
8. There is a new sense of alienation due to increased ‘individuation’, and the
consequent feeling of being lonely and insecure. This has an age-related
dimension — when one is too young (increased anxiety about jobs) and when one
is into middle age (the fear of losing a job, falling sick etc).
9. This sense of insecurity has something to do with the new consumerism and
globalisation of the economy, where expectations about oneself (as a consumer
who would like to ‘possess’ certain comforts) and the consequent insecurity that
emanates from the new ‘hire and fire’ culture of globalisation creates new
insecurity. So here too one often finds more young people and those who cross
middle age tending to seek solace in new spiritual markets of various sorts —
from Deepak Chopra to the tele-marketing of pop-gurus of various sorts.
10.In the case of countries and communities where there is a social disintegration of
erstwhile collective institutional structures (eg tribal communities in Africa, or
joint families, or the old neighbourhood parish or temple) there is scope for new
network-based identity formation. It is in such a space that networked religion
and cell-churches grew exponentially. This process of social disintegration of
erstwhile structures and the process of ‘collective spaces of sharing’ also
happened due to the unprecedented trend of urbanisation and the
movement/migration of people across countries and the world. So the shifts from
joint families to post-nuclear families and tribal collectivism also created new
forms of individuation and multiple forms of dislocation and resultant alienation.
11.It is in this context that institutionalised religions get transformed into ‘spiritual’
or ‘solace’ or ‘feel-good’ modules of customised products in the spiritual
marketplace. This network mode of marketing helps to get consumers hooked on
psycho-pills of well-packaged and customisedreligion of various sorts. In the
context of Christianity, the Charismatic movement and its network forms
‘customised’, ‘personalised’ and ‘flexible’ modules of packaged and commodified
‘spiritualism’ which is lapped up by a new market of relatively more ‘lonely’ and
insecure people. That is one of the reasons why prosperity gospel is doing so well
in relatively poor African communities in Africa as well as America. Prosperity
gospels and ‘healing’ ministries and ‘miracle’ crusades all work on the new
insecurities among people and communities who are in a state of transition.
12.We are in the midst of an unprecedented transition in the history of the world
and in terms of sociological and cultural shifts. In such phases of transition
insecurities and alienation take on new forms — social, economic and political.
This also creates a new sense of inequality. At an individual level, the most
convenient thing is to find one’s own sense of ‘belonging’ by identifying with
communities who have a shared sense of belonging. Such belonging can be based
on colour, creed or religion. The biggest and oldest institutionalised structure of
belonging happens to be institutionalised religion. Adapted to the new
technology, media, and globalised network, institutionalised religion thus
‘services’ its new ‘clients’ by using the same old pill but with new modes of
delivery.
 13.Then there is also a new sense of political insecurity that emanates from
‘accentuated identities’ (majority and minority) that create a sense of insecurity
(for example when young Australians find it difficult to find jobs, they may feel
that Indians are stealing their jobs and then Indians begin to mobilise on the basis
of being Indians).
14.Such accentuated identities often become defensive in the minority context. So, a
young Muslim in Europe or UK may feel more ‘Muslim’ than the Muslim in Dubai.
Christians in Europe may feel ‘less Christian’ than the Christians in India or China.
The ongoing war in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the new political tensions with Iran or
North Korea, are all a residual accentuation of the post-cold war period of the
new geo-politics. And here, too, recent history is replayed in multiple forms of
colonialism and imperialism.
15.Post-cold war politics moved from ‘ideological’ war to ‘identity’-based
contestations in many cases. The political economy of such identities gets
accentuated among migrant communities. When identity, in its soft or hard form,
tends to be the sub-text of macro and micro politics, ordinary people often fall
back on the most convenient and accessible network of identity. So there is an
increasing assertion of ‘Muslim’ identity even among those Muslims who have a
rather moderate or liberal approach to religion. There is an assertion of ‘Hindu’
identity where Hindus are in a minority. Such assertions of identity are often
cultural defence mechanisms that emanate from social and cultural insecurities
and a sense of alienation.

FUNDAMENTALISM:
FUNDAMENTALISM STRESSES THE INFALLIBILITY OF A SCRIPTURE (e.g. the Bible, the
Granths, the Gita or the Quran) IN ALL MATTERS OF FAITH AND DOCTRINE. The
believers accept it as a literal historical record. The result is that sometimes a militant
stand is taken by the followers, often preceded or followed by a desire for a separate
homeland. At times, this too is taken as a prophecy in the scriptures.

1. Fundamentalism separates a certain community from the mainstream.

However, society, by its various arms (the police, army and so on), attempts to
suppress or eliminate the fundamentalist. This is especially so when they begin
acting outside of the law. Communalism is associated with eruption of violence
and riots these conflagrations may not have any particular aim or goal (apart
from communal ascendancy or supremacy).
2. Fundamentalism however is an organized all encompassing movement which
aims to promotion of society goals especially in the light of religious
enshrinements. Operational strategy includes peaceful as well as war-like uses
and movements.
3. Social Anthropologist LIONEL CAPLAN (1987) defines fundamentalism as a belief
in the timelessness of sacred writings and a belief that such writings apply to all
kinds of environments. In its popular usage, the term fundamentalism is applied
to a wide array of religious groups around the world.
 4. THE MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTIC OF FUNDAMENTALISTS is their belief
that a relationship with God, Allah, or some other supernatural force provides
answers to personal and social problems. In addition, fundamentalists often wish
to “bring the wider culture back to its religious roots.”
5. FUNDAMENTALISTS USUALLY CONCEIVE OF HISTORY as a “process of decline
from an original ideal state,” which includes the “betrayal of fundamental
principles”.
6. Fundamentalists do not distinguish between what is sacred and what is profane
in their day-today lives. Religious principles govern all areas.
7. It is not surprising then, that during times of rapid change, many people look for
and finds answers and calm in religion. Fundamentalism is perhaps the clearest
example of this phenomenon. Yet, increasingly, religious responses to change are
occurring in new and unfamiliar forms: new religious movements, cults, sects and
‘New Age’ activities. While these groups may not ‘look like’ forms of religion on
the surface, many critics of the secularization hypothesis believe that they
represent transformations of religious belief in the face of profound social
change.
8. THE STRENGTH OF RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM IS ANOTHER INDICATION
THAT SECULARIZATION HAS NOT TRIUMPHED IN THE MODERN WORLD. The
term fundamentalism can be applied in many different contexts to describe strict
adherence to a set of principles or beliefs. Religious fundamentalism describes
the approach taken by religious groups which call for the literal interpretation of
basic scriptures or tests and believe that the doctrines which emerge from such
readings should be applied to all aspects of social, economic and political life.
9. RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS BELIEVE THAT ONLY NEW VIEW – THEIR OWN –
OF THE WORLD IS POSSIBLE AND THAT THIS VIEW IS THE CORRECT ONE: THERE
IS NO ROOM FOR AMBIGUITY OR MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS. Within religious
fundamentalist movements, access to the exact meanings of scriptures is
restricted to a set of privileged ‘interpreters’ – such as priests, clergy or other
religious leaders. This gives these leaders a great amount of authority – not only
in religious matters, but in secular ones as well. Religious fundamentalists have
become powerful political figures in opposition movements, within mainstream
political parties (including in the United States) and as heads of state (for example
in Iran).
10.RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM IS A RELATIVELY NEW PHENOMENON – IT IS
ONLY IN THE LAST TWO TO THREE DECADES THAT TERM HAS ENTERED
COMMON USAGE. It has arisen largely in response to globalization. As the forces
of modernization progressively undermine traditional elements of the social
world – such as the nuclear family and the domination of women by men
fundamentalism has arisen in defense of tradition.

ASPECTS OF FUNDAMENTALISM:

1. Fundamentalism as a concept was first used in 1910-1915 when anonymous

authors published 12 volumes of literature called them ‘The Fundamentals’. In
 the early 20s the print media used this word with reference to conservative
protestant group in North America. These groups were concerned about liberal
interpretations of the Bible. Alarmed by liberal interpretations the conservative
insisted on some “fundamentals” of faith. These included belief in the virgin
birth divinity, the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and the infallibility of the
scripture. As mentioned these and other fundamentals were published in 12
pamphlets called The Fundamentals between 1910-1915. Thus began the
specialized usage of the concept of “fundamentalism”. Thus a fundamental
movement is one which takes infallibility of a scripture as a basic issue and as a
guide to life. Some fundamentalists add that there is no need to even interpret
the scripture as meaning in it is self-evident. This often amounts to intolerance of
any form of disagreement or dissent. This there is an apprehension that
fundamentalists are narrow, and bigoted.
2. T.N. Madan (1993) has pointed out that the word Fundamentalism has gained
wide currency in the contemporary world. According to him it REFERS TO A
VARIETY OF NORMS, VALUES ATTITUDES WHICH EITHER JUDGE THE
FUNDAMENTALIST OR CONDEMN THEM OUTRIGHT. THIS WORD IS SOMETIMES
ERRONEOUSLY USED IN PLACE OF COMMUNALISM. IN FACT THE WORD
FUNDAMENTALISM HAS BECOME A BLANKET TERM. That is to say that various
fundamental movements across the world are actually not identical but differ in
various ways. But they are linked by a ‘family’ resemblance.
3. FUNDAMENTALIST MOVEMENTS are of a COLLECTIVE CHARACTER. They are
often LED BY CHARISMATIC LEADERS WHO ARE USUALLY MEN. Thus the 1979
Iranian movement was led by Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Sikh fundamentalist
upsurge by Sant Bhinderanwale (Madan). FUNDAMENTALIST LEADERS NEED NOT
BE RELIGIOUS LEADERS. Thus Maulana Maududi, founder of the Jamati Islami in
India was a journalist. K.B. Hedgewar, founder of the Rashtriya Sewak Sangh was
a physician.
4. THE FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE A PRACTICAL PEOPLE AND TRY TO PURGE THE
WAY OF LIFE ALL IMPURITIES (RELIGIOUSLY SPEAKING). They reject all corrupt
lifestyles. An example of this is Swami Dayanands critique of the traditional,
superstition filled way of life. Thus Maududi criticised the present Muslim way of
life as ‘ignorant’ and Bhindranwale talked of the ‘fallen’ Sikhs who shave off their
beards, out their hair and do not observe the traditional Sikh way of life. THUS
FUNDAMENTAL MOVEMENTS ARE NOT ONLY ABOUT RELIGIOUS AND
PRACTICES, BUT LIFESTYLES GENERALLY.
5. THUS FUNDAMENTALIST MOVEMENTS ARE REACTIVE AND RESPONSE TO WHAT
THE PERSON INVOLVED-THE LEADERS AND PARTICIPANTS, CONSIDER A
CRISIS. The crisis calls for urgent remedies. The basic programme is presented as
a return to the original tradition. That is to say to the contemporarily redefined
fundamentals. Which cover the present-day needs. This usually involves a
selective retrieval of tradition. The case of Dayanand illustrates this very well. He
tried to evolve a semitised Hinduism in response to the challenge for conversion
by Christian missionaries. He claimed that the Vedas were the only true form of
Hinduism and his call was back to the Vedas. In Iran Khomeini developed on
 Islamic state based on the guardianship of jurists. Again Bhindranwale gave a
selective emphasis to Guru Gobind Singh’s teaching rather than those of his
immediate successors. Assertion of spiritual authority and criticising the culture
are two aspects of fundamentalism. A third crucial element is that of the pursuit
of political power.
6. THE PURSUIT OF POLITICAL POWER IS VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF
FUNDAMENTALISM, FOR WITHOUT IT WE WOULD BE PRESENTED WITH A CASE
FOR REVIVALISM. The Samajists were ardent nationalists in North India, and the
movement had its political overtones. Again the RSS which has been described as
cultural organisation has had close links with political parties and contemporarily
with the Sangh Parivar. This covers both cultural and political aspects of Hindu
nationalism. This explains why fundamentalist movements often turn violent, and
the ideology of secularism is rejected. They are totalitarian and do not tolerate
dissent. However these movements also perform a particular role in modern
society which cannot be ignored. Thus an objective intellectual analysis should
consider fundamentalism as a distinctive category. It is not theocracy or backward
communalism.
7. POLITICS, RELIGION AND EDUCATION VS FUNDAMENTALISM: The
fundamentalist’s critisise the idea of separation of religion from politics and state.
They say God is omnipotent and political rule comes under his domain, how can
then the state be outside religious realm? THEY INSIST ON RELIGIOUS CONTROL
ON EDUCATION IMPORTANT IN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES. The fundamentalists
advocate boycott of modern state-run schools where teaching is not through
traditional religious system. THE MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS DEMAND THAT
ALL LAWS MUST BE DESIRED FROM THE KORAN AND THE SUNNAH. They
suggest harsh punishments like emulation of hands and feet, public flogging etc.
for crime done. THE AMERICAN FUNDAMENTALISTS suggest death penalty for
murder adultery sodomy, rape, homosexuality, kidnapping,
etc. FUNDAMENTALISM IS ANTI SCIENCE AND DENIES THE VALIDITY OF HUMAN
KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE RELIGIOUS REALM.
8. EQUALITY OF RELIGIONS VS. FUNDAMENTALISM: The fundamentalists do not
believe in the equality of all religions. They say how on false religions be treated
as equal to the true religion. On the similar line, they oppose the concept of the
unity of all religions. They are opposed to reason, rationalism, humanism and
secularism. The fundamentalists are also opposed to the idea of sovereignty,
democracy and constitutional government.

Fundamentalism in relation to communalism:

Communalism can best be described in the context of Indian scenario. Communalism
developed in
India through three stages:

1. First stage: It began during the last quarter of 19th century. It was put forward
that followers of a religion not only have religion in common but also political,
economic, social and cultural interests. It led to the notion that in India, Hindu,
 Muslims, Sikhs and Christians form district communities and hence Indian Nation
is made up of these communities.
2. Second stage: It began during the start of 20th century. The communists argued
that followers of a religion have different economic and political interests to
these of other religions. At the same time some liberal communalists argued that
different religious people also have some common economic and political
interests.
3. Third stage : In this stage, the notion which permeated was that Hindu and
Muslim could never live together. They can never form one nation. Actually, what
was good for Hindus was bad for Muslims, what was good for Muslims was bad
for Hindus and so on.

Similarities between fundamentalism and Communalism:

1. Both attack the concept of separation of religion from politics and the state.
2. Both oppose unity of all religions.
3. Both advocate control over education.
4. Both believe in restoration of the past values and greatness.
5. Both share the notion that founding of religion led to the achievement of near-
human perfection.
6. Both oppose secularism:

Differences of perception:
In a multi-religious society, a fundamentalist tends to be communal while communalist
are not fundamentalists. As, in India, the Hindu Mahasabha, the RSS, the BJP, the Akali
Dal, etc. are communal parties but are not fundamentalists.

1. Fundamentalists seriously urge for the actual revival of the pristine past whereas
communalists though appeal, they are more focused on modern world.
2. Fundamentalists are deeply religious and put their entire ideology on religion
whereas communalists use religion just to give political power.
3. Fundamentalists want to Christianize or Islamize or Hinduige the whole world.
Communalists just want to communalize their own society.

Fdamentalism in the global context:

1. Fundamentalism in Iran :
 In the 19th century in Iran, Pahalvi dynasty was founded and with the help of
Britishers, colonel Rajja Khan was made the king. Iran being on oil rich country
attracted Britishers as they needed oil. For the purpose of exploitation of this
resource, they employed their own men which erected dissatisfaction among
Iranian masses. Meanwhile, America also joined and triangular co-operation
developed with the support of British and America, king KHAN, started
modernizing the state in which Madrassa’s and Maqatab were put under the
control of Central administration.
  All such actions caused great disenchantment among many Iranian. To protect
their interest they took shelter in the religious places. Under the guidance of
Ayyatullah Khomeini, their collective Action dethroned king Khan and a new set
up was created in which religion got a special place marking the beginning of
fundamentalism.
2. In America :
 Non-Religious Right Movement in America: Protestant Fundamentalism: the
motto of this movement was to spread the importance of protestant religion and
to stop modern practices as they were highly vulgar. They were causing harm to
national values and mobility. Their slogan was “Bring Back America Again”. This
shows American fundamentalism.
3. Taliban regime:
 Afghanistan could be cited as the most recent example of fundamentalism. A lot
of hardships were inflicted upon women. Entire regime was politically,
economically and socially crippled only Religion existed.
4. Pakistan:
 Fundamentalism kept on surfacing time to time in Pakistan but the some was to a
large extent counterpoised by democratic government.

Conclusion
The phenomenon of fundamentalism is not confined to one religion but is freely and
widely found among Christians, Muslims, Jains, Hindu and Sikhs. Fundamentalists asks
for return to the fundamental tenets of a religion, to its original formulations and
meanings that were given to the religion in its first text. No interpretation is allowed.
Any interpretation made should be wiped out. These texts are God’s own words.
Therefore, they are circular, unambiguous and changeless. For example, for Christian
fundamentalists old and new testaments are God’s own words, for Muslim
fundamentalist Karan and Sunnah, for Hindus the Vedas, for Sikh the Gurbabni. Infact,
the fundamentalists regard any interpretation of such text as blasphemous act.
Fundamentalists considers that the life should be governed by the religion as written in
the tests. Gary North, one of the American fundamentalist said that Bible contains
solutions to all problems a person faces today in his/her daily. According to Abdul-Jawed
Yasin, religion is the divine way drawn by God for man to solve his economic affairs,
social affairs, political affairs, legislative affairs, psychological affairs, internal affairs,
external affairs and any other affair that it may have. A muslim fundamentalist say
“God’s final religion contains all the legislation required”.
Systems of Kinship
Family, Household, and Marriage
Family:

 The early and classical definition emphasized that the family was a group based
on marriage, common residence, emotional bonds, and stipulation of domestic
services. The family has also been defined as a group based on marital relations,
rights and duties of parenthood, common habitation and reciprocal relations
between parents and children. Some sociologists feel that the family is a social
group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and
reproduction.

Some Popular Definitions:

The family has been seen as a universal social institution an inevitable part of human
society. According to Burgess and Lock the family is a group of persons united by ties of
marriage, blood or adoption constituting a single household interacting with each other
in their respective social role of husband and wife, mother and father, brother and sister
creating a common culture. G.P Murdock defines the family as a social group
characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It
includes adults of both sexes at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual
relationship and one or more children own or adopted of the sexually co-habiting
adults.

Nimkoff says that family is a more or less durable association of husband and wife with
or without child or of a man or woman alone with children. According to Maclver family
is a group defined by sex relationships sufficiently precise and enduring to provide for
the procreation and upbringing of children.Kingsley Davis describes family as a group of
persons whose relations to one another are based upon consanguinity and who are
therefore kin to one another. Malinowski opined that the family is the institution within
which the cultural traditions of a society is handed over to a newer generation. This
indispensable function could not be filled unless the relations to parents and children
were relations reciprocally of authority and respect. According to Talcott
Parsons families are factories which produce human personalities.

 On the basis of above mentioned definitions of family, it seems that the family is
a primary kinship unit which carries out aspects of the sexual, reproductive,
economic and educational functions. We generally picture a family as a durable
association of husband and wife with or without children, or a durable
association of man or woman along with children. Thus, members in the family
live together, pool their resources and work together and produce offspring. A
family is also viewed as an adult male and female living together with any
offspring in a more or less permanent relationship such as marriage which is
approved by their society.
 Concluding we can say that:
 1. It involves a sexual relationship between adults of opposite sexes;
2. it involves their cohabitation or living together;
3. it involves at least the expectation of relative permanence of the relationship
between them;
4. Most important of all, the relationship is culturally defined and socially
sanctioned. Marriage and the family are not just something people become
involved in on their own. Some of the ways in which they must relate to each
other are decided for them by their society. It is a well known and recognized fact
that marriage is the basis for the family. Marriage is recognized as a special kind
of relationship since it is the one in which families are created and perpetuated,
and the family is the ultimate basis of human society.

Main characteristics of family:

1. Universality: There is no human society in which some form of the family does
not appear. Malinowski writes the typical family a group consisting of mother,
father and their progeny is found in all communities, savage, barbarians and
civilized. The irresistible sex need, the urge for reproduction and the common
economic needs have contributed to this universality.
2. Emotional basis: The family is grounded in emotions and sentiments. It is based
on our impulses of mating, procreation, maternal devotion, fraternal love and
parental care. It is built upon sentiments of love, affection, sympathy,
cooperation and friendship.
3. Limited size: The family is smaller in size. As a primary group its size is necessarily
limited. It is a smallest social unit.
4. Formative influence: The family welds an environment which surrounds trains
and educates the child. It shapes the personality and moulds the character of its
members. It emotionally conditions the child.
5. Nuclear position in the social structure: The family is the nucleus of all other
social organizations. The whole social structure is built of family units.
6. Responsibility of the members: The members of the family have certain
responsibilities, duties and obligations. MacIver points out that in times of crisis
men may work and fight and die for their country but they toil for their families
all their lives.
7. Social regulation: The family is guarded both by social taboos and by legal
regulations. The society takes precaution to safeguard this organization from any
possible breakdown.

Functionalist Perspective:
The FUNCTIONALST PERSPECTIVE sees SOCIETY AS A SET OF SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS
THAT
PERFORM SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS TO ENSURE CONTINUITY AND CONSENSUS. According
to this
perspective, THE FAMILY PERFORMS IMPORTANT TASKS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO
SOCIETY’S
BASIC NEEDS AND HELPS TO PERPETUATE SOCIAL ORDER.

The family in any society is an institutional structure which develops through a society’s
efforts to get certain tasks done.

G. P. MURDOCK:
G. P. Murdock identified four functions of family. These universal functions he term as
– Sexual,
Reproductive, Economic and Educational.

1. The sexual function of the family refers to the regulation of the sexual behaviour
of its members. While husband and wife have right of sexual gratification but the
threat to social order due to free play of sexual derive is checked.
2. Reproductive function refers to the process of procreation whereby new
members of the society are recruited. This ensures the survival of the society and
children born to the married spouses to not suffer from the stigma of illegitimacy.
3. Economic production or the extended family involves both production as well as
consumption. The property is jointly owned by all members of the family and the
relationship between kinsmen at the same time is of employee-employer
relationship. The head of the family exercised the final authority in various
economic matters.
4. The educational function of the extended family involves both primary
socialization as well as secondary socialization though both take place in an
informal setting. In primary socialization, the elder members of the family
transmit the basic elements of culture of the new members; acquire the craft and
skills for participating in economic production from their elders.

It could be seen, in traditional Indian Varna system, where the life was divided into four
Astramas and its activities were divided in the form of four Purusharthas namely
Dharma Artha ,Kama and Moksh. In Grihstha Ashram Kama and Artha play important
roles. Kama connotes gratification of sexual needs and procreation of children, where
join as the function of Artha was the management of livelihood for the family. Dharma,
as a function was engaged in the socialization of children. In this way, Murdock’s
classification can be corroborated or exemplified.

MACIVER:
MacIver has talked about two functions of family – essential and non-essential.

Essential Function:

1. Gratification of sexual needs –

2. Procreation & rearing of children
3. Arrangement of a house-to complete bond between family members.
Non essential Functions:

1. Economic functions – MacIver has assumed joint family as a ‘unit of production’

because all the essential consumption commodities are produced & prepared at
home by family members, that is, they do not depend on others for such
commodities. Similarly nuclear family is considered as a ‘unit of consumption’.
2. Religious function
3. Educational function
4. Health related function
5. Recreational function

TALCOT PARSONS:

1. TALCOT PARSONS working in the functionalist tradition have regarded THE

NUCLEAR FAMILY as fulfilling certain specialized roles in modern societies. WITH
THE ADVENT OF INDUSTRIALIZATION, THE FAMILY BECAME LESS IMPORTANT
AS A UNIT OF ECONOMIC PRODUCTION AND MORE FOCUSED ON
REPRODUCTION, CHILD-REARING AND SOCIALIZATION.
2. According to the American sociologist Talcot Parsons, the family’s two main
functions are PRIMARY SOCIALIZATION and PERSONALITY STABILIZATION.
Primary socialization is the PROCESS BY WHICH CHILDREN LEARN THE CULTURAL
NORMS OF THE SOCIETY INTO WHICH THEY ARE BORN. Because this happens
during the early years of childhood, the family is the most important arena for the
development of the human personality. Personality stabilization refers to the role
that the family is the most important arena for the development of the human
personality. Personality stabilization REFERS TO THE ROLE THAT FAMILY PLAYS IN
ASSISTING ADULT FAMILY MEMBERS EMOTIONALLY. MARRIAGE BETWEEN
ADULT MEN AND WOMEN IS THE ARRANGEMENT THROUGH WHICH ADULT
PERSONALITIES ARE SUPPORTED AND KEPT HEALTHY. In industrial society the
role of the family in stabilizing adult personalities is said to be critical. This is
because the nuclear family is often distanced from its extended kin and is unable
to draw on larger kinship ties as families could do before industrialization.
3. PARSONS regarded the nuclear family as the unit best equipped the handle the
demands of industrial society. In the family, ONE ADULT CAN WORK OUTSIDE
THE HOME WHILE THE SECOND ADULT CARES FOR THE HOME AND CHILDREN. In
practical terms, this SPECIALIZATION OF ROLES within the nuclear family involved
the husband adopting THE INSTRUMENTAL ROLE as breadwinner, and the wife
assuming the AFFECTIVE, EMOTIONAL ROLE in domestic setting.

Criticism:

1. In our present age, Parson’s view of the family comes across as inadequate and
outdate. Functionalist theories of the family have come under HEAVY CRITICISM
FOR JUSTIFYING THE DOMESTIC DIVISION OF LABOUR BETWEEN MEN AND
WOMEN AS SOME THING NATURAL AND UNPROBLEMATIC. Yet viewed in their
 own historical context, the theories are somewhat more understandable. THE
IMMEDIATE POST-WAR YEARS SAW WOMEN RETURNING TO THEIR
TRADITIONAL DOMESTIC ROLES AND MEN REASSUMING POSITIONS AS SOLE
BREADWINNERS, WE CAN CRITICIZE FUNCTIONALIST VIEWS OF THE FAMILY ON
OTHER GROUNDS, HOWEVER.
2. In emphasizing the importance of the family in performing certain functions,
THEORISTS NEGLECT THE ROLE THAT OTHER SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS, SUCH AS
GOVERNMENT, MEDIA AND SCHOOLS, PLAY IN SOCIALIZING CHILDREN.
3. The theories also neglect variations in family forms that do not correspond to the
model of the nuclear family. Families that did not conform to the white,
suburban, middle – class- ideal were seen as deviant.

Marxist Perspective:
Marxists (Engels & Katleen Gough): One more perspective is that of the Marxists..
ACCORDING TO ANGELS, FAMILY CHANGE AS PER THE CHANGE IN THE MODE OF
PRODUCTION. WHEN MODES OF THE PRODUCTIONS WERE COMMUNALLY OWNED,
THERE WAS NO FAMILY AND PROMISCUITY PREVAILED.

1. Katleen Gough supports this view. She notes that man’s nearest relatives, the
chimpanzees live in promiscuous herders and this may have been the pattern of
early man. According to Engels each successive stage of change or production
placed a greater restriction on the numbers of females that an individual could
possess. THE MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILY developed with the emergence
of private property and to enforce the rule of monogamous marriage.
2. Vogel and Bell has presented A DYSFUNCTIONAL EXPLANATION based on finding
of an extensive study of AMERICAN FAMILIES CONTAINING AN EMOTIONALLY
DISTURBED CHILD. They argued that OFTEN THE TENSION AND HOSTILITY OF
UNRESOLVED CONFLICT BETWEEN PARENTS are projects on the child. The CHILD
IS THUS USED AS EMOTIONAL SCAPEGOAT BY THE PARENTS TO RELIVE THEIR
TENSION. Scapegoating the child served as a personality stabilizing process for
the parents and keeps the family united. But the cost of such unity is paid by
child.
3. Edmund Leach : He has concentrated on the kin and wider community. Today the
domestic household is isolated, the family look inward upon itself; there is an
intensification of emotional stress between husband and wife and parents and
children. This strain is greater than most can bear. Thrown back almost entirely
on its resources, the nuclear family becomes like an over loaded electrical
circuit. The demand upon it is too great and fuse blows. In Leach’s words the
parents and children huddled together in their loneliness, take too much of out of
each other. This strain is greater than most can bear. The parent is fight, the
children rebel.”
4. R.D. Laing:. He referred to family group as a nexus. He argued that highest
concern of the nexus is reciprocal concern. Each partner is concerned about what
others think feels and do. Within the nexus, there is the constant unremitting
demand for mutual concern and attention. As a result there is a considerable
 potential for harm, family members are in an extremely vulnerable position. Thus,
if a father is angry over his son, given the nature of nexus, son is concerned about
his father’s opinion and cannot burst it off lightly. In self defence, he may run to
his mother who offers protection. In this way, Laing argues, a family can act as a
gangster protection, each other mutual protection against each other’s violence.
According to Laing, family is the root of all problems in society. Some families
live in perpetual anxiety of an external persecuting world. Moreover, the most
dangerous feature of the family is the inculcation of obedience in the minds of
sibling. Later in Life, they become officials, blindly and unquestionably following
orders.
5. David Cooper: He pronounced the death of the family. He too maintains that the
child is destroyed by the family since he is primary taught how to submit to
society for the sake of survival. Each child has the potential to be an artist,
visionary and revolutionary, but this potential is crushed in the family. The
children are taught to play the roles of son and daughter, male and female, such
roles are construction.

In brief these three sociologists provide a balancer to the functionalist view of family

Feminist Perspective :
Feminism has had a great impact on sociology by challenging the vision of the family
as a harmonious and egalitarian realm. If previously the sociology of the family had
focused on family structures, the historical development of the nuclear and extended
family and the importance of kinship ties, feminism succeeded in directing attention
inside families to examine the experiences of women in the domestic sphere.

1. Many feminist writers have questioned the vision that the family is a
cooperative unit based on common interests and mutual support. They have
sought to show that the presence of unequal power relationship within the family
means that certain family members tend to benefit more than others.
2. The view of Engels was further examined in 60s and 70s by several feminist
writers. According to them FAMILY IS SEEN AS A UNIT WHICH PRODUCED ONE
OF THE BASIC COMMODITIES OF THE CAPITALISM, THAT IS LABOUR. It is cheap
for the capitalist because they do not have to pay for the production to children
or their upkeep. The wife paid nothing for producing and rearing children.
3. In the words of MARGRET BENSON, “as an economic unit, the nuclear family is a
variably stabilizing force in the capitalist society. Since the production which is
alone in the factory, the wife at home is paid for by husband, father’s
earning. Further family produces not only cheap labour but it also maintains it in
good order at no cost to the employer. The women in her roles as the house-wife
attend to her husbands needs. Thus, keeping him in good running order to
perform his roles as wage labourers.
4. IAN ASHLEY writes that THE EMOTIONAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THE WIFE IS A
SAFETYVALVE FOR FRUSTRATION PRODUCED IN THE HUSBAND BY WORKING IN
 A CAPITALIST SYSTEM. In her words; when every worker is provided with no
space to search up possible revolutionary urge, the bosses rest more secure.
5. Finally, it is argued that the social reproduction of the labour does not simply
involve producing children and maintaining them in good health. It helps in
reproduction of the attitudes essential for as obedient work force under
capitalism.

Feminist writings have emphasized a broad spectrum of topics, but THREE MAIN
THEMES are of particular importance.

1. ONE OF THE CENTRAL CONCERNS IS THE DOMESTIC DIVISION OF LABOUR, which

is allocated between members of a household. There is reason to believe that a
domestic division of labour existed prior to industrialization, but it seems clear
that capitalist production brought about a much sharper distinction between the
domestic and work realms. THIS PROCESS RESULTED IN THE CRYSTALLIZATION
OF ‘MALE SPHERES’ AND ‘FEMALE SPHERES’ AND POWER RELATIONSHIPS
WHICH ARE FELT TO THIS DAY. Until recently, the male breadwinner model has
been widespread in most industrialized societies.
 Feminist sociologists have undertaken studies on the way domestic tasks, such as
child care and housework, are shared between men and women. They have
investigated the validity of claims such as that of the symmetrical family (Young
and Wilmott) the belief that, over time, families are becoming more egalitarian in
the distribution of roles and responsibilities. Finding have shown that women
continue to bear the main responsibility for domestic tasks and enjoy less
leisure time than men, despite the fact that more women are working in paid
employment outside the home than ever before.
2. Second, feminists have drawn attention to THE UNEQUAL POWER
RELATIONSHIPS THAT EXIST WITHIN MANY FAMILIES. One topic which has
received increased attention as a result of this is the phenomenon of domestic
violence. Wife battering, marital rape, incest and the sexual abuse of children
have all received more public attention as a result of feminists’ claims that the
violent and abusive sides of family life have long been ignored in both academic
contexts and legal and policy circles.
3. The study of CARING ACTIVITIES is a third area where feminists have made
important contributions. This is a broad realm which encompasses a variety of
processes, from attending to a family member who is ill to looking after an
elderly relative over a long period of time. Sometime caring means simply being
attuned to someone else’s psychological well being. Several feminist writers
have been interested to know whether emotion work within relationships. Not
only do women tend to shoulder concrete tasks such as cleaning and child care,
but they also invest large amounts personal relationships.

Post Modernist:

1. A post modernistic view of the family is at the opposite ends of the scale to
functionalism. Post modernists believe that in most societies there are diverse
 and multi-cultural types of families where members within these units are free to
make their own life choices as to how, what and where they live, work and
socialise within society. Post modernists also believe that everyone is entitled to
the same opportunities in education, healthcare and family support as in their
view, there are no class divisions (working and ruling classes), in most societies.
2. Zietlin et al summarises this view of the world, The post modern world is shaped
by pluralism, democracy, religious freedom, consumerism, mobility and
increasing access to news and entertainment, (Zietlin class handout 2009. 92)
3. Criticisms : Because of their views of equal opportunities and freedom of speech
and choices they ignore the fact that some people can and do make wrong
choices with regards to ignoring the norms and values which are passed down the
generations which inevitably upsets the social control aspects in some societies.
4. Postmodernist disagree with Marxists and Functionalists • They argue that, from
the late 20th century, society began to move into a ‘postmodern’ phase – a
fundamentally new type of society • The new postmodern society has 2 key
features: Fragmentation of cultures and lifestyles • Individuals now have more
choice and are freer to construct their identities and lifestyles as they wish • As a
result society is now more a collection of different subcultures (e.g. different
youth cultures, ethnic groups, consumption patterns), rather than the single
shared culture described by functionalists.
5. Rapid change • Rapid change has made life predictable and orderly • New
technology and the media break down existing barriers of time and space, and
transform work and leisure patterns • As a result ◊ the family has become less
stable, but there is now more choice about intimate relationships and domestic
arrangement • For example, individuals can choose to cohabit, get divorced, have
children (own or adapted) outside marriage , come out as gay, live alone etc • The
result of this greater choice is greater family diversity • This means it is no longer
possible to generalise about family life in a way that modernist sociologists have
done.

Contemporary perspective:
In the past decade an important body of sociological literature on the family has
emerged which draws on feminist perspectives, but is not strictly informed by them. OF
PRIMARY CONCERN ARE THE LARGER
TRANSFORMATIONS WHICH ARE TAKING PLACE IN FAMILY FORMS-

1. The formation and dissolution of families and households, and THE EVOLVING
EXPECTATION WITHIN INDIVIDUAL’S PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.
2. The rise in DIVORCE AND LONE PARENTING,
3. The emergence of RECONSTITUTED FAMILIES AND GAY FAMILIES, and
4. The popularity of COHABITATION.

are all subjects of concern. Yet these transformations cannot be understood apart
from the larger changes occurring in our late modern age.
Anthony Giddiness: The Transformation of Intimacy

1. Marriage in PRE MODERN SOCIETY was NOT GENERALLY BASED ON SEXUAL

ATTRACTION OR ROMANTIC LOVE; instead, it was more often linked to the
economic context in which to create a family or to enable to inheritance of
property. For the peasantry, a life characterized by unremitting hard labour was
unlikely to be conducive to sexual passion although opportunities for men to
engage in extramarital liaisons were numerous.
2. ROMANTIC LOVE, as distinct from the more or less universal compulsions of
passionate love, DEVELOPED IN AFTER EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. DESPITE ITS
PROMISE OF AN EQUAL RELATIONSHIP BASED ON MUTUAL ATTRACTION,
ROMANTIC LOVE HAS IN PRACTICE TENDED TO LEAD TO THE DOMINANCE OF
MEN OVER WOMEN.
3. For many men, the tensions between the respectability of romantic love and
the compulsions of passionate love were dealt with by separating the “comfort
of the wife and home” from “the sexuality of the mistress or girl friend or
prostitute”. The double standard here was that a woman should remain a virgin
until the right man arrives; whereas no such norm applied to the men.
4. Giddens argue that THE MOST RECENT PHASE OF MODERNITY HAS SEEN
ANOTHER TRANSFORMATION in the nature of intimate relationships. There has
been the development of plastic sexuality. For people in modern societies THERE
IS A MUCH GREATER CHOICE OVER WHEN, HOW OFTEN AND WITH WHOM THEY
HAVE SEX THAN EVER BEFORE. WITH PLASTIC SEXUALITY, SEX CAN BE
SEPARATED FROM REPRODUCTION. This is partly due to improved methods of
contraception which have largely freed women from the fear of repetitive (and
lifethreatening) pregnancies and childbirths.
5. However, it is not only technological development that led to the emergence of
plastic sexuality, but crucially THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SENSE OF THE SELF THAT
COULD BE ACTIVELY CHOSEN. This process can be described as the growth of
social reflexivity.
6. With the emergence of plastic sexuality, THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF
LOVE. GIDDENS argued that THE IDEALS OF ROMANTIC LOVE ARE
FRAGMENTING AND BEING REPLACED BY “CONFLUENT LOVE”. Confluent love is
ACTIVE AND CONTINGENT.
7. ROMANTIC LOVE meant that once people had married they were usually stuck
with one another, no matter how the relationship developed. NOW PEOPLE HAVE
MORE CHOICE: whereas DIVORCE was previously difficult or impossible to obtain,
married people are now no longer bound to stay together if the relationship
doesn’t work.
8. RATHER THAN BASING RELATIONSHIPS ON ROMANTIC PASSION, people are
increasingly pursuing THE IDEAL OF THE PURE RELATIONSHIP, IN WHICH
COUPLES REMAIN BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO. As the idea of CONFLUENT
LOVE becomes consolidated as a real possibility, the more THE IDEA OF FINDING
THE MR. OR MRS. RIGHT RECEDES and the more THE IDEA OF FINDING THE
RIGHT RELATIONSHIP BECOMES CRUCIAL. The pure relationship is held together
 by the acceptance on the part of each partner that, UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE
EACH GAINS SUFFICIENT BENEFITS FROM THE RELATIONSHIP TO MAKE ITS
CONTINUANCE WORTH WHILE.
9. Each partner in the relationship constantly monitors their concerns to see if
they are deriving sufficient satisfaction from the relationship for it to go on.

Ulrich Beck and Elizabeth Beck Gernsheim: The Normal Chaos of Love in the Family

1. In the ‘Normal Chaos of Love’ (1995), Beck and Beck- Gernsheim examine the
tumultuous nature of personal relationships, marriages and family patterns
against the backdrop of a rapidly changing world. The traditions, rules and
guidelines which used to govern personal relationship no longer apply, they
argue, and INDIVIDUALS ARE NOW CONFRONTED WITH AN ENDLESS SERIES OF
CHOICES AS PART OF CONSTRUCTING, ADJUSTING, IMPROVING OR DISSOLVING
THE UNIONS THEY FORM WITH OTHERS.
2. The fact that marriages are now entered into voluntarily, rather than for
economic purposes or at the urging of family, brings both freedoms and new
strains.
3. Beck and Beck – Gernsheim see our age as one filled with colliding interest
between family, work, love and the freedom to pursue individual goals. This
collision is felt acutely within personal relationships, particularly when there are
two labour market biographies to juggle instead of one. By this the authors mean
that a growing number of women in addition to men are pursing careers over the
course of their lifetimes. Previously women were more likely to work part time
outside the home, or to take significant time away from their careers to raise
children. These patterns are less fixes than they once were; both men and women
now place emphasis on their professional and personal needs. Beck and Beck-
Gernsheim conclude that relationships in our modern age are about much more
than relationships, so to speak, not only are love, sex, children, marriage and
domestic duties topics for negotiation, BUT RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOW ALSO
ABOUT WORK, POLITICS, ECONOMICS, PROFESSIONS AND INEQUALITY. Diverse
selections of problems -from the mundane to the profound- now confront
modern couples.
4. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, THAT ANTAGONISM, BETWEEN MEN AND
WOMEN ARE ON THE RISE. Beck and Beck Gernsheim claim that ‘THE BATTLE
BETWEEN THE SEXES IS THE CENTRAL DRAMA OF OUR TIMES, AS EVIDENCED IN
THE GROWTH OF THE MARRIAGE COUNSELING INDUSTRY, FAMILY COURTS,
MARITAL SELF- HELP GROUPS AND DIVORCE RATES. But even though marriage
and family life seem to be more flimsy than ever before, they still remain very
important to people. Divorce is increasingly common, but rates of remarriage are
high. The birth rate may be declining, but there is a huge demand for fertility
treatment. Fewer people may choose to get married, but the desire to live with
someone as part of a couple is certainly holding steady. What can explain these
competing tendencies?
5. Authors claim that today’s battle of the sexes is the clearest possible indication
of ‘people’s hunger for love’. People marry for the sake of love and divorce for
 the sake of love; they engage in an endless cycle of hoping, regretting and trying
again. While on the one hand the tensions between men and women are high,
there remains a deep hope and faith in the possibility of finding true love and
fulfillment.
6. You might think that ‘love’ is too simplistic an answer for the complexities of our
current age. But Beck and Beck – Gernsheim argue that it is precisely because
our world is so overwhelming, impersonal, abstract and rapidly changing that
love has become increasingly important. According to the authors, love is the
only place where people can truly find themselves and connect with others.

Household:
A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a
house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is
occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate
living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other
persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or
through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone,
two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons
who share living arrangements.

 The household is a residential grouping defined similarly to the above in which

housework is divided and performed by householders. Care may be delivered by
one householder to another, depending upon their respective needs, abilities,
and perhaps disabilities. Different household compositions may lead to
differential life and health expectations and outcomes for household members.
Eligibility for certain community services and welfare benefits may depend upon
household composition.
 In sociology ‘household work strategy’, a term coined by Ray Pahl, is the
division of labour between members of a household, whether implicit or the
result of explicit decision–making, with the alternatives weighed up in a
simplified type of cost-benefit analysis. It is a plan for the relative deployment of
household members’ tied between the three domains of employment:
1. In the market economy, including home-based self-employment second jobs, in
order to obtain money to buy goods and services in the market;
2. Domestic production work, such as cultivating a vegetable patch or raising
chickens, purely to supply food to the household; and
3. Domestic consumption work to provide goods and services directly within the
household, such as cooking meals, child–care, household repairs, or the
manufacture of clothes and gifts. Household work strategies may vary over the
life-cycle, as household members age, or with the economic environment; they
may be imposed by one person or be decided collectively.

Feminism examines the ways that gender roles affect the division of labour within
households. Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild’s in “The Second Shift and The Time
Bind” presents evidence that in two-career couples, men and women, on average,
spend about equal amounts of time working, but women still spend more time on
housework. Feminist writer Cathy Young responds to Hochschild’s assertions by arguing
that in some cases, women may prevent the equal participation of men in housework
and parenting.

MARRIAGE:
Marriage is the approved social pattern whereby two or more persons establish a
family. It involves not only the right to conceive and rear children (who are some-
times conceived as an institutionalized preliminary to marriage) but also a host of
other obligations and privileges affecting a good many people.

The real meaning of marriage is the acceptance of a new status, with a new set of
privileges and obligations, and the recognition of this new status by others. Wedding
ceremonies and rituals are merely ways of publicizing and dramatizing this change of
status.

In matters of marriage our ethnocentrism is conspicuous. To us it normal that parents

should arrange and compel the marriage of two persons who may never even have met.
How do they know whether they will love each other? Why are not their wishes
consulted? Our reaction illustrates the usual error of ethnocentrism – assuming that
people with another culture will not think and feel as we would think and feel if
transplanted into their situation.

Type of Marriages:

1. Polygyny: It is a form of marriage in which one man marries more than one
woman at a given time. It is of two types
 Sororal polygyny: It is a type of marriage in which the wives are invariably the
sisters. It is often called sororate.
 Non-sororal polygyny: It is a type of marriage in which the wives are not related
as sisters.
2. Polyandry: It is the marriage of one woman with more than one man. It is less
common than polygyny. It is of two types—–
 Fraternal polyandry: When several brothers share the same wife the practice can
be called alelphic or fraternal polyandry. This practice of being mate, actual or
potential to one’s husband’s brothers is called levirate. It is prevalent among
Todas.
 Non – fraternal polyandry: In this type the husband need not have any close
relationship prior to the marriage. The wife goes to spend some time with each
husband. So long as a woman lives with one of her husbands; the others have no
claim over her.
3. Monogamy: It is a form of marriage in which one man marries one woman .It is
the most common and acceptable form of marriage.
  Serial monogamy: In many societies individuals are permitted to marry again
often on the death of the first spouse or after divorce but they cannot have more
than one spouse at one and the same time.
 Straight monogamy: In this remarriage is not allowed.
4. Group Marriage: It means the marriage of two or more women with two or more
men. Here the husbands are common husbands and wives are common wives.
Children are regarded as the children of the entire group as a whole.

Monogamy is a form of marriage in which one woman (at a time) marriage a man and
vice versa. There are three theoretical forms of polygamy. One is group marriage, in
which several men and several women are all in a marriage relationship with one
another. While this is an intriguing theoretical possibility there is no authentic instance
of a society in which group marriage has been fully institutionalized, with the possible
exception, at one time, of the Marquesans (Murdock). A very rare form is polyandry,
where several husbands share a single wife. The Todas of Southern India provides one
of our few examples. Here, as in most other cases, polyandry was fraternal, meaning
that when a woman married a man, she automatically become wife to all his brother,
and they all lived together with little jealousy or discord. Toda polyandry becomes
understandable when one learns that they lived in a harsh environment where food was
scarce and female infanticide was used to limit population size (Murdock). Only where
some situation has created a shortage of women is polyandry likely to be
found (Unni). But the scattered handful of societies which practice polyandry serve to
show how a practice which seems to us to be contrary to human nature can still be the
accepted and preferred pattern for people who are socialized to expect it. The usual
form of polygamy is polygyny – a plurality of wives, not usually sisters and generally
acquired at different times during one’s life.

In many polygynous societies, the second wife filled the status function of the second
Cadillac in our
society. Far from feeling resentful, the first wife often urged her husband to take more
wives, over whom she generally reigned as queen bee. Polygyny in operation took many
forms in different societies, all of them far removed from the imagination of the normal
ethnocentric American. Polygyny is today declining in most of the developing countries
but is still common in the more remote tribal areas.
Rules of Marriage: No society gives absolute freedom to its members to select their
partners. Endogamy and exogamy are the two main rules that condition marital
choice.

1. Endogamy: It is a rule of marriage in which the life-partners are to be selected

within the group. It is marriage within the group and the group may be caste,
class, tribe, race, village, religious group etc.We have caste endogamy, class
endogamy, sub caste endogamy, race endogamy and tribal endogamy etc.In caste
endogamy marriage has to take place within the caste. Brahmin has to marry a
Brahmin. In sub caste endogamy it is limited to the sub caste groups.
2. Exogamy: It is a rule of marriage in which an individual has to marry outside his
own group. It prohibits marrying within the group. The so-called blood relatives
 shall neither have marital connections nor sexual contacts among
themselves. Forms of exogamy:
 Gotra Exogamy: The Hindu practice of one marrying outside one’s own gotra.
 Pravara Exogamy: Those who belong to the same pravara cannot marry among
themselves.
 Village Exogamy: Many Indian tribes like Naga,Garo,Munda etc have the practice
of marrying outside their village.
 Pinda Exogamy: Those who belong to the same panda or sapinda( common
parentage) cannot marry within themselves.
3. Isogamy: It is the marriage between two equals (status)
4. Anisogamy: It is an asymmetric marriage alliance between two individuals
belonging to different social statuses. It is of two forms – Hypergamy and
Hypogamy.
5. Hypergamy: It is the marriage of a woman with a man of higher Varna or superior
caste or family.
6. Hypogamy: It is the marriage of high caste man with a low caste woman.
7. Orthogamy: It is the marriage between selected groups.
8. Cerogamy: It is two or more men get married to two or more women.

Marital Choice: The process of arranging a marriage shows a fascinating range of

possibilities. As shown above, some societies follow a formula whereby the children of
certain socially designated Kinsfolk marry each other. The couples can do their own
choosing, sometimes with parental guidance or parental veto. The parents can arrange
the marriage, with or without considering the couple’s wishes. A wife may be
purchases, or perhaps a complicated series of gifts are exchanged between families.
Wife capture is not unknown. Each of these patterns is the standard way of arranging
marriages in some of the world’s societies. All of them work – within the society in
which they exist- and are supported by the surrounding values and practices of the
culture. Wife capture worked very well for the Tasmanians, who practiced village
exogamy and were not greatly concerned over the differences between one woman
and all the others. For our society, it would be less practical. This illustrates the concept
of cultural relativism – pattern which works well in one cultural setting might work
badly in another.

Changes in Marriage:
Industrialization and urbanization have ushered in changes which have profoundly
affected the institution of marriage all over the world. While different societies, and
within each society different groups, have responded differentially to industrialization
and urbanization, nonetheless certain common trends in the changes affecting marriage
are discernible.

1. Changes in the Forms of Marriage: Societies with traditions of plural marriages

are turning towards monogamy. Due to the general improvement in the status of
woman and her gradual emancipation from the clutches of male dominance, even
in those societies where polygamy is permissible, incidences of polygamous
 marriages, and plurality of wives, are on the decrease. In India, the Hindu
Marriage Act has banned both polygynous and polyandrous marriages. Even in a
Muslim country like Pakistan, legislation was introduced making it necessary for
the Kazi to solemnize plural marriages only if the first wife gave her written
consent. The trend towards monogamy has also been encouraged by the ideology
of romantic and love marriage in which one specific individual is considered to be
the ideal partner. However, it would perhaps be wrong to assume that this trend
towards monogamy is also towards straight monogamy. While conditions in
modern society have made marriage unstable and the marriage bond is
revocable, individuals are willing to risk another marriage in order to find
happiness. Parents and friends too are sympathetic in this matter. Hence,
societies are likely to move towards the condition of serial monogamy, rather
than maintain straight monogamy.
2. Changes in Mate Selection: In traditional societies like India, where mate
selection was entirely a prerogative of parents and elders, a dent has been made.
Young men and women are increasingly being given some say in the matter of
mate selection. From a position in which they had no say whatsoever concerning
whom they were to get married to, a stage has now come in which the concerned
individuals are consulted and their consent obtained. In urban middle class
families, sons and daughters have even come to enjoy the right to veto marriage
proposals initiated by others. In the more advanced and enlightened urban
families, parents are now giving opportunities to their children to become
acquainted with prospective mates. In India, mate selection through newspaper
advertisement has become quite a popular practice among urban middle classes
and the latest development is the reported harnessing of the services of
computers in bringing potentially compatible mates together.
3. Changes in Age of Marriage: In India, where, traditionally, child marriages were
prescribed, preferred and encouraged, various efforts were made by social
reformers to bring this practice to an end; accordingly, the Child Marriage
Restraint Act, popularly known as the Sarda Act, was passed in 1929. However,
early marriage continued, in spite of the impact of modern industrialization and
urbanization, especially among the rural people. In urban areas, too, there was a
strong tendency to get a daughter married off as soon as possible. But with
increasing enrolment of girls in schools and colleges and their desire to take up
employment, along with the problems of ‘setting down’ in life for the vast
majority of boys, the age at marriage is perforce being pushed up. Further, as part
of its population policy, the Government has now prescribed the minimum age of
marriage as 18 years for girls and 20 years for boys. In urban areas, however,
marriages are now generally taking place beyond these prescribed minimum
ages.
4. Changes in Marriage Rituals and Customs : Contemporary changes in India
present us with a paradoxical situation. With greater intrusion of technology and
science, it was expected that a secular-scientific outlook would emerge and,
consequently, the non-essential rituals and customs would be generally
discarded. Religious and social reforms, in all communities have always pleaded
 for avoiding of wasteful expenditures on meaningless customs and rituals. But
observation indicates that, contrary to the expectations of enlightened people,
marriages in India are tending to become more traditional insofar as the ritual-
custom complex is concerned. Today, there is a revival of many rituals and
customs, which, soon after independence, appeared to have become weak. To an
extent, this revival is a function of affluence. Many people in society have a lot of
money to spend lavishly on weddings, and there is a tendency among the not-so
affluent to initiate the affluent.
5. Changes in Marriage : Goals and Stability: It was seen earlier that procreation
has been the most important function of marriage in traditional societies. In all
communities, a large number of children, bestowed higher status upon parents
and among Hindus sons were particularly desired. Thus, a large-sized family was
one of the cherished goals of marriage, and the blessings showered upon the
bridal couple included good wishes for several children. But modern conditions of
life have made a large family burdensome; in fact, even those with three or four
children are being disfavoured. Several Third World Countries are seized of the
problems that exploding populations can cause and are, therefore, committed to
encouraging the small family norms. Restriction of family size is the declared
official policy of many of these. India, in fact, was the first country to adopt an
official family planning programme. In those Asian and African countries where
there are democratic governments, through vigorous education efforts, citizens
are being made to realize and accept the advantages of limited procreation. China
has also adopted a very strict population control programme which involves
certain disincentives and punishments for couples that do not restrict
procreation. All these efforts are gradually influencing the values of people in
India, and other countries. It is being realized that it is better to have about two
healthy and well-cared for children than a large number who cannot be
adequately fed, clothed or looked after.

As procreation, and along with it parenting role, are tending to become less important,
other functions like companionship and emotional support from the spouse and
children are becoming the more important goals of marriage. In fact, the younger
people today are entering matrimony for happiness and personal fulfillment. The
conditions causing marital instability are likely to worsen rather than improve in the
future. Our outlook, values and ideals pertaining to marriage are also undergoing
change.

What then is the future of marriage? Predictions concerning social life are difficult and
risky. But, there appears to be little chance that marriage, as a major event in individual
and social life will ever be given up and abandoned. If evidence from western societies is
any guide, high rates of divorce will not automatically deter people from getting
married. Notwithstanding marital instability, the individual’s quest for finding happiness
in marriage will continue.

Types and Forms of Family

TYPES & FORMS:

1. On the basis of marriage: Family has been classified into three major types:
 Polygamous or polygynous family
 Polyandrous family
 Monogamous family
2. On the basis of the nature of residence family can be classified into three main
forms:
 Family of matrilocal residence
 Family of patrilocal residence
 Family of changing residence
3. On the basis of ancestry or descent family can be classified into two main types:
 Matrilineal family
 Patrilineal family
4. On the basis of size or structure and the depth of generations family can be
classified into two main types:
 Nuclear or the single unit family
 Joint family
5. On the basis of the nature of relations among the family members the family
can be classified into two main types:
 The conjugal family which consists of adult members among there exists sex
relationship.
 Consanguine family which consists of members among whom there exists blood
relationship- brother and sister father and son etc.

Detail Analysis of Two Popular Type of FAMILY Studied in Sociology:

JOINT FAMILY:
Social Aspect:

1. Solidarity of Relationship: In joint families the solidarity of relationship is highly

oriented towards blood relatives or siblings and not towards affinal relations,
That is why such families are known as consanguineous family. All the household
activities are done by daughter-in-laws because, they hardly have any importance
in family. While describing the Indian joint family, S.C. Dubey says that, for any
married woman her parents house use to be a sojourn place for her after
marriage.
2. Importance of Members: In joint family, the whole family is collectively
important and not the particular members. Importance is mainly seen in the
decision making process, which is widened from petty issues to very sensitive
issues, that is why marriage related decisions are also taken at family level.
3. Marriage Alliance : It is done at family level and not at individual level, that is
why, it is said that marriage relationships are always established between two
families. In such families, both husband and wife are related differently to
different people and so they have very limited point of interaction between them
 and so, they hardly have any problem with each other. This issue was explained
by Elizabeth Bott in her study of some families in Greater London and the same
was supported by Rosser and Harris, which they described under “Degree of
domesticity of women involved?

Political Aspect

1. In the context of authority: In the patriarchal family the authority is in the hands
of male and in matriarchal family, it is in the female hands. In every family, there
is a head appointed, who is the representative of the whole family, so the
decision taken by him is the cumulative or the collective decision of the family.

Economic Aspect :

1. In the context of division of labour: Here, the division of labour is basically on the
basis of age and sex. And so male used to work outside whereas females inside
the wall of domesticity. There was no significance of talent & skill as for as work is
concerned. The Feminist sociologist Ann Oakley has depicted in her study of
British society that in pre- industrial Britain, the family was the basic unit of
production. Where in, females were mostly assigned house work like cooking,
cleaning, washing, child care and some other activities like dairy production
activities. In other words they were engaged in some non essential activities, but
the emergence of industrialization had changed their roles and now they have got
the “dominant mature feminine role”.
2. In the context of ownership of property : In joint family, the property is jointly
owned, that is, it does not permit individual ownership.

Religious Aspect :
Religious activities in joint families are essential for everyone and are performed
collectively. In this way, no member can have an individual stake in this particular field.

Cultural Aspects :

1. In the context of functions : In joint families different kinds of functions used to

take place, which one performs either in the obeisance of some rules or in the
form of some Sankaras and the whole process is completed collectively.
2. In the context of place of residence : The whole joint family, lives under one roof
together and they have common kitchen as well.

Nuclear Family:
Social Aspect:

1. Solidarity of Relations: The solidarity of relations are concentrated highly on of

final relationship. In this way, blood relations are not that important. That is why,
 such families are called conjugal families However one more reason, corroborates
the existence of such families that the ego has already got separated from its
blood relatives.
2. In this family, every member is important, that is why desire of any one member
is not posed on others. i,e every member is free, independent and important at
ones level. In marital decisions also, the significance of individual freedom is
obvious i.e. the decision is taken by related persons only. In western industrial
countries, there is absolute freedom for everyone. On this matter but in the
countries like India, which are still traditionbased, where nuclear family structure
in different from one found in western countries and that absolute freedom is not
given in marital decisions.

Political Aspect:
In nuclear family, everyone has equal rights. In such families and in decision making
matters, children are equally important. Such families are known as filiocentric families.
The implementation of authorities is not done through compulsion, rather it is done
through consensus i.e. the general consensus of the members, which is done through
consultation.

Economic Aspect :
Division of labour is chiefly on the basis of ability and talent and not on the basis of age
and gender. Owing to it, the conjugal roles are joint in nuclear families whereas, in joint
families they were separated. This fact was elaborated and corroborated by Elizabeth
Bott and Rosser & Harris. The property of the family is governed through modern rules
and the property is achieved individually, then the concerned achiever would be the
owner of that property.

Religious Aspect:
In the context of western countries and for nuclear families, S.C. Dubey has presented
an analysis that with the advent & progress of science and technology people’s belief
towards supernatural objects and powers diminished. In comparison to religion, they
started getting their problems solved through science & technology, in a very rational
way. This change let the people and the state adopt secular ideologies and now, at
family level religious activities are no more essential, compulsory and obligatory for
members.

Miscellaneous:

1. Prominence of external agencies : MacIver has considered nuclear family as the

unit of consumption. So whether, it is a matter of socialization of children, or of
entertainment, external agencies are highly required because, the concerned
commodities and services cannot be produced at family level. It is so because,
wherever nuclear family exists, there is a prominence of specialization, that is,
every member gets expertise in a particular field and for other services and
 commodities, he is bound to depend on others, this explanation was elaborately
given by T. Parsons and William J. Goode in their studies of industrial societies.
2. Improved status of women: With the increment of the elements of equality,
freedom and right to decision making have altogether weakened patriarchy.
Status of women is continuously getting improved. The economic freedom,
among women is highly responsible for it. Ann Oakley has presented this kind of
change in the women as ‘dominant, mature feminine role’.
3. Increase in Individuality: It is just the opposite of Durkheim’s conception of
collective consciousness because due to prevalence of tradition in collective
consciousness, everyone thinks alike. And the same happens in the joint family of
pre-industrial simple society. In modern nuclear families, individual consciousness
prevails which leads the people towards economic prosperity. But, its dysfunction
is seen in the form of anomie, which brings dissociation and separation in family-
Apart from it, there is an increase in, crime, cyber crime, drug addiction,
alcoholism prostitution, juvenile delinquency etc. There is one more important
thing, which is seen in individuality and that is, people get complete privacy owing
to the lack of familial and democratic pressures, which increases sexual freedom
too. Conclusively, such families are becoming individualistic democrat.

Factors Responsible for the change in family structure in industrial society:

After scientific & industrial revolution, the patriarchal joint family, in western society
started changing into
individualistic nuclear family. It was the need of the people to have this kind of family
structure because it suited appropriately with the complete ecology. It has many
important functions to impart and through it, many unimportant functions have been
done away with it. Factors responsible for this kind of change are enormous but the
most important and initiating factor has been industrialization. Overall the factors can
be counted in the following way :

 Industrialization
 Modernization
 Secularization – Role of science & technology

Industrialization:
T. Parsons & William J. Goode have been important figures to describe the role of
industrialization in the emergence of nuclear families. Parsons argues that the isolated
nuclear family is the typical family found in modern industrial society. It is structurally
isolated, because it does not form an integral part of wider system of kinship
relationship. T. Parsons says that a modern industrial system with a specialized division
of labour demands considerable geographical mobility, from its labour force. Individuals
with specialized skills are required to move to the places where those skills are in
demand. The isolated nuclear family suits to the need of geographical mobility. It can be
described in the following way:
 1. It doesn’t contain many kins in the structure and so wide range of obligation are
shortened. So the obligation are focused more on a fewer people between
husband-wife and child and they make a perfect bond between them.
2. Parsons argues that the isolated nuclear family is the best form of family
structure, for a society based on achieved status. Because, individuals are judged
on the basis of status they have achieved.
3. The pre-industrial society had a particularistic value system, so the system was
that of ascribed one and because of this, conflict will tend to arise in this family
unit larger than the isolated nuclear family, which will threaten the solidarity of
the family. The isolated nuclear family largely prevents the problem from rising.
4. In an isolated nuclear family, the family functions can be done in a better way like
that of primary socialization of children, and stabilization of adult personality via
expressive mother & wife.
5. Supporting Parsons views – Ronald fletcher argues that not only has the family
retain its functions but those functions have increased in detail and importance.
Specialized institutions such as schools & hospitals have added to an improved
family’s function, rather than superceded ones. Now parents are best guide to
their children in there occupational and in their children healths. They are
mentors in their achievement pattern.
6. Parsons argues that family at macroscopic level has become almost completely
functionless. But it does not mean that, the modern family has become,
unimportant, rather its importance has increased. Now they are working for the
integration and economic system of the larger society. And that way, it is playing
its role in an appropriate way.

William J. Goode: Like Parsons, Goode argues that industrialization tends to undermine
the extended family and larger kinship grouping. He explains the high rate of
geographical mobility in industrial society, decreases the frequency and intimacy of
contact among members of kin network. The relativity of high level of social mobility
also tends to weaken kinship ties.

 For e.g. the upward mobility of a member of a working class family leads to adopt
the lifestyle, attitude and values of his new social class. They would tend to cut
him off from his working class kin. Many of the functions once performed by the
family have been taken over by outside agencies such as schools, business and
welfare organisations. This reduces the dependency of the individual on his family
and his kin. The importance of achieved status in industrial society means that the
family and kinship groups have less to offer to their members. Because of this
reasons, people started having nuclear family and this suits to the new industrial
society.
 Its effect was so important that even non industrial families, also took up this
structure. Goode has found that in the industrial upper class family, a joint family
structure is seen, but truly speaking, they are not joint mentally & emotionally.
For this, Goode applies the concept of ‘role bargaining’ for such families. It means
that the individual attempts to obtain the best possible bargaining on his
relationship with others. He will attempt to maximise his gains. He maintains a
 good relationship with family members and submit to their control, if he feels, he
is getting a good return on his investment of time, energy & emotions. With
respect to the industrialization & extended family, Goode argues that it is not so
much that new system is incompatible as it offers an alternative pattern of
payments. But since lot of freedom & equality is involved in this family set up,
eventually it functions like a nuclear family.

Modernization

1. Role of Education: With the complete change in modern society, education

system has also played a very important role. The modern education has led the
people to give up superstitions and stubborn traditions to understand their rights
and become highly awared. The attainment of specialization, in occupational
differentiation is not possible in absence of modern education and it further
shows that with the modern education, people are getting social mobility in their
life.
 Pre-industrial society was divided into two classes-upper and lower, in which
equal opportunity was not available universally. But now, in industrial societies
this has been made possible, in which even the children of working class can
attain a high social status.
 French sociologist, Raymond Boudon, in his positional theory, explains that a
working class boy attains a high position and mobility in comparison to his father
because he chooses the corresponding education course and in that way, by
affecting his mobility, he affects his family structure, which can be seen in the
form of nucleus family.
2. Change in judiciary: Different types of Acts have been passed in due course of
time, which has improved the status of women. Now, such women have become
very much demanding, because they have realized their right of equality and
freedom. The fulfillment of which can be done in nuclear family only. This has
been elaborated, in the context of Indian family system by Ailleen Ross.
3. Change in Political System: This offers equality and freedom to everyone. Goode
believes that, owing to this right and freedom, the number of nuclear families,
increased to a very high level, which have been seen in nonindustrial western
societies. Kenneth Little supports this point, in his study of migration of rural
kinship based society to urban industrial societies in West Africa – many migrants
welcomed the freedom from obligation to their Kinsmen, which they experience
in the towns.
4. Change in ideology: Ann Oakley has presented a picture of British society as to
how modernization has offered women modern roles. Now, they got a dominant
mature feminine role. In pre-industrial Britain, the family was an important unit of
production. People needed marriage & family in the form of their economic
needs. Because all the members were involved in the production process. The
role of women was important in both industrial and textile industry. But now the
same family has become, the unit of consumption and awarded females are
engaged in means of earning, which has increased the structure of nuclear family.
 5. Change in Mass Communication: This has raised the level of awareness and
mobility to a large extent and has definitely affected family structure.

Secularization:
The demographic factors have become healthier, owing to which people adopted one or
two child norm which automatically decreased the family size, which in turn has led to
the structure of nuclear family in western societies. In Indian society also, people have
adopted one or two child norm with the help of legal or illegal use of technology, which
finally shape the family in the form of nuclear family.

Lineage and Descent

1. The term “lineage” consists of all descendants in one line of a particular person
through a determinate number of generations. Where the living members
constitute of recognized social group it may be called lineage group, Sometimes
the lineage consist of all descendants through male of a single ancestor which is
called a patrilineage or an agnatic lineage; one consisting of descendants through
female is known as matrilineage.
2. Lineage usually has exclusive common ritual observance, perhaps totemic in
nature and is usually exogamous. The clan is often the combination of a few
lineages and descent may be human and human like animal or plant or even
inanimate. Radcliffe Brown takes up a slightly different position and defines
lineage as sib. He introduced the term. A sib is a consanguineous group, but its
members do not share a common residence.
3. A descent group is any social group in which membership depends on common
descent from a real or mythical ancestor. Thus a lineage is a unilineal descent
group in which membership may rest either on patrilineal descent (patrilineage)
or on matrilineal descent (matrilineage) In some societies the child is regarded as
a descendant equally of both the father and the mother, except that titles and
surnames are usually passed down along the male line. ……………………….. Such a
system is termed Bilateral or Cognatic. The individual belongs simultaneously to
several descent groups-those of the two parents, the four grandparents, the
eight greatgrandparents, and so on. This link is limited only by memory or by
some conventionally determined cut-off point at, say, four or five degrees
removal. In small intermarrying communities, membership will probably overlap,
and in case of dispute or feud, the individual might find his or her loyalties
divided. There are some cognatic systems where the individual has the right by
descent to membership of several cognatically recruited groups, but this right is
actualized only if the person is able to reside in a particular group’s territory.
Modern nationality laws often make this type of requirement.
Types of Descent:

1. In other societies, by contrast and your own is most probably one of them
descent is reckoned UNILINEALLY, that is, in one line only. The child is affiliated
either with the group of the father, that is, PATRILINEAL DESCENT, or with the
group of the mother, that is, MATRILINEAL DESCENT. Theories of the physiology
of procreation and conception often correlate with these different modes of
reckoning descent. In the former, the father is often given the primary role in
procreation while the mother is regarded as merely the carrier of the child, in
systems of the latter type, the father’s role may not be acknowledged at all.
2. Additionally, in some societies one finds that the child is affiliated to the group of
either parent, depending on choice, or to one parent for some purposes (for
instance, inheritance of property) and to the other parent for other purposes (for
instance, the inheritance of ritual or ceremonial roles). This is called DOUBLE
UNILINEAL DESCENT
3. The principle of unilineal descent provides the individual an unambiguous
identification with a bounded social group that exists before he or she is born and
that has continuity after he or she dies. Members of a descent group have a sense
of shared identity, often referring to each other as ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ even
when no genealogical relationship can be traced.
4. Descent groups are also very often, (though not inevitably), characterized by
exogamy. That is, marriage must be with persons outside this group. For instance,
traditional Chinese society was divided among approximately a hundred
‘surname’ groups-you could perhaps call them CLANS-within which marriage was
disallowed, and these groups further divided into LINEAGES, whose members
claimed to be able to trace their descent, perhaps for several hundred years, from
a founding ancestor, and then into further localized SUBLINEAGES and so on
down to the individual co-resident families. Sometimes a whole village might be
settled by members of a single lineage. The gotras of Indian caste society are also
exogamous descent groups, segmented in rather the same way.

Functions of Descent Groups:

1. Apart from the function of exogamy, unilineal descent groups tend to be

‘corporate’ in several other senses. Their members may often come together for
ritual and ceremonial functions, for instance, for collective worship of lineage
gods, totems or ancestors. The descent group will have a built-in authority
structure, with power normally exercised by senior males, and it may well own
corporate property. An individual’s economic rights and responsibilities will be
defined by his or her position in the descent group.
 In many societies, unilineal descent groups are also jural units, internally deciding
their own disputes, and externally acting as a unified group in relation to other
similar groups in the conduct of feud, etc. For this reason, lineage structure is
often conterminous with the political structure in societies lacking a centralized
state structure.
 2. Lineages cannot expand indefinitely in a single locality and often segment into
smaller, more manageable and economically viable lineage segments. You can
see the lines of segmentation on the ground, as it were. Consider the pattern of
land ownership in an Indian village, or at the pattern of village or urban
settlement; a particular quarter of the village or town may be inhabited by the
descendants of a single founding ancestor. Often, the large havelis divide among
brothers or step-brothers, and these quarters are further divided among their
descendants. In case a lien dies out, the property would be reconsolidated.
3. Given the range of social functions that descent groups may potentially
perform, it is little wonder that concern with the principles of unilineal descent
has dominated the work of many students of comparative kinship. However,
even these scholars realize that unilineal descent is not the whole story. In
ancient Rome, women after marriage several all contact with their natal group. In
certain slave societies, the slave has no ‘family’ of his or her own. In patrilineal
systems, the mother’s father, mother and sister, and especially the mother’s
brother, are important examples of relationships which need further discussion.
To take note of the importance of these relationships, the scholars have identified
another principle. This has been termed the principle of COMPLEMENTARY
FILIATION which explains the significant ritual and social roles of the mother’s
brothers in the lives of their sister’s children. It reminds us that, in most societies,
an individual is a child of both parents, however descent is formally reckoned.

Patriarchy and Sexual Division of Labour

Patriarchy: Literally, rule by father, this concept is used to refer to a system that values
men more and
gives them power over women. Sexual division of labour is a system in which all work
inside the home is either done by the women of the family, or organized by them
through the domestic helpers. Gender division is a form of hierarchical social division
seen everywhere, but is rarely recognized in the sociological studies. However, it is not
based on biology but on social expectations and stereotypes.

Boys and girls are brought up to believe that the main responsibility of women is
housework and bringing
up children. This is reflected in a SEXUAL DIVISION OF LABOUR In most families: women
do all work inside the home such as cooking, cleaning, washing clothes, tailoring,
looking after children, etc., and men do all the work outside the home. It is not that men
cannot do housework; they simply think that it is for women to attend to these
things. When these jobs are paid for, men are ready to take up these works. Most
tailors or cooks in hotels are men. Similarly, it is not that women do not work outside
their home. In villages, women fetch water, collect fuel and work in the fields. In urban
areas, poor women work as domestic helper in middle class homes, while middle class
women work in offices. In fact the majority of women do some sort of paid work in
addition to domestic labour. But their work is not valued and does not get recognition.

Sex refers to the permanent and immutable biological characteristics common to

individuals in all societies and cultures, while gender defines traits forged throughout
the history of social relations. Gender, although it originates in objective biological
divergencies, goes far beyond the physiological and biological specifics of the two sexes
in terms of the roles each is expected to play. Gender differences are social constructs,
inculcated on the basis of a specific society’s particular perceptions of the physical
differences and the assumed tastes, tendencies and capabilities of men and women.
Gender differences, unlike the immutable characteristics of sex, are universally
conceded in historical and comparative social analyses to be variants that are
transformed over time and from one culture to the next, as societies change and evolve.

Gender relations are accordingly defined as the specific mechanisms whereby different
cultures determine the functions and responsibilities of each sex. They also determine
access to material resources, such as land, credit and training, and more ephemeral
resources, such as power. The implications for everyday life are many, and include the
division of labour, the responsibilities of family members inside and outside the home,
education and opportunities for professional advancement and a voice in policy-making.
From primitive to modern societies, it is found that division of labour is a universal
phenomenon. Earlier, it was highly based on sex & age, and today in modern times, it
is based on talents. If division of labour in considered a biological concept, then it will
be termed as a sexual division of labour. Is it is socially and culturally derived & decided,
then gender based division of labour. It has been a proven fact that almost all societies
have been patriarchal, that is male dominated, which means that in all kind of decision
making, they (men) are playing a very important role and so it can’t be denied that in
the formation of division of labour i.e. who will be given what kind of role. Patrarchy
had played a vital role. Nonetheless the view points for both of them are provided by
thinkers which can be seen in the following ways:

Theoretical Perspective:
The prominent figures in providing the theories for sexual division in labour are :

1. Tiger & Fox

2. G.P. Murdock
3. T. Parsons
4. John Bowlby

1. Tiger & Fox argues that HUMAN BEHAVIOUR IS BASED ON HUMAN

BIOGRAMMER. The biogrammar in a genetically based programme which pre-
disposses mankind to behave in certain ways, because of this Tiger & Fox argue
that compared to women, men are more aggressive and dominant. Their
characteristics are genetically based, in particular they result from difference in
male & female. There differences are due partly to genetic in inherent men’s
primate ancestors, partly to a genetic adoption to a way of life. And in that way,
male dominance is a sex linked characteristic. They have studied hunting societies
and found such experiences. They argue that male and female, adopted to a
sexual division of labour in a hunting society in a different way. Compared to
 cultural change, genetic change is slow – thus male & female biogrammar of a
hunting society is in existence. Therefore, the division of labour is sex based.
2. G.P. Murdock: He finds BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN
ARE THE BASIS OF THE SEXUAL DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY. He says that
men with their superior physical strength can better undertake the most
strenuous task as mining, land clearance and house building etc. Not handicapped
as in women, by the physiological burdens of pregnancy and nursing, he can take
on the activities to hunt, to fish, to protest, while women can take on its activities
of gathering food, cooking, washing, manufacturing clothes etc. Murdock
surveyed 221 societies ranging from hunting and gathering bands to modern
nation states and finds that the sexual division of labour is present in all societies
in his sample.
3. T. Parsons: Parsons has described two important functions in isolated nuclear
family:
 Primary socialization of children
 Stabilization of adult personality
 For socialization to be effective, a close warmth and supportive group is
essential. Parsons characterizes women’s role in family as expressive. It means
she provides warmth, security and emotional support to her husband as
well. Men’s role is instrumental which leads stress and anxiety, the expressive
female relieves the tension by providing him with love, consideration and
understanding. Parsons argues that for the family to operate effectively as a
social system there must be a clear cut division of labour.
4. John Bowlby: He has provided the explanation as Parsons. According to him, it is
essential for the mental health that the infant and young child should
experience a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with his
mother. Bowlby’s argument implies that there is a genetically based,
psychological need for close and intimate mother-child relationship. It means, the
division of labour is sex based.
5. Ann Oakley : According to Oakley, “the division of labour on basis of sex not
universal, and, there is not any reason, why it should be”. Human cultures are
diverse and endlessly, variable. They are the creation of human inventiveness
rather than invincible biological forces. Since human cultures are changing, so
there is a change in whole lifestyles, which eventually changes division of labour
in society. If we suppose division of labour, a fixed phenomenon, owing to its
dependency in sex, then insipite of its changes in culture, the division of labour
should not be liable for change, but since such change is happening. It shows
the division of labour is not sex based.
 While criticizing Murdock interpretation she says it is biased because he looked at
other cultures through both western and male eyes. Similarly, she attacks on
Parsons view, arguining that the expressive housewife/mother role is not
necessary for the functioning of the family unit. It merely exists for the
convenience of male. Therefore, she concludes that gender roles are culturally
rather than biologically determined.
 Biological features do not bar women from particular occupation. The role of
mother is a cultural construction;……. evidence from several societies indicates
that, children do not require close, intimate and continuous relationship with a
female or mother figure. SHERRY B. ORTNER claims that it is universal
devaluation of women that, and is not biology as such that ascribes women
their status in society. But its way, in which every culture defines and evaluates,
women’s/female biology. Thus, if this universal evaluation changed, then the
basis for female subordination would be removed.
 ORTNER argues that women as universally defined are closed to nature because
their physiology and its functions are more concerned with the natural process,
surrounding the reproduction of species. And so they are concerned with the
child care and primary socialization. They develop more personal and intimate
relations with others specially their children by comparison; men have wider
range of contact and less personal and particular relationship by engaging in
politics, warfare and religion. Thus men are seen as being more objective and less
emotional. In this way, it can be said that subordination of women-nothing to do
with biology as such, but rather to the cultural evaluation of their biological make
up.
6. Sylvia Walby:
 THE IDEA OF PATRIARCHY has been central to many feminist interpretations of
gender inequality and sexual division of labour. Sylvia Walby is on theorist who
believes that the concept of patriarchy is essential to any analysis of gender
inequality. In theorizing Patriarchy (1990), Walby presents a way of
understanding patriarchy that is more flexible than its predecessors. It allows
room for change over historical time, and for consideration of ethnic and class
differences.
 For Walby, ‘patriarchy is a system of social structures and practices, in which
men dominate, oppress and exploit women. She sees patriarchy and capitalism
as distinct systems which interact in different ways sometimes harmoniously,
sometimes in tension depending on historical conditions. Capitalism, she
argues, has generally benefited from patriarchy through the sexual division of
labour. But at other times, capitalism and patriarchy have been at odds with
one another. For example, in wartime, when women have entered the labour
market in great number, the interests of capitalism and patriarchy have not
been aligned.
 Walby identifies six structures through which patriarchy operates. She
recognizes that a weakness of early feminist theory was the tendency to focus on
one ‘essential’ cause of women’s oppression, such as male violence or women’s
role in reproduction. Because Walby is concerned with the depth and
interconnectedness of gender inequality, she sees patriarchy as composed of six
structures that are independent, but interact with one another.
 Production relations in the household: Women’s unpaid domestic labours, such
as housework and child care, are expropriated by her husband (or cohabite).
 Paid work: Women in the labour market are excluded from certain types of work,
receive lower pay, and are segregated in less skilled jobs.
  The patriarchal state: In its policies and priorities the state has a systematic bias
towards patriarchal interests.
 Male violence: Although male violence is often seen as composed of
individualistic acts, it is patterned and systematic. Women routinely experience
this violence, and are affected by it in standard ways. The state effectively
condones the violence with its refusal to intervene, except in exceptional cases.
 Patriarchal relations in sexuality: This is manifested in ‘compulsory
heterosexuality’ and in the sexual double standard between men and women (in
which different ‘rules’ for sexual behaviour apply).
 Patriarchal cultural institutions: A variety of institutions and practices- including
media, religion and education – produce representations of women within a
patriarchal gaze. These representations influence women’s identities and
prescribe acceptable standards of behaviour and action.

Walby distinguishes two distinct forms of patriarchy :

 Private patriarchy is domination of women which occurs within the household at

the hands of an individual patriarch. It is an exclusionary strategy, because
women are essentially prevented from taking part in public life.
 Public patriarchy, on the other hand, is more collective in form. Women are
involved in public realms, such as politics and the labour market, but remain
segregated from wealth, power and status.

1. Based on his Studies in Britain, Walby contents that at least in Britain, there has
been a shift in patriarchy- both in degree and form – from the Victorian era to
present day. She notes that the narrowing of the wage gap and the gains in
women’s education demonstrate a shift in the degree of patriarchy, but do not
signal its defeat. If at one time women’s oppression was found chiefly in the
home, it is now located throughout society as a whole- women are now
segregated and subordinated in all areas of the public realm. In other words,
patriarchy has shifted in form from private to public. ……..As Walby quotes:
liberated from the home, women now have the whole of society in which to be
exploited.
2. The present status of women is chiefly the product of patriarchal social
arrangements. Women offer spend most of their time in domestic work and in
rearing children. Most women do not get an opportunity to develop their own
personality. They are made to believe that the proper sphere of their activity is
within- their household and that they need not take interest in public life. From
the beginning girls are taught to pay more attention to personal relations, not to
personal success. Boys are taught to be film, assertive and aggressive, girls are
taught to be obedient, shy and submissive. Boys are encouraged to become
nurses or secretaries. The experience gained by women in their own professional
life does not allow them to take up a political career.
3. When Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-97) published her essay ‘Vindication of the
Rights of Woman’, woman was not only restrained from voting, but was deemed
unfit for education, was debarred from many occupations, and had no legal right
 to own property. She had no real right to divorce even if her husband inferiority
and demanded equal rights for women. She argued that women, like men, are
rational individuals and should have equal right. She established the principles on
which campaigns for women’s right to education employment, property and the
vote were later built up.
4. John Stuart Mill (1806-73) in the Subjection of Women sought to demonstrate
that women were in no way inferior to men in their talents, and pleaded to give
them full legal and political rights.
5. In the contemporary world, further advancement in technology, diversification of
business, industry,
administration, arts and professions, etc. and the increasing demand of new skills,
talents, and professional competence, have given women the opportunity of
proving their abilities. They have also been encouraged to acquire higher
qualifications and training and to seek respectable careers. It is now realized that
women are fit to perform most of the jobs that men do, and for which they were
not considered fit earlier. Equal rights for women are no larger questioned in
enlightened circles.
6. The cultural valuation is the foundation for sexual division of labour. That is
then reinforced by gender ideologies of male superiority and a high degree of
sexual antagonism between men and women. Meigs (1990) describes
a “chauvinistic” ideology that is rooted in men’s role as warriors. The division of
work among mundurucu, an Amazonian horticultural society, where men hunt,
fish and fell the forest area for gardens while women plants, harvest and process
manioc. Men work at Mundurucu has more assigned value.
7. As Murphy and Murphy (1985) state “Male ascendancy does not wholly derive
from masculine activities but is to a considerable degree prior to them” Male
domination is traditionally symbolic.
8. According to Martin and Voortries (1975) the decline in female participation in
agriculture is that the female domestic workload tends to increase when root
crops are replaced by cereal crop and when animal labour a places manual
labour.
9. Many egalitarian societies in the contemporary world are characterised by a
division of labour whereby men hunt and women gather.
10.Goodye (1971) suggests that Tiwi culture emphasizes the equality of men and
women in society. Among the Agta Negritos of north Eastern Luson, the
Philippines women enjoy greater social and economic equality with their men
compared to Tiwi of Australia. They make significant contribution to the daily
food supply and also control the distribution of the food they acquire, sharing
them with their families and trading them in the broader community. This
challenges the widely held notion that in foraging societies pregnancy and child
care are incompatible with hunting. They have developed methods of
contraception and abortion to aid them in spacing their children.
11.The abolition of landlordism and the breakdown of its socio-cultural milieus
have affected women in a positive manner.
 12.Mencher and Saradamoni find that female income is essential for below poverty
line houses. Most of the women are engaged in three types of work: (a)
participation in the traditionally defined labour force (b) domestic work plus
activities like alone. Even these women are victimized because of their sex and
poor economic background
13.Karuna Ahmad finds five trends in women’s employment : (a) clustering of
women in a few occupations (b) clustering either in low women receive lower
salaries than men, (d) high proportion of highly educated and professionally
trained unemployed women. Studies suggest that women’s professional locations
reflect their position in society in terms of caste and class backgrounds and
educational achievements. Perceptions regarding status among women are
shaped by modern education than the traditional values regarding marriage and
family.
14.Agnithotri and Aggarwal gave preference for Marxist approach in analyzing
women. Aggarwal proposes that a number of questions which would have a
bearing on gender relations will get obfuscated in the organization of production
and relations of production. But despite the metaphor of reforms and
individuation of women, emphasis on chastity, patriarchy, division of labour,
sacredness of Marriage seclusion with the household has persisted.
15.In horticultural societies, in which cultivation and farming is required by the use
of hand-tool technology women play important roles in production.
Lepowsky points to gender egalitarianism among the horticultural and matrilineal
people of the pacific island of Vanatani. He says that the prominent position of
women in Vanatinai exchange and other activities.

Contemporary Trends
There is a diversity of family and marriage forms today in different societies across the
world. In some areas, such as more remote regions in Asia, Africa and the Pacific Rim,
traditional family systems are little altered. In most developing countries, however,
widespread changes are occurring. The origins of these changes are complex, but
several factors can be picked out as especially important.

1. One is the spread of Western culture. Western ideals of romantic love, for
example, have spread to societies in which they were previously unknown.
2. Another factor is the development of centralized government in area previously
composed of autonomous smaller societies. People’s lives become influenced
by their involvement in a national political system; moreover, government
makes active attempts to alter traditional ways of behavior.
3. Because the problem of rapidly expanding population growth, for example in
China state frequently introduce programmes that advocate smaller families,
the use of contraception, and so forth.
4. A further influence is the large-scale migration from rural to urban areas. Often
men go to work in towns or cities, leaving family members in the home village.
Alternatively a nuclear family group will move as a unit to the In both case,
traditional family forms and kinship systems may become weakened.
 5. Finally, and perhaps most important, employment opportunities away from the
land and in such organization as government bureaucracies, mines, plantations
and where they exist – industrial firms tend to have disruptive consequence for
family systems previously centred on landed production in the local community.

In general, these changes are creating a worldwide movement towards the breaking
down of the extended family systems and other types of kinship groups. This was first
documented by William J. Goode in his book World Revolution in Family Patterns (1963)
and has been borne out by subsequent research. The most important changes occurring
worldwide are the following:

 Clans and other kin groups are declining in their influence.

 There is a general trend towards the free selection of a spouse.
 The rights of women are becoming more widely recognized, in respect to both
the initiation of marriage and decision – making within the family.
 Arranged marriages are becoming less common.
 Higher levels of sexual freedom, for men and women, are developing in
societies that where very restrictive.
 There is a general trend towards the extension of children’s rights.
 There is an increased acceptance of same- sex partnerships.

It would be a mistake to exaggerate these trends, or to presume that they have

occurred uniformly around the world many of them are still being fought for and are
bitterly contested. Similarly it would be a mistake to suppose that the extended family is
everywhere in decline. In most societies today, extended families are still the norm, and
traditional family practices continue.

Moreover, there are differences in the speed at which change is occurring and there are
reversals and countertrends :

1. Family Size Has Decreased: It is no secret that the twelve-child families of the last
century are rare today. The birthrate in the Western world began failing about a
century ago. Today’s “smaller family”, however, does not mean that all families
are proportionately smaller. The Women’s Liberation Movement has encouraged
women to view childbearing as an option not as a duty. The proportion of couples
who choose to remain childless has increased (Veevers 1980), and more women
are delaying parenthood, with about one-third having their first child at 25 or
older (Willkie 1981). Contraceptive devices have provided the means but not the
motive. Contraceptives are not the cause of smaller families any more than ropes
are the cause of the suicides. The motives for desiring smaller families carry us
into many other aspects of the culture. The shift from an illiterate agricultural
society to a literate, specialized, industrialized society has changed children from
an economic asset into an expensive burden. Shifts in patterns of recreation, in
aspirations for education and social mobility, and changing concepts of individual
rights have all united to curb indiscriminate childbearing. At present, the
traditional idea that raising a large family is a noble service to society is rapidly
 being replaced by the idea that bearing many children is an act of irresponsible
self indulgence. Thus, changing technology changing economics and changing
values are all involved in the change in family size.
2. Single-Parent Families Have Increased: While the proportion of all households
composed of a married couple with children present fell by one-fourth be. Those
headed by females increased 65 percent, to one in nine families. Those families
headed by a never-married female increased. Of all families with children, one-
parent families increased. At a given moment, 20 percent of today’s children are
living in a single-parent household, while today’s child has a 50-50 chance of living
in a single-parent household at sometimes before the age of 18.
 Whether the single-parent family is necessarily damaging to children can be
debated. Blechman (1982) observes that if socioeconomic status, education, and
other variables are controlled so that number of parent is the only variable being
measured, then few differences in child development can be shown.
 Most single-parent families are poor, and three-fourths of them are on welfare
(Segalman and Basu). A major part of their low income and poor education is a
result of their being single parents (or teen-aged parents). A longitudinal study of
women who divorced and did not remarry found that they suffered an average
income decline of 50 percent (Duncan and Morgan).
 Single-parent mothers are the greatest consumers of mental-health services,
while their children’s rate of sue of mental-health service is four times that of
children from two-parent families (Guttentag, 1980). Some part of these
difficulties can be attributed directly or indirectly to the single-parent status.
 It is also clear that a single-parent family can be a healthy environment for
children. A support network of helpful relatives of friends can make a great
difference (McLanahan et al.). The character of the parent is clearly more
important than the form of the family. One responsible, living parent may be
better for children than two quarrelsome, abusive parents locked in endless
conflict. But it is difficult to argue that two responsible, living parents are not
better than one.
3. Unmarried Parenthood Has Increased: Since 1950, the illegitimacy rate has
multiplied more than four times. A generation ago nine out of ten illegitimate
babies were placed for adoption; today more than nine in ten of them are kept by
their mothers. This often condemns the mother to a life of economic deprivation
and the baby to a life of emotional deprivation (Furstenberg & Fosberg). One
wonders about that ultimate social consequences of having a significant part of
the next generation raised by unmarried adolescents whom we do not consider
mature enough to sign a contrast, drive a car, cast a vote, or buy a drink.
4. Single-Person Household Have Increased: It was historically difficult for a person
to live comfortably alone. Only by joining a family or by setting up a household
complete with servant staff could one live in comfort. Today the physical
accommodations are more favourable-furnished apartments and maid service,
wash-and wear clothes, Laundromats, and catering services of many kinds make it
easier for the singles.
 Historically, women lived with parents or relatives until married. Any younger
woman who wished to live alone was suspected of evil intentions. Today one’s
apartment and set of wheels have become almost symbols of passage into adult
status. Single-person households have increased from 4.7 percent of all
households in 1950 to 23 percent.
 A number of books have been written in praise of the single life-style (e.g.,
Adams, Single Blessedness). While opinions-on single “blessedness” may vary, the
increase in single-person households is a highly significant change in family
patterns (Stein, 1981). For example, the single person is more vulnerable to many
of life’s hazards (such as illness or unemployment) and more susceptible to
deviation than are people living in families (Davis and Strong).
5. Non-marital Cohabitation Has Increased: There have always been some
unmarried couples who lived together openly as ‘lovers” rather than as husband
and wife. Except in sophisticated, “arty” circles, they were generally condemned
as scandalous and immoral. Today, however, non marital cohabitation multiplied
by many times.
1. Nonmarital cohabitation in Sweden which was fairly common but viewed as
deviant until about 1965, is reported as fully institutionalized (Trost). A
longitudinal study of 111 cohabiting Swedish couples found that after 3½ years,
22 were separated, 25 had married, and 51 were still cohabiting (Trost).
Nonmarital cohabitation has become quite common in the United States, with
varying degrees of acceptance by parents and others. Whether it will ever
become institutionalized is an open question.
2. For most cohabiting couples, nonmarital cohabitation seems just another stage of
the courtship process, without any firm commitment to marry (Macklin). While
most cohabiting couples have made no firm commitment to marry, most do
marry or else they separate within a few years. Very few plan or will choose
nonmarital cohabitation as a permanent life-style (Macklin).Thus, cohabitation
has become a fairly common preliminary to marriage, a point easily confirmed by
nothing the addresses of marriage license applicants as printed in the newspaper.
3. One study of cohabiting persons’ scores on the Minnesota Multiphase Personality
Inventory found that cohabiting college students, as compared with other
students, tended to be somewhat more irreligious nonconformist, immature,
impulsive, manipulative, selfish, outgoing, friendly, fun-loving, and creative.
4. Research studies quite consistently show that nonmarital cohabitation is
remarkably like conventional marriage in its problems and adjustments and that
nonmarital cohabitation has scarcely any measurable effects upon the marriages
of those who marry (Blane, et al; Stafford; Macklin,). May conclude that
nonmarital cohabitation has become a widely accepted preliminary to marriage
but is having very little effect upon marriage and the family.
6. The Quiet Revolution in Women’s Employment: Perhaps the greatest change of
all has been the increase in “working wives”. Women workers today form over
two-fifths of our labor force. About 61 percent of all married women (aged 20 to
45) living with their husbands are in the labor force, and over nine out of ten
married women work for some part of their married lives.
 Married women with children are now more likely to be employed than married
women without children (explained, perhaps, by the fact the many of the
“married women without children” are of retirement age).
 Historically, a woman who worked was living evidence that she had no husband
able and willing to support her. A survey of 140 married women workers in 1908
found that only 6 husbands held jobs above the grade of unskilled laborer. The
working wife, once a lower-class phenomenon, is now common among the
prosperous middle classes. There is no reason to believe that this trend will be
reversed.
 The quiet revolution has affected the household division of labor. The work time
of housewives has not been reduced by laborsaving devices; today’s wives spend
more time on housework than those of a half century ago (Hall and Schroeder;
Vanek). The time once spend in hand-washing clothes and home-canning is now
spent in putting in order a daily avalanche of toys, books, magazines, and hobby
gear, chauffeuring children, attending the PTA, and doing other tasks which
grandmother did not do.
 Obviously, when the wife works, something has to give. Some of the
housekeeping niceties commercialized, but the working wife still works longer
than the housewife by an average of about ten hours a week. One study
concludes that, as a compared with husbands of nonworking wives spend about
four more hours a week on household chores (Bohen and Viveros-Long), while
another study credits them with less than two hours per week of additional
household chores (Pleck). Husbands of working wives do give considerable help
with child care (Scanzoni,) and a recent survey of male college students reported
three-fourths saying that they expected to spend as much time as their wives in
bringing up children (Katz). It will be interesting to see whether their performance
matches their promise. Most of the male readers of this book have discovered, or
will discover, whether their masculinity will dissolve in dishwater.
7. The Dual-Carrier Family Is Becoming Coming: For some years, many wives have
worked, but few have had careers. Most working wives viewed their jobs as
temporary, supplemental or supportive, and subordinate to their husband’s
careers. Whether these working wives are happier than fulltime housewives is
uncertain. Several studies conclude that working wives are more satisfied with
their lives than housewives. Most of these women were socialized when sex-role
expectations were more traditional. Where today’s young women will find their
greater life satisfaction may be changing.
 A growing number of young women today are asserting their equal right to a
career, not just, a job. Unlike a job, a career implies a major, long-term
commitment to a sequence of positions carrying increasing responsibility and
expertise. Many women today expect that any necessary sacrifices of career goals
to family life should be joint and equal, not unequally imposed upon the wife. A
couple who try seriously to apply this formula will find that many adjustments
must be made.
 Dual-career couples with children usually employ domestic help, leading critics to
charge that this creates a class of women who must do house work and child care
 so that other women can have a more privileged life style (Hunt and Hunt). Some
dual-career couples resolve the job-transfer dilemma by commuting, but this sort
of part-time marriage is often a prelude to divorce (Gallese). Dual careers are
clearly difficult to operate within nuclear family in specialized, mobile society.
8. The Status Of Divorce Has Changed: Divorce is not necessarily a symptom of
moral decay or social instability. To invoke again the concept of cultural
relativism, whether divorce is a disruptive crisis or a useful adjustment depends
upon the culture. The decline of a set of uniform sex-role expectations increase
the likelihood that a husband and wife may disagree about their rights and duties.
 For many centuries, marriage was regarded as virtually indissoluble. Divorces
were granted only in very limited cases, such as non- consummation of marriage.
Most countries have moved rapidly towards making divorce more easily available.
The so-called adversarial system used to be characteristic of virtually all
industrialized courtiers.
 Divorce rate are obviously not a direct index of marital unhappiness. For one
thing, rates of divorce do not include people who are separated but not legally
divorced. Moreover, people who are unhappily married may choose to stay
together- because they believe in the sanctity of marriage, or worry about the
financial or emotional consequences of a break up, or wish to remain with one
another to give their children a ‘family’ home.
 Why is divorce becoming more common? Several factors are involved, to do with
wider social changes. Except for very small proportion of wealthy people,
marriage today no longer has much connection with the desire to perpetuate
property and status from generation to generation. As women become more
economically independent, marriage is less of a necessary economic partnership
than it used to be. Greater overall prosperity means that it is easier to establish a
separate household, if there is marital disaffection, than used to be the case. The
fact that little stigma now attaches to divorce is in some part the result of these
developments, but also adds momentum to them. A further important factor is
the growing tendency to evaluate marriage in terms of the levels of personal
satisfaction it offers. Rising rates of divorce do not seem to indicate a deep
dissatisfaction with marriage as such, but an increased determination to make it a
rewarding and satisfying relationship.
 The increasing specialization, individuation, and mobility of modern life, together
with our rapid rate of social change, make it less likely that a couple will share the
same tastes and values for a lifetime. Women’s economic dependence upon men
has decreased. Unhappy wives in earlier generations were virtually helpless,
whereas today’s unhappy wife has some alternatives: work, if she is able; welfare,
if she is not (Udry)
 Divorce has become socially acceptable, with divorcees no longer branded as
moral lepers or social outcasts. Divorce feeds upon itself as an increasing traction
of people have parents, relatives, or friends, who are divorced. Research shows
that one’s readiness to divorce is more highly correlated with one’s social
contacts with divorced persons than with one’s level of marital unhappiness
(Greenberg and Nay). Close contacts with divorced persons transform divorce
 from a remote nightmare into a rational alternative. No-fault divorce laws have
made divorce less costly and less complicated. Marital unhappiness may or may
not have increased, but readiness to use divorce has multiplied enormously.
 A society can get a very low divorce rate in at least five ways. First it can
deemphasize love. In many societies marriage is working partnership but not a
romantic adventure as well. If less is expected of marriage, more marriages will
“successful. Second, it can separate love from marriage. A number of societies
have a series of men’s clubs for companionship, and allow men wide freedom to
prowl in search of sex adventure. Here again, less is demanded of the marriage.
Third, the society can socialize its members to be so much alike in personality and
expectation that practically all marriages will work out successfully. The stable,
well-integrated society generally succeeds in accomplishing this leveling. Fourth,
familism may be so encompassing that divorce is intolerable. In other words, so
many of one’s necessities, privileges, and satisfactions may be connected to the
marital and family ties that to sever the marital tie is to cancel nearly all the
claims and privileges which make life tolerable. Finally divorce can be legally
forbidden, or made so difficult that most unhappily married couples are unable or
unwilling to seek divorce as a solution.
9. Domestic violence:
 We may define domestic violence as physical abuse directed by one member of
the family against another or others. Studies show that the prime targets of
physical abuse are children, especially small children. Violence by men against
their female partners is the second most common type of domestic violence.
Domestic violence is the most common crime against women, who are at greater
risk of violence from men in their own families or from close acquaintances than
they are from strangers (Rawstorne 2002.).
 There is nothing new about violence within the family, but only recently has it
been “discovered” as a social problem (Pfohl). The first national survey of family
violence was made in 1975 by Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz. Violence in self-
defense is also more common among wives, and this helps explain the
surprisingly high violence index among women (Gelles).
 Husband/wife and parent/child violence is found at all class levels but is far more
common in the lower classes (Pelton). The violent husband is most often poor,
uneducated, either unemployed or stuck in a low-paid-low – status job, and is the
son of a violent father (Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz). The child-abusing parent
most often shows the same characteristics. Most were abused children
themselves, are young and immature, hold unrealistic expectations for their
children’s behavior, and react violently when children disappoint them
(Thorman). The most likely victims are unwanted children (Freeman); or children
who are sickly, fretful, and difficult to handle.
 The most recently “discovered” form of family violence is parent or elder abuse
family violence. Aged parents are particularly vulnerable to violence from their
children or grand-children, and preliminary studies suggest that it is far more
common than is generally recognized (Peek). As research proceeds, it will be
interesting to see whether family violence is three-generational, with abused
 children growing up to become abusive parents, and, still later, to become abused
grandparents.
 Family violence is unlikely to disappear. As long as many children are socialized in
an atmosphere of family violence, and as adults must cope with poverty,
unemployment, unwanted children, and a dead-end, hopeless existence, there
will be a lot of family violence (Gelles).
 The issue of domestic violence attracted popular and academic attention during
the 1970s as a result of the work under taken by feminist groups with refuge
centre for battered women. Before that time, domestic violence, like child abuse,
was phenomenon which was tactfully ignored. Feminist studies of domestic
violence drew attention to the prevalence and severity of violence against women
in the home. Most violent episodes between spouses reported to the police
involve violence by husbands against their wives. There are far fewer reported
cases of women using physical force against their husbands. Feminists have
pointed to such statistics to support their claims that domestic violence is a major
form of male control over women.
 In a backlash against feminist arguments, conservative commentator have
claimed that violence in the family is not about patriarchal male power, as
feminists contented, but about ‘dysfunctional families’. Violence against women
is a reflection of the growing crisis of the family and the erosion of standards of
morality. They question the finding that violence from wives towards husbands is
rare, and suggest that men area less lively to report instances of violence against
them from their wives than vice versa (Straus and Gelles).
 Such assertions have been strongly criticized by feminists and by other scholars
who argue that violence by females is in any case more restrained and episodic
than that of men, and much less likely to cause enduring physical harm. They
argue that it is not sufficient to look at the number of violent incidents within
families. Instead it is essential to look at the meaning, context and effect of
violence. Wife battering – the regular physical brutalizing of wives by husbands-
has no real equivalent the other way round. Research found that violence by
women against their male partners is often defensive rather than offensive, with
women resorting to violence only after suffering repeated attacks over time
(Rawstorne). Men, who physically abuse children, are also much more likely to do
so in a consistent way, causing long – standing injuries, than are women.
 Why is domestic violence relatively commonplace? Several sets of factors are
involved. One is the combination of emotional intensity and personal intimacy
characteristic of family life. Family ties are normally charged with strong emotion,
often mixing love and hate. Quarrels which break out in the domestic setting can
unleash antagonisms that would not be felt in the same way in other social
contexts. What seems only a minor incident can precipitate full-scale hostilities
between partners or between parents and children. A man tolerant towards
eccentricities in the behaviour of other women may become furious if his wife
talks too much at a dinner party or reveals intimacies he wishes to keep secret.
 A second influence is the fact that a good deal of violence within the family is
actually tolerated, and even approved of. Although socially sanctioned family
 violence is relatively confined in nature, it can easily spill over into more server
forms of assault. Many children In Britain have at some time been slapped or hit,
if only in a minor way, by one of their parents. Such actions quite often meet with
general approval on the part of others, and they are probably not even thought of
as violence although there is increasing pressure.
 While no social class is immune to spousal abuse, several studies indicate that it is
more common among lowincome couples (Cherlin 1999). More than three
decades ago, William Goode (1971) suggested that lowincome men may be more
prone to violence because they have few other means with which to control their
wives, such as a higher income or level of education. In addition, the high levels of
stress induced by poverty and unemployment may lead to more violence within
families. In support of this assertion, Gelles and Cornell (1990) found that
unemployed men are nearly twice as likely as employed men to assault their
wives.

CONTEMPORARY TREND IN FAMILY FUNCTIONS :

1. The Economic Functions Have Greatly Declined : A century ago the American
family was a unit of economic production, united by shared work on the farm.
Except on the farm, the family is no longer a basic unit of economic production;
this has shifted to the shop, the factory, the office. The family is no longer united
by shared work, for its members work separately; instead, the family is a unit of
economic consumption, united by companionship, affection, and recreation.
2. The Sexual Regulation Functions Have Diminished : Although most sexual
intercourse is still marital, the proportion has probably fallen claimed by Kinsey
studies. A research study finds well over 90 percent of college students approving
of sexual intercourse among persons who are engaged, in love, or with “strong
affection,” while over two-thirds even approve of intercourse among those who
are “not particularly affectionate” (Perlman). Many other studies (Schmidt and
Sigursch; Hunt; Yankelovich; Zelnik and Kantner) point to the same conclusion;
virgin marriage has become relatively uncommon and may virtually disappear in
the near future. Whether this is a sexual revolution” as some scholars proclaim
(Skolnik,) or whether it is only another of many historical swings between
permissiveness and restrictiveness (Hindus; Shorter) is not yet apparent.
3. The Reproductive Functions Has Declined In Importance: True, birthrates are
much lower than century ago, but if one considers only the size of the surviving
family, then the family reproductive function is not so greatly changed. A few
centuries ago one-half to three-fourths of the children died in infancy or
childhood; today over 96 percent reach adulthood. There is solid research
evidence that the smaller families are less stressful, more comfortable, and “most
satisfactory to spouses, parents, and children” (Nye et al.), and are happier and
better adjusted (Hurley and Palonen; Schooler; Glenn and McLanahan). Even
when other variables (such as income, education, and occupation) are controlled,
children in smaller families are more healthy, creative, and intelligent
 (Lieberman). But if small families are good for children, having no children seems
to be goods for adults.
4. The Socialisation Function Grows More Important: The family remains the
principal socializing agency, although the school and the peer groups
unquestionably fill important socializing functions. Other social agencies are
occasionally called in for guidance. The major change has been in our attention to
the socialization function. An earlier generation knew little about “personality
development today nearly every literate parent knows. We know something
today of the role of emotional development in school progress, career success,
physical well-being, and practically all other aspects of the good life. Our great-
grandparents worried about smallpox and cholera; we worry about sibling
jealousies and peer-group adjustment.
 Does the child suffer when mother takes a job? There have been several dozen
studies of this question (reviewed by Stoltz; Herzog; Nye and Hoffman; Schooler).
The earlier studies failed to control for such class or family composition. As a
result, the working-mother sample had a higher proportion of poor, uneducated
slum dwellers, widows, and divorce than the nonworking-mother sample. Such
poorly controlled studies seemed to show that children suffered when mother
worked. Later studies compared children of working mothers with children of
otherwise comparable non-working mothers. Although not entirely conclusive,
these studies do not show any general tendency for children to suffer when the
mother is employed. Although the evidence is somewhat mixed, it appears that
whether the mother works is not very important, while the kind of mother she is
and the kind of home she and the father provide are the more important
variables (Hoffman)
 At the very time that the socialization functions is growing more important,
changing structure of the family– increasing divorce, illegitimacy, and single-
parent and dual career families – would appear to make it more difficult for the
family to perform its socialization function. Time will tell whether this fear is well-
founded.
5. The Affectional and Companionship Function Grew in Importance: The primary
community, the small group of neighbors who knew one another well and had
much in common has disappeared from the lives of most Americans. Urbanization
and specialization have destroyed it. In an increasingly heedless, impersonal, and
ruthless, world, the immediate family becomes the bulwark of emotional support.
Only within the family can one hope to find enduring sympathy when troubled or
an unjealous joy at one’s success. For both sexes and all races and at all races and
at all ages, the single, the windowed, the divorced, and the separated show lower
levels of happiness and higher death rates for all the leading causes of death. It is
literally true that the lonely die sooner. The importance of the affectional and
companionship functions is further magnified by the expansion of the post
parental period. In earlier generations relatively few parents lived very long
beyond the maturing of heir children.
6. The Status Definition Function Continues: Many families continue to prepare
children to retain the class status of the family; others seek to prepare their
 children for social mobility. They do this mainly by trying to give children the kind
of ambitions, attitudes, and habits which prompt them to struggle for a higher
class status and to fill it successfully. This is called anticipatory socialization, for it
is an effort to socialize children class status which it is hoped they will some day
achieve. At best, this effort is only partly successful. The child may acquire the
ambitions and work habits which prompt it to struggle successfully for upward
mobility, but no family can fully succeed in socializing a child for a way or life not
practiced by that family.
7. The Protective Functions Have Declined: The traditional family in Western
society performed most of the functions of organized social work today-nursed
the sick, gave haven to the handicapped, and shelter to the aged. Today, we have
a medical technology which only specialists and hospitals can handle. Today’s
urban household is an impractical place in which to care for some kinds of
handicapped people. Family care of the aged was a practical arrangement when
the aging couple stayed on the farm, joined by married child or mate. The parents
could retire gradually, shifting to less strenuous tasks but remaining useful and
appreciated. This pattern is available today to only a tiny minority, and many
elderly couples feel- and are- useless and unappreciated in the homes of their
children. Our rapid rate of social change and social mobility also means that many
tensions may develop when three generations live under one roof. So for a
variety of reasons – most of which have nothing to do with selfishness or personal
responsibility – many of the protective functions of the traditional family have
been shifted to other institutions.

CHANGING ATTITUDES TO FAMILY LIFE:

There seem to be substantial class differences affecting reactions to the changing
character of family life and the existence of high levels of divorce. In her book ‘Families
on the Fault Line (1994)’, Lillian Rubin interviewed the members of thirty-two working
class families in depth. She concluded that, compared to middle- class families, working
class parents tend to be more traditional. The norms that many middle- class parents
have accepted, such as the open expression of pre- marital sex, are more widely
disapproved of by working- class people, even where they are not particularly religious.
In working class households there tends therefore to be more of a conflict between the
generations.

1. The young people in Rubin’s study agree that their attitudes towards sexual
behaviour, marriage and gender divisions are distinct from those of their parents
but they insist that they are not just concerned with pleasure seeking. They
simply hold to different values from those of the older generation.
2. Rubin found the young women she interviewed to be much more ambivalent
about marriage than were their parent’s generation. They were keenly aware of
the imperfections of men and spoke of exploring the options available and of
living life more fully and openly than was possible for their mothers. The
generational shift in men’s attitudes was not as great.
3. Rubin’s research was done in the United States, but her findings accord closely
with those of researchers in Britain and other European countries. Helen
Wilkinson and Geloff Mulgan carried out to large- scale studies of men and
women aged between eighteen and thirty- four in the UK. They found major
changes happening in the outlook of young women in particular; and that the
values of this age group contrasted in a general way with those of the older
generations in Britain.
4. Among young women there is ‘a desire for autonomy and self- fulfillment’,
through work as much as family and the valuing of risk, excitement and change. In
these terms there is a growing convergence between the traditional values of
men and the newer values of women. The value of the younger
generation, Wilkinson and Mulgan suggest, have been shaped by their
inheritance of freedoms largely unavailable to earlier generations freedom for
women to work and control their own reproduction, freedom of mobility for both
sexes and freedom to define one’s own style of life. Such freedoms lead to
greater openness, generosity and tolerance; but they can also produce a narrow,
selfish individualism and a lack of trust in other.
5. Remarriage and Step Families: Remarriage can involve various circumstances.
Some remarried couples are in their early twenties, neither of them bringing a
child to the new relationship. A couple who remarry in their late twenties, their
thirties or early forties might each take one or more children from the first
marriage to live with them. Those who remarry at later ages might have adult
children who never live in the new homes that the parents establish. There may
also be children within the new marriage itself. Either partner of the new couple
may previously have been single, divorced or widowed, adding up to eight
possible combinations. Generalizations about remarriage therefore have to be
made with considerable caution, although some general points are worth making.
6. Odd though it might seem, the best way to maximize the chances of getting
married, for both sexes, is to have been married before! People who have been
married and divorced are more likely to marry again than single people in
comparable age groups are to marry for the first time. At all age levels, divorced
men are more likely to remarry than divorced women: three in every four
divorced women, but five in very six divorced men, remarry. In statistical terms at
least, remarriages are less successful than first marriages. Rates of divorce from
second marriages are higher than those from first marriage.
7. Step Families: The term step family refers to a family in which at least one of the
adults has children from a previous marriage or relationship. Sociologists often
refer to such groups as reconstituted families. There are clearly joys and benefits
associated with reconstituted families and with the growth certain difficulties also
tend to arise. In the first place, there is usually a biological parent living elsewhere
whose influence over the child or children is likely to remain powerful. Second,
cooperative relations between divorced individuals are often strained when one
or both remarries. Take the case of a woman with two children who marries a
man who also has two, and all live together. If the ‘outside’ parents insist that
children visit them at the same times as before, the major tensions involved in
 meddling such a newly established family together will be exacerbated. For
example, it may prove impossible ever to have the new family together at
weekends. Thirds, reconstituted families merge children from different
backgrounds, who may have varying expectations of appropriate behaviour
within the family. Since most step children ‘belong’ to two houses holds, the
likelihood of clashes in habits and outlook is considerable.
8. Reconstituted families are developing types of kinship connection which are quite
recent additions to modern Western societies; the difficulties created by
remarriage after divorce is also new. Members of these families are developing
their own ways of adjusting to the relatively uncharted circumstances in which
they find themselves. Some authors today speak of binuclear families, meaning
that the two households which form after a divorce still comprise one family
system where there are children involved. In the face of such rich and confusing
transformations, perhaps the most appropriate conclusion to be drawn is a
simple one: while marriages are broken up by divorce, families on the whole are
not especially where children are involved, many ties persist despite the
reconstructed family connection brought into being through remarriage.

ALTERNATIVES TO TRADITIONAL FORMS OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY:

1. Cohabitation – Where a couple live together in a sexual relationship without

being married- has become increasingly widespread in most Western societies. If
previously marriage was the defiling basis of a union between two people, it can
no longer be regarded as such. Today it may be more appropriate to speak of
coupling and uncoupling as we do when discussing the experience of divorce
above. A growing number of couples in committed long term relationships choose
not to marry, but reside together and raise children together.
 In a Study carried out by researchers at the University of Nottingham in 1999,
sociologists interviewed a sample of married and cohabiting couples with children
aged eleven or under, as well as a sample of their parents who were still married.
They were interested in the differences in commitment between older married
persons and couples in the younger generation. The researchers found that the
younger married and cohabiting couples had more in common with each other
than with their parents. While the older generation saw marriage in terms of
obligations and duties, the younger generation emphasized freely given
commitments. The main difference between the younger respondents was that
some of them preferred to have their commitment recognized publicly through
marriage.
2. Gay and lesbian partnerships: Many homosexual men and women now live in
stable relationship as couples. But because most countries still do not sanction
marriage between homosexuals, relationship between gay men and between
lesbians are grounded in personal commitment and mutual trust rather than in
law. The term families of choice have some times been applied to gay partnership
to reflect the positive and creative forms of everyday life. That homosexual
couples are increasingly able to pursue together. Many traditional features of
 heterosexual partnerships such as mutual support, care and responsibility in
illness, the joining of finances, and so forth- are becoming integrated into gay and
lesbian families in ways that were not possible earlier.
 Weeks et.al (1999) point to three significant patterns within gay and lesbian
partnership. First there is more opportunity for equality between partners
because they are not guided by the cultural and social assumptions that
underping heterosexual relationships. Gay and lesbian couples may choose to
shape their relationships deliberately so that they avoid the types of inequalities
and power imbalances that are characteristic of many heterosexual
couples. Second, homosexual partners negotiate the parameters and inner
working of their relationships. If heterosexual couples are influenced by socially
embedded gender roles, same- sex couples face fewer expectations about who
should do what within the relationship. For example if women tend to do more of
the house work and child care in heterosexual marriages, there are no such
expectations within homosexual partnerships. Every thing becomes a matter for
negotiation; this may result in a more equal sharing of responsibilities. Third, gay
and lesbian partnerships demonstrate a particular form of commitment that lacks
an institutional backing. Mutual trust, the willingness to work at difficulties and a
shared responsibility for emotional labour seem to be the hallmarks of
homosexual partnerships.
 Relaxation of previously intolerant attitudes toward homosexuality has been
accompanied by a growing willingness by the courts to allocate custody of
children to mother living in lesbian relationship. Techniques of artificial
insemination mean that lesbian may have children and become gay- parent
families without any heterosexual contacts.
 A number of recent legal victories for homosexual couples indicate that their
rights are gradually becoming enshrined in law. In Britain, a landmark 1999 ruling
declared that a homosexual couple in a stable relationship could be defined as a
family. This classification of homosexual partners as members of the family will
affect legal categories such as immigration, social security, taxation, inheritance
and child support. In 1999 a US court upheld the paternal rights of a gay male
couple to be named jointly on the birth certificate of their children born to a
surrogate mother.
3. Staying single : Recent trends in household composition raise the question: are
we becoming a nation of singles? Several factors have combined to increase the
number of people living along in modern western societies. One is a trend
towards later marriages.
1. Being single means different things at different periods of the life-course. A larger
proportion of people in their twenties are unmarried than used to be that case.
By their mid- thirties, however, only a small minority of men and women have
never been married. The majority of single people aged thirty to fifty are divorced
and in between marriages. Most single people over fifty are widowed.
2. More than ever before, young people are leaving home simply to start an
independent life rather than to get married (which had been on of the most
common paths out of the home in the past). Hence it seems that the trend of
 ‘staying single’ or living on one’s own may be part of the societal trend towards
valuing independence at the expense of family life. Still, while independence or
‘staying single’ may be an increasingly common path out of the parental home,
most people do eventually marry.

THE FUTURE OF THE FAMILY:

1. If one looks at the divorce rate and dwells on the gloomy strictures of the
marriage critics, it is easy to wonder whether the family has a future. But there is
firm evidence that marriage and the family are not dying. The onedivorce-to-two-
marriages ratio is mis-leading, since it implies that half the people get divorced,
which is untrue. At current marriage and divorce rates, demographers estimate
that fewer than two persons in five who marry will become divorced, some of
them to be divorced several times, while more than three-fifths of first marriages
will last until death (Glick and Norton)
2. While a few sociologists doubt that the family has a future (Keller), most
sociologists disagree. It is noteworthy that in the Israeli Kibbutz, after more than a
generation of successful communal living, including a deliberate effort to abolish
the family as a functional unit, the recent trend has been toward increasing the
functional significance of the family (Shepher; Talmon; Mednick; Garson). All
evidence thus indicates that the family, however often its death may be listed in
the obituaries is nonetheless here to stay (Bane). It is even suggested by some
scholars that the family is assuming greater importance in modern society. The
inadequacy of work as a source of major life satisfactions for working class people
and the loss of the primary community as a source of roots and identity leave the
family as the greatest source of emotional satisfaction (Kornblum).
3. The really important question is not “Will the family endure?” but, “How will it
change?” Some believe that the computer revolution will transform the family,
with a greatly increased fraction of all work, shopping, play, and everything else
going on at home before the computer terminal (Frederick). “Productivity climbs
when computers allow employees to work at home,” reports the Wall Street
journal, but workers miss their primary group contacts with coworkers. It is too
early to predict the effects of the computer revolution upon the home.
4. One family historian believes that the nuclear family is crumbling and will be
replaced by the “Freefloating” couple, less tied to children, close friends, or
neighbors than in the past (Shorter). In contrast to this, two major family
theorists have predicted that the next few decades may see a return to a more
highly structured, traditional, and less permissive family than that of today
(Vincent; Zimmerman). A prominent sociologist (Etzioni) claims that the nuclear
family will survive because “no complex society has ever survived without a
nuclear family. “There is little doubt that the family will survive, the direction of
family change cannot confidently be predicted.
Social Change in Modern Society
Sociological Theories of Social Change
Social change is a change in the social structures and functions of those Structures. The
term social change is also used to indicate the changes that take place in human
interactions and interrelations. For example Change in Structure and Functions of
family (Joint to Nuclear Structure of Family and Change in functions of family).
For Maciver and Page, Society is a web of social relationships and hence social change
means change in the system of social relationships. These are understood in terms of
social processes and social interactions and social organization. Auguste Comte the
father of Sociology has posed two problems- the question of social statics and the
question of social dynamics, what is and how it changes. The sociologists not only
outline the structure of the society but also seek to know its causes also. According
to Morris Ginsberg social change is a change in the social structure.

Change is the law of nature. What is today shall be different from what it would be
tomorrow. The social structure is subject to incessant change.. Individuals may strive for
stability, societies may create the illusion of permanence, the quest for certainty may
continue unabated, yet the fact remains that society is an everchanging phenomenon,
growing, decaying, renewing and accommodating itself to changing conditions and
suffering vast modifications in the course of time. Our understanding of it will not be
complete unless we take into consideration this changeable nature of society, study
how differences emerge and discover the direction of change.

Forms of Social Change:

Generally social change occurs in two forms

 Change in the system:- It means all the small changes occurring in the system
come under this form of social change. Karl Marx has described it in the form of
quantitative changes. Such changes keep going on in all the societies like
premature communism, ancient society, similarly plenty of changes coming up in
modern societies in all areas are the ways of change in the system. Given so much
importance to children and women in today’s family, is indicator of change in
relations. Parsons has also talked about such kind of change.
 Change of the system:- Though, this form of change, brings change in the whole
system, for eg the qualitative change explained by Karl Marx described, this kind
of change, because under qualitative change, the whole system is replaced by
another system. Similarly, if it happens that in India, caste system in completely
abolished and absolute class system is established then it would be said to be
change of the system.

DIRECTION OF SOCIAL CHANGE:Though there is not any fixed direction of change and
so there is nothing absolute to describe it. But maclver and Page have given, in general,
the following directions of change
  Forward direction of change: Shows a definite positive change. This is usually
seen in the field of science and technology, which in turn, change the existence of
life and knowledge.
 Downward/Backward direction of change:- Some changes occur, upwards
initially but later on a process of degeneration starts, economic change in the best
example of it. Metropolitan cities also decay after a big change. In International
market also this kind of change in seen.
 Wave Like change: – Another direction of change happens as a wave ambulance
like motion and example of such kind of changes are seen in the field of fashion,
styles of living, attires etc. Which after sometime repeat itself. It does not have
any fixed direction of high level of change.

Factors of Social Change

1. Internal Factors:– Change in population and geographical conditions, change in

production process migration, Individual interests, communal conflicts, change in
physical consumerism like in science and technology industrialization,
urbanization, consumerism lifestyle etc.
2. External Factors:- Cultural contact is the main external factor, which could be
direct or indirect and which beings change in the form of acculturation,
assimilation and diffusion for eg. India realized change under the direct influence
of Islam and Western culture and especially westernization has put a great impact
on our societies, in all spheres of life.

Nature of Social Change

1. Social change is a universal phenomenon.

2. Social change is a community change.
3. Speed of social change is not uniform.
4. Nature and speed of social change is affected by and related to time factor.
5. Social change occurs as an essential law.
6. Definite prediction of social change is not possible.
7. Social change results from the interaction of a number of factors
8. Social change shows chain-reaction sequence
9. Social change are chiefly those of modification or of replacement

1. Social change is a universal phenomenon. Social change occurs in all societies.

No society remains completely static. This is true of all societies, primitive as well
as civilized. Society exists in a universe of dynamic influences. The population
changes, technologies expand, material equipment changes, ideologies and
values take on new components and institutional structures and functions
undergo reshaping. The speed and extent of change may differ from society to
society. Some change rapidly, others change slowly.
2. Social change is community change. Social change does not refer to the change
in the life of an individual or the life patterns of several individuals. It is a
change which occurs in the life of the entire community. In other words, only that
 change can be called social change whose influence can be felt in a community
form. Social change is social and not individual.
3. Speed of social change is not uniform. While social change occurs in all societies,
its speed is not uniform in every society. In most societies it occurs so slowly that
it is often not noticed by those who live in them. Even in modern societies there
seems to be little or no change in many areas. Social change in urban areas is
faster than in rural areas.
4. Nature and speed of social change is affected by and related to time factor. The
speed of social change is not uniform in each age or period in the same society. In
modern times the speed of social change is faster today than before 1947. Thus,
the speed of social change differs from age to age. The reason is that the factors
which cause social change do not remain uniform with the change in times.
Before 1947 there was less industrialization in India, after 1947 India has become
more industrialized. Therefore, the speed of social change after 1947 is faster
than before 1947.
5. Social change occurs as an essential law. Change is the law of nature. Social
change also is natural. It may occur either in the natural course or as a result of
planned efforts. By nature we desire change. Our needs keep on changing. To
satisfy our desire for change and our changing needs social change becomes a
necessity. The truth is that we are anxiously waiting for a change. According to
Green “The enthusiastic response of change has become almost a way of life.”
6. Definite prediction of social change is not possible. It is difficult to make any
prediction about the exact forms of social change. There is no inherent law of
social change according to which it would assume definite forms. We may say
that on account of the social reform movement untouchability will be abolished
from the Indian society; that the basis and ideals of marriage laws passed by the
government; that industrialization will increase the speed of urbanization but we
cannot predict the exact forms which social relationships will assume in future.
Likewise it cannot be predicted as to what shall be our attitudes, ideas, norms and
values in future.
7. Social change shows chain-reaction sequence. A society’s pattern of living is a
dynamic system of inter-related parts. Therefore, change in one of these parts
usually reacts on others and those on additional ones until they bring a change in
the whole mode of life of many people. For example, industrialism has destroyed
the domestic system of production. The destruction of domestic system of
production brought women from the home to the factory and the office. The
employment of women meant their independence from the bondage of man. It
brought a change in their attitudes and idea. It meant a new social life for
women. It consequently affected every part of the family life.
8. Social change results from the interaction of a number of factors. Generally, it is
thought that a particular factor like changes in technology, economic
development or climatic conditions causes social change. This is called monistic
theory which seeks to interpret social change in terms of one single factor. But
the monistic theory does not provide an adequate explanation of the complex
phenomenon of social change. As a matter of fact, social change is the
 consequence of a number of factors. A special factor may trigger a change but it is
always associated with other factors that make the triggering possible. The
reason is that social phenomena re mutually interdependent. None stand out as
isolated forces that bring about change of themselves. Rather each is an element
in a system. Modification of one part influences the other parts and this influence
the rest, until the whole is involved.
9. Social change are chiefly those of modification or of replacement. Social changes
may be broadly categorized as modifications or replacements. It may be
modification of physical goods or social relationships. For example, the form of
our breakfast food has changed. Though we eat the same basic materials which
we ate earlier, wheat, eggs, corn, but their form is changed. Ready-toeat-
cornflakes, breads, omlettes are substituted for the form in which these same
materials were consumed in yester years. There may also be modifications of
social relationships. The old authoritarian family has become the small
equalitarian family, the one room school has become a centralized school. Our
ideas about women’s rights, religion, government and co-education stand
modified today.

Sociological Theories of Social Change:

Classical Evolutionary Theory of Change:
Evolutionary theories are based on the assumption that SOCIETIES GRADUALLY
CHANGE FROM SIMPLE TO MORE COMPLEX FORMS. Early sociologists beginning with
Auguste Comte believed that HUMAN SOCIETIES EVOLVE IN A UNILINEAR WAY– that is
in one line of development. According to them social change meant progress toward
something better. They saw change as FUNCTIONAL and BENEFICIAL. To them the
evolutionary process implied that societies would necessarily reach new and higher
levels of civilization. These evolutionary view of social change was highly influenced
by CHARLES DARWIN’S THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION. Although evolutionist’s
ideas dates back to August Comte but it was Herbert Spencer who presented his theory
of evolution in a more systematic form.

Theoretical Strands:

1. L.H MORGAN believed that there were three basic stages in the process:
 Savagery,
 Barbarism and
 Civilization.
2. AUGUSTE COMTE’S ideas relating to the three stages in THE DEVELOPMENT OF
HUMAN THOUGHT and also of society namely-THE THEOLOGICAL, THE
METAPHYSICAL AND THE POSITIVE in a way represent the three basic stages
of SOCIAL CHANGE.
3. Herbert Spencer: Spencer started with the assumption that REALITY WAS
GOVERNED BY THE COSMIC LAW OF EVOLUTION. He said; “the evolution is an
integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of matter during which matter
 passes from the indefinite incoherent homogeneity to definite coherent
heterogeneity”. Stated in simple words, this means that evolution is a twin
process of “differentiation and integration” whereby a simple and less
differentiated society is formed.

SPENCER’S conception of THE NOTION OF SOCIAL REALITY WAS INFLUENCED BY

BIOLOGY. Adopting ORGANISMIC ANALOGY, Spencer believes that like individual
organism, societies were made up of inter-connected and interdependent parts. In case
of society these parts are SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS. A more or less persisting network of
inter-dependent parts constitutes THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE.

Like organism, societies are also characterized by progressive increase in size. Increase
in size is followed by increase in DIFFERENTIATION AND INTEGRATION. Thus, simple
societies had relatively undifferentiated social structure.
Increasing DIFFERENTIATION or in other words increasing DIVISION OF LABOUR is
accompanied by new means of maintaining integration. Thus, SOCIETIES EITHER DUE
TO CHANGE IN ENVIRONMENT OR DUE TO INTERNAL GROWTH OF POPULATION
GRADUALLY UNDERGO EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. This change is viewed as
PROGRESSIVE AND UNIDIRECTIONAL PROCESS involving transition from small and
simple to large and complex type of societies. Spencer’s theory of change is a macro
theory because the entire societies are taken as a unit of analysis.

Further, Spencer even examined certain stages which the societies in course of their
evolution passed. Each stage is characterized by increasing differentiation and increase
in the integration. The evolutionary sequence consists of the following stages:

 Simple society (Herd or band)

 Compound society (Tribe and chiefdom)
 Doubly compounded society (City state & kingdom)
 Trebly compounded society (Empire and modern nation state)

1. • L.T. Hobhouse: Following Spencer, L.T. Hobhouse also presented the sequence
of evolution. Like Spencer, he continued to believe in THE IDEA OF PROGRESS.
However, he used concept of SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT to analyse and explain social
change. Taking ADVANCEMENT IN HUMAN KNOWLEDGE as the chief indicator of
development, Hobhouse also presented an evolutionary sequence tracing
development of human society through five stages:
 Stage of preliterate societies.
 Stage of literacy and proto-science
 Stage of reflective thought
2. EMILE DURKHEIM: Durkheim has given an evolutionary picture of social change
and depicted that society has evolved from highly UNDIFFERENTIATED TO
DIFFERENTIATED STAGE. It means that the society is evolved from MECHANICAL
OR SIMPLE to ORGANIC OR COMPLEX SOCIETY. In mechanical
society, COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS was very strong, DIVISION OF
LABOUR was very low and so the mental level of the people. That is why, without
 questioning the authority, they followed each and every order, blindly or
mechanically.

According to Durkheim, Change in three social factors–the volume, the material

density, and moral density Caused Social Change. Volume refers to the size of the
population and material density refers to the number of individuals on a given ground
surface. Moral density means the intensity of communication between individuals.
With the formation of cities and the development of communication and
transportation, condensation of society, multiplies intra-social relations. Thus the
growth and condensation of societies and the resultant intensity of social intercourse
necessitate a greater division of labor. “The division of labor varies in direct ratio with
the volume and density of societies and, if it progresses in a continuous manner in the
course of social development, it is because societies become regularly denser and
generally more voluminous.”

As societies become more voluminous and denser, more people come into contact with
one another; they compete for scarce resources and there is rivalry everywhere. As the
struggle for survival becomes acute, social differentiation develops as a peaceful
solution to the problem.

 When individuals learn to pursue different occupations, the chances of conflict

diminish. Each man is no longer in competition with all; each man is in
competition with only a few of his fellows who pursue the same object or
vocation. The solder seeks military glory, the priest moral authority, the
statesman power, the businessman riches and the scholar scientific renown. The
carpenter does not struggle with the mason, nor the physician with the teacher,
not the politician with the engineer. Since they pursue different objects or
perform different services, they can exist without being obliged mutually to
destroy one another. The social change is thus, the result of the struggle for
existence.

Neo-Evolutionary Theory of Social Change: Talcot Parsons

Of late, there has been a revival of interest in the explanation of change as a
evolutionary process. These evolutionary theories of change have come to be known as
neo-evolutionary theory of change. Some of these theories have made a conscious
attempt to overcome the limitation of classical evolutionist approach.

Talcot Parsons: Parsons build his theory of change based on the model of BIOLOGICAL
THEORY OF EVOLUTION. As in the living organisms system, which have survived and
become most developed are those which have shown greater ABILITY FOR ADAPTING
TO their environment. Thus THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF EVOLUTION is the
CAPACITY FOR ADAPTATION.

CAPACITY FOR ADAPTATION, in turn depends upon two basic processes

viz DIFFERENTIATION AND INTEGRATION. INCREASING STRUCTURAL
DIFFERENTIATION enables society to UPGRADE ITS ADAPTATIONAL CAPACITY. At the
same time, as it becomes more differentiated, NEW MODELS OF INTEGRATION have to
be invented in order to coordinate the new and more numerous parts of which it is
composed.

INCREASED DIFFERENTIATION accompanied by SUSTAINED INTEGRATION enables

society to evolve according to exigencies of the environment. Here change in the culture
is very important for both. Increased differentiation as well as for new integrative
mechanism to be effective, culture plays the most important role in maintaining control.
According to Parsons cultural change accompanied by increasing differentiation is
characterized by increasing GENERALIZATION OF CULTURAL VALUE which helps in
greater inclusion.

Applying evolutionary model, PARSONS HAS DISTINGUISHED FIVE STAGES OF

EVOLUTION, in terms of which various societies can be classified. These stages are
characterized by increasing level of differentiation and integration.

 First type is Primitive society, like Australian aborigine.

 Second type is Archaic society like Mesopotamia and Egyptian Empire.
 The third type is Historical Society like China and India.
 The fourth type is Seedbed society like Israel and Greece and
 The fifth type is Modern society like U.S., Soviet Union, Europe and Japan.

Each of these stages represents similarity in their degree of differentiation and their
integrative solution.

PARSONS discuss about EVOLUTIONARY UNIVERSALS. If a civilization at a lower

evolutionary stage adopts certain evolutionary universals belonging to a higher stage, it
can easily leap over one or more stage altogether. Here, Parsons give the example
of FEUDAL EUROPE. Traditional europe was at a lower stage of evolution than their
contemporaries like the Indian and the Chinese empire. Yet feudal Europe observed
some of the higher level universals that have originated in the Roman, Hellenistic and
Judaic civilization which together transformed the medieval European societies into
modern advanced stage.

Critical Analysis & Arguments:

1. The classical evolutionist approach was conceived as scientific attempt towards

explanation of social change. However, in later part of the 19th century, the
classical evolutionist approach came to be severely criticized for failing to be
adequately scientific as can be seen from the following characteristics of classical
evolutionist approach.
2. CLASSICAL EVOLUTIONISTS SHARE THE GENERAL 19TH CENTURY BELIEF IN
HUMAN PROGRESS. Their theories tended to have A VALUE BIAS AND HENCE
LACKED OBJECTIVITY a precondition for a scientific study. This bias is evident
from the fact that THEY CYNICALLY LABELED SIMPLE SOCIETIES AS PRIMITIVE OR
SAVAGE ETC., while describing EUROPEAN CULTURE AND SOCIETIES AS A
 MODEL OF HIGH CIVILIZATION. Ethenomethodologists, Phenomenologists and
Symbolic Interactionist vehemently criticized Classical theories. Such a romantic
perception of human progress came for a severe criticism in early 20th-century
when the first world war broke out in European society which was considered to
be advancing towards to apex of human progress and civilization and Europe
witnessed the human savagery.
3. Most sociologist and anthropologist belonging to the classical evolutionist’s
tradition were THE ARM CHAIR THEORISTS. So they largely RELIED ON
SECONDARY DATA OF QUESTIONABLE VALUE to build their evolutionary models
and hence works were considered unscientific.

Cyclicle Theories of Social Change:

Cyclical theories of social change focus on THE RISE AND FALL OF
CIVILIZATIONS attempting to discover and account for these PATTERNS OF GROWTH
AND DECAY. Spengler, Toynbee and Sorokin can be regarded as the champions of this
theory.

1. SPENGLER pointed out that the fate of civilizations was a matter of destiny. EACH
CIVILIZATION IS LIKE A BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM AND HAS A SIMILAR LIFE-CYCLE,
BIRTH, MATURITY, OLDAGE AND DEATH. After making a STUDY OF EIGHT
MAJOR CIVILIZATIONS including the west he said that the modern western
society is in the last stage i.e. old age. He concluded that the western societies
were entering a period of decay as evidenced by wars, conflicts and social
breakdown that heralded their doom.
2. ARNOLD TOYNBEE: His famous book ‘A study of History’ (1946) focus on the key
concepts of CHALLENGE AND RESPONSE. Every society faces challenges at first,
challenges posed by the ENVIRONMENT and later challenges from INTERNAL
AND EXTERNAL enemies. The NATURE OF RESPONSES determines the society’s
fate. The achieve successful responses to the challenges; if cannot mount an
effective response it dies. He does not believe that all civilizations will inevitably
decay. He has pointed out that history is a series of cycles of decay and growth.
But each new civilization is able to learn from the mistakes and to borrow from
cultures of others. It is therefore possible for each new cycle to offer higher level
of achievement.
3. Vilfredo PARETO: Pareto has divided the whole social system into two parts:
ELITES AND MASSES. Eites consists of both GOVERNING AND NON GOVERNING
ELITES. Elites could be further divided into two groups 1. Residues of Combination
2. Residues of Group Persistence. THE FIRST GROUP has a characteristic to mix up
easily with the people. They are highly imaginative and cunning as well, which
reflects their lideology in the same way. Whereas, THE SECOND GROUP has a
characteristic of stability and so, they work on the principle of group stability. The
first group is politically called fox, economically called speculators and obviously
they are non idealists. The second group is politically called lions, economically
called Ren tiers and of course, it is idealistic.
When the first group i.e. foxes are in power, then a speedy change is seen in the
society, but after some time, when people realize their cunningness and their
demerits, then there is a disturbance in the society, WHICH NEEDS A CHANGE, THIS
TIME, LIONS MAKE THEIR WAY. They convince the people substantially and with their
support, gain the power by replacing foxes.

But in due course of time, when people find no creativity or invention or discovery
done in the society, they become hopeless and dissatisfied. The Cunning foxes realize
this thing and so clear the way for them and as a result, they gain the power.

The process keeps on going which is CIRCULATION OF ELITES, as called by Pareto. It is

because of this circulation, that social change occurs in society and the change is
obviously in the form of cycle This is cyclical social change given by Pareto.

Critical Analysis & Arguments:

1. In the Context of two opposite ideologies: Pareto’s opinion about lions and
foxes, in the form of two opposite ideologies is nowhere absolutely found.
Because in modern era, such system is established worldwide, that a single
idelology cannot work. The aware citizens of any country want a party, to be
pragmatic, reconcillatory and based on stability, And this cannot be found in a
single group i.e. lion or fox. This is the reason, that in today’s leadership, the
characteristics of both lions and foxes are present, naturally that leadership will
get mandate, which is able to adequately all the required attributes. This is the
reason that in Britain, sometimes, conservative party also gets a bundle of votes
from working class. And same is situation of American Rightist, Democratic party.
In India also caste chemistry has become more important than caste arithematic .
In this context, Pareto’s theory does not seem to be much relevant in modern.
2. In the form of multi party system: In modern times in many countries, multi
party system works and
today, the government is formed with the alliance of many parties. In this
context, Pareto becomes non-relevant.
3. In the context of Non Governing elements :But Pareto’s theory is relevant in the
form of opposition party. Opposition party keeps acknowledging the people, the
faulty policies and their wrong implementations and in that way, they stop the
government to be authoritarian and arbitrary. Some times, they become
successful replacing the governing elites.

SOROKIN: Socio Cultural- Dynamics :

1. Sorokin, in his cyclical theory of social change has shown that every social system
has a definite cultural stage, in which a change makes changes in the whole social
system and this is social change. Sorokin, in his book “Socio Cultural
Dynamics” has illustrated mainly two and overall there cultures 1. Sensate 2.
Idealistic & 3. ideational culture.
 2. Here sensate and ideational are extremes cultural stages. It means, reaching to
any of the culture extreme level, society faces a change, that is why Sorokin
believes that the whole human history is the history of cultural dynamics.
3. The distinction B/W sensate and ideational culture is the basis of social change,
when society changes from one stage to another. Then all the attributes of social
relation as science, religion philosophy, law, morality, art, literature etc. are
changed and in that way, this is a social change widely.

The Change is cyclical

According to Sorokin, one cultural stage reaches to second cultural stage and again
moves back to its original stage. This is cyclical stage for eg from sensate culture, three
is a change towards ideational culture and again the sensate culture is restored back,
but meanwhile, it has to pass through one more stage, which Sorokin has called
idealistic culture.

In sensate culture, material & sensual aspects all given prime imp, in which status &
position of members of society are considered on the basis of those aspects they have
earned. In this the beliefs, values, emotions of individual are of material aspect. And
people love to accomplish their task, which can give more sensual pleasure that is why,
in this cultural stage, power is concentrated in those hands, who posses lot of material
property. In sensate cultural stage, religion, tradition, customs have limited impact
on social relations and social action.

In ideational cultural stage, spirituality has a prime concern, in which, the ideals of life
focus on the search of truth and peace. Instead of material pleasure, ethics, traditions,
religion, truth, nonviolence are the important elements in social system and activity
controlled and regulate the activities of the members. In this system, the social strata’s
are determined on the basis of religious and spiritual success and skill. Idealistic culture
stage:- contains the attributes of both the cultures that is sensate and ideational it is a
kind of integrated system, which shows the transitional phase, it comes in between,
whenever there is a change from sensate to ideational and ideational to sensate.

The principle of eminent change:- According to Sorokin, Social system is related with
cultural system, that is why a change in cultural system, changes the social system
Sorokin believes that this change is based on the principle of eminent change, according
to which the forces of change are inherent on the nature of culture itself.

Principle of Limits:
Sorokin envisages that sensate and ideational cultures are extreme stages, naturally
they do not change beyond them, so cultural elements move in backward direction. To
make it intelligible Bierstedt has given the example of piano, in which the sound comes
out in the same proposition of the force by which the keys are pressed. But it has a limit
beyond which the keys will breakup. When the same is applied in Sorokin theory, then it
becomes clear that, now the change will be in backward direction.
Irregular Motion of Change:
Whether the change is from sensate to ideational or ideational to sensate, the motion
of change is irregular, It is in the form of Fluctuation So in the sequence of change, the
speed of change is sometimes high and sometimes slow and next time it may stagnate
temporarily. In this way it cannot be predicted
when one cultural stage would reach to second cultural stage. This is Sorokin’s cyclical
theory of change.

Limitations:

1. This theory does not explain all kinds of changes and specially the minute change
or routine changes in life. Eventually. It lacks microscopic explaination Movever it
explains the change in social system in
toto whereas Marxist or Parsonian approach explains all kinds of changes
whether qualitative or quantitative.
2. According to Sorokin, a change in different direction occurs only after reaching to
the extreme level of cultural stage. But the same has not been seen practically.
One important fact in this regard is that it is absolutely difficult to determine what
is the extremity of a cultural stage. Apart from it, it has also been seen that a
social system turns to a second culture, before reaching to the extremity of a first
culture. Thus the western materialistic culture has reached to idealistic culture,
before reaching to the extremity of materialism. It also shows that the change is
sometimes forward and sometimes backward, which violates its claim of being
cyclical, in this way it lacks objectivity and rationality.

Note: What kind of change is indicated through the peace efforts done by western
countries
worldwide?

The peace efforts are mainly done in the following way.

1. Non proliferation of Nuclear, chemical or biological weapons

2. disarmament
3. Conservation of Environment
4. Abolition of terrorism
5. Alleviation of poverty from poor countries
6. Globalization of world economy

The observation of all such efforts shows that overtly western countries are oriented
towards world peace. But reality is something else. In the processes like non-
prolification of chemical biological & nuclear weapons & disarmament, the self interest
of these countries are highly deep rooted. Actually, they have a threat to their own
existence, thereby they are appealing the whole world in this context, the some
condition is related with removal of terrorism from the world and through it the
developed countries want to preserve their own capital. A similar explanation can be
given for other sections also for globalization, poverty aleviation, through which they
want to minimize this project more and more obviously they are leading towards
cyclical change. Undoubtedly, there countries are making their endeavor in Yoga Ayur
Veda, naturapathy, herbal, organic food, philanthropy and so a partial peace process is
going on in this way a little glimse of cyclical change is seen now. In this way it can be
said that Sorokin’s theory has a limited relevance.

Manintegration Theory of Change:

Neil J. Smelser :
According to Smelser over a period of time incompatibilities may develop between
parts of the social system. This may lead to conflicting pressure of demands over
different sectors of the society. For example, in some cases, the opposition between the
social group of one kind or another; in other cases, the system of incompatibilities may
cut across group division. These inconsistencies may generate structural strain in the
system. Such situation of structural strain in the system. Such situation of structural
strain may sometimes lead to collective mobilization and social movement may
emerge to bring about social change. However, structural strain alone is not enough to
generate a change oriented social movement. Other conditions whose presence are
essential are:

 Growth and spread of generalized belief

 Precipitation factors
 Mobilization of participants for action.

R.K. Merton :
According to Merton over a period of time, parts become dysfunctional and these
dysfunctional parts give rise to Malintegration and maladjustment with the social
system. Malintegration are manifested in the form of conflict.

For the system to survive, the conflict has to be resolved. Therefore, the dysfunctional
parts may be replaced by its functional alternatives or functional equivalent. This, in
turn, would bring about a partial change in the structure.

Diffusionist Theory of Change:

Diffusionist theory of change locates the source of change outside the society.
According to Diffusionist, the process of change begins with culture. When cultural
contact takes place, various possibilities may happen:

 The cultural trait may be accepted in parts or in totality.

 The cultural traits may be accepted after modification.
 The cultural traits may be rejected.

The acceptance or rejection of cultural traits depends firstly on intensity of contact; thus
if there is the direct cultural contact leading to acculturation process, recipient culture
may be transformed to a great extent. Secondly, if the coming cultural traits are
related to the peripheral aspects of the recipient’s culture, then there is great chance
of its acceptances, for example, how easily Indians have accepted Jeans and Pizzas, but
if it is related to the core values of the recipient culture, then it will face a lot of
resistance. In fact, a change in core values of the recipient culture may even give rise to
revivalist type of protest movement.

Robert Readfield in his studies of Mexican community had developed the concept of
great and little tradition to analyze social change, resulting due to diffusion. Milton
Singer and Mackim Marriot have tried to approve this model of study of social change
in India. According to this approach, the social structure of civilization operates at two
levels; first that of the folk or ordinary people and second that of the elite. The culture
of fold comprise the little tradition, while that of elite comprises the great tradition.
Now, while studying the process of social change through diffusion, the impact of
diffusion should be analysed at two levels. Prof Y. Singh has attempted an analysis of
social change in this manner.

Conflict (Marxian) Theory of Social Change:

Karl Marx borrowed from Hegel, a dialectical view of nature and synthesized it with his
materialist stand point. Instead of seeing the world only as the quantity of fixed things
or objects, defined and distinguished from one another by their external characteristics,
dialectics views the world as a series of mutually interconnected processes. All
phenomenon are the process of change and such change is rooted in what Marx called
unity and conflict of opposites. In each social formation, thesis develops its own
antithesis, finally leadings to the conflict between the two which is resolved with the
emergence of new synthesis, having elements of both and which in turn becomes the
new thesis.

Summary :

1. The world including the social world is better characterized by flux and change
rather than by stability and permanence.
2. In the social world, as in the world of nature, change is not random, but orderly,
in that uniformities and regularities can be observed and therefore, scientific
finding can be made about them.
3. In the social world, the key to the pattern of change can be found in man’s
relationship in the economic order, the world of work. Subsistence, the need to
make a living must be achieved in all societies. How subsistence is achieved
crucially affects the whole structure of society.
4. Pursuit of economic interest is primary basis for cooperation and conflict in the
society. Men having common and compatible economic interest enter into
cooperation with each other. Generally the economic interests are shaped by the
fact of the whether one owns the means of production or not. Groups of people
having similar relations to means of the production constitute a class.
5. There are two main classes. The cooperation between these classes is essentially
to carry out production. These classes represent those who own the means of
 production and hence contribute their loabur. While these classes depend on
each other to fulfil their economic interest, at the same time, their economic
interest are mutually opposed because of the unequal distribution of the fruits of
production which are appropriated by the ownership class at the cost of
propertyless working class. So long as such economic inequality persists, these
two classes are inevitable, leading to hostile relation between them though
sometimes this hostility may be latent but in certain situation it becomes
manifest leading to open conflict between them. Such conflict between these
classes in midwife of change because the interest of ownership class lies in
preserving the status quo. While the propertyless working class wants a radical
transformation to bring about an agitation and redistribution of the means of
production.
6. The source of change lies in the economic organisation of the society. Social
reality being systematic in nature has inter-connected parts. Therefore, changing
in the economic organization inevitably stimulates change in the other parts of
the society too

Critics Comment:
Weber criticized Marxian theory of social change on various grounds

1. Firstly, Weber sees no evidence to support Marxian idea of polarization of society

into two mutually hostile camps. More importantly, Weber argues that white
collar middle class expands rather than contracts as capitalism develops, because
capitalist enterprises in the modern nation state requires a rational bureaucratic
administration which involves large number of administrative and clerical staff.
Thus, Weber sees process of diversification of classes and an expansion of white
collar middle class rather than a polarization.
2. Further, Weber rejects the inevitability of revolution and regards it only as one of
the possibilities, in fact a rare possibility. Increasing social mobility and rise of
welfare state in modern industrial society have dampened the revolutionary
fervour of the industrial workers.
3. A similar criticism of Marxian theory has been presented by Ralph
Dahrendorf also. According to him there is no possibility of general configuration
leading of revolutionary change in the modern society. “Decomposition of
capital” and “Decomposition of labour” have not presented any possibilities of
polarization, though conflict of interest remains but, increasing institutional
autonomy in modern industrial society insulated conflict and change in one area
from spreading to other areas of social life.
4. Another criticism is generally directed towards the orthodox Marxist who felt
economic sub structure as the sole determining cause of all the change in the
society. Here Marxian theory of social change can be seen only as on ideal type
explanation of social change highlighting the role of economic factors.

NOTE: (More analysis in Thinkers Notes : Karl Marx)

Functionalist or Dynamic theories:

1. In the middle decades of the 20th century a number of American sociologists

shifted their attention from social dynamics to social static or from social
change to social stability.Talcott Parsons stressed the importance of cultural
patterns in controlling the stability of a society.
2. According to him society has the ability to absorb disruptive forces while
maintaining overall stability. Change is not as something that disturbs the social
equilibrium but as something that alters the state of equilibrium so that a
qualitatively new equilibrium results. He has stated that changes may arise from
two sources. They may come from outside the society through contact with other
societies. They may also come from inside the society through adjustment that
must be made to resolve strains within the system. Parsons speaks of two
processes that are at work in social change.
3. In simple societies institutions are undifferentiated that is a single institution
serves many functions. The family performs reproductive, educational,
socializing, economic, recreational and other functions. A
process of differentiation takes place when the society becomes more and more
complex. Different institutions such as school, factory may take over some of the
functions of a family. The new institutions
must be linked together in a proper way by the process of integration. New norms
must be established in
order to govern the relationship between the school and the home. Further
bridging institutions such as
law courts must resolve conflicts between other components in the system.

WEBERIAN THEORY OF SOCIAL CHANGE (Refer Sociological Thinkers Notes….)

Development and Dependency

There are many theories of development and dependency. These theories have
strengths and weaknesses. One shortcoming of all of them is that they frequently give
short to the role of women in economic development. By putting the theories
together, however, we should be able to answer a key question facing the 85 percent of
the world’s population living outside high-income countries: how can they move up in
the world economy?

Market-oriented Theories of Development :

The most influential theories of global inequality advanced by British and American
economists and sociologists were market-oriented theories. These theories assume
that the best possible economic consequences will result if individuals are free-
uninhibited by any form of government constraint-to make their own economic
decisions.

Unrestricted capitalism, if it is allowed to develop fully, is said to be the avenue to

economic growth. Government bureaucracy should not dictate which goods to
produce, what prices to charge or how much workers should be paid. According to
market-oriented theorists, governmental direction of the economics of low-income
countries results in blockages to economic development. In this view, local governments
should get out of the way of development.

Modernization theory :W.W. Rostow:

1. Modernization theory argues that low income societies can develop

economically only if they give
up their traditional ways and adopt modern economic institutions, technologies
and cultural
values that emphasize savings and productive investment.
2. One of the most influential early proponents of such theories was W.W.
Rostow, an economic adviser to former US President John F. Kennedy, whose
ideas helped shape US foreign policy towards Latin
America during the 1960s. Rostow’s explanation is one version of a market-
oriented approach, termed
‘modernization theory’.
3. According to Rostow, the traditional cultural values and social institutions of
low-income countries impede their economic effectiveness. For example, many
people in low-income countries, in Rostow’s view, lack a strong work ethic; they
would sooner consume today than invest for the future. Large families are also
seen as partly responsible for ‘economic backwardness’, since a breadwinner with
many mounts to feed can hardly be expected to save money for investment
purposes.
4. But to modernization theorists, the problems in low-income countries run even
deeper. ……The cultures of such countries, according to the theory, tend to
support ‘fatalism’ – a value system that views hardship and suffering as the
unavoidable plight of life. Acceptance of one’s lot in life thus discourages people
from working hard and being thrifty in order to overcome their fate. In this view,
then, a country’s poverty is due largely to the cultural failings of the people
themselves. Such failings are reinforced by government politics that set wages
and control prices and generally interfere in the operation of the economy.
…….How can low-income countries break out of their poverty? Rostow viewed
economic growth as going through several stages, which he likened to the
journey of an aero plane:
 The traditional stage : This is the stage just described. It is characterized by low
rates of savings, the supposed lack of a work ethic, and the so-called fatalistic
value system. The aero plane is not yet off the ground.
 Take off to economic growth : The traditional stage, Rostow argued, can give way
to a second one: economic take-off. This occurs when poor countries begin to
jettison their traditional values and institutions and start to save and invest
money for the future. The role of wealthy countries, like the United States, is to
facilitate this growth. They can do this by financing birth control programmes or
 providing low-cost loans for electrification, road and airport construction, and
starting new industries.
 Drive to technological maturity: According to Rostow, with the help of money
and advice from highincome countries, the aeroplane of economic growth would
taxi down the runway, pick up speed and become airborne. The country would
then approach technological maturity. In the aeronautical metaphor, the plane
would slowly climb to cruising altitude, improving its technology, reinvesting its
recently acquired wealth in new industries and adopting the institutions and
values of the high-income countries.
 High-mass consumption : Finally, the country would reach the phase of high mass
consumption. Now people are able to enjoy the fruits of their labour by achieving
a high standard of living. The aeroplane (country) cruises along on automatic
pilot, having entered the ranks of high-income countries.

Rostow’s ideas remain influential today……. Indeed, perhaps the prevailing view among
economists today, neo-liberalism, argues that free-market forces, achieved by
minimizing governmental restrictions on business, provide the only route to economic
growth. Neo-liberalism holds that global free trade will enable all countries of the
world to prosper; eliminating governmental regulation is seen as necessary for
economic growth to occur. Neo-liberal economists therefore call for an end to
restrictions on trade and often challenge minimum wage and other labour, laws, as well
as environmental restrictions on business.

…………Sociologists, on the other hand, focus on the cultural aspects of Rostow’s theory;
whether and how certain beliefs and institutions hinder development (Davis). These
include religious values, moral beliefs, belief in magic and folk traditions and practices.
Sociologists also examine other conditions that resist change; particularly the belief
local cultures have that moral decay and social unrest accompany business and trade.

Dependency Theory :

1. The dependency theorists argue that the poverty of low-income countries stems
from their exploitation by wealthy countries and the multinational corporation
as that are based in wealthy countries. In their view, global capitalism locked
their countries into a downward spiral of exploitation and poverty.
2. During the 1960,s a number of theorists questioned market-oriented
explanations of global inequality such as modernization theory. Many of these
critics were sociologists and economists from the lowincome countries of Latin
America and Africa, who drew on Marxist ideas to reject the idea that their
countries’ economic underdevelopment was due to their own cultural or
institutional faults. Instead, they build on the theories of Karl Marx, who argued
that world capitalism would create a class of countries manipulated by more
powerful countries, just as capitalism of workers.
3. According to dependency theories, the exploitation began with colonialism, a
politicaleconomic system under which powerful countries established, for their
own profit, rule over weaker peoples or countries. Powerful nations have
 colonized other countries usually to procure the raw materials needed for their
factories and to control markers for the products manufactured in those
factories.
4. Although colonialism typically involved European countries establishing colonies
in North and South America, Africa and Asia, some Asian countries (such as Japan)
had colonies as well. Even though colonialism ended throughout most of the
world after the Second World War, the exploitation did
not: transnational corporations continued to reap enormous profits from their
branches in lowincome countries.
5. According to dependency theory, these global companies, often with the support
of the powerful banks and governments of rich countries, established factories in
poor countries, using cheap labour and raw materials to maximize production
costs without governmental interference.
6. ………In turn, the low prices set for labour and raw materials prevented poor
countries from accumulating the profit necessary to industrialize themselves.
Local businesses that might compete with foreign corporation were prevented
from doing so…….. In this view, poor countries are forced to borrow from rich
countries, thus increasing their economic dependency.
7. Low-income countries are thus seen not as underdeveloped, but rather as mis-
developed (Frank; Emmanuel). With the exception of a handful of local
politicians and business people who serve the interest of the foreign
corporations, people fall into poverty. Peasants are forced to choose between
starvation and working at near-starvation wages on foreign-controlled
plantations and in foreign-controlled mines and factories. Since dependency
theorists believe that such exploitation has kept their countries from achieving
economic growth, they typically call for revolutionary changes that would push
foreign corporations out of their countries altogether (Frank Parkin).
8. While political and military-power is usually ignored by market-oriented
theorists, dependency theorists regard the exercise of power as central to
enforcing unequal economic relationship. According to this theory, whenever
local leaders question such unequal arrangements, their voices are quickly
suppressed. Unionization is usually outlawed, and labour organizers are jailed and
sometimes killed. When people elect a government opposing these policies, that
government is likely to be overthrown by the country’s military, often backed by
the armed forces of the industrialized countries themselves.
9. ………Dependency theorists point of many examples; the role of the CIA in
overthrowing the Marxist governments of Guatemala in 1954 and Chile in 1973
and in undermining support for the leftist government in Nicaragua in the
1980s…….. In the view of dependency theory, global economic inequality is thus
backed up by force: economic elites in poor countries, backed by their
counterparts in wealthy ones, sue police and military power to keep the local
population under control.
10.Brazilian sociologist Enrique Fernando Cardoso, once a prominent dependency
theorist, argued more than twenty-five years ago that some degree of dependent
development was nonetheless possible-that under certain circumstances, poor
 countries can still develop economically, although only in ways shaped by their
reliance on the wealthier countries (Cardoso). IN particular, the governments of
these countries could play a key role in steering a course between dependency
and development.

World System Theory : Immanuel Wallerstein:

During the last quarter of a century, sociologists have increasingly seen the world as a
single (although often conflict-ridden) economic system. Although dependency
theories hold that individual countries are economically tied to one another
………..world-systems theory, which is strongly influenced by dependency theory, argues
that the world capitalist economic system is not merely a collection of independent
countries engaged in diplomatic and economic relations with one another, but must
instead be understood as a single unit. The world-system approach is most closely
identified with the work of Immanuel Wallerstein and his colleagues. Wallerstein
showed that capitalism has long existed as a global economic system, beginning with
the extension of markets and trade in Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
The world system is seen as comprising four overlapping elements (Chase-Dunn):

1. A world market for goods and labour;

2. The division of the population into different economic classes, particularly
capitalists and workers;
3. An international system of formal and informal political relations among the most
powerful countries, whose competition with one another helps shape the world
economy; and
4. The carving up of the world into three unequal economic zones, with the
wealthier zones exploiting
the poorer ones.

World-system theorists term these three economic zones ‘core’, ‘periphery’ and ‘semi-
periphery’. All countries in the world system are said to fall into one of the three
categories….

1. Core countries are the most advanced industrial countries, taking the lion’s
share of profits in the world economic system. These include Japan, the United
States and the countries of Western Europe.
2. Peripheral countries comprise low-income, largely agricultural countries that are
often manipulated by core countries for their own economic advantage.
,,,,,Examples of peripheral countries are found throughout Africa and to a lesser
extent in Latin America and Asia. …..Natural resources, such as agricultural
products, minerals and other raw materials, flow from periphery to core, in turn,
sells finished goods to the periphery, also at a profits. World-system theorists
argue that core countries have made themselves wealthy with this unequal trade,
while at the same time limiting the economic development of peripheral
countries.
 3. Finally, the semi-peripheral countries occupy an intermediate position; these are
semiindustrialized, middle-income countries that extract profits from the more
peripheral countries and in turn yield profits to the core countries. Examples of
semi-peripheral countries include Mexico in North America; Brazil, Argentina and
Chile in South America; and the newly industrializing economics of East Asia. The
semi periphery, though to some degree controlled by the core, is thus also able to
exploit the periphery. Moreover, the greater economic success of the semi-
periphery holds out to the periphery the promise of similar development.

Although the world system tends to change very slowly, once-powerful countries
eventually lose their economic power and others then take their place. ,,,,,,,,,, For
example, some five centuries ago the Italian city-states of Venice and Genoa dominated
the world capitalist economy. They were superseded by the Dutch, then the British and
currently the United States. …….Today, in the view of some world-systems theorists,
American dominance is giving way to a more ‘multi-polar’ world where economic power
will be shared between the United States, Europe and Asia (Arrighi).

State-Centered Theory:
Some of the most recent explanations of successful economic development emphasize
the role of state policy in promoting growth. Differing sharply from market-oriented
theories, state-centred theories argue that appropriate government policies do not
interfere with economic development but rather can play a key role in bringing it about.
…………..A large body of research now suggests that in some regions of the world, such
as East Asia, successful economic development has been state-led. Even the World
Bank, long a strong proponent of free-market theories of development, has changed its
thinking about the role of the state. In its 1997 report ‘The State in Changing World’, the
World Bank concluded that without an effective state, ‘sustainable development, both
economic and social, is impossible’.

Strong governments contributed in various ways to economic growth in the East Asian
Newly Independent Countries during the 1980s and 1990s.

1. East Asian governments have sometimes aggressively acted to ensure political

stability, while keeping labour costs low. This has been accomplished by acts of
repression, such as outlawing trade, banning strikes, jailing leaders and, in
general, silencing the voices of workers. The governments of Taiwan, South Korea
and Singapore in particular have engaged in such practices.
2. East Asian governments have frequently sought to steer economic development
in desired directions. …………For example, state agencies have often provided
cheap loans and tax breaks to businesses that invest in industries favoured by the
government. ……….Sometimes this strategy has backfired, resulting in bad loans
held by the government (one of the causes of the region’s economic problems
during the late 1990s). Some governments have prevented businesses from
investing their profits in other countries, forcing them to invest in economic
growth at home. Some times governments have owned and therefore controlled
 key industries. For example, the Japanese government ahs owned railways, the
steel industry and banks; the South Korean government has owned banks; and
the government of Singapore has owned airlines and the armaments and ship-
repair industries.
3. East Asian governments have often heavily involved in social programmes such
as low-cost housing and universal education. …The world’s largest public housing
system (outside socialist or formerly socialist countries) have been in Hong Kong
and Singapore, where government subsidies keep rents extremely low. As a
result, workers don’t require high wages to pay for their housing, so they can
compete better with American and European workers in the emerging global
labour market. In Singapore, which has an extremely strong central government,
well-funded public education and training help to provide workers with the skills
they need to compete effectively in the emerging global labour market. The
Singaporean government also requires businesses and individual citizen alike to
save a large percentage of their income for investment in future growth.

Evaluating theories of development

Each of the four sets of theories of global inequality just discussed has its strengths and
weaknesses. Together they enable us to better understand the causes and cures for
global inequality.

1. Market-oriented theories commend the adoption of modern capitalist

institutions of promote economic development, as the recent example of East
Asia attests. They further argue that countries can develop economically only if
they open their borders to trade, and they can cite evidence in support of this
argument. But market-oriented theories also fail to take into account the various
economic ties between poor countries and wealth ones – ties that can impede
economic growth under others. They tend to blame low income countries
themselves for their poverty rather than looking to the influence of outside
factors, such as the business operations of more powerful nations. Market-
oriented theories also ignore the ways government can work with the private
sector to spur economic development. Finally, they fail to explain why some
countries manage to take off economically while others remain grounded in
poverty and underdevelopment.
2. Dependency theories address the market-oriented theories neglect in
considering poor countries’ ties with wealthy countries by focusing on how
wealthy nations have economically exploited poor ones. However, while
dependency theories help to account for much of the economic backwardness in
Latin America and Africa, they are unable to explain the occasional success story
among such low-income countries as Brazil, Argentina and Mexico or the rapidly
expanding economies of East Asia. In fact, some countries, once in the low-
income category, have risen economically even in the presence of the
multinational corporations. Even some former colonies, such as Hong Kong and
Singapore, both once dependent on Great Britain, count among the success
stories.
 3. World-system theory sought to overcome the shortcomings of dependency
theories by analyzing the world economy as a whole. Rather than beginning with
individual countries, worldsystem theorists look at the complex global web of
political and economic relationship that influence development and inequality in
poor and rich nations alike.
4. State-centred theories stress the governmental role in fostering economic
growth. They thus offer a useful alternative to both the prevailing market-
oriented theories, with their emphasis on states as economic hindrances, and
dependency theories, which view states as allies of global business elites in
exploiting poor countries. When combined with the other theories – particularly
world-system theory – state-centred theories can explain the radical changes now
trans-forming the world economy.

Agents of Social Change

Physical Environment:

 Major changes in the physical environment are very compelling when they
happen. The desert wastes of North Africa were once green and well populated.
Climates change, soil erodes and lakes gradually turn into swamps and finally
plains.
 A culture is greatly affected by such changes although sometimes they come
about so slowly that they are largely unnoticed. Human misuse can bring very
rapid changes in physical environment which in turn change the social and
cultural life of a people.
 Deforestation brings land erosion and reduces rainfall. Much of the wasteland
and desert land of the world is a testament to human ignorance and misuse.
Environmental destruction has been at least a contributing factor in the fall of
most great civilization.
 Many human groups throughout history have changed their physical environment
through migration. In the primitive societies whose members are very directly
dependent upon their physical environment migration to a different environment
brings major changes in the culture. Civilization makes it easy to transport a
culture and practice it in a new and different environment.

Population changes:

 A population change is itself a social change but also becomes a casual factor in
further social and cultural changes. When a thinly settled frontier fills up with
people the hospitality pattern fades away, secondary group relations multiply,
institutional structures grow more elaborate and many other changes follow.
 A stable population may be able to resist change but a rapidly growing
population must migrate, improve its productivity or starve. Great historic
migrations and conquests of the Huns, Vikings and many others have arisen
from the pressure of a growing population upon limited resources.
  Migration encourages further change for it brings a group into a new
environment subjects it to new social contacts and confronts it with new
problems. No major population change leaves the culture unchanged.

Isolation and Contact:

 Societies located at world crossroads have always been centers of change. Since
most new traits come through diffusion, those societies in closest contact with
other societies are likely to change most rapidly. In ancient times of overland
transport, the land bridge connecting Asia, Africa and Europe was the centre of
civilizing change.
 Later sailing vessels shifted the centre to the fringes of the Mediterranean Sea
and still later to the north- west coast of Europe. Areas of greatest intercultural
contact are the centers of change. War and trade have always brought
intercultural contact and today tourism is adding to the contacts between
cultures says Greenwood.
 Conversely isolated areas are centers of stability, conservatism and resistance
to change. The most primitive tribes have been those who were the most isolated
like the polar Eskimos or the Aranda of Central Australia.

Social Structure:

 The structure of a society affects its rate of change in subtle and not immediately
apparent ways. A society which vests great authority in the very old people as
classical China did for centuries is likely to be conservative and stable.
 According to Ottenberg a society which stresses conformity and trains the
individual to be highly responsive to the group such as the Zunis is less receptive
to the change than a society like the Ileo who are highly individualistic and
tolerate considerable cultural variability.
 A highly centralized bureaucracy is very favorable to the promotion and diffusion
of change although bureaucracy has sometimes been used in an attempt to
suppress change usually with no more than temporary success.
 When a culture is very highly integrated so that each element is rightly
interwoven with all the others in a mutually interdependent system change is
difficult and costly. But when the culture is less highly integrated so that work,
play, family, religion and other activities are less dependent upon one another
change is easier and more frequent.
 A tightly structured society wherein every person’s roles, duties, privileges and
obligations are precisely and rigidly defined is less given to changes than a more
loosely structured society wherein roles, lines of authority, privileges and
obligations are more open to individual rearrangement.
Attitudes and Values:

 To people in developed nations and societies change is normal. Children there are
socialized to anticipate and appreciate change. By contrast the Trobriand
Islanders off the coast of New Guinea had no concept of change and did not even
have any words in their language to express or describe change.
 Societies differ greatly in their general attitude toward change. People who
revere the past and preoccupied with traditions and rituals will change slowly and
unwillingly. When a culture has been relatively static for a long time the people
are likely to assume that it should remain so indefinitely. They are intensely and
unconsciously ethnocentric; they assume that their customs and techniques are
correct and everlasting.
 A possible change is unlikely even to be seriously considered. Any change in
such a society is likely to be too gradual to be noticed. A rapidly changing society
has a different attitude toward change and this attitude is both cause and effect
of the changes already taking place. Rapidly changing societies are aware of the
social change. They are somewhat skeptical and critical of some parts of their
traditional culture and will consider and experiment with innovations.
 Such attitudes powerfully stimulate the proposal and acceptance of changes by
individuals within the society. Different groups within a locality or a society may
show differing receptivity to change. Every changing society has its liberals and its
conservatives. Literate and educated people tend to accept changes more readily
than the illiterate and uneducated. Attitudes and values affect both the amount
and the direction of social change.
 The ancient Greeks made great contributions to art and learning but
contributed little to technology. No society has been equally dynamic in all
aspects and its values determine in which are a art, music, warfare, technology,
philosophy or religion it will be innovative.
 Cultural Factor influences the direction and character of technological change.
Culture not only influences our social relationships, it also influences the direction
and character of technological change. It is not only our beliefs and social
institutions must correspond to the changes in technology but our beliefs and
social institutions determine the use to which the technological inventions will be
put. The tools and techniques of technology are indifferent to the use we make of
them. For example the atomic energy can be used for the production of deadly
war weapons or for the production of economic goods that satisfy the basic
needs of man. The factories can produce the armaments or necessaries of life.
Steel and iron can be used for building warships or tractors.
 It is a culture that decides the purpose to which a technical invention must be
put. Although technology has advanced geometrically in the recent past,
technology alone does not cause social change. It does not by itself even cause
further advances in technology.
 Social values play a dominant role here. It is the complex combination of
technology and social values which produces conditions that encourage further
technological change. For example the belief or the idea that human life must not
 be sacrificed for wants of medical treatment, contributed to the advancement in
medical technology.
 Max Weber in his The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of Capitalism has made a
classical attempt to establish a correlation between the changes in the religious
outlook, beliefs and practices of the people on the one hand and their economic
behavior on the other. He has observed capitalism could grow in the western
societies to very great extent and not in the eastern countries like India and
China. He has concluded that Protestantism with its practical ethics encouraged
capitalism to grow in the west and hence industrial and economic advancement
took place there. In the East, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Islam on the
other hand did not encourage capitalism.
 Thus cultural factors play a positive as well as negative role in bringing about
technological change. Cultural factors such as habits, customs, traditions,
conservatism, traditional values etc may resist the technological inventions. On
the other hand factors such as breakdown in the unity of social values, the
diversification of social institutions craving for the new thoughts, values etc may
contribute to technological inventions. Technological changes do not take place
on their own. They are engineered by men only.
 Technology is the creation of man. Men are always moved by ideas, thoughts,
values, beliefs, morals and philosophies etc.These are the elements of culture.
These sometimes decide or influence the direction in which technology
undergoes change. Men are becoming more and more materialistic in their
attitude. This change in the attitude and outlook is reflected in the technological
field. Thus in order to lead a comfortable life and to minimize the manual labor
man started inventing new techniques, machines, instruments and devices.

Technological Factors:

 The technological factors represent the conditions created by man which have a
profound influence on his life. In the attempt to satisfy his wants, fulfill his needs
and to make his life more comfortable man creates civilization.
 Technology is a byproduct of civilization .When the scientific knowledge is
applied to the problems in life it becomes technology. Technology is a systematic
knowledge which is put into practice that is to use tools and run machines to
serve human purpose. Science and technology go together.
 In utilizing the products of technology man brings social change. The social
effects of technology are far-reaching. According to Karl Marx even the formation
of social relations and mental conceptions and attitudes are dependent upon
technology. He has regarded technology as a sole explanation of social change.
 W.F Ogburn says technology changes society by changing our environment to
which we in turn adapt. These changes are usually in the material environment
and the adjustment that we make with these changes often modifies customs and
social institutions. A single invention may have innumerable social effects. Radio
for example has One of the most extreme expressions of the concern over the
 independence of technology is found in Jacques Ellul’s ‘the technological
society’.
 Ellul claims that in modern industrial societies technologism has engulfed every
aspect of social existence in much the same way Catholicism did in the middle
ages. The loss of human freedom and the large-scale destruction of human beings
are due to the increasing use of certain types of technology which has begun to
threaten the life support systems of the earth as a whole

Education and Social Change in India

1. Education influences different domains of social life. It not only influences social
change, but also acts as an agent of social change. Education is the process of
facilitating learning or the acquisition of knowledge, skill, values, beliefs and
habits. Education engages itself in a much more positive action and can perform
the function of an initiator of change. It inculcates in the younger generation
whatever changes are desirable for rebuilding a society. Moreover, it cultivates
necessary intellectual and emotional readiness to deal with challenges of change.
2. Education is an important instrument of modernization. Modern values in social
economic and political spheres have to be instilled in the minds of people to
achieve the goal of modernization. Values such as equality, liberty, scientific
temper, humanism and ideas against blind faith pave the way for modernization.
This task can be effectively performed by education.
3. In ancient India education was provided by the family, kin group and society as
a whole through participation in daily life. But, as the needs and activities
increased in course of times, a more systematic means of instruction was
introduced and a specialized occupational group of teachers was formed The
Brahmans acted as formal teachers and were repositories of knowledge and
learning. Teaching centers functioned around individual scholars and the learning
process also emphasized the role of each individual student This system of
education emphasized more on life than on instruction. Thus curricula varied
from center to center. The transmission of religious ideas and the interpretation
of Gurukula and Vidyalayas. However, this educational system was available only
to small section of the population that constituted the upper layers of the Varna
hierarchy under the pressure of social and economic change.
4. Historically speaking modern education appeared in India with the
establishment of British rule. Initially, the British rulers supported traditional
schools and encouraged their expansion and growth. But by the middle of the
nineteen century, the colonial policy changed and a decision was taken to
introduce European literature and science in India. English was made the medium
of instruction in the higher branches of learning. This policy concentrated on the
education of the upper and middle classes. Little progress was made in
establishing a suitable system of primary education.According to one estimate in
1881-82,1in 10 boys and 1in 250 girls between the ages of 5 and 12 years
attended schools. About 90 per cent of the populations were illiterate even in the
early part of the twentieth century.The educational system thus not only
 maintained the gulf between the upper classes and the mass of the population
but also increased it further.

There was significant limitation of the educational policy of the colonial period

1. Priority given to higher education over primary education. The enrolment in

colleges and universities increased at a higher rate than in schools.
2. Modernization through education remained confined to the educated and elite
groups that ordinarily belonged to the upper castes. It hardly affected the mass of
the population.
3. However, the system of education introduced during the colonial rule had several
good points.
4. It gave a fundamentally different orientation to the educational system and laid
foundation of modern education in India.
5. Its content was liberal and modern. The teaching of several new branches of
learning such as science, technology and medicine created an environment
congenial for modernization.
6. The structure of educational institution was developed on professional lines. This
structure, which classified institutions under categories like primary schools, high
schools, college and university, continued even after the Independence.

Education in Indian Society has achieved amazing success during the last fifty-five
years. Its achievements, both in absolute and relative terms, have been remarkable. The
fact becomes more visible when we compare the present situation with the one existing
at the time of independence.We inherited an educational system which was largely
unrelated to national needs and aspiration. It was quantitatively small and qualitatively
poor. Only about 14 per cant of the country’s population were literate. Only one child
out of three had been enrolled in primary schools. In addition to low levels of enrolment
and literacy, regional and gender disparities were also very apparent The education
system faced problems of expansion, stagnation and wastage. It lacked
vocationalisation and had no relationship with the social and cultural needs of the
Indian society.

After the independence, it was recognized that education formed a vital aspect of the
modernization processes. Therefore, educational reform was accepted as an important
agenda of national development. A comprehensive constitutional and policy framework
was developed The successive Five-Year Plans augmented the goal by launching several
programmers of educational development.

We may assess the educational profile of India by first touching upon the literacy
scene.

1. In 1951, we had a literacy rate of 18.3 per cent which went up to 52.2 per cent in
the 1991 census. The rate of literacy, according to the 2001 census, was 65.38 per
cant.
2. While the literacy rate in the case of the male was 75.85 per cant, it was 54.16
per cent in the case of the female. It is apparent from these figures that there has
been unprecedented growth in the field of literacy in India.
3. The female literacy rate has increased by14.87 per cant as against 11.72 per cant
in the case of males. Such a remarkable progress in the rate of literacy has
primarily been due to two major factors. First, the government-sponsored
national campaign for literacy which has made tremendous impact As the scene
has been decentralized, its accountability has increased Second the considerable
involvement of Nongovernmental Organization (NGOs) which have made the
literacy campaign more flexible.
4. The expansion and the consolidation of elementary education have been equally
remarkable. Universalisation of Elementary Education (U.E.E.) has been accepted
as a national goal This programme envisages universal access, universal retention
and universal achievement.
5. Now, almost 94 per cant of country’s rural population have primary schools
within 1 km. At the upper primary stage 84 per cent of the rural population have
schools within a distance of 3 kins.
6. The enrolment at the primary stage has gone up from 42.60 per cant in 1950-51to
94.90 percent in 1999- 2000.Similarly, the number of primary and upper primary
schools has gone up from 2.23 lakh in 1950-51 to 8.39 lakh in 1999-2000 and the
number of teachers in these schools from 6.24 lakh in 1999-2000.
7. A new scheme called Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) has been launched to pursue
universal elementary education in mission mode. The goals of SSA are to send all
children in the age groups of 6-14 to school by 2003 so that they complete five
year of primary education by 2007 and complete eight year of schooling by 2010.
8. Secondary education acts as a bridge between elementary and higher education.
It prepares young persons of the age groups of 14-18 for entry into higher
education. There were 1.10 lakh secondary and senior secondary institutions in
1999 in the country. 272 lakh students were enrolled in these institutions, of
which 101 lakh were girls. In 1999, there were 15.42 lakh teachers in these
schools. The vocationlisation of secondary education has been implemented
since1998.
9. The expansion of institutions of higher education has also been exceptional. On
the eve of the independence the country had only18 universities. Now there are
259. There are 11,089 colleges and 119 autonomous colleges. The growth of
technical and professional institutions has been equally phenomenal. At present,
these are 7000 teacher education colleges,110 polytechnics, 600 management
institutes, 550 engineering and technology colleges and 170 medical colleges.
10.Apart from expansion and spread of education opportunities at different levels,
special emphasis has been put to improve the status of women through
education. It is believed that empowerment of women is a critical precondition
for their participation in the development processes. Girl child has now become a
target group. Similarly, educational development of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes has received added attention.
The educational scenario presented above quite evidently looks impressive, but actual
efforts have fallen far short of the goaL The National Policy on Education envisages that
free and compulsory education should be provided to all children up to the age of 14
years. This target of universalizing elementary education is yet to be achieved.

Social Change brought about in the Indian society by the spread of education :

1. The transition from ‘class education’ (education for a few+ to ‘mass education’
(education for all) has widened the scope of unlimited entry into the educational
system.
2. The groups and communities who were deprived of access to education have now
joined the national mainstream of development.
3. It has not only disseminated universal values such as equality and humanism but
it has also transmitted scientific world view. Education has been one of the most
important factors in transforming the outlook and attitude of the people.
4. The quantitative expansion of education has spread into every nook and corner of
the country. It has shaken the age-old inertia and indifference towards education.
The phenomenal growth of literacy and education among women is
unprecedented It has radically transformed their attitude and improved their
status within and outside the families. Their economic contribution has also
become conspicuous. The difference in attitude towards boys and girls is no
longer prevalent as before. Such a change in society’s attitude towards women s
role has enabled them to enter spheres of occupational activities that were
virtually closed to them.
5. As a result of the expansion of education, the degree of mobility among the
member of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes has considerably
increased The overall state of affairs, however, is not so encouraging in this
respect The problems associated with these disadvantaged groups have been so
deep rooted that their solution requires overhauling of the social system itself.
The national policy of providing equal opportunities as well as special
opportunities to the underprivileged classes has begun giving positive results.
Member of these communities have achieved considerable success in
education.The rate of literacy has increased and the enrolment in primary and
secondary schools has improved a great deal. Of course, their presence in higher
education is still very low. The upper castes continue to dominate almost all areas
of higher education.
6. It should be apparent by now that education has acted as a strange modernizing
force in Indian society. It is changing the world view of the people. The growth of
educational institutions based on the rational principle of science is itself an
expression of modernization.
7. Increasing urge for education among the deprived and the downtrodden reveals
change in their levels of aspirations. It has given an additional responsibility to the
education system. The education system till Independence catered to the needs
of the upper and the middle classes.A momentous change has occurred in this
situation after Independence. A large number of lower caste children have
 entered educational institutions at all levels. Their aspiration and abilities being
different, a new orientation is necessary to find out their talents and capacity so
that their educational needs can be fulfilled.
8. Levels and the degree of mobility have also been influenced by education. Studies
in India suggest that mobility at the level of caste generally operates in the socio-
cultural domains and in respect of pollution and purity. Such changes are,
however, reflected through changes in customs, practices, occupations,
education and income of particular groups.Although these changes do not bring
large scale change in the structure of stratification, some families or groups of
families may raise their status within their own castes and in relation to some
other castes. What we are trying to emphasize is that, education has played an
important role in effecting mobility at the individual level which is gradually
spreading out to the group level.
9. Increase in the number of caste-free occupations is thoroughly the result of
educational progress in the country. Education is a major element in the honour
assigned to occupations. It plays a major role in determining what occupation one
will achieve and, in turn, the level of one’s income.

Ambedkar’s view on Education and social change. Ambedkar believed that education
would greatly contribute to improvement of untouchables. He always exhorted his
followers to reach excellence in the field of knowledge. Knowledge is liberating force.
Education makes man enlightened makes him aware of this self respect and also help
his to lead a better life materially one of the cases of the degradation of untouchables
was that they ware denied the right to education.Ambedkar criticized the British policy
on education for not adequately encouraging education among the lower castes. He felt
that even under the British rule education continued mainly to be an upper caste
monopoly. Therefore he mobilized the lower castes and the untouchables and funded
various centers of learning while a labour member in the executive council of the
governor-general he was instrumental in extending scholarships for education abroad to
the untouchable to undergo both liberal education and technical education. He was
particularly opposed to education under religions auspices. He warned that only secular
education could instill the values of liberty and equality among the students.

CRITIQUE :
However, as we move away from the spectacular gains of education in India since
Independence we are confronted with the problem which the Indian system of
education is facing today. The problems of standard content and the social purpose of
education are basic to our system of education. Several sociologists like

A.R. Desai S.C. Dube, M.S. Gore, K. Ahmad and A.B. Shah etc., have focused upon the
issue of education as an instrument for social reconstruction and modernization.

1. Ahmad has said that although formal education can play a vital role in ‘ideational’
change through transformation of knowledge, attitudes and values of the people,
its effectiveness in bringing about structural changes in society is extremely
 limited This is because of the linkages between the existing practices and
procedures in education and vested interests.
2. A.R. Desai too, has questioned the validity of education as an instrument of social
change. His contention is that after independence, education has not been
purposively geared to obtain the desired changes. He has criticized the policies
and funding and financing of education to attain the goals of social mobility and
equality. To support Desai, we can give the example of education of SCs, STs,
women and the minorities which has failed in uplifting their status. The
unemployment and under-employment of uneducated youth is another example
of failure of education for achieving the aspirations of youths. The failure to
achieve development of the rural areas and alleviating poverty is yet another
example. Unless the pattern set by the prevailing distribution of power is broken
and there is a tilt in the policies towards the poor, it will be difficult to find
resources for the necessary transformation. Change in higher education is also
necessary for social change.
3. M. S. Gore has pointed out the necessity of change in the content and methods of
education in the environment and context in which it is conducted and in the
convictions and the commitment of teachers and administrators responsible for
education for the effectiveness of education in achieving the required
development.
4. Some empirical studies have been conducted in India on the relationship between
education and modernization. One such study was conducted by the NCERT in
Delhi covering eight states. These studies described the extent to which the
attitudes, aspirations and outlook of school and college students and teachers in
the country have ‘modernized’. Modernization in these studies was measured in
terms of an adaptation of a scale developed by Alex Inkles. The results pointed
out low effect of education on modernization. Students continue to be traditional
in matters of family life, etc.
5. Yogendra Singh conducted a study into the implications of attitudes and values of
teachers in Rajasthan University to modernization. This study measured the levels
of aspirations, commitment, morale and authoritarianism among university
teachers with a view to understanding how the role structures and value systems
of teachers affect their role as agents of modernization. He found significant
relationships between the two and thus held that teacher’s values influence the
modernization of students. These issues have to be seriously debated and
remedies evolved to make the system more effective and persuasive. As the
nation has accepted the significance of education for the social and economic
development of the country, its educational planning has to move in this
direction. The report of the India Education Commission, entitled Education and
National Development, forcefully stated, “Education cannot be considered in
isolation or planned in a vaccuum. It has to be used as a powerful instrument of
social, economic and political change”

Education as a means to social change

Nelson Mandela once said, ‘Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to
change the world.’ Over the centuries, leaders, thinkers and revolutionaries around the
globe have believed in the power of education to catalyse social change.

Social change is triggered when the complex web of human relations and interactions
undergoes a mental transformation. It’s when we, as a society, disregard viewpoints
propped up by ignorance to accept new ways of life, and education plays a vital part in
ushering in this change. Acceptance is the key to social change, and acceptance comes
through knowledge. And educational reforms modernise human perspective, broadening
our minds enough for us to envision a better future. fairer

Impact Of Global Mentors

Mentors too have a duty in connecting the finest institutions (like the Ivy Leagues) to high
schools. The term mentor reportedly owes its origins to the Odyssey, where ‘Mentor’ was
a character who performed the role of a teacher to Homer’s son. Today, mentors hold the
same value, sharing world perspectives with their students and acting as stimuli for social
change. From Civil Reforms to Women’s Rights to LGBTQ Rights, mentors have played a
crucial part in enlightening the masses about the need for these reforms, and we can
observe the changes that have taken place in their wake.

The advent of the Internet allowed the world’s citizens to connect beyond borders, and
access information at their fingertips. Global mentors have leveraged this opportunity to
share knowledge across countries and help bridge cultural and social gaps, while alongside
imparting quality international education to students. And when it comes to teaching,
these mentors equip themselves with a more holistic approach, and hence are capable of
providing a broader view of the issues faced by society today.

Hubs have been created that connect global mentors to high-school students worldwide.
This network helps students understand social impact, and how societies are adapting to a
changing world. Keeping the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDG) in
mind, these mentors train students to identify issues in their localities, inspiring the young
women and men towards solving them and bringing positive change, thus sparking social
transformation at a local level.

Youngsters Sparking Social Change Through International Education

Such programmes succeed once the mentors make way for the students to take over, and
become the change societies need.
A retrogressive society lacks suitable education systems, pushing it even further into the
grip of backward beliefs, social conflicts and poverty. But the life-changing quality of
education helps eradicate regressive practices and pave the way to progress, and towards
building societies in which all relationships are founded on respect. And the Covid-19
pandemic opened up digital avenues for learning, allowing students to pursue education
from universities outside their home countries.

International educational set-ups have long possessed the power to influence youngsters
by exposing them to global cultures, high standards of living, and, of course, advanced
curricula that hold relevance in an ever-changing world. In such an environment, students
learn to challenge orthodox pedagogies and untether themselves from conformist
mindsets, the better to discover and make sense of a world in flux. These youngsters, our
next generation, are the change-makers who will bring change to society, a change that
befits our times.

Meanwhile, initiatives such as the Take the World Forward fellowship, The Passion Project:
Young Achievers Program, Compassionate Leaders Dream Lab, Policy Making and
International Relations, etc., aid in creating a platform for high-school students to take
control of their future. They inculcate skills to shape confident and motivated leaders of
tomorrow, while offering global networking opportunities for students to connect, share,
explore and learn.

Education in a cosmopolitan environment—influenced, for instance, by the forward-

looking reputation of Ivy Leagues—can nurture holistic perspectives that fashion a
forward-looking society. Programmes that keep this objective in mind strive to build world
citizens who follow best practices to solve problems and generate positive
transformations ‘glocally.’

In Conclusion

Education can help us embrace social change by cultivating a positive outlook and
broadening our thinking. Further, it can initiate behavioural change and prompt a shift in
attitude in people, allowing them to contribute constructively towards the growth of a
progressive and tolerant society.

Science Technology and Social Change

Commenting on the role of technology in social change, Ogburn writes “Technology
changes society by changing our environment to which we in turn, adapt. This change
is usually in the material environment and the adjustment we make with”.
………. Technology affects society greatly in that a variation in technology causes a
variation in some institution or custom. The introduction of machine technology as a
result of the discovery of the new sources of energy has had such far-reaching
consequences that it is often described as a “revolution.”

Invention and discovery are significant characteristics of our age. The present age is
often called the “age of power”, the “scientific age.” It has been well said that, “the
most novel and pervasive phenomenon of our age is not capitalism but mechanization,
of which modern capitalism may be merely a by-product.” Mechanization has changed
not only the economic structure of society but has also led to a steady devaluation of
old forms of social organisation and old ideologies.

Our attitudes, beliefs and traditions have crumbled before technological advance. The
spirit of craftsmanship, the divine ordering of social classes, traditions regarding the
spheres of the sexes, the prestige of birth all have felt the shock of
mechanization. ……….Take a familiar example of the status of women in the industrial
age. Industrialism has destroyed the domestic system of production, brought women
from the home to the factory and the office and distinguished their earnings. It has
meant a new social life for women. The invention of gunpowder changed the very
technique of war.

1. Standardization of goods, an evident consequence of modern technology, has

made possible not only cheap production of goods but highly organized,
efficient, mass distribution of goods. The textile plant has brought about
organisation of labour, and a complicated system of production and distribution.
Increased productive efficiency in industry released a considerable proportion of
the population for service functions. A large body of men, such as engineers,
bookkeepers, buyers of raw material and sellers of finished products, not actually
engaged in doing production work grew.
2. Changes in production and trade posed new problems of political
regulation. The functions of law expanded. The number of law-makers, of
bureaucrats to apply the law, of lawyers to interpret the laws increased. The
application of science to industry, agriculture and health gave rise to a host of
new service activities. The industrial worker went down in social status and the
social functionaries rose to a high status. If we just look around us we will realize
the enormous change that is going on in society owing to technological
inventions.
3. The most spectacular invention of our age, the atomic energy, has vastly
influenced our life. As an agent of war it brought about the most appalling
annihilation of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As an agent of peace it may
bring an unprecedented era of plenty and prosperity. We can see how the
automobile expands the range of social relationships and reduces the communal
character of the neighborhood.
4. The rise of standard of living, the transformation of class structures and of class
standards, the rise of middle class, the undermining of local folkways and the
disintegration of the neighborhood, the breaking up of the old family system,
the increasing dominance of urban ways over those of the country, the
improvement in the conditions of women: the birth of new conceptions and
 movements like communism and socialism, are the result of the changes in
production technology. Men have grown pragmatic in their philosophies. They
are more devoted to quantity than to quality, to measurement than to
appreciation. Their attitude is mechanistic. The life of reflection is at a discount.
5. Changes in the agricultural techniques have affected the rural community. With
the invention of new agricultural tools and chemical manures, agricultural
production has increased there by raising the standard of living of the rural
people. Fewer people are now needed for agriculture. Consequently many
agricultural labourers have shifted to cities to find employment.
6. Not only the techniques by which the members of a society produce the
necessities of life have changed effecting a change in the social relationship, the
changes in the means of communication also have affected social life
greatly. Changes in the techniques by which modern communication devices are
produced, have the same social implications as do the changes in the production
technology. But changes in communication devices have additional implication
because the uses to which they are put have by themselves profound social
significance.
7. The basic function of all communication devices is the conquest of time and
space. The techniques of communication limit the scope, and to a considerable
extent the character, of the organizations that man can
develop. Communication is an important factor determining our social life. Its
techniques definitely limit the kind of organized life that a people can have. The
primary techniques of communication are speech and gesture since these
techniques provide the base upon which all other modes of communication are
built. Writing is speech put in graphic form; radio communication is the
transportation of speech through space. Gestural and linguistic differences are a
significant deterrent to the growth of intimacy and understanding between
people of different societies and groups. Alphabetical writing is superior to
ideographic writing, the first form of graphic symbolization in point of historical
developments. A flexible and simple system of writing permits the rise of
secondary forms of political organisation. Where men are wholly dependent upon
primary techniques of communication, no enduring, complex and highly
integrated organisation can exist. The alphabetical writing facilitates the invention
and diffusion of cultural elements
8. .The invention of the printing press made possible for the first time in human
history comparatively cheap and easy reproduction of cheap matter. The rise of
science was in large measure stimulated by the development of the printing
press. The recording and printing of scientific findings has resulted in the
accumulation of locally unusable knowledge. The printed records have thus
become a storehouse of wisdom upon which the would be inventor can draw at
will.
9. The printed word also makes for a wide and rapid diffusion of inventions and
discoveries within the members of a society and between societies. It gives to
many what would otherwise have been the monopoly of the few. The rapidity,
with which cultural changes have been occurring in modern age can be attributed
 to the greatly increased use of the printed word as a means of communication.
The press has influenced entertainment, education, politics and trade. It has
brought to the country dweller knowledge of the urban life and has often led him
to want the things of the city or go to the city.
10.Similarly, the invention of radio, telegraph and telephone has influenced the
business, recreation, public opinion and furthered the development of new
modes of organisation. Ogburn has listed 150 both immediate and distant social
effects of radio on uniformity and diffusion of culture, recreation and
entertainment, transport, education, dissemination of information, religion,
industry and business, occupations, government and politics and on other
inventions.
11.The changes in the modes of transportation have variously affected our social
relationships. Transportation is the physical conquest of space. The methods
and means of transportation determine how easily men can move themselves
and how easily they can meet peoples of other places or other societies to
exchange goods or ideas. The importance of transportation in modern social life
can hardly be stressed. Modern man lives so much on wheels that he would not
be able to live in suburbs and work in the city were it not for the local transport,
that he could not leave home for the station with only a few minutes to spare
were it not for the automobile, that he could not use many a thing for breakfast
were it not for the ships and trains that tie the many places of the world together
commercially. If the wheels of transportation were to stop for a single day, the
life of the modern society would be put out of gears.
12.Transportation is an important factor in the determination of spatial aspect of
social relationships. As the means of transportation have changed, the spatial
relationships of the members of the group have also changed. The rapid means of
transportation now available have encouraged the growth of intercontinental
trade and the interdependence of countries. The intermixing of people belonging
to various countries led to the removal of much of misunderstanding and feeling
of hatred and jealousy were replaced by sympathy and co-operation. This assisted
in the progress of the sense of universal brotherhood.
13.The latest invention in the field of transport, the airplanes have brought swift
delivery of good. The growth of cities with their consequent problems of urban
life is another important result of the development of the means of
transport. There is a greater mobility of population today in which the modern
rapid means of mobility of population today in which the modern rapid means of
transport have played an important part. They have broken the barriers to
cultural isolation. A people, who because of physical isolation are culturally
isolated, may under the modern means of transportation technology become a
host for all the world.
14.The new modes of transportation have played significant role in the diffusion of
cultural elements. The steamship, the railroad, the automobile and the aeroplane
may, in short, be regarded along with the printing press and the radio as devices
that have lessened cultural isolation and paved the way for cultural uniformity.
The transportation developments of the past few centuries, most especially of the
 hundred years just past, have played a vital role in the economic integration of
the peoples of regions, of nations and of the world at large, though social
integration is yet to develop.
15.Family ties have broken and there is a movement away from family and
community loyalty, to a movement towards individualism. They have also
intensified social and psychological uprootedness. They have promoted
hedonism. Individualism has supplanted traditionalism. Bureaucracy has grown in
number and power. Human relations have become impersonal and secondary.
16.It may also be noted that when an invention has an influence on some
institution or custom, the influence does not stop there but continues on and
on. Ogburn gives us an example to explain the point. The influence of the cotton
gin in the United States was to increase the planting of cotton, since it could be
processed more quickly and with less labour. But cotton production could not be
increased without more labour, so additional Negroes were brought from
outside; and slavery grew very rapidly. The increase in slavery was a second
derivative influence of the cotton gin. The increase in slavery led to the Civil War,
the third derivative influence of the cotton gin.
17.However, as explained by Ogburn, the addition of the gin should not be
regarded as the sole cause of slavery system and civil war which were caused by
many other factors. Therefore, to get a correct picture of the influence of
invention it should be noted that a given invention is only one of the several
factors producing a particular result and similarly the primary result of an
invention is itself one of many factors producing the secondary derivative
influence. It is common knowledge that a social phenomenon is almost never
produced by one factor alone.
18.The derivative influences of inventions become often quite slight when the
second and third derivatives are reached. The influence of the inventions
producing cheap fibres in breaking down class barriers through the cheapness
and abundance of fibres is overshadowed by other factors. Indeed we should not
go too far in tracing the influence of a single invention of distant derivatives.
19.When a number of inventions converge or accumulate on the same place, their
influence becomes significant. Manufacturing, transport and communication
inventions, like factory machines, the electric railway, the telephone, the radio,
the cinema brought about the city. These inventions are all very different material
objects and have different uses, yet all are centred as one result, namely, the
creation of cities, whatever may be other purposes they serve. The purpose of the
telephone inventor was not to create the cities, nor was that the aim of the
maker of electric railway. But the social forces have grooved the uses of these
inventions to aid the development of cities.
20.Just as a single invention has a derivative effect, similarly, a group of converging
inventions may jointly have a derivative effect. Thus, the growth of urban
communities, a more or less direct effect of manufacturing, communication and
transportation inventions, posed such technological problems as that of providing
safe and efficient means of artificial lighting. The development of modern lighting
technology led to the development of kerosene. A bye-produce of the distillation
 of kerosene was gasoline which was a tempting source of power and led to the
invention of internal combustion motor. Around the internal combustion motor
was developed the entire automobile complex. And as developments in lighting
technology reduced the demand for kerosene, the surplus kerosene encouraged
further developments in technology. It was converted into gasoline and led to the
production of better motor fuels. The motors using this fuel were devised.
21.Thus changes in one system of technology have led to changes in other
systems. Moreover, the city is the cause of crime; family disintegration, suicide,
ugliness and expanding State control. The social workers need keep this point in
view that crime a phenomenon of city life, in fact flows from the power invention
that made the cities. Many of the evils of city life are truly the effects of the
newer transportation and communication inventions of the twentieth century.

Thorsten Veblen has summarized the impact of the technology in terms of following
points:

1. Impact on social life:

 Individuality
 Problems of housing
 Disparity of sex ratio
 Crime, corruption and competition.
 Decline of community life
 Psychic conflict and disease
2. Impact on family life:
 Disorganization of joint family
 Employment of women
 Decrease in the function of the family
 Love, inter-caste, late marriage and divorce
3. Impact of economic life:
 Development of capitalism
 Large scale production and development trade
 Division of labour and specialization
 Economic depression and employment
 Higher standard of living
 Industrial dispute, disease and accident
4. Impact on religion:
 Secularization
5. Impact on rural society:
 Migration
 Agricultural Development
 Mechanization of Agriculture
 New Class Formation