Introduction to Sociology

Concepts and Theories

Brij Mohan

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2022
• Print ISBN: 9781032417837
• eBook ISBN: 9781000590012
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Regional Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

This textbook explores the emergence of sociology as a distinct social science. Focusing on the evolution of social theories, movements and ideas through history, it analyses the dynamic relationship between the individual and the larger social forces around them.

This volume examines the definitive aspects of societies, communities and social groups, and their intersections with culture, political and economic movements and religious institutions. It establishes the connections between sociology and other disciplines such as philosophy, history, political science, economics, psychology and anthropology to explore the interdependence between different realms of social life. The chapters in this book explain and highlight the significance of quantitative and qualitative methods of research in understanding the dynamics of social life. Drawing from the works of classical social theorists such as Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, this book traces the development of sociological perspectives and theories and their relevance in the history of ideas.

Lucid and comprehensive, this textbook will be useful for undergraduate and postgraduate students of sociology, development studies, history of ideas, sociological thought, social theory, research methods, political science and anthropology.

PART I
Introduction to Sociology

1 SociologyThe Origin

DOI: 10.4324/9781003291053-2

About Sociology

Sociology, in simplest terms, implies a scientific study of society. The word ‘sociology’ derives its origin from two words: the Latin word socius (society) and the Greek word logos (study of or science of). The name of our discipline is thus an ‘illegitimate’ offspring of two languages. The etymological meaning of ‘sociology’ is ‘the science of society,’ just as geology (geos, earth) is ‘the science of earth’, biology (bios, life) is ‘the science of life’ and anthropology (anthropos, man) is ‘the science of man’.

Sociology has a long past but only a short history. Since the dawn of human civilisation, the inquisitive minds of men have been trying to make sense of the reality that they are part of both the physical and the social. And, like nature, society has also been a subject for speculation and enquiry. However, until science appeared on the horizon of human civilisation, as both a systematic body of knowledge and a methodology, our understanding of natural and social worlds was largely based on imaginations, speculations and trial-and-error learnings. In other words, such an understanding about nature and society was often based on non-empirical and non-verifiable common sense assumptions.

In the struggle for survival, man soon realised that for the progress and welfare of mankind, a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the physical and social forces is necessary. In the course of time, man learned to observe carefully and systematically the forces shaping his life, until he reached a point at which he was able to make scientific analyses and generalisations about them. It is worth noting that the progress in man’s understanding about the physical aspects of his environment occurred much earlier in comparison to the social aspects. The main reason for this discrepancy in the development of man’s understanding of the two distinct environments – the physical and the social – probably lies in the greater observability and control of physical phenomena, as well as in the impersonal approach that they afford. Physical phenomena are usually more concrete than social phenomena and hence are more observable. Samuel Koenig (1970) states that in his attempt to observe physical phenomena man was able quite early to develop a measure of detachment, but he found it very difficult to do so regarding social phenomena. In the latter case he found himself too close to the object of investigation, too involved in it, to achieve the objectivity which is indispensable to all science.

It is interesting to note that all inquiries were once a part of philosophy, that great mother of the sciences (mater scientiarum), and philosophy embraced them all in an undifferentiated and amorphous fashion. However, as Western civilisation developed, various sciences began to pursue separate and independent courses. Astronomy and physics were among the first to break away, and were followed thereafter by chemistry, biology and geology. In the nineteenth century, two new sciences appeared: psychology (the science of human behaviour) and sociology (the science of human society). Thus, what had once been natural philosophy became the science of physics; what had been mental philosophy, or the philosophy of mind, became the science of psychology; and what had once been social philosophy, or the philosophy of history, became the science of sociology. To the ancient mother, philosophy, still belong several important kinds of enquiries – notably metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics and aesthetics – but the sciences themselves are no longer studied as subdivisions of philosophy.

As stated earlier, man’s observations and analyses of social phenomena during the medieval and early modern periods were almost wholly of a speculative character. They were at best profound reflections, wise observations. While some of these contained a good deal of truth, they were on the whole untrustworthy as guides to living. It is well acknowledged today that in order to attain a real understanding of the laws and principles underlying human association, which alone can enable us to solve effectively the problems arising from it, we must employ methods similar to those used by the natural sciences.

Man’s efforts to make use of scientific observation and analysis in understanding social relationships and institutions have resulted in the rise of the social sciences, such as economics, political science, psychology and sociology. While, broadly speaking, all deal with social phenomena and are therefore interrelated and quite interdependent, each, at present, concentrates upon a particular phase of human conduct and specialises in studying it. For example, while economics studies the aspects of production, distribution and exchange, and consumption of goods and services in society, political science centres on the activities whereby man provides himself with the protections and regulations that are afforded by the government or the state. Similarly, while psychology takes a micro-level perspective and studies the individual behaviour, sociology takes a macro-level perspective in its study of human behaviour and focuses its attention on relationships which are definitely social. In its larger sense, sociology concerns itself with the entire domain of the social sciences, bringing its own methods and approaches to the study of all group phenomena. This makes sociology an interdisciplinary as well as the most comprehensive social science.

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to understand what we mean by the term social, or when an interaction or relationship becomes social. Not every relationship of man with man is social. Thus, if two individuals are walking in the same park, independent of each other, their relationship of coexistence, of being at the same time in the same place, or even the circumstance that their attention may be turned to the same object, does not belong to the social order. But as soon as they become aware of each other or exchange greetings, the element of sociality arises. Sociality or society is radically a mental phenomenon. A social relationship, therefore, implies reciprocal awareness between two or more people and the sense of their having something in common. Reciprocal recognition, direct or indirect, and ‘commonness’ are the characteristic features of every social relationship.

However, if social relationships constitute the essence of society, and if society is the subject matter of sociology, then, can it be assumed that all kinds of social relationships, enduring or unstable, organised or unorganised, constitute the domain of investigation by sociologists? Logically it may appear to be so, but in sociological literature, the term ‘social relationship’ is generally used for more or less stable and enduring relationships among individuals belonging to a particular group or society. The term ‘society’ is reserved for ‘a collection of individuals held together by certain enduring relationships in the pursuance of common ends’ (Gisbert, 2016).

In other words, whatever the scale and scope of a sociological study, to be sociological it must look beyond the individual to understand and explain human behaviour. Rather than explaining human behaviour simply in terms of individual mental states, sociology sees patterns of behaviour as related to the wider social context in which people live. For example, it is highly probable that in a random visit to a school in rural India it may be found that some students are absent in a particular class. Just imagine that one among these absentee students happens to be a female or a Dalit. Now, the absence of this particular student can be attributed to a number of factors such as poor health, fear of punishment for non-completion of homework, some urgent household work, family function, rough weather or just the mood of the student to bunk the class. All these reasons could be personal to that particular absentee student and hence individualistic in nature. This particular case of an absentee student may not appear strange or thought- provoking to an observer. But suppose in a rural survey, it is found that the incidence of absenteeism is very high among the females, and Dalits in particular, then it would definitely invite the attention of social scientists. Because now the reason for such large-scale absenteeism of students belonging to a particular gender or a caste group cannot merely be individualistic, it has to be social. Thus, through sociological research, sociologists may find out some sort of underlying pattern in such large-scale absenteeism, which could be related to socio-economic, cultural and historical factors. A systematic and scientific sociological enquiry would facilitate a deeper insight into gender and caste relations in the Indian society. Hence, research may indicate towards the prevailing patriarchal norms, gender division of labour, marriage practices and property rights as some of the important factors responsible for large-scale absenteeism or high dropout rates of females in the Indian education system. Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen in their famous work India: Development and Participation (2002) observed that the progress of female education has been particularly slow in areas of India where the gender division of labour, patrilineal inheritance, patrilocal residence, village exogamy, hypergamous marriage and related patriarchal norms tend to be particularly influential. Similarly, discriminatory attitudes of teachers and classmates, and extreme poverty could be identified as some of the socio-economic factors responsible for large-scale absenteeism or high dropout rates of Dalits in schools in India.

Sociology emerged as a distinct science of society in nineteenth-century Europe. Emerging like other sciences, however, it was preceded by a series of attempts to explain human relations and behaviour, few, if any, of which could be strictly called scientific. ‘Social thought’ existed, of course, in ancient times and thereafter, consisting now and then of systematic thinking and analysis, but based primarily upon speculation. In fact, this effort to understand the nature of social life may have prepared the ground for the development of sociology as the scientific study of society. Perhaps the earliest attempts at systematic thought regarding social life, at least as far as Western civilisation is concerned, may have begun with the ancient Greek philosophers, particularly the great masters of human thought, Plato (427–347 BC) and Aristotle (384–322 BC).

Social thought of this pre-scientific kind, with few exceptions, advanced very little between the time of Plato and Aristotle and early modern times. The works that could lay claim to any systematic social thought at all – during and immediately preceding the Middle Ages – reflected the teachings of the Church and were for the most part metaphysical speculations regarding the place of man on earth. In any case, none of the thinkers associated with those eras thought of themselves as sociologists, but few of them are now considered the same. However, there was one exception. This refers to one Abdel Rahman Ibn-Khaldun (1332–1406), born in Tunis, North Africa. He challenged the divine theory of kingship. In his book Muqadimma, Rahman Ibn-Khaldun presented his ideas, which are quite similar to those of present-day sociology. For example, he was committed to the scientific study of society, empirical research and the search for causes of social phenomena. He devoted considerable attention to various social institutions (for example, politics and economy) and their interrelationships. He stressed the importance of linking sociological thought and historical thought (Ritzer and Stepnisky, 2014). However, barring this one exception, it was not until the sixteenth century that there appeared writers who treated life’s problems on a more realistic level.

Perhaps the most notable among these was the Italian Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527), in whose work, The Prince, published in 1513, we find an attempt at an objective discussion of the state and statecraft. This book, unlike his other works, was devoted chiefly to an exposition of the principles governing the successful state, or rather the successful ruler of a state. It is a practical guide for the ruler who would maintain his power. Insofar as Machiavelli sought to base his theories of the state upon historical data, he may be considered in a sense an objective writer. Another author in this period worth noting was Sir Thomas More (1478–1535). Although his book Utopia, published in 1515, represented an approach, virtually the opposite of that found was in Machiavelli’s writings, it was nevertheless a step in the direction of dealing with everyday social problems, albeit by means of depicting an ideal social order which presumably was presented for emulation. More’s Utopia pictured a perfect state where all the problems with which the society, or rather the England of his day, was beset have been solved and where complete justice reigns. This perfect society is made possible by putting into practice the rules of natural law. Considerable strides towards the objective analysis of social forces were made in the writings of the Italian Vico and the Frenchman Montesquieu, who, while primarily political philosophers, had considerable influence upon the consequent rise of a science of society. Giovanni Battista Vico (1668–1744) in his book The New Science contended that society was subject to definite laws which can be discovered through objective observation and study. Charles Louis de Secondat Montesquieu (1689–1775) exerted an even greater influence than Vico in the direction of scientific investigation of social phenomena through his brilliant works, particularly his Esprit des lois (The Spirit of Laws), which presents a keen analysis of the role certain external factors, especially climate, play in the life of human societies. To these two writers may be added two more, Condorcet and Saint-Simon, whose contributions towards the development of a science of society were even more direct.

In his Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, Marguis de Condorcet (1743–1794), also known as Nicolas de Condorcet, formulated a theory of social change which had a far-reaching influence upon later sociological theories. In this book he propounded a stage theory of social evolution, according to which civilisation passed through ten developmental stages, each higher than the preceding one, the highest still to be attained in the future. Claude Henri Saint-Simon (1760–1825), though primarily a utopian reformer, insisted that social reform can be achieved only when scientific or ‘positive’ data have been collected. These four writers, although their contributions were primarily in the field of political thought and philosophy, may be considered among the forerunners of sociology.

It was in the nineteenth century that a French philosopher named Auguste Comte (1798–1857) worked out, in a series of books, a general approach to the study of society. He believed that the sciences follow one another in a definite and logical order and that all enquiry goes through certain stages, arriving finally at the last, scientific stage. He thought that it was time for inquiries into social problems and social phenomena to enter the last stage and so he recommended that the study of society become the science of society. Comte had initially called this new science of society as ‘social physics’. Later, however, on finding that a Belgian scientist, Adolphe Quetelet, had used this term to describe simple statistics, Comte reluctantly changed it to ‘sociology’. Comte and his ideas about scientific study of society would be discussed in more detail subsequently.

As mentioned earlier, sociology as a science, and particularly as a separate field of study, did not make its appearance until about the middle of the nineteenth century in Europe. Europe then was passing through a period of drastic transformation which had set in on account of a series of revolutions, beginning with the Commercial and Scientific Revolutions (in the fifteenth century), followed by the Agrarian Revolution (in the sixteenth century), Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution (in the eighteenth century). These revolutions revolutionised the socio-economic and political framework of the ‘traditional’ feudal European society of medieval times and laid the foundations of a new ‘modern’ industrial society. The social, economic, political and psychological consequences of these revolutions were so great that the French social analyst Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859) thought that they amounted to ‘nothing short of the regeneration of the whole human race’ (Macionis, 2015).

The rise of a factory-based industrial economy, the explosive growth of cities and new ideas about democracy and political rights were considered by some scholars of that time as indicators of progress of human society. In retrospect, contemporary scholars have called these changes ‘modern’. However, before we discuss in detail the cause and consequences of these revolutions on the socio-economic and political structure of the feudal European society, let us first try to understand the meaning of the term ‘modernity’.

Idea of ‘Modernity’

Modernity has often been viewe...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsements
• Half-Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Preface and Acknowledgements
• PART I Introduction to Sociology
• PART II Sociological Thought
• Index