Sociology as a Science

In academic circles, sociology is commonly classified as a ‘social science.’ Although this categorization has sparked extensive debate, it’s worth noting that the founders of sociology initially envisioned the discipline to align closely with the natural sciences by employing the scientific method.

Sociological Theory

Karl Popper’s philosophy of science contends that every scientific law should offer a falsifiable hypothesis, essentially requiring scientific theories to be testable. In this context, sociology does not fit neatly into the category of a scientific field because sociologists have primarily focused their efforts on refining the sociological approach, clarifying concepts, and devising more precise classifications, rather than formulating the kind of general laws that Popper typically associates with the natural sciences.

Another compelling argument challenging the scientific standing of sociology is its apparent lack of anything akin to a natural law. It’s important to acknowledge that sociology is a relatively youthful field, which some critics argue should temper this criticism. However, detractors contend that this defense is now outdated. It’s evident that theories advanced by prominent sociologists such as Marx, Durkheim, and Weber could conceivably fit the mold outlined by Popper, yet these discussions only serve to intensify the ongoing debate surrounding the scientific nature of sociology.

A fundamental question often raised pertains to the suitability of scientific methods in investigating social phenomena, and whether the study of human society demands a distinct theoretical framework and unique methodologies distinct from those employed in the natural sciences. One challenge within sociology is the potential for conscious human agency within social groups to bring about genuine innovations, thereby potentially undermining any overarching generalizations. This stands in contrast to the natural sciences, where “laws” govern phenomena beyond human control. For instance, while the Indian constitution abolished the caste system, such a decisive social change cannot be equated to altering immutable laws like gravity or the solubility of salt in water.

Thus, searching for general laws in sociology would be tantamount taking away individual agency. Humans are not robots which function only in pre-programmed ways, their ability to choose (between culturally limited choices is what makes them human in the first place.

A part of sociology consists of exact description within an orderly framework of categories which only involves simple theorizing. Such descriptive sociology is valuable in two ways:

In case of contemporary studies, it provides data to administrators for the solution of practical problems and the formation of rational social policies.
In case of historical description, it makes a contribution to humane studies.

The primary strength of sociology lies in its capacity to develop concepts and classification systems, an essential foundation for any emerging discipline. Much of sociology education focuses on imparting the skill of utilizing sociological terminology effectively. Additionally, sociological theorists tend to introduce novel approaches to the field, often sparking efforts to refine and enhance existing classifications.

Occasionally, this iterative process may lead to initial misunderstandings of concepts, prompting subsequent revisions. Through this ongoing evolution, valuable distinctions have emerged, although a comprehensive classification system for societies, social groups, and social relations remains an elusive goal.

Major Approaches

Historical Sociology

This approach within sociology encompasses the entirety of human history and examines all major societal institutions. Examples include Marx’s historical materialism and the evolutionary theories put forth by Comte and Spencer. Max Weber and his intellectual descendants have also embraced a similar approach, focusing on specific changes in social structure and societal types, often employing the concept of the “ideal type.” This stands in contrast to Marx’s broader scope of analysis.

The philosophy of history introduced theoretical concepts and concerns into historiography, distinguishing it from the earlier narrative approach. Concurrently, it furnished sociology with the concept of historical societal types, representing the initial step in the classification of societies. The key divergence between historiography and sociology lies in their respective intentions: historians tend to explore how the present state of affairs originated, while sociologists are more concerned with how these present conditions impact individuals and other social institutions.

Comparative Method

Durkheim initially emphasized the importance of the comparative method in sociology, asserting that since traditional experiments weren’t feasible in this field, sociologists had to resort to indirect experimentation. He argued that the only way to establish causation between two phenomena was to analyze cases where both were simultaneously present or absent, determining their interdependence. Durkheim went as far as to proclaim that comparative sociology wasn’t merely a component of sociology but its essence.

Radcliffe-Brown, however, contended that this method alone lacked efficacy and necessitated a hypothesis to be truly valuable, leading to challenges in its application. These difficulties often stemmed from the absence or unclear formulation of a hypothesis. Moreover, complications arose in defining the appropriate unit of comparison.

Critics like Andre Beteille raised concerns about the Eurocentric bias inherent in the comparative method, while Franz Boas cautioned against making sweeping generalizations based on comparisons, highlighting the importance of considering the contextual nuances of social institutions.

Functionalism

This approach, originally conceptualized as the organismic by Comte and Spencer and further refined by Durkheim, posits that society parallels the structure of a biological organism. It draws heavily from evolutionary biology and suggests that each social institution, akin to bodily organs, serves specific functions in society.

Durkheim defined a social institution’s function as its alignment with the needs of the social organism, fulfilling these needs either positively or negatively, thereby establishing the norms and deviations in social phenomena. According to this perspective, every social activity inherently possesses a function within the broader societal framework, making it challenging, if not impossible, to explain social change solely in terms of external factors within the functionalist paradigm.

Formal Sociology

Largely a German approach to sociology developed by Georg Simmel. This method is mainly concerned with interactions between individuals. That is to say forms of sociation. Simmel characterized sociology as the scientific study of social forms where forms are the relations under which interactions occur. Ex a father son relationship is a form of relationships that an individual may be part of.

The idea was to study interactions between individuals till forms of social interaction could be distilled from the mix. Of the relatively few propositions that can be made in favour of the fact that sociology is a generalizing science a large proportion are due to Simmel.

Positivism in Sociology

The prehistory of sociology can be assigned to a hundred years from 1750-1850 i.e. from the works of Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte to the evolutionary theories of Herbert Spencer. The formative years of sociology occupy a distinct place in the second half of the 19th century, with the works of Durkheim, Marx, and Weber. Characteristics of Early Sociology were as follows:

It was encyclopedic. The early sociologists tried to claim it as the most synoptic of all natural sciences. Ex. Comte and the Queen of all sciences.
Under the influence of philosophy of history as well as biological theories it was evolutionary, sociology sought to identify the stages of evolution of human society. Ex. Spencer and the organismic analogy.
It was seen as a positive science, modeled on the character of natural sciences. Ex. Comte, Spencer.

The opposition to sociology in the early years came largely from the feeling that it aimed not at coordinating the other sciences but subsuming them within itself. The workaround by Durkheim and Weber was the promotion of the sociological approach within the existing disciplines.

In recent times, sociologists have increasingly focused on the study of specific segments within their own societies, sometimes neglecting the grand theories advocated by the founders of sociology that aimed at macro-level understanding. These trends align with Merton’s concept of middle-range theories, which strike a balance between the broad generalizations of macro theories and the intricate details of micro-level studies. Furthermore, the rise of economic planning has heightened the significance of sociological insights into economic behavior. In this context, the exploration of what motivates individuals to make purchasing decisions has gained considerable attention.

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) laid the foundation for sociology, emphasizing the importance of a scientific method for comprehensively analyzing human society in order to achieve a profound understanding of it. He encapsulated this approach in his famous phrase: “to know, to predict, to control.” Comte recognized society as having two dimensions: stability (organic) and change (critical). He was deeply intrigued by the mechanisms for maintaining stability and the dynamics of social change. Additionally, he introduced the method of historical study in sociology, which, to him, involved comparing successive stages of social development.

Please note that according to Comte, individuals had no distinct existence and were subordinate to society, with the family serving as the fundamental unit of society.

He gave the theory of three stages wherein due to growth of population (internal factors) the society undergoes evolutionary changes:

Comte believed that it was not possible to go from one stage to the next without break. Critical stages would occur between each evolution which would be represented by the breakdown of old traditions and institution of new ones. He also believed that sociology would hasten the establishment of the new order.

Criticism

Never applied his own methodology. Jumped straight to conclusions, causing Comtean positivism to fall into disrepute.
Ignored external factors as possible causes of change. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)He gave the quote – survival of the fittest.

According to Spencer there is one universal law which governs all reality. Law of evolution. Evolution is a continuous and spontaneous process whereby reality develops and changes. A major limitation of his work was that he was only concerned with changes in society, not with order unlike the critical and organic stages proposed by Comte. He gave three stages of evolution:

Inorganic. Basic life forms.
Organic. Biological.
Super Organic. Social.

Spencer said that sociology was the scientific study of super organic evolution. He called it the organismic analogy. Though Comtean ideas too had traces of this, he never fully developed them, it was first developed by Spencer. Spencer further gave three functions of every society:

Regulatory. Basic law and order and foreign policy.
Operative. Day to day functioning of society.
Distributive. Moving men and materials from A to B.

He said that “evolution is a twin process of differentiation and integration” (This later inspired Parsons’ structural differentiation and value generalisation thesis of change). He further said that the degree of advancement of a society was made apparent from the differentiation in the institutions carrying out the above three functions.

Spencer advocated the comparative method and using empirical data to study social phenomena. He recognized two major problems with this approach, objectivity and data for the older stages of society. For the latter he developed the idea of contemporary fossils. Since Spencer believed that evolution was unilineal, so all societies must go through the same evolutionary process. This meant that societies which were not as “advanced” as European society were in fact giving him glimpses of the past of Europe. Hence the term contemporary fossils.

On this basis he built up an evolutionary sequence:

Simple	Without head	Militant
Simple	With head	In between completely militant and industrial societies.
Compound.	With a paramount chief and local chiefs.
Doubly compounded.	State emerges. Civil and military administration separated.
Trebly compounded.	Modern democratic state.	Industrial
Ethical society	Future state of society predicted by Spencer.

He considered individual initiative to be possible. This was in contradiction with the organismic analogy so he tried to rationalize it by claiming that as society progresses from militant to industrial type, individual freedom increased.

Over time, Spencer influenced a lot of people to take up evolutionary theory, but it lost vogue in the beginning of the 20th century. Some prominent followers were: William Sumner, Lester Ward, EB Tylor, LT Hobhouse, etc. Together their school of sociological thought is referred to as classical evolutionism.

CRITICISM (of classical evolutionists in general)

Eurocentric nature of their theories. Europe seen as the most advanced civilization. WW I and II with all their barbarity acted as rude awakening from the myth of European societies being the most advanced civilizations.
They developed premature macro theories, i.e. taking the whole society as a single unit. This was seen as academic overreach.
Change was seen as a unilineal process.
Inadequate empirical support for their theories.Thus classical evolutionism can be best seen as a partial explanation of change in society. Neo-evolutionist theories emerged in the 1940s with Talcott Parsons.

Fact Value

Fact-value or value neutrality pertains to a researcher’s stance concerning the subjects they are studying. Researchers may possess inherent biases, often unbeknownst to them, that can inadvertently influence a scientific study’s outcome. One common approach to mitigate this influence is to be candid about one’s values rather than striving for complete neutrality, thus revealing any inherent biases.

For example, while Durkheim attempted to maintain value neutrality in his studies, his inclination toward solidarity and social harmony occasionally became evident. In non-positivist methodologies, such as reflexive sociology, the sociologist’s role shifts from that of an impartial observer to a moral guide for society.

Objective

Objectivity, on the other hand, involves treating the subject of study as an inanimate object, allowing for external observation, measurement, and reporting. In the natural sciences, objectivity is a standard practice where unchanging laws can be observed. However, in sociology, objectivity becomes more complex due to the potential for genuine novelty resulting from conscious human agency. For instance, positivists frequently employed objectivity in their quantitative studies to ensure high reliability.

Subjectivity in social research can creep in at three major stages:

Selection of the phenomenon to be studies. For example Durkheim preferred to look at social solidarity while Marx preferred looking at conflict.
Hypothesis formulation. What correlations you wish to examine are completely dependent on your viewpoints rather than any objective criteria.
Data collection. Different researchers may assign different significance to the same set of data.

R.K. Merton argued that the selection of research topics is subjective, influenced by individual perspectives. G. Myrdal contended that all research is guided by viewpoints and can never attain complete objectivity. Initially, objectivity was perceived as the belief in an entirely independent social reality detached from human actors, enabling positivist investigations. Nevertheless, later thinkers like T.K. Oommen suggested that the most realistic goal is contextual objectivity.

Non-Positivist Approaches

Symbolic Interactionism
Reflexive sociology
Ethnomethodological sociology
Phenomenological sociology
Critical sociology
Feminist sociology

Ferdinand Tönnies (1855-1936)Gave the theory of Gameinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society).According to Tönnies social life comes into being on the basis of human volition. Thus two types of social organisation would result, gameinschaft and gesellschaft.

GAMEINSCHAFT: Natural/Essential Will. In this type of society it is the instinctive tendencies which drive human behaviour from within. The relations are ends in themselves and the intrinsic worth of the individual is taken into account. Ex. Family relations.
GESELLSCHAFT: Rational/Arbitrary Will. In this type of society the relations are means to an end. All interactions are deliberative and future oriented. The extrinsic worth of the individual is taken into account. Ex. Business relations.
Tönnies believed that with time (increasing differentiation) gameinschaft societies would change to become gesellschaft societies.

Georg Simmel (1858-1919)He studied differentiation in society and was instrumental in the birth of micro sociological studies. Simmel said that society is an objective unity expressed in terms of reciprocal relations. With time these reciprocal relations get patterned and become forms of sociation.

With his theory of forms, Simmel introduced a new idea in sociology which was a marked departure from the evolutionist theories which had taken front stage till then. He said that while the content of the reciprocal relations may change with time and place, the form remained unchanging. Ex. a father-son relationship, coordination, competition, etc.

He proposed that a study starts by observing the content and from that distills the forms. Simmel characterised sociology as the scientific study of forms. This is what is called as formal sociology.

Sociological Imagination by CW MillsIt refers to the awareness of the relationship between personal experience and the wider society. Sociological imagination is not a theory but an outlook of society which tries to steer us into thinking away from one’s usual day-to-day life and look at one’s life afresh.

Specifically, the sociological imagination involves an individual developing a deep understanding of how their everyday life is a result of historical processes and occurs within a larger social context. Developed as a critique to structural functionalism which took to the idea of emergent social reality.

Structuration by Anthony Giddens

A critique of Parsons’ work led to the development of structuration theory, a social theory centered on the formation and perpetuation of social systems. This theory emphasizes the analysis of both structure and individual agents, avoiding the prioritization of one over the other. Instead, it seeks to comprehend the mutual influence between them, extracting sociological insights from their dynamic interplay. Structuration theory asserts that neither solely micro-focused nor macro-focused analyses are adequate in isolation.

Reflexive Sociology by Alvin Gouldner

A critique of Weber’s work brought forth the concept of reflexivity in sociology, denoting self-reference where examination or action relates to and influences the entity initiating it. In this context, it often signifies an individual’s ability to acknowledge the impacts of social forces and adjust their position within the social framework. Gouldner believed that sociologists had a responsibility to guide society toward progressive change, advocating for reflexive sociology as a radical and morally driven approach. This perspective found support in Jurgen Habermas, who saw it as a form of emancipatory knowledge.

Phenomenological Sociology by Alfred Schultz

Phenomenology posits that objects have existence because individuals construct and perceive them as such. According to Schultz, all human experiences are rooted in the lived world, known as “lebenswelt.” This lived world is shaped by individuals but often goes unnoticed because people tend to overlook its subjective construction, perceiving it as an objective reality. Schultz’s goal was to cultivate an understanding of the social world by delving into the lived experiences of ordinary individuals.

Ethnomethodological Sociology by Harold Garfinkel

Garfinkel formulated his theory as a response to Parsons’ Social Action theory and as an expansion of Schultz’s phenomenology. He posited that the fabric of social reality is woven and structured through the everyday, mundane actions of individuals. Consequently, his objective was to investigate the subjective viewpoints of actors as they engaged in actions that contributed to the formation and perpetuation of a social structure. His research methodologies included content analysis, interviews, and participant observation.

Triangulation by Alan Bryman

The idea proposes to use both positivist and non-positivist perspectives (along with quantitative and qualitative methods) to arrive at a better understanding of society.