Personal Details

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof. Sumita Parmar Allahabad University,

Allahabad

Paper Coordinator Prof. Deepa Punetha & Allahabad

Dr. Ragini Sahai University
Galgotia College of
Engineering and
Technology,
NOIDA
Content Writer/Author (CW) Dr Prashant Khatri University, Allahabad

Content Reviewer (CR) Prof. Deepa Punetha Allahabad

University

Language Editor (LE) Prof. SumitaParmar Allahabad University,

Allahabad

Description of Module
Subject Name WOMEN’s STUDIES

Paper Name Gender,Sociology,Psychology &Anthropology

Module Name/Title Sociology: What is the Subject and What Sociologists Do?

Module Id Paper-5 MODULE-3

Pre-requisites The student should have some knowledge of what the three disciplines cover

Objectives Make the reader understand the subject matter of sociology, what sociologists
do? The historical emergence of sociology, define sociology, differentiate
sociology from other social sciences and establish distinction between common
sense and sociology.
 Keywords Sociology, subject matter, social sciences, common sense, history.

Introduction

In Europe, sociology emerged as a separate discipline in nineteenth century. The socio-economic

and political scenario of Europe during that time was more conducive for the emergence of a
discipline that focused primarily on the nature and condition of human society. It was a time of
the Industrial revolution. This led to the emergence of new social classes in the society.
Industrialization led to the emergence of new urban centers that attracted workers to work in
factories. This led to a large scale migration within Europe and also across continents when
workers were brought-in from other places to work in those factories. This generated a new kind
of living and working conditions that resulted into different kinds of problems that were not
encountered before. Industrialization also led to the emergence of the new business class that
challenged the feudal aristocracies and their rule. This entire scenario was such that people really
wanted to make sense of the situation and also wanted to know that what is going to be the future
of the human society. Such changes occurring in the society needed to be understood properly to
make sense of the situation. A systematic analysis of the society was the need of the hour and it
was within this context that sociology as a discipline emerged (Tischler, 2007).

The Subject Matter of Sociology: What is Sociology All About

Defining the boundaries of a subject is not an easy task. The subject matter of a discipline is
shaped within the socio-economic and historical processes of the times in which it originated and
changes according to the larger socio-historical conditions. This is truer for a subject that is
meant for the study of society. Any attempt at defining the subject runs the risk of limiting its
scope and applications. However, we tend to define the subject in order to have a better
understanding of its capabilities and limitations. A subject can be defined with the help of a
bounded statement, however, such a definition will be unable to capture the nuances of the
subject. It is for this reason that Alex Inkeles (1964) has attempted to sketch the boundaries of
the discipline by focusing on three issues:

1. How classical sociologists defined the subject matter of sociology?

2. What are contemporary sociologists doing?
3. Our analysis of the classical and contemporary sociologists
Foundations of Sociology

Within the historical domain one can understand the emergence of the subject and the ideas that
were a part of the subject since its inception. August Comte is said to be the father of sociology.
It was Comte who gave the term ‘sociology’ and called for a scientific study of society. The term
sociology literally means a scientific study of society. Comte wanted to name the subject as
‘social physiology’ or ‘social physics’ but dropped these terms in favor of the term sociology as
they were already used by others. The term sociology is a mixture of both Latin (Societas) and
Greek (logos). Comte was in favor of a science of society that was akin to other natural sciences.
He wanted and advocated for a study of society that was scientific in nature. This philosophy
behind the study of society came to be known as positivism. The Comtian project was for a
development of a science that could be used for the betterment of humankind and society. He
equated sociology with sciences like physics as is evident from one of his statements- “I believe
that I shall succeed in having it recognized….that there are laws as well defined for the
development of human species as for the fall of a stone (quoted in Bernard, 2006: 12)”. This new
science was to work for the alleviation of human suffering.

Comte believed that sociology can be divided into two main parts- social statics and social
dynamics. It is largely with these two issues that a sociologist should be concerned with. Within
the domain of social statics sociologists study social institutions like economy, family, polity etc
and try to understand that how these institutions are linked and interconnected to each other.
Society is conceived to having different parts and these parts are supposed to be working in
tandem with each other and their functioning could only be understood by seeing it in relation
with other parts. Social statics is the study that tries to understand that how parts of society are
interconnected to each other based on the principle of ‘universal social interconnection’. On the
other hand, social dynamics deal with how societies as a whole undergo change. Therefore one
can say that Comte outlined two agendas for sociologists- one was to understand society in terms
of interconnected parts and the other was to understand how and in what circumstances societies
undergo change (Inkeles, 1964 and Tischler, 2007).

Another early contributor to the subject matter of sociology was Harriet Martineau. She is
credited with translating Comte’s work into English and thus making it available to a wide range
of scholars including Herbert Spencer. Her book titled Theory and Practice of Society in
America appeared in 1837. This book was based on the analysis of lifestyle of Americans in the
nineteenth century. She travelled extensively throughout the United States and documented the
every-day life in all its forms through observation. Her observations included the life in prisons,
mental hospitals, factories, family gatherings, slave auctions, proceedings of Supreme Court and
Senate. Besides observing, documenting and analyzing such activities her book also dealt with
issues of race, immigration, politics and religion (Giddens, 2006 and Tischler, 2007).

Herbert Spencer is credited with penning down the first every text book in sociology titled
Principles of Sociology. He viewed society as an organism and this came to be known as the
‘organic’ view of the society. Just like a living organism a society is understood to be composed
of several parts that are interdependent. As in an organism, different organs perform different
function and hence maintain the organism, similarly in a society, different parts perform different
functions and work together to maintain the society a whole. Spencer was more explicit in
outlining the subject matter of sociology. According to him the field of sociology should include
the study of family, politics, religion, social control, industry and work. Besides this sociologists
should also undertake the study of associations, communities, division of labor, social
stratification and the study of arts and aesthetics. He was of the view that the entire society
should be taken up as a unit of analysis. The principle of sociology according to him was to
underline the structure and function of the society and its constituent parts (Inkeles, 1964 and
Tischler, 2007).
Emile Durkheim, although not as explicit as Spencer in outlining the subject matter of sociology,
made important contributions to the field of sociology that may guide us in understanding the
nature and scope of the subject. Durkheim carried forward the legacy of positive philosophy of
Comte and stressed the need for a scientific analysis of society and social phenomenon. He was
more interested in understanding the functioning of various social institutions. His book titled
Elementary Forms of Religious Life outlined the function of religion in terms of maintaining
social solidarity. Durkheim maintained the supremacy of ‘social facts’ as above biological and
psychological facts. Any social phenomenon according to him should be understood in terms of
social facts only. He demonstrated this principle by analyzing suicide in terms of its social causes
as opposed to psychological causes. Suicide can stem from psychological and individual factors
but Durkheim maintained that the real reason for suicide lies in social factors like social order in
the society. Societies with greater social order tend to have less suicide rates as compared to
societies showing anarchy. Also societies with more group solidarity tend to show less suicide
rates as compared to societies with less group solidarity and more autonomy. The subject matter
of sociology as outlined by Durkheim can be understood by looking at the contents and sections
of one of the earliest journals in the field of sociology established by him or probably the first
sociology journal titled- L’Annee Sociologique. This journal included sections on general
sociology, sociology of religion, sociology of law and morals that included sub-sections on
political organization, social organization, marriage and family. Then there are sections on
sociology of crime, economic sociology, demography including sub-sections on urban and rural
communities and sections on sociology of aesthetics. This gives an idea about the range of issues
with which Durkheim and early sociologists were concerned (Inkeles, 1964 and Tischler, 2007).

Another influential figure in sociology is Max Weber. Through his work he demonstrated the
interlinking of various parts of societies. His most celebrated work is on The Protestant Ethics
and the Spirit of Capitalism in which he tried to demonstrate that economic systems are a product
of religious ideas. He supported the supremacy of ideas over material conditions, a proposition
that was in opposition to the ideas of Karl Marx who supported the supremacy of material
conditions over ideas. According to Weber, economic pursuits of capitalism were linked with the
protestant ethics of individuality, hard-work, rationality and discipline. This is an example that
demonstrate that how religious ideas affect the economic activities. Another influential idea in
the sociology of Weber was an emphasis on ‘social action’. Weber defined sociology as ‘a
science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive
at a causal explanation of its course and effects.’ Social action was given supremacy over
structure. Social actions are based upon human motivations and ideas and thus have the capacity
to bring about change in the society. Weber also attempted a comparison of western societies
with other societies. He studied religion of China and India and compared it with Christianity
and came to conclusion that certain aspects of Christianity strongly support the rise of capitalism
(Inkeles, 1964 and Tischler, 2007).

On the basis of the above discussions some derivations about the subject matter of sociology can
be achieved:

1. The subject matter of sociology includes the study of social institutions.

2. Sociology includes the study of interrelations between various social institutions.
 3. Society as a whole is taken as the unit of analysis and a comparative study between
societies is attempted.
4. Sociologists study social structures and social actions.
5. Sociological analysis includes cause and effect relationships.

What Contemporary Sociologists Do?

Another way of understanding the subject matter of sociology is by looking at what

contemporary sociologists are doing. This can give us an idea as to what an average sociologist
means when he/she talks about the subject. Inkeles (1964) has tried to address the issue by
focusing on Hornell Hart’s analysis of sociology textbooks. Hart has identified 12 main themes
that form the content of most of the sociology text books. These themes are as under:

1. Scientific method in sociology

2. Personality in society
3. Culture
4. Human groups
5. Population
6. Caste and class
7. Race
8. Social change
9. Economic institutions
10. Family
11. Education
12. Religion

These themes by no means are exhaustive in nature but try to throw some light on the subject
matter of sociology text books. New areas of interest might get added to the existing themes
depending on the nature of research in the field. This in turn is related to the larger socio-political
scenario that may influence the direction of new research themes and eventually they may also
become part of the subject matter of sociology. This gives us an idea that a discipline is not static
and it changes over a period of time. This is a major limitation in defining the field of sociology
or for that matter any other discipline. Another popular text in sociology written by Anthony
Giddens (2006) will give us an idea that how new themes are added and become part of the
subject matter of the discipline. Besides what has been already enumerated above Giddens
(2006) is also talking about issues like:

1. Globalization
2. Social interaction and everyday life
3. Health illness and disability
4. Global inequality
5. Media
6. Politics, government and terrorism
7. Environment and risk
8. Sexuality and gender
9. Social exclusion and welfare
On the basis of such resources and the activities and interests of contemporary sociologists, a
general outline of the subject matter of sociology can be drawn:

I. Sociological Analysis
a. Human culture and society
b. Sociological perspective
c. Scientific method in social science
II. Primary Units of Social Life
a. Social acts and social relationships
b. The individual personality
c. Groups (including ethnic and class)
d. Communities: Urban and rural
e. Associations and organizations
f. Populations
g. Society
III. Basic Social Institutions
a. The family and kinship
b. Economic
c. Political and legal
d. Religious
e. Educational and scientific
f. Recreational and welfare
g. Aesthetic and expressive
IV. Fundamental Social Processes
a. Differentiation and stratification
b. Cooperation, accommodation and assimilation
c. Social conflict
d. Communication
e. Socialization
f. Social evaluation
g. Social control
h. Social deviance
i. Social integration
j. Social change
Source: Inkeles, 1964

What is Sociology?

Within this discussion so far, we have tried to understand the subject matter of sociology and
what sociologists do. However, one may ask that some of the issues discussed above are not
unique to the subject of sociology as are also studied in other disciplines like political science,
law, economics etc. This brings us to a question that what is unique about the subject matter of
sociology that is not studied by other disciplines. The answer to this question is crucial as this
will establish the uniqueness of sociology. The third way of defining the subject matter of
sociology is by analyzing what has been said till now and this becomes ‘our understanding of the
subject’. Based on the discussion so far, it can be said that sociology is the study of society, its
institutions and social relationships (Inkeles, 1964).

When we say that sociology is the study of society, what we mean is that, sociology takes up
society as a whole for its analysis. This kind of a study tries to understand that on what grounds
different societies are different and similar to each other. This is a comparative study of different
societies across the globe and this helps in reaching at certain generalizations about the society as
a whole. Such a study has already been exemplified in the previous discussion on Max Weber
and his comparative analysis of different societies of China, India and the Western societies.
Weber was interested in understanding the effect of religion on economic dimensions of society.
His aim was not to study religion only but through its study reach at broader generalizations
about the societies as a whole (Inkeles, 1964).

Durkheim once said that sociology should be defined in terms of a science that study institutions.
In this sense sociology is a study of institutions that make-up society. Earlier sociologists have
used the organic analogy to study society as made up of different parts that are mainly its
different institutions. Sociologists studying institutions might ask questions like what are the
commonalities or similarities between different institutions of a society? What are the similarities
and differences in various institutions across different societies? (Inkeles, 1964)

Sociologists also study social relationships. Social relationships are studied from two
perspectives- from the perspective of networks and from the perspective of its quality. The
network analysis tries to understand the extent and span of social relationships and the quantity
of people that may take part in social relationships. On the other hand, the quality of relationship
emphasizes characteristics like dominance and submissiveness in the relationships. Max Weber
was also of the view that sociologists should study social relationships that are possible only
when people act. Similarly Leopold von Wiese argued that the study of social relationships is
unique to sociology and sociologists should study only that and nothing else. In true sense, social
relationships form the unique and only subject matter of sociology. Sociologists like Georg
Simmel and Talcott Parsons shared similar views (Inkeles, 1964).

Sociology and Other Social Sciences

The uniqueness of the subject matter of sociology can also be understood by contrasting
sociology with other social science disciplines like social anthropology, psychology, economics,
and history. It is difficult to find complete contrast with most of the disciplines listed above as a
considerable degree of overlap is present between sociology and other social sciences. However,
the difference might lie in the level and degree of importance that each subject assign to various
dimensions of their interest. It is also a fact that each discipline, very conveniently, borrows
methods and theories to investigate phenomenon under study from different related disciplines.

Sociology and Social Anthropology

Sociology shares many things in common with social anthropology. Some social anthropologists
like Radcliffe Brown preferred to call social anthropology by the name ‘comparative sociology’.
Sociologists like Durkheim have influenced theory and practice in social anthropology.
However, with these similarities there are also some important differences between the two.
Social anthropologists for most of their time are concerned with small scale simple societies, but
on the other hand sociologists are interested more in contemporary complex urban societies. This
difference, although regarded as legitimate by both sociologists and social anthropologists, is not
without exceptions. Both sociologists and anthropologists are interested with both kinds of
societies. Sociologists study a separate branch known as tribal sociology in which they study
tribal communities which has been an area of interest for anthropologists since the inception of
the subject. Similarly in anthropology, there is a branch known as urban anthropology that
studies complex urban societies. It should be kept in mind that we are moving towards
interdisciplinarity where we share and borrow a lot of things from different but related subjects
in order to understand the issues more clearly. But still the difference cited above is legitimate in
the context of the emergence and development of the two disciplines (Tischler, 2007).

Sociology and Psychology

Sociology is different from psychology in two concrete terms. Firstly, psychology mostly deals
with individuals as compared to sociology that deals with society as a whole. Again, this does
not mean that psychologists are unaware of the social influence on individuals behavior but their
prime focus is on the individual and through the study of individual they reflect upon the society.
Secondly, psychology is an experimental science in which laboratory experiments on individuals
and groups are conducted. On the other hand, sociologists do not conduct experiments in
laboratory set-ups. Psychologists try to understand the mental processes and therefore deal with
issues like learning, memory, perception, attitude, cognition etc. On the other hand sociologists
deal with social processes. A simple example may help in understanding the different more
clearly. Say for example the issue of alcoholism is dealt in different ways by sociologists and
psychologists. Psychologists will try to address the issue from a personal point of view and the
impact of alcoholism on the individual’s health and social life. On the other hand sociologists
will be more interested to understand the social causes of alcoholism. Sociologists will try to
understand the larger patterns of alcoholism in the society rather than addressing it on a personal
basis. They may ask, for example, questions like why there is an increase in the rate of
alcoholism in adolescents and women (Inkeles, 1964 and Tischler, 2007).

Sociology and Economics

An economist is more interested in knowing the factors behind inflation, cost of production,
pattern of consumption and modes and methods of distribution of various goods and services in a
society. Economic activity is just a small part of the larger social activity. Sociologists are also
interested in economic activities of people but from a different perspective. Sociologists would
be more interested in understanding the social factors behind economic behaviours. Production
and consumption for sociologists are not merely economic activities but are social activities that
are guided by norms, values and cultural preferences of a given society. Economists on the other
hand are more interested in evaluating markets and measuring profits and loss in an economic
transaction (Tischler, 2007).

3.4 Sociology and History

Sociology differs from history in terms of its temporal dimensions. Historians are interested in
the events of the past. They want to understand that what happened in the past and what was the
sequence of events. Sociologists on the other hand are more interested in the present. They want
to understand societies and social processes in the contemporary periods. However, history is
important for sociological analysis as it tries to locate contemporary events in their historical
context and therefore give us a complete understanding of the same. The difference between the
two also lies in the kinds of methods that they use for their studies. Historians study the past on
the basis of written records, archives and documents of the era or time period under
consideration. On the other hand sociologists use techniques of interview, observation,
discussions etc to reach at certain generalizations. Historians do not have the chance of observing
the events that they are talking about as those events happened in distant past and the only way to
study them is through records. Sociological analysis is based upon the observation of
contemporary events in which they are interested (Tischler, 2007).

Sociology and Common Sense

We all live in a society and learn its ways. We also assume that we all have some knowledge
about the ways in which societies function. Through our experiences we gather information and
knowledge about various dimensions of society. Dealing with various dimensions of social life
seems to require nothing more than common sense. Then why do we need a special branch that
deals with society and social phenomenon? Is there any difference between sociological analysis
and common sense? Why do we need a separate discipline to understand our own society?
Answer to these questions will highlight the importance of the discipline (Beteille, 2002 and
Tischler, 2007).

It has been argued that sociology, although based upon common sense, is not only that. It is an
understanding that offers much more than what common sense can offer. Understanding of
society based only upon common sense is not reliable because common sense is based upon
people’s experiences in different social situations and their expectations of behavior in those
situations. Such expectations are learned over a period of time and therefore they are taken for
granted and are never questioned. Experiences of people are also limited by their place and time.
Common sense at best can be our presumptions based upon our limited experiences. Common
sense may also lead us to think that what we are doing and thinking in a particular situation is the
only way of doing and thinking. Other alternative ways of doing and thinking may seem to be
wrong as they may not subscribe to our common sense. Common sense may lead us to think and
assume things in a different way which may not be the case and a deeper sociological analysis
might reveal the true story. The case in point here is the assumptions about the caste system in
India. Before caste system was fully analyzed by none other than the legendry M.N. Srinivas, it
was assumed that caste categories are rigid in nature as they are based upon the Varna model.
However, field studies conducted by Srinivas revealed that caste system is not as rigid as it was
thought to be, but is more flexible and social mobility within caste is possible and happening.
Srinivas made a distinction between the field-view and book-view of Indian society and tried to
explain that the understanding of the Indian society based upon the book-view is not correct and
the true picture will only emerge from the field-view (Beteille, 2002).
Similar misconceptions based upon common sense about family and household in India were
removed by A.M.Shah. Based upon his analysis of the Indian family system he showed that the
number of joint-family households were never larger than the nuclear-family households. It was
also argued based upon evidence that the average household size in India remained same in the
last hundred years. Shah also made efforts to make the conception of joint family more clear as
against a more common sense understanding of the term joint-family. This shows that
sociological analysis is of great help and importance to understand our society more
scientifically and holistically (Beteille, 2002).