Classical and Contemporary Social Theory

Investigation and Application

Tim Delaney

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780205254163
• eBook ISBN: 9781317349457
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Classical and Contemporary Social Theory: Investigation and Application, 1/e, is the most comprehensive, informative social theory book on the market. The title covers multiple schools of thought and applies their ideas to society today. Readers will learn the origins of social theory and understand the role of myriad social revolutions that shaped the course of societies around the world.

PART I

The Classical Period of Sociological Theory

Part I, “The Classical Period of Sociological Theory,” consists of seven chapters that describe the early giants of sociological thought and those who have, arguably, made the greatest and most lasting contributions to the field. Chapter 1 provides highlights and insights to the earliest roots of sociological thought, including the influence of the Enlightenment, social and political revolutions, and such early social thinkers as Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Claude-Henri Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, and Herbert Spencer. Chapters 2–5 (Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Georg Simmel, and Max Weber) and Chapter 7 (George Herbert Mead) center on specific sociological social thinkers who have distinguished themselves in the field of sociology. In Chapter 6, “Contributions from Women to Classical Social Theory,” a number of significant female social thinkers and their ideas are presented. Chapter 6 also explains how women have had to fight for equality in all spheres of life for centuries, and these struggles include the academic realm. It is worth noting that this is one of the very few texts on social theory that provides coverage of women’s contributions to classical social theory.

CHAPTER
1	The Early Roots of Sociological Theory

Listen to the Chapter Audio on MySearchLab

Chapter Outline

■ Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau

■ The Age of Enlightenment

■ Social and Political Revolutions

■ Claude-Henri Saint-Simon (1760–1825)

■ Auguste Comte (1798–1857)

■ Herbert Spencer (1820–1903)

■ Summary

■ Discussion Questions

Declaring a particular year as the starting point of the classical period of sociological social theory is difficult and open to one’s interpretation of what constitutes the distinction between philosophical thought and social theory. In some ways, the two approaches that attempt to explain human behavior overlap. Nonetheless, there is a difference between the two distinct disciplines. In this chapter, we will attempt to establish a starting point for the classical social theory era, identify some of the early philosophers that would influence sociological thought, describe the influence of the Enlightenment and political and social revolutions on social thought, and introduce the earliest key sociologists who helped to establish the initial direction(s) of social theory.

There has been philosophical speculation on the nature of society and social life at least as far back as the ancient Greeks. In fact, the term philosophy derives from the Greek words for “love of wisdom.” In practice, however, philosophy is much more than just a “love”; it involves serious thought on some of the most basic questions confronting humanity, such as

1. What is the meaning of life?

2. What is nature, and what is our role with nature?

3. What constitutes ethical and moral behavior?”

Generally, though, the Greek philosophers’ search for a universal understanding of values and reality was primarily driven by speculative thought rather than empirical evidence to support their beliefs. To this day, philosophy remains mostly a discipline entrenched in the application of deep thought in its analysis of human life.

As an academic discipline, philosophy predates sociology. Furthermore, until the early 19th century, many of today’s academic disciplines, including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, psychology, mathematics, logic, ethics, music, and sociology, were under the philosophical umbrella. This explains why most doctorate degrees are designated as Ph.D.–doctorate of philosophy. Thus, if your sociology professors have a Ph.D., they have a doctorate in philosophy, and not something else like an So.D., a doctorate in sociology. (This holds true for other college professors outside philosophy with a Ph.D.)

As with such other academic disciplines as physics, chemistry, and psychology, sociology would emerge with its own parameters of specific interest and make its break from philosophy. To distinguish itself from its predecessor, sociology developed as a field that attempts to support its social theories with empirical research (systematic data collection). To this day, sociological theory overwhelmingly maintains a commitment to the scientific approach to the study of human behavior. Sociological theory also brings with it a critical aspect to its examination of social reality. That is to say, sociological theory examines societies, social institutions, and social systems as they exist in reality, rather than in the abstract. Such an approach is not about creating an ideal type of society and calling upon other societies to conform to that ideal (as was often the case with ancient philosophy).

So when did sociology make this break from philosophy? Scholars disagree on the precise answer to this question, but sociologist Roberta Garner (2000) suggests that the story of sociology begins with Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) and The Prince, a book he wrote in 1513 (but was not published until 1532), at the height of the Italian Renaissance. During the period of 1450–1525, Europe was experiencing dramatic social change. For example, in 1453, the Turks captured Constantinople (now Istanbul) from the Greeks and demonstrated the proficient use of cannons and gunpowder. The eastern Mediterranean became part of the Islamic world, and European rulers, merchants, and adventurers felt pressure to expand westward and southward beyond the Straits of Gibraltar. In 1458, Johann Gutenberg printed the Bible on his movable-type printing press and spearheaded the movement of mass dissemination of the printed word. In 1492, Columbus “discovered” the “New” World, triggering the burst of expansion by European nations onto the rest of the world. In that same year, the sovereigns of Christian Spain completed their reconquest of the peninsula from Islamic rule and expelled the remaining Moors and Jews (Garner, 2000).

The Prince, it can be argued, sparked sociological theory because in contrast with Plato and Aristotle, who would likely insist on an imaginary ideal society to serve as the model for princely behavior, it instead concerned itself with ruthless and tyrannical princes from the real world. The Prince was a controversial book for its time, because it provided a realistic view of human actions and challenged the long-held belief that kings had a “divine right” to rule. Until the Renaissance, most books upheld general notions of normative behavior, were non-empirical, and did not observe, describe, or analyze actual human behavior. Machiavelli (2006) included into his book all the violent, fierce, savage, coercive, and sometimes even compassionate acts that the ruler must implement in order to stay in power. The Prince was based on reality, observations of real people, and not just moral ideals. It is for this very reason that it shocked its readers and was widely censored and banned. This is the very type of publication that illustrates modern social science-to write about society as it really is, not only as the power elite says that it is, or should be; and to be critical of social institutions that do not operate in the best interest of the people.

Garner puts forth a relatively strong argument about the importance of The Prince as a focal point to mark the distinction between philosophical thought and a starting point for sociological theory. However, because of its initial limited readership, one might argue that a contemporary of Machiavelli, Martin Luther (1483–1546), might actually serve as a better representation. Luther, a German priest and professor of theology, was one of the first advocates of mass education. He also challenged the powerful social institution of the Catholic Church and its assertion that the only true interpretation of the Bible should come from religious leaders. Luther, in contrast, believed that it was the right, even the duty, of all Christians to interpret the Bible for themselves (Stayer, 2000). For this to happen, the masses would have to learn to read, which required mass education. In 1517, Luther challenged the Catholic Church by nailing his 95 theses to the door of the cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany, lighting the fires of the Reformation and Protestantism.

It was his time spent in the monastery at Wittenberg that allowed Luther the opportunity to learn about the Catholic Church. And while he appreciated the Church’s general values and beliefs, he was displeased with its position on how to spread the word of the Bible to the people. Luther’s proposals on how the Bible should be taught became so popular it encouraged others to share their doubts with the Church and protest its medieval ways (bear in mind, Luther lived during part of the medieval period). Among Luther’s complaints of the ancient Catholic Church was the Communion of the Saints, Penance, Purgatory, infused justification, the Papacy, the priesthood, and sacramental marriage (Armstrong, 2012). One of the practices of the Church that Luther was most critical of involved the Church’s offer to provide forgiveness, at a price, to those who committed sins (known then as indulging in sinful behavior). Luther felt that one should be truly sorry for their sins and be granted absolution through penance rather than paying for absolution. The Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, was known as one of the most infamous churches for the collection of holy relics or religious artifacts as offerings for forgiveness. The Church would display the offerings and the viewer was granted forgiveness for “indulging” in sin (Brecht, 1985). The sociological relevance of Luther’s beliefs are plentiful but center on his criticism of an existing social institution, and a powerful one at that, while other alternative courses of action (he would create Lutheranism and spearhead the Protestant Reformation). Like sociologists today, Luther was critical of a social system that disadvantaged certain citizens, primarily the poor, while it empowered the ruling class. The poor could not afford to pay for absolution for their sins while the rich could, thus enabling the rich a religious dispensation to commit sin and get away with it.

Although the sixteenth-century ideas of both Machiavelli and Luther provide us with good examples of what could be considered sociological thought, rather than philosophical thinking, we are still centuries away from the official birth of sociology. As a result, a number of other significant antecedents to sociology are worthy of discussion. We begin with a brief look at the ideas of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century philosophers, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Our attention will then shift to the “Age of Enlightenment” and a number of social and political revolutions that spirited the eighteenth century. We conclude with a look at the contributions of Claude-Henri Saint-Simon; an examination of the “founder” of sociology, Auguste Comte; and an analysis of the sociology of Herbert Spencer, an early giant of sociological thought.

HOBBES, LOCKE, AND ROUSSEAU

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau each provided an examination of human-made social order. As we shall see in the following pages, many of their ideas are still relevant today.

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679)

Hobbes was born in Wiltshire, England, on April 5, 1588. His lifetime was part of an era where the medieval ways were being questioned but the replacement system was yet to be formed (Harrison, 2003). Among Hobbes’s primary contributions to social thought is his belief that the social order was made by human beings and therefore humans could change it (Adams and Sydie, 2001). Even under authoritarian rule, Hobbes believed that authority is given by the subjects themselves; that, by their consent, the rulers maintain sovereign power. As a political and social theorist, Hobbes wondered what life and human relations would be like in the absence of government. In 1651, Hobbes published his greatest work, Leviathan. In this book he provides a disturbing account of society without government. From his viewpoint, society would be filled with fear, danger of violent death, and the life of man would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

In his brief introduction to the Leviathan, Hobbes describes the state as an organism analogous to a large person. He shows how each part of the state parallels the function of the parts of the human body. The idea of society as an organism with each part serving a function would serve as a forerunner to the ideas of Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, and the school of thought known as Structural Functionalism–all of which will be discussed later in this text. Hobbes notes that the first part of his project is to describe human nature, insofar as humans are the creators of the state. To this end, he advises that we look into ourselves to see the nature of humanity in general. Hobbes argues that, in the absence of social condition, every action we perform, no matter how charitable or benevolent, is done for selfish reasons. Even giving to charity is a way of showing one’s power to do so. Today, this concept is often referred to as psychological egoism. Hobbes believes that any description of human action, including morality, must reflect the reality that man is self-serving by nature. Hobbes also noted that there are three natural causes of conflict among people: competition for limited supplies of material possessions, distrust of one another, and glory insofar as people remain hostile to preserve their powerful reputation. Given the natural causes of conflict, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear.

It is interesting to note that Hobbes certainly had his own fears, and perhaps this was to be expected in an era of transition from one type of repressive social system to a yet-developed one. But Hobbes, one might argue, was a bit of a coward. Reflecting back on the state of the country at his birth, Hobbes commented that his mother “brought twins to birth, myself and fear at the same time” (Rogow, 1986:17). In November 1640, when the Long Parliament began to show signs of activity threatening civil war, Hobbes was one of the first to flee to France, and he even described himself as a “man of feminine courage” (Hobbes, 1994). Additionally, when Leviathan was one of two books mentioned as blasphemous literature, Hobbes was seriously frightened, and it is said that he attempted to mend his estrangement with the Anglican Church (Rogow, 1986).

Thomas Hobbes developed a theory of human nature wherein it was “natural” for people to believe that they have a right to all things (Ewin, 1991). Because of this nature of humanity, it was difficult for individuals to coexist in a society. Furthermore, Hobbes argued that humans are shaped by religious and political beliefs, beliefs that can vary quite differently from person to person. Because individuals do not share the exact same beliefs as one another, they develop different self-interests. Self-interests are shaped by selective perception, and consequently, reality is a projection created by individuals based on their beliefs and their nature. Hobbes felt it important, then, that society should instill a system of morals that would be the same for everyone; in this manner, conflict could be minimized. Hobbes’s view of morality as based on self-interest was one that would be shared by many Enlightenment thinkers (Gray, 2003).

Hobbes presented a variety of evidence to support his contention that the state of nature is brutal. For example, in the absence of a system of morality to guide people, individuals are in constant competition with one another because of their desire to acquire things (Johnson, 1993). Hobbes argued that an individual’s sense of pride was a contributing factor that led to conflict (Rogow, 1986). In addition, we can see signs of mistrust among people in our daily lives. At the macro level, we see in countries that have yet to be civilized, people treating others in barbaric forms. In the absence of international law, strong countries will prey on the weakness of weak countries. Hobbes argued that mistrust and preying on the weak were prime factors that led to war. In fa...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Brief Contents
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• List of Contributors
• Part I The Classical Period of Sociological Theory
• Part II The Contemporary Period of Sociological Theory
• Part III Consistent and Significant Themes in Sociological Theory
• Bibliography
• Index