Sociology

Module 11

Theoretical perspective Major assumptions

A theoretical viewpoint—or simply a & quot;theory & quot;—is more than just an
opinion. Instead, it is a time-tested and reviewed structural framework, explanation,
or instrument. Through scholarship, investigation, argument, and discussion,
theories are created and put to use. Theories aid in our understanding of the world in
general and, in this case, the formation, operation, interaction, and experience of
families in the world. The various techniques used by social sciences to quantify and
evaluate patterns and themes in human nature and conduct are known as theoretical
perspectives. Theoretical perspectives – basic assumptions, how society functions,
role of sociology in the application of specific sets of theories studying social life.
Macro and Micro Approaches Macro sociologists place their emphasis on the overall
picture, which typically includes things like social structure, social institutions, and
social, political, and economic change. They examine the expansive social dynamics
that impact people's lives and the development of human society. On the other side,
micro sociologists research social interaction. They examine the interactions among
families, employees, and other small groups of people, the reasons for such
interactions, and how individuals perceive the implications of their own interactions
and the social contexts in which they find themselves. The same phenomenon is
frequently examined by both macro- and micro sociologists, although in distinct
methods. Together, both points of view provide a more comprehensive knowledge of
the phenomenon than either perspective can provide on its own. Evolutionary
perspective. The foundation of evolutionary perspective is based on the work of the
following thinkers ; ibn-i-khaldun, Herbert Spencer and Ferdinand Tonnies. The
foundation of evolutionary theory is the idea that societies evolve gradually from
simple to sophisticated forms. They believed that social change represented
progress towards a better society. The & quot;father of sociology," Auguste
Comte, supported the evolutionary theory. This thesis holds that society always
progresses to "higher levels." Societies go from being simple to being
more complex, just like creatures do. Societies that fail to adapt quickly enough will
suffer. The Darwinian concepts of evolution and natural selection are used by the
evolutionary perspective to explain how gender differences develop. People who are
fertile, able to procreate, and capable of raising their progeny will successfully pass
on their traits to the following generation. Herbert Spencer is one of the evolutionary
social thinkers, according to his theory of “social evolution ” societies have a life
cycle similar to living organisms, after passing through stages i.e birth , development
and evolution; societies die too like living organisms. Herbert Spencer theory of
“social evolution ” is inspired from Charles Darwin theory of “Evolution ”, which is a
biological theory , focused on organic Evolution .The classical perspective of
evolution does not currently have a significant impact on the development of
Discipline. Functionalism, also known as the functionalist perspective, arose out of
two great revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. The first was the French
Revolution of 1789, whose intense violence and bloody terror shook Europe to its
core. The aristocracy throughout Europe feared that revolution would spread to their
own lands, and intellectuals feared that social order was crumbling.
The Industrial Revolution of the 19th century reinforced these concerns. Starting first
in Europe and then in the United States, the Industrial Revolution led to many
changes, including the rise and growth of cities as people left their farms to live near
factories. As the cities grew, people lived in increasingly poor, crowded, and decrepit
conditions. One result of these conditions was mass violence, as mobs of the poor
roamed the streets of European and American cities. They attacked bystanders,
destroyed property, and generally wreaked havoc. Here was additional evidence, if
European intellectuals needed it, of the breakdown of social order. In response, the
intellectuals began to write that a strong society, as exemplified by strong
social bonds and rules and effective socialisation, was needed to prevent social
order from disintegrating (Collins, 1994). In this regard, their view was similar to that
of the 20th- century novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding (1954), which many
college students read in high school. Some British boys are stranded on an island
after a plane crash. No longer supervised by adults and no longer in a society as
they once knew it, they are not sure how to proceed and come up with new rules for
their behaviour. These rules prove ineffective, and the boys slowly become savages,
as the book calls them, and commit murder. However bleak, Golding’s view echoes
that of the conservative intellectuals writing in the aftermath of the French and
Industrial Revolutions. Without a strong society and effective socialisation, they
warned, social order breaks down, and violence and other signs of social disorder
result. This general framework reached fruition in the writings of Émile Durkheim
(1858–1917), a French scholar who is largely responsible for the sociological
perspective as we now know it. Adopting the conservative intellectuals’ view of the
need for a strong society, Durkheim felt that human beings have desires that result in
chaos unless society limits them. He wrote, “To achieve any other result, the
passions first must be limited.…But since the individual has no way of limiting them,
this must be done by some force exterior to him” This force, Durkheim continued, is
the moral authority of society. How does society limit individual aspirations?
Durkheim emphasised two related social mechanisms: socialisation and social
integration. Socialisation helps us learn society’s rules and the need to cooperate, as
people end up generally agreeing on important norms and values, while social
integration, or our ties to other people and to social institutions such as religion and
the family, helps socialise us and integrate us into society and reinforce our respect
for its rules. In general, Durkheim added, society comprises many types of social
facts, or forces external to the individual, that affect and constrain individual attitudes
and behaviour. The result is that socialisation and social integration help establish a
strong set of social rules—or, as Durkheim called it, a strong collective
conscience—that is needed for a stable society. By so doing, society “creates a kind
of cocoon around the individual, making him or her less individualistic, more a
member of the group” (Collins, 1994, p. 181). Weak rules or social ties weaken this
“moral cocoon” and lead to social disorder. In all of these respects, says Randall
Collins (1994, p. 181), Durkheim’s view represents the “core tradition” of sociology
that lies at the heart of the sociological perspective. Émile Durkheim was a founder
of sociology and largely responsible for the sociological perspective as we now know
it. Durkheim used suicide to illustrate how social disorder can result from a
weakening of society’s moral cocoon. Focusing on group rates of suicide, he felt they
could not be explained simply in terms of individual unhappiness and instead
resulted from external forces. One such force is anomie, or normlessness, which
results from situations, such as periods of rapid social change, when social norms
are weak and unclear or social ties are weak. When anomie sets in, people become
more unclear about how to deal with problems in their life. Their aspirations are no
longer limited by society’s constraints and thus cannot be fulfilled. The frustration
stemming from anomie leads some people to commit suicide (Durkheim,
1897/1952). To test his theory, Durkheim gathered suicide rate data and found that
Protestants had higher suicide rates than Catholics. To explain this difference, he
rejected the idea that Protestants were less happy than Catholics and instead
hypothesised that Catholic doctrine provides many more rules for behaviour and
thinking than does Protestant doctrine. Protestants’ aspirations were thus less
constrained than Catholics’ desires. In times of trouble, Protestants
also have fewer norms on which to rely for comfort and support than do Catholics.
He also thought that Protestants’ ties to each other were weaker than those among
Catholics, providing Protestants fewer social support networks to turn to when
troubled. In addition, Protestant belief is ambivalent about suicide, while Catholic
doctrine condemns it. All of these properties of religious group membership combine
to produce higher suicide rates among Protestants than among Catholics.
Today’s functionalist perspective arises out of Durkheim’s work and that of other
conservative intellectuals of the 19th century. It uses the human body as a model for
understanding society. In the human body, our various organs and other body parts
serve important functions for the ongoing health and stability of our body. Our eyes
help us see, our ears help us hear, our heart circulates our blood, and so forth. Just
as we can understand the body by describing and understanding the functions that
its parts serve for its health and stability, so can we understand society by describing
and understanding the functions that its “parts”—or, more accurately, its social
institutions—serve for the ongoing health and stability of society. Thus functionalism
emphasises the importance of social institutions such as the family, religion, and
education for producing a stable society. We look at these institutions in later
chapters. Similar to the view of the conservative intellectuals from which it grew,
functionalism is sceptical of rapid social change and other major social upheaval.
The analogy to the human body helps us understand this scepticism. In our bodies,
any sudden, rapid change is a sign of danger to our health. If we break a bone in one
of our legs, we have trouble walking; if we lose sight in both our eyes, we can no
longer see. Slow changes, such as the growth of our hair and our nails are fine and
even normal, but sudden changes like those just described are obviously
troublesome. By analogy, sudden and rapid changes in society and its social
institutions are troublesome according to the functionalist perspective. If the human
body evolved to its present form and functions because these made sense from an
evolutionary perspective, so did society evolve to its present form and functions
because these made sense. Any sudden change in society thus threatens its stability
and future. By taking a sceptical approach to social change, functionalism supports
the status quo and is thus often regarded as a conservative perspective. Social
stability is necessary to have a strong society, and adequate socialisation and social
Integration is necessary to achieve social stability. Society’s social institutions
perform important functions to help ensure social stability. Slow social change is
desirable, but rapid Social change threatens social order. Functionalism is a macro
theory. According to the functionalist perspective of sociology, each aspect of society
is interdependent and contributes to societies stability and functioning as a whole.
For example, the government provides education for the children of the family, which
in turn pays taxes on which the state depends on to keep itself running. That is, the
family is dependent upon the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so
that they can raise and support their own families. In the process, the children
become law-abiding, tax paying citizens, who in turn support the state. Social
stability is necessary to have a strong society, and adequate Socialisation and social
integration are necessary to achieve social stability. Society’s social institutions
perform important functions to help ensure social stability. Slow social change is
desirable, but rapid social change threatens social order. Functionalism is a macro
theory.If all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and productivity. If
all does not go well, the parts of society then must adapt to recapture a new order,
stability, and productivity. For example, during a financial recession with its high rates
of unemployment and inflation, social programs are trimmed or cut. Schools offer
fewer programs. Families tighten their budgets. And a new social order, stability, and
productivity occur. Functionalists believe that society is held together by social
consensus, in which members of the society agree upon, and work together to
achieve, what is best for society as a whole. This stands apart from the other two
main sociological perspectives: symbolic interactionism, which focuses on how
people act according to their interpretations of the meaning of their
world, and conflict theory, which focuses on the negative, conflicted, ever-changing
nature of society. Functionalism has received criticism for neglecting the negative
functions of an event, such as divorce. Critics also claim that the perspective justifies
the status quo and complacency on the part of society's members. Functionalism
does not encourage people to take an active role in changing their social
environment, even when such change may benefit them. Instead, functionalism sees
active social change as undesirable because the various parts of society will
compensate naturally for any problems that may arise.
Conflict Perspectives. The conflict perspective describes the disparities that exist in
all civilizations around the world and sees elements of society as means for those in
positions of power and prestige to maintain control over limited resources.
According to the conflict theory, which was first put forth by Karl Marx, society is
constantly at war with one another over scarce resources. According to conflict
theory, dominance and power, rather than consensus and compliance, are what
keep social order in place. Conflict theory holds that people who are rich and
powerful want to maintain their position by any means necessary, most notably
through repressing the weak and helpless. Conflict theory's fundamental tenet is that
members of society will compete with one another to gain the most wealth and
influence possible. According to the conflict theory, which was first put forth by Karl
Marx, society is constantly at war with one another over scarce resources. In many
ways, conflict theory is the opposite of functionalism but ironically also grew out of
the Industrial Revolution, thanks largely to Karl Marx (1818–1883) and his
collaborator, Friedrich Engels (1820–1895). Whereas conservative intellectuals
feared the mass violence resulting from industrialization, Marx and Engels deplored
the conditions they felt were responsible for the mass violence and the capitalist
society they felt was responsible for these conditions. Instead of fearing the
breakdown of social order that mass violence represented, they felt that
revolutionary violence was needed to eliminate capitalism and the poverty and
misery they saw as its inevitable result. Based on conflict theory, socioeconomic
class, gender, and other factors contribute to pervasive inequality in society. To
lessen or completely eradicate socioeconomic inequality and establish an equitable
society, extensive societal transformation is required. A macro theory is conflict
theory.Major other proponents include Lewis Coser, C.W.Mills. It can be summarised
that the conflict perspective is concerned with the kinds of changes that conflict
brings.Conflict includes tension , hostility, competition, disagreement etc.Radical and
activist because of its emphasis on social change and redistribution of resources.
Interactionist perspective Based on the fact that interaction is the basis of social life.
Social world can be understood by the viewpoint of individuals who act within it.
Weber-individual acts according to the interpretation of the meaning of their world.
Interactionism in sociology is a theoretical perspective in which society is thought to
be a product of the everyday social interactions among millions of people. Instead of
looking at a social system on a larger scale, such as the entire population of a
country or third world countries, interactionism focuses on smaller- scale social
interactions, such as the interactions between individuals or small social groups.
George Herbert Mead, Max Weber, and Herbert Blumer have all made several
contributions to the interactionism theory.
Goffman’s –Dramaturgical approach
G.Homan’s –exchange approach
Garfinkel’s-ethno methodological approach
G.H.Mead’s –symbolic interaction
Interactionism in sociology focuses on the way that we act, or make conscious
choices regarding our behaviour that proceed from how we interpret situations. In
other words, humans are not simply reacting to social stimuli: we are social actors
and must adjust our behaviour based on the actions of other social actors.
Interactionism in sociology examines how different social actors make sense of or
interpret the behaviour of those around us. This information can be used to
understand the social construction of the world, which is focused on not only the
meanings that we give to behaviour, but also how we interpret the meanings of
behaviour. For example, suppose that we were driving along a road when a truck
speeds by us going 20 miles per hour over the speed limit. We would interpret that
behaviour as being wrong and illegal since the car was breaking the speed limit.
Now let's say that we heard a siren and saw that the truck was actually a red fire
truck going to put out a fire. Then we would interpret This behaviour as acceptable
given the fact that the fire truck has a good reason for breaking the speed limit.
Interactionism is also concerned with the social context in which our interactions take
place. The social context not only plays an important role in the way in which we
interpret others behaviour but also how we choose to behave ourselves at any given
moment. Interactionism is a theoretical perspective that sees social behaviour as an
interactive product of the individual and the situation…This perspective studies the
ways in which individuals shape, and are shaped by, society through their
interactions.

Interactionism is a theoretical viewpoint in sociology that believes social processes

(including conflict, collaboration, and identity development) result from human
contact. These perspectives researchers examine how people behave in social
settings and hold that human interactions are the source of meaning. The reason for
gender stratification, according to interactionists, is that people react to one another
based on the meanings they assign to one another. According to interactionists,
humans manage and modify these meanings through an interpretive process in
order to make sense of and manage the objects that make up their social worlds.
They contend that these meanings are generated through social interaction.
Goffman and Control In E.Goffman ’s –”Dramaturgical approach’’-social life to
theatre-people play different roles. Social interaction is a face-to-face process that
consists of actions, reactions, and mutual adaptation between two or more
individuals. The goal of social interaction is to communicate with others. Social
interaction includes all language, including body language and mannerisms. Erving
Goffman, one of the forefathers of this theoretical perspective,
emphasised the importance of control in social interactions. According to Goffman,
during an interaction, individuals will attempt to control the behaviour of the other
participants, in order to obtain needed information, and in order to control the
perception of one’s own image. If the interaction is in danger of ending before an
individual wants it to, it can be conserved through
several steps. One conversational partner can conform to the expectations of the
other, he or She can ignore certain incidents, or he or she can solve apparent
problems.
Symbolic Interactionism
G.H.Mead-in Symbolic interaction –people attach meanings to symbols and then act
according to their subjective interpretation of these symbols.Symbolic interactionism
perspective views that people construct their roles as they interact; they do not
merely learn the roles that society has set out for them. As this interaction occurs,
individuals negotiate their definitions of the situations in which they find themselves
and socially construct the reality of these situations. In doing so, they rely heavily on
symbols such as words and gestures to reach a shared understanding of their
interaction. Symbolic interactionism is a micro theory. Whereas the functionalist and
conflict perspectives are macro approaches, symbolic interactionism is a micro
approach that focuses on the interaction of individuals and on how they interpret
their interaction. Its roots lie in the work in the early 1900s of American
sociologists, social psychologists, and philosophers who were interested in human
consciousness and action. Symbolic interactionism aims to understand human
behaviour by analysing the critical role of symbols in human interaction. This is
certainly relevant to the discussion of masculinity and femininity, because the
characteristics and practices of both are socially constructed, reproduced, and
reinforced through daily interactions. Imagine, for example, that you walk
into a bank, hoping to get a small loan for school, a home, or a small business
venture. If you meet with a male loan officer, you might state your case logically,
listing all of the hard numbers that make you a qualified applicant for the loan. This
type of approach would appeal to the analytical characteristics typically associated
with masculinity. If you meet with a female loan officer, on the other hand, you might
make an emotional appeal, by stating your positive social intentions. This type of
approach would appeal to the sensitive and relational characteristics typically
associated with femininity.

Gender as Performance
The meanings attached to symbols are socially created and fluid, instead of natural
and static. Because of this, we act and react to symbols based on their current
assigned meanings. Both masculinity and femininity are performed gender
identities, in the sense that gender is something we do or perform, not something we
are. In response to this phenomena, the sociologist Charles H. Cooley developed the
theory of the “looking-glass self” (1902). In this theory, Cooley argued that an
individual’s perception of himself or herself is based primarily on how society views
him or her. In the context of gender, if society perceives a man as masculine, that
man will consider himself as masculine. Thus, when people perform tasks
or possess characteristics based on the gender role assigned to them, they are said
to be doing gender (rather than “being” gender), a notion first coined by West and
Zimmerman (1987). West & Zimmerman emphasised that gender is maintained
through accountability. Men and women are expected to perform their gender to the
point that it is naturalised, and thus, their status depends on their performance.
Scholars of interactionism study how individuals act within society and believe that
meaning is produced through interactions.
According to interactionists, gender stratification exists because people act toward
each other on the basis of the meanings they have for each other, and that these
meanings are derived from social interaction. Herbert Blumer (1969), a sociologist at
the University of Chicago, built on their writings to develop symbolic interactionism, a
term he coined. This view remains popular today, in part because many sociologists
object to what they perceive as the overly deterministic view of human thought and
action and passive view of the individual inherent in the sociological perspective
derived from Durkheim.Drawing on Blumer’s work, symbolic interactionists feel
that people do not merely learn the roles that society has set out for them; instead
they construct these roles as they interact. As they interact, they “negotiate” their
definitions of the situations in which they find themselves and socially construct the
reality of these situations. In so doing, they rely heavily on symbols such as words
and gestures to reach a shared understanding of their interaction. An example is the
familiar symbol of shaking hands. In the United States and many other
societies, shaking hands is a symbol of greeting and friendship. This simple act
indicates that you are a nice, polite person with whom someone should feel
comfortable. To reinforce this symbol’s importance for understanding a bit of
interaction, consider a situation where someone refuses to shake hands. This action
is usually intended as a sign of dislike or as an insult, and the other person interprets
it as such. Their understanding of the situation and subsequent interaction will be
very different from those arising from the more typical shaking of hands. Now let’s
say that someone does not shake hands, but this time the reason is that the person’s
my right arm is broken. Because the other person realises this, no snub or insult is
inferred, and the two people can then proceed to have a comfortable encounter.
Their definition of the situation depends not only on whether they shake hands but
also, if they do not shake hands, on why they do not. As the term symbolic
interactionism implies, their understanding of this encounter arises from what they do
when they interact and their use and interpretation of the various symbols included in
their interaction. According to symbolic interactionists, social order is possible
because people learn what various symbols (such as shaking hands) mean
and apply these meanings to different kinds of situations. If you visited a society
where sticking your right hand out to greet someone was interpreted as a threatening
gesture, you would quickly learn the value of common understanding of symbols.
G.Homans ’s-Exchange approach –control one another’s behaviour by exchanging
various forms of rewards and punishments. Garfinkel-Ethnomethodology-attempt to
find out how people themselves understand the routines of daily life.
Comparing Macro and Micro Perspectives This brief presentation of the four major
theoretical perspectives in sociology is necessarily incomplete but should at least
outline their basic points. Each perspective has its proponents, and each has its
detractors. All four offer a lot of truth, and all four oversimplify and make
other mistakes. We will return to them in many of the chapters ahead, but a brief
critique is in order here.A major problem with functionalist theory is that it tends to
support the status quo and thus seems to favour existing inequalities based on race,
social class, and gender. By emphasising the contributions of social institutions such
as the family and education to social stability, functionalist theory minimises the ways
in which these institutions contribute to social inequality. Conflict theory also has its
problems. By emphasising inequality and dissensus in society, conflict theory
overlooks the large degree of consensus on many important issues. And by
emphasising the ways in which social institutions contribute to social inequality,
conflict theory minimises the ways in which these institutions are necessary for
society’s stability. Neither of these two macro perspectives has very much to say
about social interaction, one of the most important building blocks of society. In this
regard, the two micro perspectives, symbolic interactionism and utilitarianism, offer
significant advantages over their macro cousins. Yet their very micro focus leads
them to pay relatively little attention to the reasons for, and possible solutions to,
such broad and fundamentally important issues as poverty, racism, sexism, and
social change, which are all addressed by functionalism and conflict theory. In this
regard, the two macro perspectives offer significant advantages over their micro
cousins. In addition, one of the micro perspectives, rational choice theory, has also
been criticised for ignoring the importance of emotions, altruism, and other values for
guiding human interaction (Lowenstein, 1996). These criticisms aside, all four
perspectives taken together offer a more comprehensive understanding of social
phenomena than any one perspective can offer alone. To illustrate this, let’s return to
our armed robbery example. A functionalist approach might suggest that. Armed
robbery and other crimes actually serve positive functions for society. As one
function, fear of crime ironically strengthens social bonds by uniting the law-abiding
public against the criminal elements in society. As a second function, armed robbery
and other crimes create many jobs for police officers, judges, lawyers, prison guards,
the construction companies that build prisons, and the various businesses that
provide products the public buys to help protect against crime. To explain armed
robbery, symbolic interactionists focus on how armed robbers decide when and
where to rob a victim and on how their interactions with other criminals reinforce their
own criminal tendencies. Conflict theory would take a very different but no less
helpful approach to understanding armed robbery. It might be noted that most street
criminals are poor and thus emphasise that armed robbery and other crimes are the
result of the despair and frustration of living in poverty and facing a lack of jobs and
other opportunities for economic and social success. The roots of street crime, from
the perspective of conflict theory, thus lie in society at least as much as they lie in the
individuals committing such crime. In explaining armed robbery, symbolic
interactionism would focus on how armed robbers make such decisions as when and
where to rob someone and on how their interactions with other criminals reinforce
their own criminal tendencies. Exchange or rational choice theory would emphasise
that armed robbers and other criminals are rational actors who carefully plan their
crimes and who would be deterred by a strong threat of swift and severe
punishment.

End
Module 13 ( part 1)

Herbert Spencer's Theory of Social Evolution

The theory of evolution is Herbert Spencer's most significant contribution to
sociology. He developed and clarified his thesis of social development using the
concepts of physical and biological evolution.
Spencer writes, "Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of
motion, during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity
to a definite, coherent heterogeneity and during which the retained motion
undergoes a parallel transformation."
According to Lewis A. Coser, "The very- foundation of Spencerism is the evolutionary
doctrine or the law of evolution. He established two fundamental principles as the
root causes of everything in the universe in his book "First Principles." These are two
manifestations of force: matter and motion.
The supreme law of every being, in Spencer's view, is the law of evolution. Spencer
believed that both the inorganic and organic worlds were affected by evolution. His
extensive writings included "Super organic evolution" (what we now refer to as social
evolution) as well as the evolution of super organic goods (what we now refer to as
cultural evolution). Spencer created his core three principles and four ancillary claims
inside the framework of universal evolution, each of which builds upon the others
and on the theory of evolution as a whole.
The Three Basic Laws:

(1) The Law of persistence of force: Energy or force tends to persist, according to
the First ILaw. There is no gain in energy or force during evolutionary transformation.
Persistence is energy or force. It stays the same. Although energy or force is the
driving force for evolution, it is unaffected by it.

(2) The Law of the indestructibility of matter: The Law of the indestructibility of
matter. Energy never destroys matter, which is one of its forms or aspects. It could
experience formal alterations. The evolution is a result of changes in the physical
makeup of matter. But matter's essential character does not alter.The fundamental
components of matter and energy in the universe are conserved rather than created
or destroyed.

(3) The law of Continuity of motion: According to the third law, "motion is
continuous and it never completely dissipates." Of course, the shape of motion can
change. The evolutionary process goes through different stages as a result of these
modifications. The world is in a constant state of motion. Everything keeps moving
forward.
Four Secondary Propositions:
i) Uniformity of Law.
(ii) Law of transformation and equivalence of force.
(iii) Principle of least resistance and greatest attraction.
(iv) Principle of alternation or rhythm of motion.

i)Uniformity of Law: According to Spencer, there must be balance between the

many evolutionary laws. No two laws should contradict each other. There exists a
uniformity or regularity of relationships among defined phenomena in the world. The
world is an order of elements. Harmony between forces of the world

ii)Law of transformation and equivalence of force: The destruction of matter and

motion is not complete. These only experience shape modifications. Of course, the
quantum of substance and motion does not change during formal change. The force,
the elements of matter, the motion are never lost in the process of change. They are
merely transformed into the manifestation of some other event

ii)Principle of least resistance and greatest attraction: The direction of evolution

is always towards the line of least resistance or greatest attraction. All forces and
elements move along the line of least resistance and greatest attraction

iv)Principle of alternation or rhythm of motion: For evolution, motion is essential,

but it is not required that motion should be at one level all the time. It may speed up
or slow down. All phenomena in nature have their own particular rate and rhythm of
movement of duration and development.

According to Spencer, the emergence of human societies is not at all unique from
other evolutionary phenomena. It is a unique instance of a natural law that is relevant
to everyone. According to Spencer, the rules of evolution ultimately apply to all facets
of the cosmos, whether they are organic or inorganic, social or non-social.
All global phenomena, whether they be organic or super organic, are governed by
the law of natural selection. All of nature's phenomena, including the stars and
planetary systems, the earth and all terrestrial phenomena, living things and the
evolution of species, as well as the psychological and sociological factors that
influence human experience and behaviour, are said to follow a clear pattern of
change.

Social Evolution:
From the analysis of physical evolution Spencer convinced that the underlying
principles of all evolution are two:
(i) Movement from- simple to complex.
(ii) Movement from homogeneous to heterogeneous.
From the analysis of biological evolution Spencer utilised the principle, that those
creatures survive in the struggle for existence who are able to make effective
adjustment with changing circumstances. So Spencer utilised both physical and
biological evolution for his theory of social evolution. Like physical evolution also in
social evolution there is a movement from simple to complex. The society is moving
from homogeneous to heterogeneous structure. Society is also moving from
indefinite to definite stage.
Spencer has borrowed the idea from biological evolution that those cultures survive
which are able to adjust themselves with the changing circumstances. If a civilization
is unable to make adjustment with the changing circumstances it caves in and
gradually becomes extinct.

Spencer's theory of social evolution points out to two stages:

1. The movement from simple to compound societies.
2. Change from militant society to industrial society. The movement from simple to
compound societiesThis is seen in four types of societies in terms of evolutionary
levels.

1. Simple Society: Spencer defined the simple society as "one which forms a single
working whole un-subjected to any other and of which the parts co-operate with or
without a regulating centre for certain public ends." These societies were
predominantly small, nomadic, and lacking in stable relationship structure. They had
low degrees of differentiation, specialisation, and integration. Examples are the
Eskimos, the Fuegians, Guiana tribes, the new Caledonians and the Pueblo Indians.

2. Compound Societies: Compound societies were presented as having generally

come about through either a peaceful or a violent merger of two or more simple
societies. They tended to be predominantly settled agricultural societies, although a
majority are mainly pastoral, and tended to be characterised by a division of four or
five social strata and an organised priestly group. They are also characterised by
Industrial structures that show in advancing division of labour, general and local.
Examples are the Teutonic peoples in the fifth century, Homeric Greeks, zew
Zealanders, Hottentots Dahomans and Ashantees.

3. Doubly Compound Societies: Doubly compound societies were completely

settled, were more integrated and had a larger and more definite political structure, a
religious hierarchy, a more or less rigid caste system and more complex division of
labour. Furthermore, in such societies to a greater and lesser extent. custom has
passed into positive law and religious observances have grown definite, rigid and
complex. Towns and roads have become general, and considerable progress in
knowledge and the arts has taken place." Examples are thirteenth-Century France,
Eleventh Century England, the Spartan Confederacy, the ancient Peruvians and the
Guatemalans.
4. Trebly Compound Societies: It includes "the great civilised nations" such as the
Assyrian Empire, the modern Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia.
Spencer does not outline their traits in detail but points to their increased overall size,
complexity, division of labour, popular density, integration and general cultural
complexity.

Social Darwinism

Spencer adopted his principle of evolution from naturalist Charles Darwin. Darwin
developed the concept of evolution in his "Origin of Species" in 1859. Spencer, the
sociological giant of the second half of the 19th Century was enamoured by "Social
Darwinism".

Spencer believed in the doctrine of the "Survival of the fittest" as expounded by

Darwin. According to him, animals have to struggle to preserve their existence. The
struggle for existence is not confined to any one aspect of life but pervades the
whole of life. Spencer says, only strong creatures survive and evolve; only strong
makes progress. The weak are gradually eliminated. A strong creature is one who
has the ability to adjust himself with the ever changing conditions of the environment.
Principle of non interference -State had no business in education,
health,sanitation,money banking, regulation of housing conditions. State primary
business is protection of rights. Thus, it is positive in a humanistic sense. Positivism,
then, is a philosophy that confines itself to sense data, denies any spiritual forces or
metaphysical considerations, and emphasises the ability of the human being to affect
their own fate generally through science. According to Comte, society is broken into
two distinct spheres in his 'positivist' theory of society, on the one hand, 'social
statics' (order) and, on the other, 'social dynamics (progress):

1. Social statics: a concept of social order, stability, and integration.

2. Social dynamics: a concept of social change, fragmentation and progress.

Social statics studies society at rest in a fixed space. Social dynamics studies the
laws of motion as things change over time. This follows a similar division in biology
between fixed anatomy and changes in physiology. Statics, or social anatomy', and
dynamics, or 'social physiology', may be divided for purposes of scientific analysis
but in practice they are always inseparable. Social statics are those 'laws of harmony
of human society, involving the core institutions of the family, the state and,
ultimately, humanity (or at least the 'white race' as Comte, 1998: 263, put it).
Statistics refer to the essential capacities of all types of societies, forms of social
organisation, intellectual culture, material production and moral norms. Statistics are
therefore more basic than dynamics. Social dynamics refers to the necessary
progress of society from more simple to more complex forms of social organisation
through the successive stages of conquest, trade and production. There can be no
laws of social development without movement.
2.2.4. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

Herbert Spencer was born in Derby, England, on April 27, 1820. He was not
schooled in the arts and humanities, but rather in technical and utilitarian matters.
Spencer never went to a conventional school but was taught at home by his father
and uncle. He went to some small private schools but only for short periods,
according to his autobiography, his training in mathematics was the best. In spite of
not receiving systematic training in other subjects like natural sciences, literature,
history, he wrote outstanding treatises on biology and psychology. 2.2.4. Herbert
Spencer (1820-1903) At a young age Spencer started working as an Engineer in the
railroad engineering field .

in 1837 he began work as a civil engineer for a railway, an occupation he held until
1846. During this period, Spencer continued to study on his own and began to
publish scientific and political works. In 1848 Spencer was appointed an editor of
The Economist, and his intellectual ideas began to solidify. By 1850, he had
completed his first major work, Social Statics. During the writing of this work,
Spencer first began to experience insomnia, and over the years his mental and
physical problems mounted. He was to suffer a series of nervous breakdowns
throughout the rest of his life.
In 1853 Spencer received an inheritance that allowed him to quit his job and live for
the rest of his life as a gentleman scholar. He never earned a university degree or
held an academic position. As he grew more isolated, and physical and mental
illness mounted, Spencer's productivity as a scholar increased. Eventually, Spencer
began to achieve not only fame within England but also an international reputation.
As Richard Hofstadter put it:"In the three decades after the Civil War it was
impossible to be active in any field of intellectual work without mastering Spencer"
(1959:33).

2.2.5. Organic analogy and Social Darwinism

Herbert Spencer contributed several key ideas to the field of sociology. As a

contemporary of Auguste Comte, he too was trying to establish sociology as the
science of society. Spencer had come into contact with Comte's ideas but he did not
accept them. Instead, he brought about a shift in the study of society. His sociology
is based on evolutionary doctrine and the organic analogy.

The Social Statics (1850), The Study of Sociology (1873), and Principles of
Sociology (1876-96) are three major works of Herbert Spencer. He was influenced
by the idea of Darwin and his evolutionary theory. Spencer believed that throughout
all times there actually has been social evolution from a simple, uniform or
homogeneous structure to a complex, multiform or heterogeneous one. Spencer has
been influenced deeply by Charles Darwin's book, The Origin of Species (1859). It
had brought a revolutionary change in the understanding of how life evolved on earth
from a simple unicellular organism to multicellular complex organisms like human
beings themselves.

Although Spencer wrote several books on sociology, he did not give a formal
definition of the discipline. According to him, the social process is unique and so
sociology as a science must explain the present state of society by explaining the
initial stages of evolution and applying to them the laws of evolution. Thus, the
evolutionary doctrine is central to his thesis. After explaining this doctrine, we will
explain the meaning and significance of organic analogy. You will also learn about
Spencer's classification of societies with respect to their place in social evolution.

Spencer had to find a way of reconciling his thoroughgoing individualism with his
organicist approach. In this he differed sharply from Comte, who was basically anti
individualistic in his general philosophy and developed an organicist theory in which
the individual was conceived as firmly subordinated to society. Spencer, in contrast,
not only conceived of the origins of society in individualistic and utilitarian terms, but
saw society as a vehicle for the enhancement of the purposes of individuals.

According to Spencer, men had originally banded together because it was

advantageous for them to do so. "Living together arose because, on the average, it
proved more advantageous to each than living apart." And once society had come
into being, it was perpetuated because, "maintenance of combination [of individuals]
is maintenance of conditions satisfactory [to] living than the combined persons would
otherwise have." In line with his individualistic perspective, he saw the quality of a
society as depending to a large extent on the quality of the individuals who formed it.
more

"There is no way of coming to a true theory of society, but by inquiry into the nature
of its component individuals. . . Every phenomenon exhibited by an aggregation of
men originates in some quality of man himself." Spencer held as a general principle
that "the properties of the units determine the properties of the aggregate," In spite of
these individualistic underpinnings of his philosophy, Spencer developed an overall
system in which the organicist analogy is pursued with even more rigour than in
Comte's work. The ingenious way Spencer attempted to overcome the basic
incompatibility between individualism and organicism is best described in his own
words. After having shown the similarity between social and biological organisms, he
turned to show how they were unlike each other. A biological organism is encased in
a skin, but a society is bound together by the medium of language.

Spencer believed that all inorganic, organic, and superorganic (societal) phenomena
undergo evolution and devolution, or dissolution. That is, phenomena undergo a
process of evolution whereby matter becomes integrated and motion tends to
dissipate. Phenomena also undergo a process of devolution in which motion
increases and matter moves toward disintegration. Having deduced these general
principles of evolution and dissolution from his overarching principles, Spencer then
turned to specific areas in order to show that his theory of evolution (and devolution)
holds inductively, that is, that "all orders do exhibit a progressive integration of Matter
and concomitant loss of Motion"

The combination of induction and deduction led Spencer to his "final" evolutIonary
Tomula: Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion;
during Which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a
definite, coherent, heterogeneity; and during which the retained motion undergoes a
parallel transformation. (Spencer, 1902/1958:394) Let us decompose this general
perspective and examine the major elements of Spencer's evolutionary theory.

First, evolution involves progressive change from a less coherent to a more coherent
form; in other words, it involves increasing integration. Second, accompanying
increasing integration is the movement from homogeneity to more and more Words,
heterogeneity; in other evolution involves increasing differentiation. Third, there is a
movement from confusion to order, from indeterminacy to determined order, "an
increase the distinctness with which these parts are marked off from one another
(Spencer, 1902/1958:361)

In other words, evolution involves movement from the indefinite to the definite. Thus,
the three key elements of evolution are increasing integration, heterogeneity, and
More specifically, Spencer was definiteness. concerned with these elements and his
general theory of evolution as they apply to both structures and associated functions.
At the most general level, Spencer structures with "matter" and saw them growing
more integrated, definite. heterogeneous, and Functions are linked to "retained
motion," and they, too, are seen as growing increasingly integrated, heterogeneous,
and definite. We will have occasion to deal with Spencer's more concrete thoughts
on the evolution of functions and structures in his work on society.

One of the important contributions of Herbert Spencer was developing an analogy

between the social system and biological organisms. On the basis of this developed
a complex threefold scheme for categorising social systems based on whether they
displayed complex or simple structures and whether they were essentially stable or
unstable. Firstly, a "simple system is undifferentiated by sections, groups, or tribal
formations. Secondly, a "compound'" system amounts to an amalgamation of
communities with a rudimentary hierarchy and division of labour. Thirdly, doubly
compound systems are more complex still and united under one organised authority
(Spencer 1971).

It was Herbert Spencer who used the organismic analogy to create an explicit form
of functional analysis. Drawing upon materials from his monumental The Principles
of Biology (1864-1867), Spencer's The Principles of Sociology (1874-1896) is filled
with analogies between organisms and society as well as between ecological
processes (variation, competition, and selection) and SOCiety societal evolution
(which he saw as driven by war). Spencer did not see it as an actual organism;
rather, he conceptualised"superorganic systems'" of organisms) as (organisation
revealing certain similarities in their "principles of arrangement to biological
organisms and selection) and SOCiety societal evolution (which he saw as driven by
war). Spencer did not see it as an actual organism; rather, he
conceptualised"superorganic systems'" of organisms) as (organisation revealing
certain similarities in their "principles of arrangement to biological organisms.

In so doing, he introduced the notion of functional requisites'" or "needs," thereby

creating functionalism. For Spencer, there were three basic requisites of
superorganic systems:

(1) the need to secure and circulate resources.

(2)the need to produce usable substances, and
(3) the need to regulate, control, and administer system activities

Thus, any pattern of social organisation reveals these three classes of functional
requisites, and the goal of sociological analysis is to see how these needs are met in
empirical social systems.

To conclude, Herbert Spencer's theory is more powerful, and his work has more
contemporary significance, than that of the other significant figure in the "prehistory"
of sociological theory, Auguste Comte. Their theories have some similarities (e.g.,
positivism) but far more differences (e.g., Comte's faith in a positivist religion and
Spencer's opposition to any centralised system of control). Spencer offered a series
of general principles from which he deduced an evolutionary theory: increasing
integration, heterogeneity, and definiteness of both structures and functions. Indeed,
sociology, in Spencer's work, is the study of the evolution of societies. Although
Spencer sought to legitimise sociology as a science, he also felt that sociology is
linked to, and should draw upon, other sciences such as biology (especially the idea
of survival of the fittest) and psychology (especially the importance of sentiments). In
part from his concern with psychology, Spencer developed his
methodological-individualist approach to the study of society.

Spencer addressed a number of the methodological difficulties confronting sociology

as a science. He was especially concerned with various biases the sociologist must
overcome educational, class, political, and theological. In seeking to exclude these
biases, Spencer articulated a "value-free" position for sociology. In much of his
substantive work, Spencer employed the comparative-historical method. The
evolution of society occupies a central place in Spencer's sociology.

In his analysis of societal evolution, Spencer employed the three general aspects of
evolution mentioned previously increasing integration (increasing size and
coalescence of masses of people), heterogeneity, and definiteness (here, clearly
demarcated institutions)-as well as a fourth aspect the increasing coherence of
social groups. In his evolutionary social theory

2.2.6. The Evolution of Societies or Type of Society

Spencer sought to build two classificatory systems of society related to his thesis of
social evolution. The first thesis states that in the process of social evolution
societies move from Simple to various levels of compound on the basis of their
degree of composition. Spencer traced, among other things, the movement from
simple to compounded societies and from militant to industrial societies.

According to Spencer the aggregate of some simple societies gives rise to

compound societies, the aggregate of some compound societies gives rise to doubly
compound societies. The aggregate of some doubly compound societies gives rise
to trebly compound societies According to Spencer simple societies consist of
families. a compound societies consist of families unified into clans, doubly
compound societies consist of clans unified into tribes and the trebly compound
societies, such as our own, have tribes brought together forming nations or states
The second classificatory system is based on construction of types which may not
exist in actual reality but which would help in analysing and comparing different
societies. Here a different type of evolution is conceived of, from
(i) military to,
(ii) industrial societies

1. The Militant Society :The Militant society is a type in which predominant

organisation is offensive and defensive military action.
-Such a society has the following characteristics.
-Human relationships in such societies are marked by compulsory cooperation.
-There exists a highly centralised pattern of authority and social control.
-A set of myths and beliefs reaffirm the hierarchical nature of society.
-Life is marked by rigorous discipline and a close identity between public and private
life.

2. The Industrial Society The Industrial society is one in which military activity and
organisation is peripheral to society.
-The greater part of society concentrates on human production and welfare.
-The characteristics of such a society are that these societies are marked by
voluntary cooperation, firm recognition of people's personal rights, separation of the
economic realm from political control of the government and growth of free
associations and institutions.
Herbert Spencer was aware that societies need not fit into either of the systems
totally. They served the purpose of models to aid classification, These are some of
the central ideas of Herbert Spencer.

Spencer also articulated a series of ethical and political ideals. Consistent with his
methodological individualism, Spencer argued that people must be free to exercise
their abilities: they must have liberty. The only role for the state is the protection of
individual liberty. Such a laissez-faire political perspective fits well with Spencer's
ideas on evolution and survival of the fittest. Given his perspective on the gradual
evolution of society, Spencer also rejected the idea of any radical solution (e.g.,
communism) to society's problems.

1.3. Conclusion

In the first part of this module we studied how social conditions contributed for the
development of social thought. We have also learnt how different changes taking
place in the eighteenth and nineteenth century in Europe bothered social thinkers.
Sociology thus grew essentially as a product of the reflections of the great thinkers
reflecting on society. We discussed sociologically significant themes of the French
and the Industrial Revolutions.

In the second part of this module we discussed the ideas of the early thinkers and
founding fathers of sociology and contributions of these ideas to the development of
sociology. It also discussed the social and political context in which Auguste Comte
(1798-1857) formed his theoretical and intellectual basis. As the founding father of
sociology we also discussed the central ideas of Comte, such as the law of the three
stages (the theological state, the metaphysical stage, and the positive stage), the
hierarchy of the sciences, the static and dynamic sociology.

Herbert Spencer and his contributions towards the discipline of sociology was also
mentioned in this module. He is considered to be the second founding father of
sociology. We focused on his central ideas, such as the evolutionary doctrine, the
organic analogy and finally the evolution of societies, firstly in terms of composition
from simple to compound and so on and then in terms of transition from military to
industrial societies.

END
Module 15

Weber’s Perspectives on Religion

The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism

Weber wrote ‘The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism’ between 1903 and
1904, and published it as two separate essays in 1905 and 1906. Since its
publication, The Protestant Ethic has been a controversial work that has been
subject to harsh criticism by many writers for its central assertion that the ascetic
regulation of economic life coupled with restraint, prudent saving and s stringent
attitude toward work was religiously induced. Critical objections began to emerge
from historians and theologians who claimed that Weber’s argument had central
weaknesses. Even today, criticism of Weber’s study continues to generate
controversy.

Weber created a positive relationship between the Protestant ethics and the spirit of
capitalism. Western capitalism, according to Weber, assumed its shape because it
was supported by a certain belief system, namely, the “the Protestant ethic”. Weber
argued that the Protestant ethic is associated with the spirit of capitalism. In order to
bring out this interrelationship, Weber constructed ideal types of both, the Protestant
Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

The commercial activities of many of the Western European countries intensified

along with a simultaneous popularity of Protestantism in these societies. The
capitalism of those times were identified by two contradictory activities of amassing
wealth beyond the personal uses of individuals and avoidance of use of these wealth
for the purpose of personal pleasure and enjoyment. Thus, Weber noticed capitalism
is not only the production and exchange, money making and profit, but an ascetic
attitude towards life.

The Spirit of Capitalism

of power, property and prestige. However, this desire to earn wealth got an
organised form in modern or rational capitalism. Weber wanted to study this rational
capitalism. Weber makes a distinction between traditional capitalism and rational
capitalism. Traditional capitalism was particularly noticeable in the Italian cities.
Traditional capitalism was a risky business, involving the import of luxury items from
distant places. Foreign silks, spices, ivory etc. were sold to buyers at exorbitant
prices. The aim was to extract maximum profit. Rational capitalism on the other hand
depends on mass production and distribution of goods. Industrial revolution and
factory production made this possible. Rational capitalism does not deal with a few
luxury items but with almost all the daily material requirements. Rational capitalism is
constantly expanding and looking for new methods, new inventions, new products
and new customers. Involving methodical work and regularised transactions, it is
thus qualitatively and quantitatively different from traditional capitalism.

According to Weber, capitalists earn wealth not for enjoyment of life but for earning
more capital. The thirst for money making for its own sake is the very essence of
modern capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system which aims at the unlimited
accumulation of profit through the rational organisation of production. Capitalism
arose in the Western countries like England and Germany, which experienced what
we call the “Industrial Revolution”. The growth of the factory system, new techniques
of production, new tools and machines made it possible for the capitalists or the
owners to earn vast amounts of money. Efficiency and discipline are the pillars of
capitalism. The worker was a means to an end, the end being profit. The attitude
towards work was that it should be done well not because one had to do it, but
because it carried an intrinsic reward.

Weber contrasted this work ethic with another type which he termed as
traditionalism. Here, workers prefer less work to more pay, relaxation to exertion.
They are either unable to or unwilling to take up new work methods and techniques.
In capitalism, the worker is regarded by the capitalist as a means to an end. But
under traditionalism, the worker employer relationship is informal, direct and
personal. Traditionalism hampers the growth of capitalism. Capitalism stresses on
individualism, innovation and relentless pursuit of profit whereas traditionalism is
characterised by a much less disciplined and efficient system of production.

Features of the Protestant ethic influencing the development of capitalism

Protestantism, as the name suggests, is a religion of protest. It arose in sixteenth

century Europe during the reformation period. Its founding fathers like Martin Luther
and John Calvin broke away from the Catholic Church. They felt that the Church had
become too immersed in doctrines and rituals. It had lost touch with the common
people. Greed, corruption and vice had gripped the Church. Priests had a life-style
more suitable for princes. The Protestants tried to recapture the lost spirit of the
Church. They stressed simplicity, austerity and devotion. Calvinism, founded by John
Calvin, was one such sect. The followers of Calvin in Europe were known as
puritans. They migrated to the continent of North America and were the founders of
the American nation. Weber observed that in the West, it was by and large the
Protestants who had made great progress in education and employment. They were
the top bureaucrats, the most skilled technical workers and the leading industrialists.
Weber was very much interested to study Calvinism. By examining its features we
can see the linkage between religion and economy.

Features of Calvinism
Calvin’s image of god- God, said Calvin, was all powerful, transcendent. His divine
will was unknowable. It would be foolish of any human being to try to understand
God’s will. It could not be understood simply because it was God’s will.

Doctrine of predestination- Calvinism believes that certain persons are chosen or

‘elected’ by God to enter heaven while the rest are dumped. The chosen will reach
heaven no matter whatever they do on Earth. We cannot bribe God through prayers
and sacrifices. As this Will is unknowable, we cannot change it. People can only
work for their material prosperity as it would symbolise their election. We would work
for the glory of God.

“This worldly asceticism”- By ‘asceticism’ we mean strict discipline, control and

conquest of desires. In Protestantism, particularly Calvinism Weber detected
this-worldly asceticism. It stressed rigorous self-discipline in order to master the
environment. A simple frugal life-style was recommended along with hard work.
Worldly or sensual pleasures are denounced. Dance and music, film and theatres
are thought to deviate the people from working for the glory of God. This emphasis
on hard work was not confined to the Calvinists alone. It was a common feature of all
Protestant sects. The idea that ‘honesty is the best policy’ was the principle of early
capitalism. The fruits of hard labour could not be spent on worldly pleasures. Thus
there was only one outlet for money. It was reinvested and hence used to make
more money. Calvinists believe that ‘work is worship’ and ‘time is money’.

The notion of “calling”- The Calvinist ethic holds that all work is important and
sacred. It is not mere work, it is a calling or a mission and should be performed with
devotion and sincerity.

Weber summarised the Calvinists ethics in five points-

a. There exists an absolute transcendent God who created the world and rules it,
but is incomprehensible and inaccessible to the finite minds of men.

b. This all powerful and mysterious God had predestined each of us to salvation or
damnation, so that we cannot by our works alter a divine decree which was made
before we were born.

c. God created the world for his own glory.

d. Whether he is to be damned or saved, man is obliged to work for the glory of

God and to create the Kingdom of God on Earth.

e. Earthly things, human nature, and flesh belong to the order of sin and death and
salvation can come to man only through divine grace.

This helped to create a disciplined and dedicated workforce without which capitalism
could not have emerged. Hard-work, saving and reinvestment and the desire to
prosper have a strong affinity with the “spirit of capitalism”. Working day and night
and not enjoying the fruits of that labour might seem very irrational to most of us. But
if we keep in mind the “doctrine of predestination” and the need to prosper to prove
one’s “election” by God, this irrational behaviour makes sense.

Weber’s comparative studies on religion

It is quite evident by now that Weber has tried to establish a link between religious
ethics on the one hand and economic behaviour on the other. After establishing the
role of Protestant ethic in the development of Western Capitalism, Weber made an
attempt to search for whether a worldly asceticism of which Protestant ethic is a
typical example exist outside the Western civilisation. Weber found that modern
capitalism with its unique features that developed in the Western Europe did not
develop in any other part of the world except there. The only factor that was lacking
in the non-West is a particular religious ethic. Weber makes a comparative study of
the world religions in order to find out what is absent in many of these world
religions, which could not help in the development of modern capitalism that was
developed in the modern Western societies.

The religion of China: Confucianism

In traditional China, there were certain important developments which Weber

distinguishes as conducive for capitalism and a rationalised economy. These include
the emergence of cities and guilds, the formation of monetary systems, the
development of law, and the achievement of political integration within the
patrimonial state. But there were some significant differences. Weber found the
religious and other conditions in China greatly limited the rationalisation of the
economy. He observed that though private property emerged in China, it could not
become truly private as in the West. The community or the ‘sib’ is powerful in China.
The power of the sib rested to a large extent on the ancestor cult. The ancestral
spirits acted as mediators between their descendants and god. The sib and the other
traditional elements were stronger than the rational bureaucracy. The illiterate old
aged people carried higher status and authority than the learned bureaucrats.
Chinese justice, far from being formal, legal and rational, remained patriarchal in
nature. All these kept the kinship relations tightly knitted and prevented the rational
development of the individual.

There were some other religious factors that inhibited the development of rational
capitalism in Chinese society. In Confucianism, the social order is considered to be
eternal and inevitable. What is most valued in Confucianism is the cultivated man,
who behaves with universal dignity and prosperity, and who is in unison with himself
and the outside world. Self-control, the regulation of emotion is demanded by this
ethic since harmony of the soul is the ultimate good; passion must not be allowed to
disturb this balance. The notion of sin and the corresponding concept of salvation
were absent. While Confucianism emphasis on self control, there was no specific
emphasis on asceticism.

Confucianism facilitated the belief in magic and animism. It was not only tolerated
but also systematised and rationalised so that they became a tremendous power in
Chinese life. All the sciences, which had empirical and naturalistic beginnings, were
completely rationalised as magical and supernatural practices and rituals. As Weber
puts it, the Chinese world, despite its secular, rational-empirical elements, remained
enchanted. The secular bureaucracy too tolerated magic as a means of taming the
masses and also they themselves believed in it.

Weber argues in spite of the various factors which might have acted to promote the
rise of rational capitalism, it did not rise spontaneously in China because of the
absence of ethical code that was present in Protestantism.

The religion of India: Hinduism

Hinduism differed from other world religions in some important aspects. It is an

eclectic and tolerant religion. It is marked by a caste system based on vertical
segregation of occupational categories. There exist in Hinduism some dogmas or
beliefs that are shared by most of the believers. The most important of these are
those of the transmigration of souls and the notion of ‘karma’. Both these dogmas
are directly bound up with the social ordering of the caste system existing in Indian
society. Karma is the belief that actions of this world or this life have a consequence
for the next life. Karma is a cycle of rebirth, which guarantees status mobility for the
individual in the next birth on the basis of his performance of his duty in this birth.
The social impact of the karma philosophy is that it prevents the individual from
searching for better occupations. It confines him to what is assigned to him through
his caste system.

Weber argued that Hinduism lacked an ethic conducive for the development of
capitalism, though there existed in the Indian society the social and cultural
conditions, which should have given rise to modern rational capitalism. The caste
system in the Hindu society tried to ritually stabilise the occupational structure and
hampered the rationalisation of the economy. The Brahmins, the highest of the caste
group, held the highest status and the status of other caste groups, which are
actually hereditary caste groups, depending on their proximity or distance from the
Brahmins. The Brahmins kept the larger masses of the society servile to them with
the help of magical (purity and pollution) and mystical elements.

These orthodox Hindu beliefs, according to Weber, acted as barriers to the

challenges emerging in the existing social order. Although trade and manufacturing
flourished in India, the caste system and the ascendancy of Brahmin priesthood and
strong belief in religious dogmas such as Karma philosophy effectively prevented
any further economic development.
Based on the studies of the Asiatic religions (that of India, China, Ceylon and Korea),
Weber concluded that although there existed economic strata and forms conducive
for the emergence of a modern rational economy, the East was still dominated by
magical mentality. This hindered the economic development in particular and
rationalisation of the culture in general. The western civilisation had undergone a
significant amount of disenchantment of rationalisation giving rise to modern
capitalism.

Ancient Judaism

This is the religion of the Jews who originally inhabited the land of Palestine in West
Asia. Judaism is the oldest of the monotheistic religions. It is a religion that speaks of
one, all-powerful and almighty god. The Jews believe themselves to be the chosen
ones of god or “Yahweh”. Their prophets united them in the belief that they were the
chosen ones of god and must help to establish God’s kingdom on Earth. Judaism,
unlike Confucianism and Hinduism speaks of an ethic of mastery over the
environment, not harmony.

Judaism, says Weber, could have generated the “spirit of capitalism”. However,
certain historical forces prevented this. The exodus or the mass migration of Jews
from their homeland due to persecution left them scattered all over the world. Their
economic participation was restricted to money-lending, which they did very
successfully.

So we can see that mere material conditions like finance, trade and technology are
not enough to promote capitalism. India and China had both of these, yet the value
systems of these societies were such that the pursuit of health for its own sake and
rational organisation of work to achieve this purpose did not make sense. It did not fit
in with the ethos or the ideals of these societies.

Critical evaluation of Weber’s studies on religion

Weber’s work on religion and economy has often been subjected to criticism. Some
scholars feel that he has concentrated very selectively on certain aspects of religious
ethics and interpreted them very narrowly so that they fit in with his theory. For
instance, in his studies

On the Hindu ethic, Weber has seen only one aspect of the Hindu ethic and has over
emphasised the fatalistic and passive aspect of it. Some scholars would argue that
the notions of ‘karma’ and ‘dharma’ actually spur individuals to act, to perform their
duties, to live up to their obligations. It is pointed out that the concept of calling which
forms the very foundation of the spirit of capitalism is also prevalent in Hinduism. The
principle in the Bhagavad Gita of doing one’s duty without thinking of benefit is
similar to the doctrine of calling which is the focal point of material progress in the
West.
Milton Singer has presented a functional equivalent of the Protestant Ethic in India in
his study of the leading industrialists of the city of Madras. To him caste background
and tradition may equally be fitted for the industrial development in India. Caste
based division of labour has been used successfully in the specialisation of industrial
workers. Singer observed that through the process of “compartmentalisation”, many
industrialists kept their business obligations and ritual obligations separate or in
distinct compartments. Hence, there was no conflict between an individual’s role as a
businessman on the one hand and a religious person on the other. According to
Singer, if capitalism is to be developed in India then it must not be an aping of the
West that destroys the traditional way of life. Capitalism can rather develop within the
given cultural norms and institutions of our society.

Power and Authority

Concept of Power

In ordinary usage, power means strength or capacity to control. Sociologists

describe it as the ability of an individual or group to fulfil 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. For Weber, power is an aspect of social relationships.
It refers to imposition of 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 the power imposes it on others. The impact of power varies from situation to
situation. On the one hand, it depends on the capacity of the powerful individual to
exercise power. On the other hand, it depends upon the extent to which it is opposed
or resisted by others. Weber says power can be exercised in all walks of life and is
not restricted to battlefields or to politics. According to Weber, there are two sources
of power. They are-

a. Power which is derived from a constellation of interests that develop in a formally

free market. For example, a group of sugar producers controls supply of their
production in the market to maximise their profit.

b. 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
his officer. The officer derives his power through an established system of authority.

Concept of Authority

Weber uses the German word “Herrschaft” to refer to the concept of authority.
Herrschaft is a situation in which a ‘Herr’ or master dominates or commands others.
Raymond Aron (1967: 187) defines Herrschaft as the master’s ability to obtain the
obedience of those who theoretically owe it to him.

Now the question arises, what is the difference between power and authority? Power
refers to the ability or capacity to control another. Authority refers to legitimised
power. It means that the master has the right to command and can expect to be
obeyed.

Elements of Authority

For a system of authority to exist the following elements must be present.

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

b. An individual/group that is ruled.

c. The will of the ruler to influence the conduct of the ruled which may be expressed
through commands d. Evidence of the influence of the rulers in terms of the
compliance or obedience showed by the ruled.

e. Direct or indirect evidence which shows that the ruled have internalised and
accepted the fact that the ruler’s commands must be obeyed.

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 rules accept this power and comply with it, reinforcing its legitimacy.

Types of authority

Authority implies legitimacy. According to Weber, there are three systems of

legitimation, each with its corresponding norms, which justify the power to command.
It is these systems of legitimation which are designated as the following types of
authority.

a. Traditional authority

b. Charismatic authority

c. Rational-legal authority

Traditional authority

Authority is traditional, according to Weber, when its legitimacy is based on tradition

and custom and on the sanctity of age-old rules and powers. Compliance to
traditional authority is owed not to an objective system of legal rules but to the
framework of obligations which bind individuals to the ruler by personal loyalties.
Obligation to obey commands derives from the traditional status of the ruler and the
ruler’s power to command respect and honour based on tradition. Here, leaders
obtain their powers from inherited rights and are seen as legitimate in the light of
customary rights and traditional rules. Monarchies and the landholding aristocracies
of the feudal period are historical examples of traditional authority or domination. In
societies where traditional authority is dominant, duty and obedience is owed not to
the enacted rules as such, but rather to the individual leader.

The authority of the ruler is obtained in two ways. First, by the prestige conferred by
tradition, and by the belief that the ruler’s commands are valid because of the
authority. inherent in the office, or the authority inherent in the traditional right of the
ruler. Second, rulers have authority by the virtue of the discretionary powers which
are conferred upon them by titles or hereditary claims to powers. In this case, power
exists in the form of traditional prerogatives, privileges and rights which tend to
confer almost unlimited authority to the leader. Ruler is considered to be the personal
master, followers are formally the ‘subject’ to the ruler and the obedience is not owed
to enacted rules and traditions, but to the person who occupies the position of
authority. Similarly, the relationship between the ruler and their followers is defined
by personal loyalty, rather than being defined by impersonal legal precepts and
contractual agreements.

A second characteristic of traditional authority is that the ruler’s command are

perceived to be valid by virtue of the leader’s inherited right to exercise personal
discretion. The ruler is free from specific rules and obligations that would be binding
on his conduct and, in such circumstances, the ruler is not bound by specific rules,
rather acts on the basis of ‘good will’ even though it may not be legally binding on the
rulers as such.

There are two formal types of administrative authorities within traditional domination-
patrimonial and patriarchal. Patrimonial administration is common in feudal societies
where traditional authority is prevalent, and where the landholder exercises power
entirely without administrative staff. Here, rulers may rely on the family members, or
subordinate dependents or slaves to perform specific functions for the master.
Patrimonial administration tends to be based on, what Weber called, a system of
favourites who perform functions for rulers out of loyalty or obligation. Individuals
who occupy official positions are invariably personal followers of the master whose
ties to the master are reinforced by loyalty and customary obligation. This form of
authority, according to Weber, leads to arbitrary decision making which follows the
personal direction of the ruler, rather than a strict set of administrative rules which
equally apply to everyone.

Weber thought that the traditional system of authority tends to resist bureaucratic
development and the differentiation of power into separate offices or office holders. It
lacks rationally established hierarchies of offices, technical training and clearly
delineated jurisdiction of powers and responsibilities. Tasks are assigned on the
basis of the discretion of the master, and roles are often performed by individuals
who are tied to household positions.

Charismatic Authority
The term charisma has its origin in religious history and essentially means the gift or
grace. Weber used the term to refer to ‘a certain quality of an individual’s personality
which is considered extraordinary and treated as capable of having supernatural,
superhuman, or exceptional powers and qualities’ of some kind. Charismatic leaders,
according to Weber, are believed to have capabilities which are not accessible to
ordinary individuals, and their powers are regarded as having a divine origin, and on
this they come to hold power and are treated by others as leaders. These
individuals, said Weber, can be prophets, persons with reputations, devout religious
believers or heroes in war. The powers manifested in these individuals are thought to
transcend the routines of everyday life and are believed to rest on magical powers.
Leaders of this type may emerge from the ordinary population and announce
themselves as saviours. What is important for Weber here is that the individual’s
power is regarded by others as valid and true. Their devotion to the leader is
unquestioned.

In Charismatic domination or authority, Weber reasoned, the leader’s claim to

legitimacy originates from two related levels of belief: first is the level which derives
legitimacy from people’s belief that the leader is to be followed because of
extraordinary capacities and powers of personal inspiration and unique ethical vision.
Second is the level which derives legitimacy from what Weber calls the degree of
‘felt duty’ which the followers believe is put upon them to carry out the demands or
commands of the leader. People adhere to the authority of the ruler on the basis of
an inner conviction which they expect will resolve long standing inner conflicts and
suffering. This psychological connection to the leader increases the followers to
suspend any critical judgements regarding the abilities of the leader.

Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle against British domination in India is an explicit example

of Charismatic leadership. Gandhi based his acts on principles he referred to as
‘ideal truths’ and on activities he called ‘purification’ which acted to create in the
believer the idea that Gandhi was the embodiment of a holy spirit. Similar to this is
the mobilisation of the American Civil Rights Movement in 1962 by Martin Luther
King.

Weber argued that one of the central features of Charismatic authority is the
tendency of the leader to reject the desire and needs of everyday life. Such a
rejection created a necessity on the part of the ruler to transcend everyday activity by
emotional difference, renunciation of desire and repudiation of worldly pleasure and
material property. The Dalai Lama’s rejection of the material world of everyday life for
higher religious duties is based on the religious rejection of the world as it is.

Weber believed that Charismatic authority often emerges during periods of social
crises. He argued that the charismatic leaders often come to power in a time of crisis
either because the ‘nation’ or the ‘people’ are thought to be on the brink of a political
or economical catastrophe or believed the established way of doing things are seen
as inadequate. For example, Adolf Hitler came to power in the 1930s when Germany
was in a severe economic crisis.

The administrative staff of the charismatic leader have no appointed officials or a

hierarchy of offices, and its members are not technically trained. Appointments to
offices or positions are made by the leader who personally selects disciples or
followers who commit themselves to serve the leader because of their beliefs in the
leader’s powers. Their service to the leader may function in the form of sacrifice
based on the renunciation of their own interests for those of the leader’s interests.
Under these circumstances, the performances of administrative functions are carried
out by trusted disciples rather than by appointed office holders. Weber believed that
charismatic authority does not adhere to norms of rational decision making and
therefore resists the tendency to bureaucratic administration.

It is a system of domination characterised by legal authority where legitimacy rests

on ‘rational grounds’ and on the belief in the inherent ‘legality of enacted rules’.
Modern democracies are examples of rational-legal authority or legal domination. In
this case, those who have been elevated to political authority under the rule of law
have the right to issue commands and form a system of legitimate authority.
Compliance is owed to those issuing commands based on the principles of law
rather than personal authority of the ruler. A key characteristic of rational-legal
authority is that the officials in power are themselves subject to laws and must orient
their action to an impersonal order of legal rules at their disposition. Since the
operation and organisation of this system of domination takes the form of legality, the
total system of laws and judicial framework leads to a form of administrative
organisation which grows out of the principle of legality and the authority of law.
Weber took the view that the administrative apparatus in legal authority tends to be
bureaucratic in orientation and this, Weber thought, is reflected in the organisation of
offices, the chain of command, an administrative staff of functionaries and the use of
official files. Offices which are governed in this way function as administrative
agencies with clearly defined limits imposed upon their powers and decision making.
Officials are either elected or appointed to a term of office. Rational norms dictate
that all administrative acts be put in writing.

The connection between legal authority and a bureaucratically organised means of

administration is central to Weber’s thinking in a number of ways. First, he believed
that bureaucratic administration was technically the most efficient means of
exercising authority over people, and the bureaucratic development was at the basis
of the Western Democratic state. Second, he thought that a system defined by
legality led to an organisation of offices based on an official hierarchy that relates to
offices in terms of their function and to specific jurisdictions in terms of authority.
More than any other system of domination, Weber believed that legal authority
eliminates arbitrariness in the exercise of power, and that it replaces forms of
authority of the past where power was exercised by status privilege or by the sheer
application of physical force.

End
Module 1

1.1. INTRODUCTION

Sociology is relatively a new science.

As a discipline of academic interest, it is of recent origin. Though the roots of

sociological writings go back to Greek and Roman philosophy; it emerged as a new
discipline only in the first half of the 19" century, as a response to the crisis caused
by the French and the industrial revolutions. Earlier, History, Economics, Political
Science, and Philosophy attempted a study of various problems related to society.
Later, When man was confronted with complexities of social life, it became
necessary to establish a separate discipline for the study of society. The social,
economic, political and intellectual background of 18th century Europe facilitated the
emergence of sociology. It emerged in European society corresponding to its
socio-historical background which had its origin in the Enlightenment period. This
period embodied the scientific, technological, intellectual and commercial revolutions
in Europe on the one hand; and the French revolution of 1789 on the other. The
Enlightenment period stretched from 14 to 18" century and had given rise to the
force of social change which rocked the feudal monarchy and church in Europe.
Similarly, the industrial revolution in England brought about deep rooted changes in
the nature of individuals in society.

1. It gave rise to varieties of social and cultural problems. All these developments
provided the requisite impetus to the scholars and thinkers of that period to develop
a science of society which could address these problems. Notable among them was
Auguste Comte, a French philosopher, who developed a science of society and
named it sociology. In his famous book " Positive Philosophy ", Comte pointed out
the need for the creation of a distinct science of society which he first called "Social
Physics" and later "Sociology" that should concern itself with an analysis and
explanation of social phenomena. Sociology has been defined as the science of
society. It is the scientific study of social relationships or activities. It studies social
life, actions, behaviours and incidents. Auguste Comte, Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx,
Max Weber and Herbert Spencer made significant contributions to the development
of sociology.

Every subject or branch of knowledge has its own history and subject matter, so also
sociology. Every subject has its own approach, concepts and methods through which
it studies its subject and becomes distinguished from others. Hence, our concern in
this unit is to study the foundations of sociology. This first unit of the paper-1, i.e.
Introduction to sociology, introduces the subject sociology as it emerged as a
discipline and its subsequent growth and development both in international and
Indian context. It also tries to explain the contribution of modern pioneers to the
development of sociology. This unit also highlights the scope, subject matter and
importance of sociology. It explains the two major schools of thought on the scope of
sociology i.e. Formalistic and Synthetic school of thought. This unit also highlights
the interrelationship of sociology with other social sciences. It is a well known fact
that different social sciences are interrelated and one cannot make a sharp
distinction between them. But at present, it is recognized that sociology synthesises
other social sciences. Now, Sociology, Social Anthropology, Economics, Political
Science, History etc. share most of their views and methods. What is sociology and
its roots: Sociology is the general study of social life, groups and societies. Sociology
is a humanistic social science.lt study the behaviour of human beings in society.
Other social sciences like Economics, History etc. also study the same but their
focus of interest is different. Sociology is concerned with social relationships of man
with man and social interactions. It is the scientific

study of social relationships, their variety, their forms and whatever affects them. It
aims to study social action, not in its economic, political, religious or ethical sense,
but the way it influences social behaviour. It is the social nature of human action that
concerns sociologists. Sociology is the science of social reality and social
institutions. As a science of society, sociology studies social institutions, social
groups, social processes and social organisations. Famous French philosopher
Auguste Comte coined the term Sociology in the year 1839. The word "Sociology"
has been derived from two words i. e. the Latin word "Socius " or "Societus" meaning
society, companion or associate and the Greek word "Logos" meaning "study" or
"science" Hence, the etymological meaning of the term sociology is the science of
society or the study of society. Society is a web of social relationships i.e. human
interactions and interrelations. Sociology is the study of human behaviour in groups
or human interaction among human beings. It is a science which is concerned with
association of human beings and analysis and explanation of social phenomena.
Sociology is not only the study of social relationships, activities and incidents but
also of their forms. It is the synthesis of social sciences. According to Simmel, the
main object of sociology is the study of the forms of social interaction. Sociology is
concerned with the "whole" of human society and not with the "parts" which make up
the whole. Its central concern is to study society as an interconnected whole. Its
subject matter is our own behaviour as social beings.

1.2. Emergence of sociology

In order to comprehend any subject, it is pertinent to look into the socio-cultural

coordinates of its genesis and growth. It is a truism that the history of social life and
its problems is as old as human beings themselves. The origin of sociology is
associated with the evolution of man. However the roots of sociological
understanding go back to ancient Greek and Roman literature. But the systematic
study of society emerged in the West. Besides, we do find references of law, the
state and the society in Plato's Republic (427-347 B.C) and in Aristotle's Ethics and
politics (348 322 B.C.). Similarly, Roman philosopher Cicero's book De Officiis (on
justice) was a treasure of insights in philosophy, law, politics and sociology.
St.Augustine's De civitate Dei (345-430 A.D) deals with social concepts and
questions. Later on significant works of subsequent ages like the summa theologica
and de regimine principle of Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274) De Monarchia of Dante
(1265-1321) deals with social concepts and questions of their time. In the modern
period, there appeared some writers who treated problems of life and society on a
more realistic level. No clear cut distinction was made between state and society
until the 16th century. Machiavelli in his famous work "The Prince" made an objective
discussion on state and statecraft. Another notable author of this period was Sir
Thomas Moore (1477-1535) who, in his book "Utopia" published in 1515, dealt with
day to day social problems. Scholars like Thomas Campanella (1568-1639) in his
"City of the Sun" , Sir Francis Bacon in his "New Atlantis" (1561-1628) and James
Harrington in his "The commonwealth of Nations" made discussion on what real life
ought to be. Similarly, famous Italian writer Vico and French scholar Montesquieu
give stress on scientific investigation of social phenomena. In his book"The New
Science" Vico opined that society was subject to definite laws which could be
observed through objective observation. Montesquieu in his famous work "The Spirit
of Laws" had analysed the role of external factors in life of human societies French
scholar Saint Simon tried to develop a new science which would study social life like
physics studies the physical world. But the origin of sociology is attributed to the
numerous developments in the 18" and 19 century especially the Industrial revolution
and the French revolution. These two epoch-making events changed the entire
history of human society. It resulted in metamorphic changes in the realm of
economy, polity, culture and religiosity of mankind. This altered reality attracted the
attention of scholars like Saint Simon, Auguste Comte and others. They attempted to
explain this social transition thereby envisioning their ideas on social reconstruction.
Sociology owes its birth to this intellectual endeavour. Comte is rightly called as the
founder of sociology because he coined the term and also its theme and
methodology. Study of the social institutions was of special significance for him. In
his famous work "Positive Philosophy", Comte pointed out the need for the creation
of a distinct science of society which he first called "social physics" and later
"sociology" that showed concern for analysis and explanation of social phenomena.

1.2.1. EMERGENCE OF SOCIOLOGY IN INDIA

We find the growth of sociology as a discipline is a product of Western intellectual

discourse. However, writings about society can be traced back to the ancient Indian
mythological, religious and spiritual texts such as the Veda, Upanishads, Puranas,
Smritis, writings of Kautlya and Sukracharya that talk volumes about rites, laws,
customs, economy, polity, culture, morality, aesthetics and science. All these writings
are replete with insights concerning social order and stability, mobility, human
interrelationship and social governance. For instance, Kautilya's ArthaShastra is a
monumental treatise on political economy and Shukracharya's Niti Shastra offers
vast wisdom on morality, social customs, ethics, folkways and more. "Charak
Samhita" of 8 century B.C advised the healers to take into account the norms, values
and customs of the people who would come to them. Most of the classical accounts
of Indian Society can be found in the writings of Megasthenes, the Greek
ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. Detailed socio-cultural
description of Indian society is also found in the works of three Chinese travellers,
Fa-hien(400-411 A.D),Yoan Change (624-644 AD) and 1-Tsing (671-695 AD).
Similarly, a sort of sociological approach may be marked in the famous Arab traveller
Al-Biruni's (973-1030) description of the social life and customs of the people.
Valuable information on socio-cultural conditions and daily life of people of India are
available from the narratives of lbn Batutta (1333-1347). Famous Muslim scholar in
Akbar's court (1556-1605) Abul Fazal is known for his work "Ain-i-Akbari". It gives a
wonderful description of society in all its aspects in Akbar's time. Abd-al-Rahman
lbn-khaldun (1332-1406) the famous Islam scholar is known for his popular treatise
"Muqaddamah" where he describes the rise and fall of states and gives stress on
geographical and climatic factors as causes of social change. However the above
scholars were not sociologists in the modern sense. But they were keen observers of
social life and society and thereby providing valuable material for sociology. During
the British period, the rapid acquisition of knowledge of Indian Society and the
intensification of missionary activities began to develop from 1760 onward.
Missionaries and British officials made earnest efforts to study the social life and
culture of people of India. Dr. François Buchanan conducted an ethnographic survey
of Bengal in 1807 which is still considered as a brilliant work of sociological
importance. In 1816, Abbey Dubois, a French Missionary in Mysore wrote a book
entitled "Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies" which is regarded as a valuable
sociological document. Famous social reformer Raja Rammohan Ro's writings on
religion, women and society continue to excite the intellectual discourse for their rich
sociological content. Besides, Vivekananda Dadabhai Naroji, M.G. Ranade and
many others also added the much needed intellectual stimulus to the larger
discourse of individual and society' in India. The making of Indian Sociology can be
traced back to this intellectual climate and its corresponding socio-cultural milieu
Emergence of sociology as a profession in India: Sociology emerged as a separate
academic discipline in Indian universities in the 1" half of 20 century. At the beginning
it was associated with Anthropology. However, the growth of sociology and
anthropology passed through three

First phase - 1773-1900.

Second phase - 1901-1950.

Third phase - 1950 till date.

The beginning of studies in sociology in Calcutta University was first started in 1907.
But there was no separate department of sociology. Later on in 1914 Social
Philosophy and Sociology were introduced in Mysore University. The first department
of sociology started in Bombay University in 1919 followed by the University of
Lucknow in the 1920s. Osmania University offered sociology as one of the options at
 1. Auguste Comte: Prominent French Philosopher Comte coined the
term sociology and contributed substantially to the making of the
discipline. His important works include Positive Philosophy, Systems of
Positive Polity and Religion of Humanity. His significant sociological
themes include Law of Three Stages, Hierarchy of Sciences,
Positivism, Social Statics and Social Dynamics. His major intention was
to create a science of society. Comte opined that sociology must follow
the method of natural sciences. He believes in the unilinear theory of
evolution and opines that human knowledge and society pass through
certain definite progressive evolutionary stages.

2. Emile Durkheim: (1858-1917) Another French sociologist Durkheim

attempted to establish the status of sociology as an independent and
distinct science. He was a follower of Comte's tradition and aimed at
developing a scientific sociology. He is considered as the builder of
sociology. His major contributions include Division of Labour in Society,
Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Le Suicide, Rules of Sociological
Method etc. He was the first modern thinker who emphasised on the
reality of society. In his theory the ultimate social reality is the group.
He advocates the objective, factual and empirical method of study. For
him, sociology is the study of social facts. Social life has to be analysed
in terms of social facts. He considers social facts to be external to
individuals

3. Herbert Spencer: (1820-1903) Herbert Spencer, a British scholar, played

a leading role in the intellectual movement in social sciences in the 19"
century. His sociology is essentially evolutionistic. His main focus was on the
evolutionary growth of social structures. For him, evolution begins in the
inorganic world of matter, goes through the organic or living world of plants
and animals and ends in the human and social world of men. He believed that
all phenomena organic, inorganic and super-organic follow the same natural
law of evolution. His main works are Social Statics, The Study of Sociology,
The Principles of Sociology and Man

4. Max Weber: (1864-1920) Max Weber, a German philosopher and

Sociologist, contributed significantly to the evolution of Sociology as a
scientific discipline. For him, an individual is the basic unit of society. Weber
opines that it is necessary to analyse human motivations, actions and
relationships scientifically. Verstehen i.e interpretative understanding is the
method which is more effective in understanding the dynamics of society and
culture which cannot be reduced to mere observable objects. The task before
the social scientist is to observe the inner meaning of a social phenomenon.
Society and culture are not elements to be quantified in line with the objects in
nature; rather they are to be interpreted. Social action and human
relationships are qualitative in nature. Therefore, it is imperative to make use
of empathy along with the property of objectivity for a comprehensive
understanding of social phenomena. the ideal type can serve as the
appropriate methodological tool for the purpose. For him sociology is the
interpretative understanding of social action. His main works are the
Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism, Economics and Society,
Methodology of Social Sciences.

5. Karl Marx: (1818-1883). Marx, a versatile thinker, a prolific writer and a

critique was a product of German idealism. His writings carry deep imprints of
the ideas of Hegel, Kant, Feneurbach and Adam Smith. However, his writings
are highly original and polemical and are not in complete conformity with
these scholars. Although he claims to be a Sociologist, his versus the State
etc. writings are deeply concerned with burning social issues of his times. He
has extensively written on class, Class formation, struggle, exploitation,
poverty, alienation and social change. The issue of Class and class struggle is
central to Marx's thought. In his words, "the history of all hitherto existing
societies is the history of class struggle'. His main works are Economic and
Philosophical Manuscripts, Capital, The Holy Family, the Poverty of
Philosophy, The Communist Manifesto, German ideology etc.

6. Talcott Parsons (1902-1982): Parsons is a leading American sociologist.

He views sociology as the analysis of social relationships and cultural
products. He tried to keep social science as close to natural science. He
opined that the role of reason is supreme in sociological theory. The social
science, which he calls action science, is that which deals with the realms of
interaction and values. His important books are "The structure of Social action
and The Social System'. Some of his salient themes include

(i) action frame of reference

(i) social system

(ii) pattern variable.

Parsons opines that a social system consists in a plurality of individual actors

interacting with each other in a situation. The core of a social system is the
patterned normative order through which the life of a population is collectively
organised.
1.2.2: Importance of Sociology

As compared to other sciences; sociology is a new and younger science. Still

sociology has been viewed as the science of society and mother of all social
science. But sociologists differ among themselves regarding the importance
and values of sociology. One set of critics trivialise sociology as a discipline
having little connectedness with social reality. On the contrary, others argue in
favour of its importance as a scientific enterprise rooted in the study of social
reality. However, the importance of sociology may be known from the
following.

1. A scientific study of society is only possible through sociological analysis.

2. Study of sociology also helps in understanding and analysing various social

problems.

3. Sociological insights help in effective planning, formulation of social policy

and good governance.

4. A branch of sociology and criminology helps in a proper understanding of

crime and criminality in society.

5. Study of sociology also helps in the comparative understanding of groups,

culture and societies.

6. Sociology as a discipline offers a plethora of themes and issues concerning

social reality like tribal studies, social exclusion and inclusion, gender studies,
Diaspora, urban studies, social movements etc for academic discourse and
research investigations.

1.3. Scope of sociology

Every subject has its own scope and subject matter. Sociologists differ among
themselves regarding the scope of sociology. As a result, there is no
unanimity of opinion amongst scholars about the scope of sociology. Some
sociologists opine that sociology studies everything and any- thing under the
sun, whereas others opine that the scope of sociology is very limited as it
studies only those things which are not studied by other social sciences. V.F.
Calberton opines "since sociology is so elastic a science, it is difficult to
determine just where its boundaries begin and end, where sociology becomes
social psychology and where social psychology becomes sociology or where
economic theory becomes sociological theory, something which is impossible
to decide". However, an attempt has been made to demarcate the exact
scope of sociology.

1.3.1. Definitions of Sociology

Sociology is a new social science. French sociologist Auguste Comte coined
the term sociology in 1839. The term 'sociology' is derived from the Latin word
'societus' meaning 'society' and the Greek word 'logos' meaning study or
'science'. Etymologically sociology means the 'science of society' sociology
concerns itself with an analysis and explanation of social phenomena. It
studies social life, actions, behaviours and incidents. Sociology is the study of
social relationships, groups and societies. Its subject matter is our own
behaviour as social beings. Sociologists differ in their opinions about the
definition of sociology. Sociology has been defined as the science of society.
Some others have defined sociology as the scientific study of social
relationships or activities. But what defines sociology is not what it studies i.e.
group or family, but how it studies a chosen thing. In this context, it is
necessary to discuss some of the

definitions of sociology.

1. Auguste Comte, "sociology is the science of social phenomena

subject to natural and invariable laws, the discovery of which is the
object of investigation".

2. Alex inkeles, "Sociology is the study of systems of social action and

their interrelations".

3. Emile Durkheim "Sociology is the science of social institutions".

4. Max-Weber, "sociology is the science which attempts an interpretative

understanding of social action".

5. Morris Ginsberg, "sociology is the study of human interactions and

interrelations their conditions and consequences". the processes that
tend to maintain or change these forms of organisation and relations
between groups".

6. S. H.P. Fairchild, "sociology is the study of the relationships between

man and his human environment".

7.. J.F. Culler, "sociology may be defined as the body of scientific

knowledge about human relationships.

8.. G.A. Lundberg, "sociology is a body of related generalisations about

human social behaviour arrived at by scientific method".

9.. R.E. Park and F.W. Burgess, "sociology is the science of collective
behaviour".
10. P.A. Sorokin, "sociology is a generalising science of socio-cultural
phenomena viewed in their generic form, types and manifold
interconnections".

11. Arnold Green, "sociology is the synthesising and generalising

science of men in all his social relationships".

12. KimbalI Young, "Sociology deals with the behaviour of men in

groups".

13. Gillin and Gilin, "sociology in its broadest sense may be said to be
the study of interactions arising from the association of living beings".

14. G.Duncan Mitchel, "'sociology is a science for scientific social

development".

An analysis of the above definitions shows that sociologists differ in their

opinion about the definition and the subject matter of sociology. But the
common idea underlying all these is that sociology is concerned with human
beings and their relationships. It gives stress on the social aspect of these
relationships. Maclver opines that whatever subject may be included in the
subject matter, its real subject matter is social relationships. This social
relationship is the basis of social interaction of social processes. That is why
man becomes a social animal only when he enters into these social
relationships. Hence, studying sociology means studying social relationships.

1.3.2. Scope of Sociology

Scope means area of study, field of inquiry or the subject matter. Each subject
has its own field of study, so also sociology. Study of sociology is organised
within a specific boundary which is known as the scope of sociology. Without
a demarcated boundary, it is very difficult to study as a subject systematically.
Hence, it is necessary to demarcate the boundary or scope of a subject.
There are two main schools of thought among sociologists on the issue of
scope and subject 3 matter of sociology. Formal school or specialistic school
of thought and synthetic school of thought.

1.3.2.1. Formalistic or specialistic school

This school of thought is headed by German sociologist George Simmel.

Alfred Vierkandt Leopold Von Wiese, Max-Weber, Albion Small, Ferdinand
Tonnies, E.A. Ross, Park and Burgess are other important supporters of this
school. According to this school of thought the subject matter of sociology
consists of this school opinion that sociology cannot study social life as a
whole. Hence, the scope of sociology is very limited. They want to keep the
scope of sociology distinct from other social sciences. They consider
sociology as a pure and independent science. However, the views of the
supporters of this school of thought regarding the scope of sociology are
discussed below:

1 George Simmel: Formalistic school is headed by German sociologist

George Simmel. According to Simmel sociology should confine its study to
formal behaviour instead of actual behaviour. studying Sociology
comprehends the forms of social science which describes, analyses,
classifies and delineates the forms of social relationships, the process of
socialisation and social organisation etc. Simmel makes a distinction between
the forms of social relationships and their contents and opines that sociology
should confine itself in explaining different forms of social relationships and
study them in abstraction whereas their contents are dealt with by other social
sciences. Co-operation, competition, subordination, division of labour etc. are
different forms of social relationships. As sociology confines itself in studying
forms of social relationships, its scope is very limited.

2 Alfred Vierkandt: Another leading supporter of formal school Vierkandt

opines that sociology is a special branch of study which deals with the
ultimate forms of mental or psychic relationships. These mental relationships
consist of love, hate, Co-operation etc. which shape particular types of social
relationships. He maintains that sociology can be a definite science only when
it abstains from a historic study of concrete societies. Thus, in his opinion the
scope of sociology is very limited as it deals with the ultimate forms of mental
or psychic relationships like love, hatred, co-operation, competition etc.

3 Leopold Vonwiese:Another main advocate of formal school Vonwiese

opined that the scope of sociology is very limited as it only studies the form of
social relationships and forms of social prOcesses. He has divided these
social relationships and social processes into many types. He has identified
more than 650 forms of human relationships. Similarly there are two types of
social processes in society such as associative and dissociative which
includes cooperation and conflict respectively.

4. Max Weber: Another supporter of formalistic school Max-Weber opines

that the aim of sociology is to classify or attempt an interpretative
understanding of social action and social and social action and social
behaviour. It should confine itself in the analysis and Classification of social
action and social behaviours. Social behaviour is that which is related to the
behaviour of others., As social behaviour does not include the whole of
human relations, hence the Scope of sociology is very limited.

5 Albion Small: Another advocate of formal school A. Small opined that the
scope of SOciology is much limited as it does not study all the activities of
society but only confine itself in studying the genetic forms of social
relationships, behaviour and activities.

6. Ferdinand Tonnies: Tonnies has supported the formal school and the idea
of pure sociology. On the basis of forms of social relationships he has
differentiated between 'Gemeinschaft' (society) and 'Gesellschaft (community)
and opined that the main aim of sociology is to study the different forms of
social relationship that comes under these two

From the above views of supporters of formalistic school it may be concluded

that sociology studies a particular aspect of social relationships. It studies the
forms of social relationships in their abstract nature, not in concrete situations.
Thus, the formalistic school has confined the Scope of sociology to the
abstract study of the forms of social relationships.

Criticism of formalistic school:

the following grounds.

The formalistic school of thought has been criticised from

1. The formalistic school of thought has extremely narrowed down the scope
of sociology to merely the abstract forms of social relationships.

2. The distinction between the forms of social relationships and the content of
social relationships is not possible. It is also not possible to study the abstract
forms by separating them from concrete relations.

3. The formalistic idea of pure and independent sociology is purely imaginary

in nature.

4. Besides sociology, other social sciences like economics, political science,

Psychology also study social relationships.

5. Comparison of sociology with geometry is impractical and incorrect.

1.3.2.2. Synthetic School categories.

It came into existence in reaction to the formalistic school of thought. It tries to

make Sociology a synthesis of the social sciences or a general science and
encyclopaedic. According to this school of thought, the scope of sociology is
very wide and all inclusive. According to this School of thought, different
aspects of social life are interrelated. We can't understand society with the
study of one aspect only: hence sociology should attempt to study social lite
as a Whole. Sociology studies the whole of social life: hence its scope is very
wide. The main advocates of this school of thought are Emile Durkheim, LI.
 Hobhouse, P.A. Sorokin, Morris Ginsberg, Karl Mannheim, Alex Inkeles and
many others.

1. Emile Durkheim:Opinions of supporters of this school of thought

regarding the scope of sociology are described below. he main
advocates of synthetic school Durkheim opines that the scope of
sociology has three main divisions or field of study i.e

(i) social Morphology: It includes all those subjects which are geographic, such as,
population, its size, density, distribution, mobility etc and comprehends two studies.
First, analysis of the size and quality of the population affects the qualities of social
relationships and social groups. Second, study of the social structure, or a
description of the main forms of social groups of institutions as well as their
classification.

(i) Social Physiology: Social physiology is inclusive of all those subjects that are
studied by particular social sciences, such as religion, economy, language, morals,
law etc. In other words, social physiology has different branches, such as sociology
of law, sociology of religion etc. which are regarded as special aspects of sociology

(ii) General Sociology: General sociology is the philosophical part of sociology. Its
function is to discover the general character of these social facts and to formulate
P.A. Sorokin: Sociology studies various aspects of social relationships hence can't be
called a special science. He also subscribes to the view that sociology is a synthesis
of the general social laws.

2 LT. Hothouse: Famous English sociologist L.T. Hothouse holds similar opinions
like Durkheim about the scope of sociology. He represents the philosophical side of
sociology. According to him, sociology is a science which shows the social life of
man as its sphere. He opines that it is possible to have a fuller comprehension of the
whole from the study of its parts. Hence, sociologists should interpret social life as a
whole. Keeping in mind the interrelatedness of social relations, sociologists should
try to interconnect the results arrived at by social science. While studying the parts,
sociologists have to correlate the results of the study with an eye to the whole of
society. Then only the study of parts contributes to a fuller comprehension of the
whole.

3 P.A. Sorokin: Sociology studies various aspects of social relationships hence can't
be called a special science. He also subscribes to the view that sociology is a
synthesis of the social Sciences or a general science. According to him, the scope of
sociology includes the study of features of social phenomena and the study of
relationships between the different aspects of social phenomena.

4 Morris Ginsberg: According to Ginsberg, Sociology studies and classifies all

forms of Social relationship, studies the relationship between individual and society
and the relationship among different aspects of social life such as economic,
political, religious, etc. He divides the SCope of sociology into four main divisions
such as social morphology, social control, social process and social pathology. Social
morphology studies the quality and quantity of population, SOCial group, social
structure, and social institutions. Social control studies the mechanisms i.e. both
formal and informal by which society controls the behaviour of its members. Social
process studies different types of interaction like cooperation and conflict. Social
pathology studies social problems of poverty, population, crime etc. According to him
the main functions of sociology is to discover sociological Principles of social life and
tries to determine the relation between different parts of social life.

5 Karl Mannheim: Another supporter of the synthetic school of thought Karl

Mannheim opines that the scope of sociology is very wide. He divides sociology into
two categories such as systematic and general sociology and historical sociology.
Systematic and general sociology deals with main factors of living together found in
different kinds of society whereas historical sociology deals with the historical variety
and general forms of society. Historical sociology has two divisions such as
comparative sociology and social dynamics. Comparative sociology is concerned
with historical features. On the other hand, social dynamics is concerned with the
interrelations between social factors and institutions in a particular society.

6 Alex Inkles: Another protagonist of synthetic school of thought Alex Inkles opines
that the scope of sociology includes social analysis, Primary concepts of social life,
Basic social processes.

Thus, it may be concluded that there is no conflict between two schools of thought
about the scope of sociology. Sociology is both a general science and a special
science. It synthesises all special science. Hence the scope of sociology is very
wide. One school studies the part and other studies the whole. Both part and whole
are interrelated; we can't study the part without studying the whole and vice-versa.

1.2.5. Subject Matter of Sociology:

Subject matter means scope, area of study or field of inquiry. Every subject has its
own subject matter, so also sociology. Study of sociology is organised within a
specific boundary which is known as the scope or subject matter of sociology which
is already discussed. But, there are some critics who opine that sociology does not
have a subject matter of its own and whatever subject matter it has it is a hotchpotch
of various social SCiences. Sociology borrows from other social sciences as it is
merely an assemblage of various social sciences. But this criticism is totally
incorrect. Sociology is not only an independent SCience with subject matter of its
own but also it is considered as the mother of all social SCiences. Other social
sciences have spheres within sociology just as associations have the spheres within
community as Maclver remarks.

1.4. Nature of Sociology

Sociology as A Science: There exists a great controversy about the exact nature of
Sociology. The root question is, whether sociology is a science? Sociologists get
divided among themselves into two opposite groups. For one group of sociologists,
sociology is a science because it adopts and applies the methods of natural sciences
for social investigation. Founding fathers of Sociology Auguste Comte, Emile
Durkheim and others subscribe to this view. On the contrary, The other camp holds a
different viewpoint that sociology is not a science. German scholar Max Weber does
not entirely accept the mechanistic viewpoint of science as advocated by Comte.
However, sociology is a behavioural science which tries to explore and explain social
reality as objectively as possible.

MEANING OF SCIENCE: Science is a body of systematic knowledge. Science is

based on reason and evidence. A science is "a branch of knowledge or study dealing
with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of
general laws." Science collects facts and links them together in their causal
sequence to draw valid inferences. Science adopts scientific methods. Scientific
knowledge is acquired through observation, experimentation, generalisation etc.
Science has the following characteristics such as objectivity, observation, accurate
prediction, experimentation, accurate measurement, generalisation and cause-effect
Sociology is a Science: According to Comte and Durkheim, "Sociology is a science
because it adopts and applies the scientific method. Sociology does make use of
scientific methods in the study of its subject matter. Hence Sociology is a science. It
is a science because

(1) Sociology pursues scientific method: application of scientific method. It

believes that investigation is like a natural phenomenon. Sociology studies social
reality with the human action can be subject to scientific

(2) Sociology uses observation as a tool: Sociologists study the social world as a
social observer. The whole world is the laboratory of sociology. The sociologist
applies the fieldwork method in the understanding and interpretation of the human
world Relationships for the following reasons.

(3) Objectivity is Objective possible in Sociology: Like natural sciences,

Sociology engages itself in analysis. Sociological insights are based on facts
emerging from field investigation.

(4) Sociology describes cause-effect relationship: Like natural sciences,

sociology also traces the cause and finds answers to it. While studying family or
population growth, sociology traces the relationship between family disorganisation
and divorce and population growth and poverty. Family disorganization is the cause
of divorce and population growth is the cause of poverty. Thus, sociology describes
cause-effect relationships in social disorganisation and population explosion. Hence
sociology is a science.

(5) Sociology makes accurate measurements: Sociology, like natural sciences,

also accurately measures social phenomena or relationships. By using statistical
methods, socio metric scale, scales of measurement sociology effectively and
accurately measures social relationships. Hence Sociology is a science.

(6) Prediction is possible: Like natural sciences, sociology does frame laws and
attempts to predict more accurately. On the basis of cause-effect relationship,
sociology can accurately predict the future. If there will be dowry in society then it will
lead to suicide, poverty. Cuvier opines that this predictive value of sociology is
improved day by day. As Sociology matures day by day, it predicts more accurately.

(7) Generalisation is possible: The notion that generalisation drawn by social

sciences is not universal is proved wrong. Like natural sciences, sociology draws
generalisations based on fieldwork which is universally applicable. The concept of
incest taboo-prohibited sex

SOCIOLOGY IS NOT SCIENCE: There are some scholars like Max-Weber who
deny the status of science to Sociology. He said Sociology can't be an objective
Science. However, those

(1) Lack of Objectivity: Sociology cannot be called a science because it cannot

maintain complete objectivity with social phenomena. Sociologist has his own
prejudice and bias hence he cannot observe his subject with complete detachment..
Complete objectivity in the study of human behaviour is impossible. Sociology deals
with social relationships which cannot be studied like physical objects. Hence,
objectivity is not possible in Sociology.

(2) Lack of Experimentation: Sociology is not a science because it can't do

experimentation. Sociology deals with human relationships which cannot be put to
laboratory tests. We can't see or weigh human relationships because it is abstract in
nature. We can't do experiment with abstract things relationship among blood
relatives is a universal truth who deny the status of science to Sociology they put
forth following arguments:

1. Sociology is a social and not a natural science.

2. Sociology is a positive and a normative science.

3. Sociology is a pure science and not an applied science.

4. Sociology is an abstract science and not a concrete science.

5. Sociology is a generalising science and not a particularising science.

6. Sociology is both a rational and an empirical science.

1.5. Sociology and other academic disciplines

The meaning, nature and scope of sociology will be better understood in the light of
its relationship with other social sciences. For a complete understanding of human
social life it is necessary to study not only one but all the aspects minutely. Sociology
is a social science and a science of society. As a social science, it attempts to study
social life as a whole. But To the complete study of social life as a whole sociology
requires the help of other social sciences. Different social sciences are interrelated
and one can't make a sharp distinction between them. Any such attempt to study
society as a totality suggests that its study should be done as a whole. But in recent
years it is recognized that sociology synthesises other social sciences but it is at the
same time as special science having its own individual view point. It is also
considered as the mother of all social sciences. All other social sciences depend on
sociology because no aspect of human life can be detached from its social aspect.
Besides, no social science is in a position to give a complete picture of society.
Sociology endeavours to study social life as a whole by taking help from other social
sciences. Hence, there exists a very close and intimate relationship between
sociology and other social sciences. In this context the study of interrelationships
among social science is very important.

1.5.1. Relationship between social and natural sciences

Social life is very complex. To understand this complex social life it is necessary to
study all the aspects minutely. The factors and elements that influence social life are
affected by both natural and social factors and elements. Hence, the subject matter
of science has been categorised into two parts i.e. natural sciences and social
sciences. The subject matter of natural sciences is the forces of nature where the
subject matter of Social sciences is social phenomena. Goal of both these sciences
is the same i.e. exploring the relationship between the natural world and the human
world. Hence, both are mutually related and influence each other. At the same time
both are also different from each other from multiple angles. While natural sciences
are objective, social sciences are subjective. Natural sciences are studied through
scientific methods. Scope and subject matter of both sciences also differ. But both
are interrelated.

1.5.2. Sociology and Anthropology

Sociology is the mother of all social sciences. Hence it has a close and intimate
relationship with Anthropology. The relationship is so close that Anthropologists like
A.L. Kroeber considers Sociology and Anthropology as twin sisters. They often
appear as two names for the same subject. R. Redfield recognizes the closeness
between these two social sciences. Sociology is a science of society. It studies the
behaviour of man in groups. The term Sociology has been derived from the Latin
word 'Socius' which means society, companion or association and the Greek word
'logos' means study or science. Hence Sociology is concerned with the association
of human beings. It is a science that deals with social groups.

Similarly the term Anthropology is derived from two Greek words 'anthropos'
meaning man and logos' meaning study or science, Accordingly anthropology means
study of man. As a SCience of man it deals with man, his works and behaviour.
Anthropology studies the cultural and biological development of man. Anthropology
has a wide field of study which can be broadly divided into four main divisions such
as physical anthropology, archeology, cultural anthropology and social anthropology.
Physical anthropology studies bodily characteristics of early man and thereby tries to
understand both primitive and modern cultures. Archeology studies cultures of the
prehistoric period. This study facilitates sociologists to make a comparative study of
present social structure. It is concerned with the early periods of human existence. It
reconstructs the origin, spread and evolution of culture by examining the remains of
the past societies. Social anthropology deals with the behaviour of man in social
institutions. Social anthropology and sociology are one and the same. Evan Pritchard
considers social anthropology as a branch of Sociology.

However there exists a very close and intimate relationship between Sociology and
Anthropology. Both contribute to the growth of each other. Both have a symbiotic
relationship. Anthropology studies primitive man in a pre-literate society whereas
sociology studies man in modern complex societies. Anthropology is holistic in
nature because it studies all aspects of man in a social setting; whereas this is not
possible in sociology because of its vastness and complexity of modern life.
However their close relationship can be known from the following.

Anthropology contributes to the growth of Sociology. Without the help of

anthropology the study of Sociology can't be complete. It is a part of Sociology.
Anthropology provides knowledge about ancient societies. To have a comprehensive
understanding of present society Sociology takes the help of anthropology.
Contributions of many Anthropologists like R.Brown, Linton, Mead and Pritchard
enriches sociological knowledge. The origin of family, marriage, religion etc. can be
better understood through anthropological knowledge. Sociology accepts the
concepts like cultural area, cultural traits, and cultural lag etc. from anthropology.
Sociology accepts the anthropological conclusion that racial superiority is not
responsible for mental development. Thus Sociology is greatly benefited by
anthropological studies. Similarly, Sociology contributes richly towards the growth of
anthropology. Anthropology accepts many concepts of Sociology. Research and
contributions of many Sociologists like Emile Durkheim, Herbert Spencer is of great
help to anthropology. Anthropologists greatly benefited from Sociological research.
ideas and conclusions of Sociology contribute to the research in anthropology.
Thus, there exists a close and intimate relationship between Sociology and
Anthropology. Both Study human society and both are concerned with all kinds of
social groups like families, triends, tribes etc. Many of the ideas and concepts are
used in both the disciplines. Hence both are interrelated and interdependent.
However, in spite of the inter-relationship, both differ from each other.

Differences:

(1) Sociology is a science of society whereas anthropology is a science of man and

his behaviour.

(2) The scope of Sociology is very wide whereas the scope of Anthropology is very
limited to society.

(3) Sociology studies society as a whole whereas anthropology studies man as a

part of society.

(4) Sociology studies civilizations which are vast and dynamic. On the other hand
Anthropology studies cultures which are simple and primitive.

(5) Sociology studies modern, civilised and complex societies whereas Anthropology
studies ancient and pre-literate societies.

(6) Sociology is concerned with social planning whereas anthropology is not

concerned with social planning. On the basis of social planning sociology makes
suggestions for the future but anthropology does not make any suggestions for the
future.

(7) In the words of Kluckhon, "The Sociological attitude has tended towards the
Practical and Present, the anthropological towards pure understanding of the past."

1.5.3. Sociology and Economics

Sociology is the mother of all social sciences. Hence, it has a close relationship with
all social sciences and so also with Economics. The relationship of Sociology with
Economics is very close, intimate and personal. There exists a close relationship
between these two because economic relationships bear a close relation to social
activities and relationships. Likewise social relationships are also affected by
economic relationships. Economic activities to a great extent are social activities.
Hence both are mutually related. Sociology is a science of society. It is concerned
with the association of human beings. Sociology is the study of human interactions
and interrelations their conditions and consequences. But Economics deals with the
economic activities of man. It is a science of wealth and choice. According to
Proto.Robbins, Economics is a social science which studies human behaviour in
relation to its unlimited ends and scarce means which have alternative uses. "It is
concerned with the activities of man such as production, consumption, distribution
and exchange. It also studies the structure and functions of different economic
organisations like banks, markets etc. It is concerned with the material needs of man
as well as his material welfare. However, there exists a great deal of
inter-relationship between these two sciences. Both are interdependent and
interrelated with each other. Due to this interrelationship Thomas opines that,
"Economics is, in fact, but one branch of Sociology. " Similarly, Silverman opines
Economics is regarded as an offshoot of Sociology which studies the general
principles of relations. all social Their inter-relationships are as follows:

Economics takes the help of Sociology. For its own comprehension economics takes
the help of

sociology and depends on it. Economics is a part of Sociology hence without the
help from Sociology, Economics can't understand itself completely. Economics is
concerned with material welfare of man which is common welfare. Economic welfare
is a part of social welfare. For the solution of different economic problems such as
inflation, poverty, unemployment etc, Economists take the help of Sociology and take
into account the social events of that particular time. At the same time society
controls other economic activities of man. Economics is greatly benefited by the
research conducted by Sociologists like Max Weber, Pareto etc. Some economists
also consider economic change as an aspect of social change. Economics draws its
generalisation based on the data provided by Sociology. Thus, Economics cannot go
far or develop without the help of Sociology.

Similarly Sociology also takes the help from Economics. Economics greatly enriches
sociological knowledge. Economic factors greatly influence each and every aspect of
social life. Economics is a part of sociology hence without the help of economics we
can't understand sociology properly. Knowledge and research in the field of
economics greatly contributes to sociology. Each and every social problem has an
economic cause. For the solution of social problems like dowry, suicide etc
Sociologists take the help form economics. Marx opines economic relations
constitute the foundation of Society. Economic factors play a very important role in
every aspect of our social life; that is why Sociologists are concerned with economic
institutions. For this reason sociologists like Spencer, Weber, Durkheim and others
have taken the help from economics in their analysis of social relationships. Thus
both sociology and economics are very closely related to each other. There are
some problems which are being studied by both sociologists and economics.
Economic changes result in social changes and vice versa. However, in spite of the
above closeness, interrelationship and interdependence both the sciences have
certain differences which are described below:

Differences:

1) Sociology is a science of society and social relationships whereas economics is

science of wealth.
(4) Sociology is a much younger science which has a very recent origin whereas
economics is comparatively old.

(5) Sociology is an abstract science whereas economics is concrete in nature.

(4) Sociology is a general social science whereas economics is a special social

science.

(5) Sociology is concerned with the social activities of man whereas economics is
Concerned with the economic activities of man.

(6) Society is studied as a unit of study in Sociology whereas man is taken as a unit
of study in economics.

(7) Both Sociology and economics differ from each other in respect of the methods
and techniques they use for their study.

1.5.4. Sociology and Political Science

As a mother of social science, Sociology has close and intimate relationships with all
other social science. Hence, it has a close relationship with political sciences as well.
Their relationship is so close and intimate that led G.E.C. Catlin remarked "Political
Science and Sociology are two phases or aspects of the same figure. "Similarly
other scholars could not find any difference between the two disciplines. Sociology is
a Science of society. It is a science of social groups and social institutions. It is a
general science of society. It studies human interaction and inter-relations their
conditions and consequences. Political Science is a science of state and
government. It studies power, political processes, political systems, types of
government and international relations. It deals with social groups organised under
the sovereign of the state. In the words of Paul Junet, "Political Science is that part of
social science which treats the foundation of the state and principles of government.
"It studies the political activities of man. It only studies organised society. However,
their interrelationship can be known from their interdependence and mutual
Sociology depends on political science. In the words of Morris Ginsberg, "Historically,
Sociology has its main roots in politics and philosophy of history." Sociology is
greatly benefited by the relationship. books written by political scientists like Plato,
Aristotle and Kautilya such as The Republic, The Politics and Arthasastra
respectively. Each and every social problem has a Political political cause. Science is
a part of Sociology. Hence sociology depends on Political Science to comprehend
itself. To understand different political events, sociology takes the help of political
science. Sociology draws its conclusions being dependent on political science. Any
change in the political system or nature of power structure brings changes in sOciety.
Hence Sociology takes the help of political science to understand the changes in
society. Hence both are interdependent. Similarly, political science also depends on
Sociology. Political Science is a part of sociology. To understand the part, it is
necessary to understand the whole. Almost all political problems have a social cause
and for the solution of these political problems political science takes the help of
sociology. State frames its rules, regulations and laws on the basis of social
customs, tradition and values. Without Sociological background, the study of political
science will be incomplete. Political Scientists are largely benefited by the
researches and research methods of the Sociologist. Some consider political science
as a branch of Sociology. State is considered as a social group hence is a subject of
Sociology. Besides, there are some common topics which are being studied by both
the subjects. These topics include among other things War, Propaganda, authority,
communal riots and law. With the help of both political science and sociology, a new
subject comes into existence which is known as political sociology. Some political
events like war are also significant social events. Thus both political science and
sociology contribute to each other. But in spite of their interrelationship and
interdependence both the sciences differ from each other in the following way.

Differences:

(1) Sociology isa science of society and social relationship whereas political science
is a science of state and government.

(2) The scope of sociology is very wide but the scope of political science is limited.

(3) Sociology is a general science but political science is a special science.

(4) Sociology studies organised, unorganised and disorganised society whereas

political science studies only politically organised society.

(5) Sociology studies the social activities of man whereas political science studies
the political activities of man.

(6) Sociology is a new or young science but political science is an old science.

(7) SOciology studies man as a political animal. a social animal whereas political
science studies man as a

(8) Sociology studies both formal and informal relations whereas political science
studies only formal relations.

(9) Sociology analyses both conscious and unconscious activities of man whereas
political science analyses only conscious activities of man.

(10) Sociology deals with all forms of association whereas political science deals
with only one form of association named state.

1.5.5. Sociology and History

As a mother of social sciences, sociology has close and intimate relationships with
all other social sciences. It has a close relationship with history, because present
society bears symbols of the past. Relationship between the two is so close and
intimate that scholars like G. Von Bulow has refused to acknowledge sociology as a
science distinct from history. Sociology is the science of society. It is a study of
systems of social action and their interrelations. Sociology is a science of social
groups and social institutions. History studies the important past events and
incidents. It records men's past life and life of societies in a systematic and
chronological order. It also tries to find out the causes of past events. It also studies
the past political, social and economic events of the world. It not only studies the
past but also establishes relations with the present and future. That is why it is said
that "History is the microscope of the past, the horoscope of the present and
telescope of the future. However, both the sciences are closely interrelated and
interdependent on each other. Both study the same human society. Their mutual
dependence led G.H. Howard remarked that, "History is past Sociology and
Sociology is present history," Both take help from each other. At the same time one
depends on the other for its own comprehension. History helps and enriches
Sociology. History is the storehouse of knowledge from which Sociology gained a lot.
History provides materials sociologists use. History is a record of past social matters,
social customs and information about different stages of life. Sociology uses this
information. Books written by historians like A. Toynbee are of great use for
Sociologists. To know the impact of a particular past event, sociology depends on
history. Similarly Sociology also provides help to history and enriches it. A historian
greatly benefited from the research conducted by Sociologists. Historians now study
caste, class and family by using sociological data. Sociology provides the
background for the study of history. Now history IS being studied from the
background. Sociological angle, Every historical event has a social cause or Socidl
To understand that historical event history needs the help from Sociology and
Sociology helps history in this respect. Sociology provides facts on which historians
rely on. Thus history and Sociology are mutually dependent on each other. History is
now being studied from a Sociological angle and Sociology is also now studied from
a historical point of view. Historical Sociology now became a new branch of
Sociology which depends on history. Similarly Sociological history is another
specialised subject which is based on both the Sciences. But in spite of the above
close relationship and interdependence both the sciences differ from each other from
different angles which are described below.

Differences: (1) Sociology is a science of society and is concerned with the present
society. But history deals with the past events and studies the past society.

(2) Sociology is a modern or new subject whereas history is an older social science.

(3) Sociology is abstract whereas history is concrete in nature.

(4) The scope of Sociology is very wide whereas the scope of history is limited.
Sociology includes history within its scope.

(5) Sociology is an analytical science whereas history is a descriptive science.

(6) Attitudes of sociology and history differ from each other. Sociology studies a
particular event as a social phenomenon whereas history studies a particular event
in it's

(7) Sociology is a general science whereas history is a special science.

1.5.6. Sociology and Psychology

Sociology is a science of society. Hence it is closely related to other social sciences

and so also with psychology. Sociology and Psychology are very closely interlinked,
interrelated and interdependent. Relationships between the two are so close and
intimate that Psychologists like Karl Pearson refuse to accept both as special
science. Both depend on each other for their own comprehension. Their relationship
will be clear if we analyse their interrelationship and mutual Dependency. Sociology
is a science of social phenomena and social relationships. It is a science of social
groups and social institutions. It is a science of collective behaviour. It studies human
behaviour in groups. But psychology is a science of mind or mental processes. It is a
science of humans Entirely. behaviour. It analyses attitudes, emotions, perception,
process of learning and values of Individuals and process of perception, process of
Thouless, 'Psychology is the positive science of human experience and behaviour .
Both the sciences are closely related to each other which can be known from the
following.

Sociology receives help from Psychology. Psychology is a part of sociology hence

without the Psychology; Sociology can't understand itself fully and properly. There
are many psychologists like Freud, Mac Dugal and others who have enriched
Sociology in many respects. They opine that the whole social life could be reduced
finally to psychological forces. Each andEvery social problem and social
phenomenon must have a psychological basis for the solution to which sociology
requires the help form psychology. A new branch of knowledge has developed with
the combination of sociology and psychology which is known as social Psychology.
Similarly, psychology depends on Sociology to comprehend itself fully. Psychology
also requires help from sociology in many cases. As human mind and personality is
being influenced by social environment, culture, customs and traditions hence
psychology takes the help form Sociology to understand this. To understand human
nature and behaviour properly psychology depends on sociology. There are many
Psychological problems which must have a social cause. Psychology requires the
help of Sociology to understand these social problems. Research in Sociology richly
contributes to psychology. Contributions and theories of many Sociologists also are
of great help to Psychologists. Thus, Sociology and Psychology are mutually
dependent on each other. One can't comprehend itself without the help from others.
Besides there are some common areas of study such as social disorganisation,
public opinion etc. which are being studied by both Sociologists and Psychologists.
Social Psychology a branch of Psychology is developed with the combination of the
two. In the words of Kretch and CrutchfieldSocial Psychology is the science of
behaviour of the individuals in society.

Differences: However, in spite of the mutual relationship and dependence both the
sciences differ from each other in the following ways.

(1) Sociology is a science of society but Psychology is a science of mind.

(2) Scope of Sociology is wide whereas the scope of Psychology is limited.

(3) Society is the unit of study in sociology but the individual is the unit of study in
case of Psychology.

(4) Sociology studies social processes whereas Psychology studies mental

procesSes.

(5) Sociology studies and analyses human behaviour from Sociological angle
whereas psychology studies and analyses human behaviour from Psychological
angles.

1.5.7. Sociology and Ethics

Sociology is the science of society. Hence, it is closely related to all other social
sciences and so also with ethics. Different social sciences are interrelated. Hence,
there exists some interrelationship between sociology and ethics. Ethics is the
science of morality. Ethics is concerned with good or bad, 'paap aur punya' and with
the moral rightness and wrongness of human action. It conditions social action.
Ethics aims at the ideals of 'satya' and fair play. Ethics wants individuals to be ethical
which is in the interest of society. Ethics throw light on the moral life of individuals
and institutions. Ethics is a normative science. Ethics studies individuals as moral
agents of society. Sociology and ethics are very closely and intimately related to
each other. Ethics wants individuals to be ethical which is in the interest of society.
Good ethical standards provided solid foundations to society. Society makes him
believe. Hence, ethics and sociology go together. Individual good must be in
harmony with the general good of society. It is here that sociology and ethics come
close to each other. Ethics influences the social institutions. As a social animal, man
acquires moral values as a member of a social group. Moral life of individuals lies
amidst a social group. Degree of moral standards of individuals decides the nature of
a society. Ethics is concerned with the moral progress of society which decides the
general progress of society. Thus, there exists a close relationship between the two.
This led many scholars to consider ethics as a branch of sociology. Besides the
above close relationships, both the sciences differ in many respects. Sociology and
Ethics are two distinct disciplines. As a science of society sociology is concerned
with groups not individuals. But Ethics mainly concerned with individuals and its
morality. Sociology is a positive Science but Ethics is a normative science. Scope of
sociology is very wide while that of Ethics is limited. Sociology studies individuals
and their social relations but Ethics studies the moral life of individuals. Sociology is
the science of society where of Ethics is the science of morality.

Recent View :No doubt, all social sciences study their own specific aspects in the
social phenomenon. All social sciences share the same subject but their different
attitudes create differences among them. According to Simpson, social sciences are
united and this unity is not imaginary. It is the dynamic unity of different parts and
every part is necessary for another and all other parts. One can't deny the desired
and necessary unity among one specific and general social science. But the recent
view regarding the relationship between sociology and other social sciences is
different from any view which makes a sharp difference between social sciences. In
recent years, the social scientists recognize the need for a comprehensive study of
society which can't be made in a fragmented manner. An interdisciplinary approach
is one of the basic and fundamental developments in the area of social science.
Now, sociology, social anthropology, political science, economics, history,
psychology, ethics etc. share most of their views and methods.

1.6. Let us Sum up century, as a response to Though, the roots of sociological

writings go back to the Greek and the Roman Philosophy, Sociology emerged
as a new discipline only in the first half of the 19n the crisis caused by the
French and the industrial revolution.

1. French Philosopher Auguste comte coined the term sociology in the year 1839.
He is considered as the father of sociology.

2. Prior to the origin of sociology, society was studied through religion, philosophy,
history, polity and economy.

3. Comte wanted to make a scientific study of society. He wanted this new science to
adopt the methods of study of Physical sciences.

4. In his 'Positive Philosophy', Comte pointed out the need for the creation of a
district science of society which he first called 'social physics' and later 'sociology'
that should concern itself with an analysis and explanation of social phenomena.

5. Comte predicted that man would become the master of his social destiny as soon
as he had developed a science of society.

6. Sociology is the scientific study of social relationships, their variety, their form and
whatever affects them.

7. The term 'sociology' has been derived from two word i.e. the Latin word 'socius' or
'societies' meaning society, companionship and the Greek word 'Logos' meaning
study or science.

8. The beginning of studies in sociology in Calcutta University was first started in

1907.

End
Module 12

1.1 Introduction

Auguste Comte, a French philosopher, is said to be the founding father of Sociology

and the doctrine of positivism. He was greatly influenced by the utopian socialist
Claude Henry Saint Simon. Comte was greatly disturbed by the anarchy that
pervaded French society and was critical of those thinkers who had spawned both
the enlightenment and the revolution. He developed the positive philosophy in an
attempt to remedy the social maladies of the French revolution, calling for a new
doctrine based on the sciences. His scientific view of positivism was developed to
combat the negative and destructive philosophy of the Enlightenment. Though
influenced by the French counter revolutionary Catholics, he differed from them on
two grounds. First, returning to the middle ages was made impossible because of the
advancement in science and technology. Second, his theoretical system was much
more sophisticated than his predecessors. He influenced the work of many social
thinkers like Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill and George Elliot. Comte first coined the
term Social Physics and later changed it to Sociology in 1839. From the very
beginning, Comte wanted to model Sociology after the hard sciences and visualised
it to become the dominant science. He tried to create a new science that would not
only explain the past of mankind but also predict its future course. Like all sciences,
Comte believed that this new science of society should be based on observation and
reasoning. Sociology should be used to create a better society. According to him,
Sociology is concerned both with Social Statics (social structures) and Social
Dynamics (social change). He felt that social dynamics was more important than
social statics which reflects his interest in social reform, particularly the ills created
by the French Revolution and the Enlightenment.

1.2 Life Sketch and Works

Isidore Auguste Marie Francois Xavier Comte, better known as Auguste Comte, was
born in Montpellier, Herault, in Southern France on 19 January 1798. After attending
the Lycee Joffre and then the University of Montpellier, Comte joined the Ecole
Polytechnique in Paris. But two years later the institutions were closed down by the
Bourbons. In August 1817, Comte met Claude Henry Saint Simon who appointed
him as his secretary. He was thus initiated into politics at a very young age. He
published a great number of articles which brought him to the public sphere. In 1824,
he broke with Saint Simon. Comte married Caroline Massin and divorced in 1842. In
1826, he was taken to a mental hospital, but left without being cured. He started
teaching the Course of Positive Philosophy in January 1829 and published six
volumes of the Course (1830, 1835, 1838, 1839, 1841, 1842). Comte developed a
close friendship with John Stuart Mill and developed a new "Religion of Humanity''.
He published four volumes of "Systeme de politique positive" (1851-1854). His final
work, the first volume of "La Synthese Subjective" (The Subjective Synthesis), was
published in 1854. Comte died of stomach cancer on 5h September 1857 in Paris.
His other works include 'Elementary Treatise on Analytic Geometry' (1843), *The
Philosophical Treatise on Popular Astronomy' (1844), "The Discourse on Positive
Spirit' (1844), and The General View of Positivism' (1848).

1.3 The Law of Three Stages

The Law of Three Stages' is considered to be the stone of Comtian thought. This
theory has got the influence of Charles Darwin's theory of "Organic Evolution".
Auguste Comte organised and classified the social thought prevailing before his
times. Comte gave birth not only to a specific methodology of studying knowledge
but also analysed the evolution of human thinking at its various stages. The Law of
Three Stages states that society as a whole, and each particular science, develops
through three different mentally conceived stages: theological, metaphysical and
positive. The main aim of this principle is that it provides the basis of sociological
thinking. These stages, he thought, characterised the development of both human
knowledge and of society, which correspondingly developed from a military to a
legal, and finally to an industrial stage. According to Comte, the evolution of the
human mind has paralleled the evolution of the individual mind. Just as an individual
tends to be a staunch believer in childhood, a critical metaphysician in adolescence
and a natural philosopher in manhood, so also mankind in its growth has followed
three major steps. The three stages are discussed in detail below:

1.3.1 Theological or fictitious stage According to Comte, in this stage,

"all theoretical conceptions, whether general or special, bear a supernatural

impression". People are unaware about the real causes of the natural and social
phenomena and they attribute the happenings to imaginary or divine forces beyond
their mental reach. This stage is further subdivided into three sub stages.

1. Fetishism- Here man accepts the existence of spirit or soul. The supernatural
powers resided in the fetishes or mystical qualities attributed to inanimate
objects. Hence, 'fetishism' emerged as a form of religion and it admitted no
priesthood, because its gods are individuals, each residing in fixed objects.

2. polytheism- Where the mind of primitive man became better organised,

fetishism became cumbersome. Too many fetishes created confusion. Here
man begins to believe in magic and allied activities. He then assigns specific
objects to possess certain supernatural powers and starts worshipping them
as god. Man started believing in several gods and created the class of priests
to get the goodwill and blessings of all such gods.
 3. Monotheism- During this sub stage, man believes that there is only one centre
of power which guides and controls all the activities of the world. This man
believed in the C. superhuman power of only one god.

1.3.2 Metaphysical or Abstract Stage

This stage is an improvement or extension of the earlier stage. Rationalism started

growing instead of imagination. It was believed that the abstract power or force
guides and determines the events in the world. Metaphysical thinking discards belief
in concrete god. Reasoning helped man to find out some order in the natural world.
The continuity, regularity and infallibility found in the natural order were attributed to
some principles or power. Thus, principles and theories gained ascendancy over
feelings and speculations.

1.3.3 Positive or Scientific Stage

The positive stage represents the scientific way of thinking. As Comte stated, "In the
final, the positive stage, the mind has given over the vein search after absolute
notions, the origin and destination of the universe, and the cause of phenomena, and
applies itself to the study of their laws-that is, their invariable relations of succession
and is no place for magic or superstition. Everything is viewed rationally. This stage
suits the needs of industrial society and resemblance."Observation and classification
of facts marks the beginning of this stage. There is no place for magic or
superstition. Everything is viewed rationally. This stage suits the needs of industrial
society.

1.34 Stages in Social Organisation and Progress

Comte not only identified three stages in the development of human thinking but
also observed three stages in the development of society or social organisation. All
these modes of thinking-theological, metaphysical and positive-determine and
correspond to a particular type of social organisation. This explanation of Comte can
be viewed as another important contribution of his sociological thought. Comte
declared that theological thinking leads to a military and monarchical social
organisation. Here the God would be the head of the hierarchy and is represented as
a mighty warrior. The individuals would be arranged in a military organisation. Divine
sanctions are the rules which can hardly be questioned or challenged. Dogmatism
would prevail here and its challengers would be punished or threatened with severe
punishment. Metaphysical thinking produces a political system in which the power of
the king becomes restricted. The constitutional system of government gets priority.
The constitutional changes are gradual and there is a movement towards
decentralisation of power. It corresponds to a legalistic social organisation. The
mediaeval social organisation clearly represented this kind of society. Here the
natural rights are substituted for divine rights. Priesthood is furthered. Society
becomes legalistic, structured and formal. In Europe, nation-states emerged during
this stage. Positive thinking produced a society dominated by industrialists. It leads
to an industrial society in which men inquire into the nature and utilisation of the
natural resources and forces. Here the main stress is on the transformation of the
material resources of the Earth for human benefit, and production of material
inventions. In this positive or scientific stage the great thought blends with the great
power.
However, Comte's law of three stages has been criticised by various theorists. The
Law of Three Stages belongs to those grand philosophies of history elaborated in the
19" century, which now seem quite alien to us. The idea of progress of humanity
appears to us as the expression of an optimism that the events of the 20" century
have done much to reduce. More generally, the notion of a law of history is more
problematic. Comte has made it absolutely clear that intellectual evolution is the
most important aspect in human progress. Still, he was aware of the importance of
factors such as increase in population, division of labour etc. in determining the rate
of social progress. As Lewis A. Coser writes, "It can hardly be questioned that
Comte's Law of Three Stages" has a strongly materialistic or idealistic bias.
According to Prof. N.S. Timasheff, "Comte's law of three stages in the meaning
ascribed to it by its inventor is clearly invalid". As he opines, "neither of the later
approaches (metaphysical and scientific) wholly supersedes the religious approach:
rather, there has been accumulation and often mixture of the three". He further
writes, "Comte's law of the three stages could not stand the test of facts known
today". E.S. Bogardus writes, "Comte failed to postulate a fourth mode of thinking,
namely, socialised thinking, or a system of thought that would emphasise..the
purpose of building the constructive, just, and harmonious societies...". He adds,
"Comte, however, should be credited with opening the way for the rise of socialised
thinking". Even Charles Darwin considers Comte's Law of Three Stages to be a
"grand idea".

1.4 Hierarchy of Sciences

Comte's second best known theory, which is the theory of hierarchy of sciences, is
intimately connected with the Law of Three Stages. Just as mankind passes through
determinant stages, scientific knowledge also passes through similar stages of
development. But different sciences progress at different rates. Any kind of
knowledge reaches the positive stage early in proportion to its generality, simplicity,
and independence of other departments. He put forth a hierarchical arrangement of
the sciences in a way which coincided with

1. The order of their historical emergence and development

2.The order of dependence upon each other (each rests on the one which precedes
it, and prepares the way for the one that follows it)

3. Their decreasing degree of generality and the increasing degree of complexity of

their subject matter, and

4. The increasing degree of modifiability of the facts which they study.

The serial order of sciences on the basis of their emergence and increasing
complexity were Mathematics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Physics, Biology, and
Sociology.
From the above classification it becomes clear that Mathematics, according to
Comte, is the simplest science while Sociology is the most complex science. In
Comte's view, Mathematics was the first science to reach a positive stage, followed
by Astronomy, Physics and Chemistry, and after these sciences had reached the
positivistic stage, thought organic phenomena could become more positivistic. The
first organic science to move from the metaphysical to the positive stage was
biology, or physiology. This paved the way for Sociology which could move away
from the metaphysical speculations of the 17h and 18h century towards a positivistic
mode of thought. Sociology has been the last to emerge because it is more complex
and because it had to wait for the other basic sciences to reach the positive stage.

Sociology was the most complex social science because it had to study society, the
most complex matter. The other sciences concentrated on comparatively simpler
subjects than society. Sociology thus emerged because human beings recognized a
new set of objective facts concerning their society like social disorganisation,
development of slums, poverty etc. which they could not explain, but which they
needed to explain in order to deal effectively with them. When Comte spoke of
Sociology to crown the hierarchy of sciences, he had the general unifying nature of
science in his mind. He did not claim that Sociology is superior to all other sciences.
He only felt that with the growth of positive knowledge all sciences can be brought
into relationship with each other. According to Comte, all science passes through the
three stages, the theological, the metaphysical and the positive. But the individual
sciences do not move through these three stages simultaneously. In fact, the higher
a science stands in the hierarchy, the later it shifts from one stage to the other. With
the growth of positive knowledge he also advocated the use of positive methods for
Sociology.

1.5 Theory of Positivism Positivism

is a philosophy developed by Auguste Comte in the middle of the 19 century that

stated that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such
knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific
method. This view is sometimes referred to as a scientist ideology, and is often
shared by technocrats who believe in the necessary progress through scientific
progress. As an approach to the philosophy of science deriving from Enlightenment
thinkers like Pierre-Simon Laplace (and many others), positivism was first
systematically theorised by Comte, who saw the scientific method as replacing
metaphysics in the history of thought, and who observed the circular dependence of
theory and observation in science. Comte was thus one of the leading thinkers of
social evolutionism thought. Comte first described the epistemological perspective of
positivism in "The Course in Positive Philosophy", a series of texts published
between 1830 and 1842, These texts were followed by his work, "A General View of
Positivism" in 1948. Positivism is also depicted as the view that all true knowledge is
scientific and that all things are ultimately measurable. Because of its close
association with reductionism, positivism and reductionism involve the view that
entities of one kind are reducible to entities of another, such as societies to numbers,
or mental events to chemical events. It also involves the contention that processes
are reducible to physiological, physical or chemical events and even those social
processes are reducible to relationships between actions of individuals or that
biological organisms are reducible to physical systems.

1.5.1 Comte's view of sociological theory

As a descendant of French Enlightenment, Comte was impressed with the

Newtonian revolution. He argued, all phenomena are subject to invariable natural
laws, and sociologists must use their observations to uncover the laws governing the
social universe, in much the same way as Newton had formulated the law of gravity.
Several points are important in this view of sociological theory. First, sociological
theory is not to be concerned with causes per se but, rather, with the laws that
describe the basic and fundamental relations of properties in the social world.
Second, sociological theory must reject arguments by final causes"- that is, analysis
of the results of a particular phenomenon for the social whole. Thirdly, the goal of
sociological activity is to reduce the number of theoretical principles by seeking only
the most abstract and only those that pertain to understanding fundamental
properties of the social world. Comte thus held a vision of sociological theory as
based on the model of the natural sciences, particularly physics. It is for this reason,
he preferred the term The laws of social organisation and change will be discovered,
refined, and verified through a combination of theory and empirical observation.
According to Comte, all theories must be based upon observed facts and it is equally
true that facts cannot be observed without the guidance of some theory. Scientifically
speaking, all isolated, empirical observation is idle and even radically uncertain: that
science can use only those observations which are connected with some law.

For Comte, sociology's goal was to seek to develop abstract theoretical principles.
Observations of the empirical world must be guided by such principles, and abstract
principles must be tested against the empirical facts. Empirical observations that are
conducted without this goal in mind are not useful in science. Theoretical
explanations of empirical events thus involve seeing how they are connected in
law-like ways. Comte clearly intended that sociology must initially establish a firm
theoretical foundation before making efforts to use the laws of sociology for social
engineering.

Natural sciences are classified into two classes, the abstract or general and the
concrete or particular. Abstract science deals with discovery of laws that regulate a
particular phenomenon. The function of concrete natural sciences is the application
of these laws to the actual history of existing beings. Therefore, our business
concentrates around the abstract sciences which are fundamental in raising the
scientific status of a subject.

Comte believed that Sociology should be modelled after the natural sciences.
Sociology could seek and discover the fundamental properties and relations of the
social universe and could explain them in abstract principles. Observation of
empirical events could be used to generate, confirm and modify sociology's law.
These laws could be used as tools or instruments to modify the social world.

1.5.2 Use of Sociological methods

Comte formulated four methods for Sociology:

(1) Observation : For Comte, positivism was based on the use of senses to
observe social facts. Comte maintained that the new science of society must rely on
reasoning and observation rather than on the authority of tradition. Observation must
be unbiased and always guided by a theory. This is necessary for the development
of science. He is credited for firmly establishing sociology as a science of social facts
liberating social thought from the realm of morals and metaphysical speculations.

(2) Experimentation: Comte recognized that artificial experimentation is not

possible with society and social phenomena. However, natural experimentation
frequently takes place whenever the regular course of the phenomenon is interfered
with in any determinate manner. Here he compares biology with sociology. As the
biologist can learn about normal bodily functioning from the study of various
diseases, so also the social physicists can learn the normal social processes by
studying the pathological cases. Even though Comte's view of natural
experimentation lacked the logic of the experimental method, it fascinated the later
generation of sociologists.

(3) Comparison: Just as comparative analysis had been useful in biology,

comparison of social forms with those of lower animals, with coexisting states, and
with past systems could also generate considerable insight into the operation of the
social universe. By comparing elements that are present and absent, and similar and
dissimilar, knowledge about the fundamental properties of the social world can be
achieved.

(4) Historical Analysis: Comte originally classified historical analysis as a variation

of the comparative method, comparing present with the past. Historical method
compares societies throughout the time in which they have evolved. But his
formulation of "the law of three stages" emphasised that the laws of social dynamics
could ultimately be developed only with careful observation of the historical
movement of societies. Comte believed these methods to be necessary for
sociological analysis. Even though these methods fall much below the modern
scientific standards, he was responsible to compel the later scholars to study social
facts scientifically. He visualised social physics to be a 14 theoretical science
capable of formulating and testing the laws of social organisation and change. His
formulation of sociology's methods added increased credibility to this claim>

1.5.3 Comte's Organization of Sociology

Comte saw sociology to be the extension of biology which studied organs in

organisms. Therefore, sociology has to study social organisation. It stressed on the
fact that Society is an "organic whole" whose component organs are interrelated and
interdependent with each other. These parts could not be studied in isolation. As
Comte emphasised, there can be no scientific study of society, either in its conditions
or its movements, if it is separated into portions and its divisions are studied apart".
The above theoretical approach gave birth to functionalism in the later years.
Attempts were made to link sociological analysis to the biological sciences. Along
with the study of social pathologies to understand the normal operation of the
society, Comte viewed various structures as analogous to "elements, tissues, and
organs" of biological organisms. However, this organismic analogizing is limited to
dividing the social physics into statical and dynamical analysis.

Comte wanted to build Sociology based on the biological sciences. His vision of
social order was congruent with that of the biological organism, where each organ is
interdependent on each other and contributes for the maintenance of the entire body.
An idea of order and progress is indispensable for Social Physics, as ideas of
organisation and life are inseparable from biology.

Thus, he divides Sociology into

(1) social statics (the study of social order) and

(2) social dynamics (the study of social progress and change)

1.6 Critical View of Comte's Ideas

Comte's theories stressed on several important points:

a) Theories must be abstract which can explain the nature of fundamental

processes guiding the operation of the society.
b) Theories must be explicitly and systematically tested using various scientific
methods.
c) Collection of data without the guidance of a theory will not contribute greatly to
the accumulation of knowledge about how the society operates.
d) Sociology should be used to rebuild social structures guided by a theory
rather than by personal and ideological biases.

Comte recognises the fact that as society grows in size, parts become
interdependent and independent of each other. Comte reintroduced the
organismic analogy to social thinking which later developed in the functional
theories of Spencer and Durkheim. However, Comte never developed any
substantive theory. He did not explain how the social system operates. He
compares his law of three stages with that of Newton's law of gravity, but his
law is no more than a simplistic view of the history of ideas. Though it justifies
the emergence of positivism and the queen science, Sociology, it did not
advance Sociology's understanding of the dynamics of the social universe.

End
.