MODULE I

FORMATION OF SOCIOLOGICAL THOUGHT

Emergence of Sociology
Having grown up during the aftermath of the French Revolution, Auguste Comte was the first to
use the term sociology as a way of studying the world in terms of society. Along with the
industrial revolution in England during the 18th century and the rise of urbanisation and mas
social change, thinkers such as Comte, Durkheim and Marx began to realise the ned to study
society in all its dynamic nature. This period of history is often described as ‘the great
transformation’, which led to the emergence of sociology. Around the late 18th century an
intellectual period known as ‘the Enlightenment’ challenged many of the established orders of
society from an analytical and scientific perspective. Following French revolution, the citizens of
France were granted new legal rights, a broad centralized education system and a new system of
inheritance. These changes all challenged a previous traditional model, and hence gave
individual citizens a different perspective of society.
It could be argued that the intellectual revolution known as ‘the Enlightenment’ laid the
foundation for the French revolution which created significant social change. It brought about an
ideology which believed that scientific and historical study should be looked at and incorporated
into a philosophical perspective. Enlightenment figures such as Charles Montesquieu, one of the
pioneers of social science, saw humanity as something that develops from infancy to maturity
with conflict in between the different stages. He also believed that the Enlightenment could be
the beginning of a great period of human development, as science was being applied to
humanity. This could be described as the birth of sociology and of social scientific thought.
The Enlightenment period coincided with the increase in knowledge in other scientific fields
such as life sciences. Darwin’s studies on evolution challenged the old established ideas of the
church. The concept of ‘Social Darwinism’ was based on the ideology that society will gradually
improve on the basis that he ‘fittest’ will be the most successful and therefore ‘survive’. The
period of the late 18th century and early 19th century contributed significantly to the emergence
of sociology due to the significant revolutions that occurred during this time.
The Enlightenment was in many respects a renaissance of scientific thought and signaled the
beginning of sociology as a discipline. It changed the way philosophers looked at the world by
giving a scientific and analytical approach to their theories. This intellectual revolution made
way for the French revolution, and is thought by some to be the most important political event of
modern times. It granted citizens individual freedoms and removed old established orders such as
the church and crown, and gave people a new perspective of the world and the society in which
they live. The French revolution also led to the emergence of Nationalism which changed the
way many people viewed the state as whole. The industrial revolution saw massive changes in
society by the destruction of the feudal system and the establishment of capitalism, which is a
key area of discussion within sociology.
Urbanization and industrialization led to the emergence of the working class as a large and
powerful body, which led to the birth of Marxism, and gave people a new perspective and
relationship with the society they lived in. Thus French revolution and Industrial revolution were
events integral to the emergence of sociology and social sciences.
Social background of Sociology
Sociology emerged from enlightenment thought, shortly after the French Revolution, as a
positivist science of society. Its genesis owed to various key movements in the philosophy of
science and the philosophy of knowledge. Modern academic sociology emerged as a reaction to
modernity, capitalism, urbanization, rationalization, and secularization. Within a relatively brief
period the discipline greatly expanded and diverged, both topically and methodologically,
particularly as a result of reactions against empiricism.
French Revolution
The French revolution challenged and overthrew the old order of society. It was a revolution that
strengthened the state which aimed to represent the will of the people. It is important to
recognize that he political and cultural climate that existed before the revolution was dominated
by the church and the monarchy. The French Revolution was a period of radical social and
political upheaval in France that had a major impact on France and throughout the rest of
Europe. The absolute monarchy that had ruled France for centuries collapsed in three years.
French society underwent drastic transformation. Feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges
were removed from the society. Old of monarchy, aristocracy, and religious authority were
overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality and citizenship. The Ancient Régime,
the aristocratic, social and political system established in France from approximately the 15th
century to the 18th century was identified as one of the causes of the Revolution. Economic
factors included hunger and malnutrition after several years of poor grain harvests. Bad harvests
rising food prices, and an inadequate transportation system that hindered the shipment of bulk
foods from rural areas to large population centers contributed greatly to the destabilization of
French society in the years leading up to the Revolution. Another cause was the state's effective
bankruptcy due to the enormous cost of previous wars, particularly the financial strain caused by
French participation in the American Revolutionary War. France's inefficient and antiquated
financial system was unable to manage the national debt, which was both caused and aggravated
by the burden of an inadequate system of taxation. Meanwhile, the royal court at Versailles was
seen as being isolated from, and indifferent to, the hardships of the lower classes. Many other
factors involved resentments and aspirations given focus by the rise of Enlightenment ideals.
These included resentment of royal absolutism, reressentment by peasants, laborers and the
bourgeoisie toward the traditional privileges possessed by the nobility, resentment of the
Church's influence over public policy and institutions, aspirations for freedom of religion,
resentment of aristocratic bishops by the porer rural clergy; aspirations for social, political and
economic equality, and republicanism. The French Revolution began in 1789 with the
convocation of the Estates-General in May.
The first year of the Revolution saw members of the Third Estate proclaiming the Tennis Court
Oath in June, the assault on the Bastille in July, the passage of the Declaration of the Rights of
Man and of the Citizens in August, and an epic march on Versailles that forced the royal court
back to Paris in October. The next few years were dominated by tensions between various liberal
assemblies and a right-wing monarchy which tried to resist major reforms.
A republic was proclaimed in September 1792 and King Louis XVI was executed the next year.
Internally, popular sentiments radicalized the Revolution significantly, culminating in the rise of
Maximilen Robespiere and the Jacobins and virtual dictatorship by the Committee of Public
Safety during the Reign of Terror from 1793 until 1794 during which between 16,00 and 40,00
people were killed. After the fal of the Jacobins and the execution of Robespiere, the Directory
asumed control of the French state in 1795 and held power until 179, when it was replaced by the
Consulate under Napoleon Bonaparte.
The modern era has unfolded in the shadow of the French Revolution. The growth of republics
and liberal democracies, the spread of secularism, the development of modern ideologies, and the
invention of total war originated during the Revolution. Subsequent events that can be traced to
the Revolution include the Napoleonic Wars, two separate restorations of monarchy (Bourbon
Restoration and July Monarchy), and two additional revolutions (1830 and 1848) as modern
France took shape.
Decline of Estate System
French Society was divided into three classes or "estates". The first estate was the clergy, the
second estate, nobility and the third estate, the commoners. Each estate was granted an equal
voice in an advisory legislative group caled the Estates General who would met whenever there
was a need to advise the king. The Estates General had no real power under the absolute
monarchy of Louis XIV.The estate system was division of three different groups. The first estate
was made up of the clergy(Church). Although the clergy amounted to no more than a hundred
thousand men, they owned about 1/10th of the land in France. The clergy enjoyed many
privileges. The second estate was made up of nobles and kings. They lived rich lives and taxed
peasants to avoid paying their taxes. The power of this class was based on the feudal seigniorial
system. They served as councilors to the royalty, diplomats and governors. They enjoyed rights
of local justice, village surveillance, monopoly over hunting and the maintenance of wells and
wine presses. The most important differentiation between the nobles and the non-nobles was that
the former enjoyed immunity from direct taxation and various other taxes. The traditional
nobility held political authority on the basis of landed wealth and got his as a reward to the
military aid given to the king. The Third estate was everybody else. They were workers and
farmers. The third estate was taxed heavily making the poor poorer and this helped the rich stay
rich. All three of these estates had influence on the French Revolution; without them, the
revolution never would have existed. It was because of the oppression of the higher classes that
the lower class rose up and stood up to them. The third estate was suppressed and delineated in
society. The third estate reacted against his situation whereas, the other two acted as if things
were perfect in their present state.
Emergence of Capitalism and Establishment of Democracy in Europe
Capitalism in Europe followed the stage of feudalism. Under feudalism, land was the main
means of production. Land was owned by feudal lords, and a large number of peasants bound to
the land worked in the farms. There were also a small number of artisans to. The surplus product
of these peasants and artisans was extracted by the feudal lords. The basic conflict in feudal
society, the conflict that propelled society forward, was between these direct producers and the
landowning lords. In order to maintain their class power, the feudal lords tried to maximize the
rent they extracted from the peasants. The peasants struggled in various ways to end this
extraction of the surplus. In the course of these struggles many peasants were able to relax the
stranglehold of the lords, to keep some surplus for themselves, and to improve and extend their
cultivation. Additionally some artisans and merchants became wealthy enough to buy land in
their own right, breaking the lords’ monopoly on land ownership. And so another process began:
some producers improved their production faster than others, and were able to accumulate some
capital and over time there developed a class of relatively prosperous farmers along with the
poor peasants. This polarization helped lay the basis for the wage labour that would be needed
under capitalism.
Over the centuries of feudal society, as the surplus grew to some extent, trade also grew. Around
that trade grew towns where merchants enjoyed some political power. The money power of the
towns, the relative political freedom of the towns, and the contact with ideas from distant lands
helped to create changes in religious doctrines and philosophy, mathematics and science. The
associated change in the world-view of the intelligentsia has been termed the Enlightenment.
According to the new ideology, the force of human Reason replaced established authority, such
as the Church and the King. The State itself was now no longer seen as God-given, but the
product of Man, a ‘social contract’ among men for their benefit. That implied that if the State
were not functioning for their benefit, it was justified to overthrow it and replace it with a new
one.
Under feudalism, most household requirements were made at home. A limited number of gods
were produced for the market by artisans/craftsmen employing, say, two or three men, working
with their own tools and raw materials. But as trade grew, merchants, seeking to increase
production, began supplying materials and purchasing the finished gods from the craftsmen; the
later largely lost their independence and were now working for the merchant. However, what
definitively marked the emergence of capitalism was not simply production for the market, but
the system in which all the means of production – the tools/machines, the raw materials, and the
location – belonged to the capitalist, and the laborer had nothing to sell but his/her own labour
power. Feudalism had needed the use of custom, law and force to extract the surplus from the
producers, but under capitalism it was no longer necessary to rely on such non-economic
methods.
The worker had the choice of working for the capitalist or starving. Surplus extraction now was
carried out by the impersonal laws of the market. The new capitalists demanded the abolition of
monopolies and privileges in trade and industry on which merchant capital had fattened under
feudalism, and thus established free competition at home.
Intelectual background of Sociology
The discipline of Sociology was heavily influenced by the enlightenment period. The
Enlightenment was a period of intellectual development and change in philosophical thought
beginning in the eighteenth century. Enlightenment thinkers sought to combine reason with
empirical research on the model of Newtonian science. They tried to produce highly systematic
bodies of thought that made rational sense and that could be derived from real-world
observation. They were of the opinion that he social world could be controlled using reason and
research. They also believed that traditional social values and institutions were irrational and
inhibited human development. Their ideas conflicted with traditional religious bodies of
feudalism. They placed their faith instead in the power of the individual's capacity to reason.
Early sociology also maintained a faith in empiricism and rational inquiry.
Scientific revolution
The Scientific Revolution changed the way people saw the world. The movement helped shape
the attitudes that made the scientific advances of the modern world possible. Many new ideas
were developed about humanity's place in the universe and the universe itself. Throughout
Europe many individuals began to critically analyze the validity of existing theories. The
philosophers and intellectuals of this period had immense faith in the power of human reason.
The Scientific Revolution was enormously impressed by Isaac Newton's theory of gravity. The
scientists of this period tried to discover the laws underlying al of nature and society. A greater
importance was placed on the discovery of truth through the observation of nature rather than
through the study of religious sources. The rise of the new science progressively undermined the
ancient geocentric conception of the cosmos. The dramatic success of the new science in
explaining the natural world promoted philosophy to an independent force with the power and
authority to challenge the old and construct the new, in the realms both of theory and practice, on
the basis of its own principles.
Freedom of thought
Freedom of thought is the freedom of an individual to hold a viewpoint, or thought, regardless of
anyone else's view. The suppression of freedom of thought is a prominent characteristic of
totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, while freedom of thought is one of the fundamental
principles of most democracies. Freedom of thought helped in the development of revolutionary
ideas and thought. The Enlightenment may be characterized as a catalyst for the development of
particular styles of social thought. It does not represent a set of ideas which can be clearly
demarcated, extracted and presented as a list of essential definitions, but represents a general
shift in thought. These ideas, when fused with governmental practice, produced some core
themes.  A concept of freedom based upon an autonomous human subject who is capable of
acting in a conscious manner.  The pursuit of a universal and foundational ‘truth’ gained
through a correspondence of ideas with social and physical reality.  A belief in the natural
sciences as the correct model for thinking about the social and natural world over, for example,
theology and metaphysics.  The accumulation of systematic knowledge within the progressive
unfolding of history. Collectively, these changes acted as catalysts for the scientific study of
human societies.
Efforts to interpret Social change
Sociology and other social sciences emerged from a common tradition of reflection of social
phenomena. The development of sociology and its current contexts has to be understood in the
contexts of the major changes of the modern world. Sociology originated in 18th century
philosophy, political economy and cultural history the major conditions, societal changes and
revolutions that gave rise to the emergence and development of sociology as an academic science
include the Industrial Revolution , French Revolution, the Enlightenment and advances in natural
sciences and technology. These revolutions had brought about significant societal changes and
disturbances in the ways of society. Since sociology was born in the midst of the great socio-
political and economic and technological changes of the western world, it is said to be the
science of modern society. The pioneering sociologists were very much concerned about the
great changes that were taking place and they felt that the existing sciences could not help
understand, explain, analyze and interpret the fundamental laws that govern the social
phenomena. Thus sociology was born out of these revolutionary contexts and events.
Need for a new social science
We need social science because social processes shape human destinies. If we are to take control
of our future, we need to understand society as much as we need to understand the atmosphere,
the earth, and other things. Social practices are creating new realities in society. Social science,
concerned with this reality, has to be empirical. It tries to discover and describe the way things
are in the world. The accuracy of its statements maters, its claims have to be testable and,
ultimately, tested. The social sciences developed as a field of study during the nineteenth
century. Social science helped people understand the consequences and application of the new
technologies. The precursor to Industrial revolution, French revolution and the American War of
Independence was the period of 'Renaissance' which started in Italy in 15th century and later
moved northwards sweeping all of Europe. The period of Renaissance changed the complete
outlook of the society in the social, cultural, political and economic field. It brought about
ideological changes in almost all the spheres. The 'New Scientific Method' led to various
discoveries and innovation. It was the 'New Scientific Method' which ultimately gave rise to
Industrial revolution. It was marked by change from 'Subsistence society' to 'monetary society' or
Capitalist society. Mass production of factory gods changed the complete social structure. But
the social changes were so rapid that society was not able to catch up with the changes. The
result was huge amount of unrest in society which threatened social stability. Peasants moving to
urban areas, growth of cities, adoption of nuclear family etc. were al opposed to traditions
existing prior to Industrial society. It leads to rising number of suicides and violence. Thus there
was an urgent need to understand the cause of these social changes, and to provide some
meaningful explanation for the increased problems. No other discipline was catering to the newly
developed problems. These changed scenarios resulted in the rise of 'Science of Society'-
Sociology.
Philosophical background of Sociology
The philosophical background of Sociology could be related to the enlightenment period and the
dominant philosophical thoughts of the time. The philosophers believed that society could
progress by rational thinking about the social world. The enlightenment was influenced by a
selection of key thinkers e.g Comte, Weber, Durkheim, Locke and provided many philosophical
reasoning during this time. The points that make the enlightenment a critical starting point for
sociology are really the way we moved into thinking about progress in society the hope for a
utopia. Aim for freedom, reasoning, rationality, universal ideas created a way of studying
society. They called this the social physics or sociology and the key thinkers helped create a
discipline that has largely been based on these ideas.
Enlightenment
The Age of Enlightenment was a cultural movement of intellectuals whose purpose was to
reform society and advance knowledge. It promoted science and intellectual interchange and
opposed superstition. The intellectual movement called "The Enlightenment" is usually
associated with the 18th century, but its roots in fact go back much further. They believed that
human reason could be used to combat ignorance, superstation, and tyranny and to build a better
world. The Enlightenment is the period in the history of western thought and culture, stretching
roughly from the mid-decades of the seventeenth century through the eighteenth century,
characterized by dramatic revolutions in science, philosophy, society and politics. Enlightenment
thought laid the foundation of the French Revolution, in which the traditional hierarchical
political and social orders were replaced by a political and social order characterized by the
Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality for al. The Enlightenment begins with the
scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
The Enlightenment is associated with the French thinkers of the mid-decades of the eighteenth
century who were known as “philosophes” included Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, etc.The
philosophes constitute an informal society of men of letters who collaborate on a loosely defined
project of Enlightenment centered on the project of the Encyclopedia. The Enlightenment was
related to ideas about what the human mind was capable of, and what could be achieved through
deliberate action and scientific methodology. Many of the new, enlightened ideas were political
in nature. Intellectuals began to consider the possibility that freedom and democracy were the
fundamental rights of all people. Egalitarianism became the dominant value and it meant fair
treatment for all people, regardless of background. In Europe, Voltaire and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau were the torchbearers of Enlightenment literature and philosophy. Rousseau was a
strong advocate for social reform of all kinds.Rouseau’s work on behalf of social empowerment
and democracy would remain influential long after his passing. Espousing similar political
positions, Voltaire employed dry wit and sarcasm to make convincing arguments for reform.
Together, Voltaire and Rousseau are the most well-known of a collective of European writers
who propagated Enlightenment philosophy. Contributions of Rousseau’s most important work
are The Social Contract, which outlines the basis for a legitimate political order within a
framework of classical republicanism. The treatise begins with the dramatic opening lines, "Man
is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others
are indeed greater slaves than they."Rousseau claimed that people were in the state of nature
which was a primitive condition without law or morality. Human beings left the state of nature
for the benefits and necessity of cooperation. As society developed, division of labor and private
property required the human race to adopt institutions of law. Man is prone to be in frequent
competition with his fellow men while also becoming increasingly dependent on them. This
threatens both his survival and his freedom. According to Rousseau, by joining together into civil
society through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can
both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because submission to the authority of the
general will of the people as a whole guarantees individuals against being subordinated to the
wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the
authors of the law.
The stated aim of the Social Contract is to determine a legitimate political authority. In order to
accomplish more and remove himself from the state of nature, man must enter into a Social
Contract with others. In this social contract, everyone will be free because all individuals’
exercise the same amount of rights and same duties are imposed on al. Rousseau also argues that
it is illogical for a man to surrender his freedom for slavery; and so, the participants must be free.
Furthermore, although the contract imposes new laws, especially those safeguarding and
regulating property, a person can exit it at any time and is again as free as when he was
born .Rousseau says that any administration, whatever form it takes, should be divided into two
parts. First, there must be the sovereign who represents the general will and is the legislative
power within the state. The second division is that of the government, being distinct from the
sovereign.Rouseau claims that the size of the territory to be governed often decides the nature of
the government. Since a government is only as strong as the people, the larger the teritory the
more strength the government must be able to exert over the population. In his view, a
monarchical government is able to wield the most power over the people since it has to devote
les power to itself, while a democracy the least. In general, the larger the bureaucracy, the more
power required for government discipline. When Rousseau uses the word democracy he refers to
a direct democracy. Rousseau argues that small city-states are the form of nation in which
freedom can best flourish. For any state large enough to require intermediaries between the
people and the government, an elected aristocracy may be preferable, and in very large states a
benevolent monarch; but even monarchical rule, to be legitimate, must be subordinate to the
sovereign rule of law.
Theoretical perspective Major assumptions
Functionalism Social stability is necessary to have a strong society, and adequate socialization
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.
Conflict theory: Society is characterized by pervasive inequality based on social class, gender,
and other factors. Far-reaching social change is needed to reduce or eliminate social inequality
and to create an egalitarian society. Conflict theory is a macro theory.
Symbolic interactionism: 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 so doing, they rely heavily on symbols such as words and gestures to reach a
shared understanding of their interaction. Symbolic interactionism is a micro theory.
Utilitarianism (rational choice theory or exchange theory) People act to maximize their
advantages in a given situation and to reduce their disadvantages. If they decide that benefits
outweigh disadvantages, they will initiate the interaction or continue it if it is already under way.
If they instead decide that disadvantages outweigh benefits, they will decline to begin interacting
or stop the interaction if already begun. Social order is possible because people realize it will be
in their best interests to cooperate and to make compromises when necessary. Utilitarianism is a
micro theory.
Functionalism
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 socialization, 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 behavior. 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 socialization, 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 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” (Durkheim, 1897/1952, p. 274). This
force, Durkheim continued, is the moral authority of society.
How does society limit individual aspirations? Durkheim emphasized two related social
mechanisms: socialization and social integration. Socialization 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 socialize 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 behavior. The result is that
socialization 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: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 hypothesized that Catholic doctrine provides many more
rules for behavior 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
emphasizes 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
skeptical of rapid social change and other major social upheaval. The analogy to the human body
helps us understand this skepticism. 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 skeptical approach to social change,
functionalism supports the status quo and is thus often regarded as a conservative perspective.
Conflict Theory
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
Symbolic Interactionism
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.
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
right arm is broken. Because the other person realizes 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 understandings of symbols.
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 favor existing inequalities based on race, social class, and gender. By emphasizing the
contributions of social institutions such as the family and education to social stability,
functionalist theory minimizes the ways in which these institutions contribute to social
inequality.
Conflict theory also has its problems. By emphasizing inequality and dissensus in society,
conflict theory overlooks the large degree of consensus on many important issues. And by
emphasizing the ways in which social institutions contribute to social inequality, conflict theory
minimizes 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 criticized for ignoring the
importance of emotins, 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 note that most street criminals are poor and thus emphasize 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
emphasize 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.

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.
Interactionism in sociology focuses on the way that we act, or make conscious choices regarding
our behavior 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 behavior based on the
actions of other social actors.
Interactionism in sociology examines how different social actors make sense of or interpret the
behavior 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 behavior, but also how
we interpret the meanings of behavior.
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 behavior 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 behavior
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' behavior
but also how we choose to behave ourselves at any given moment.
interactionism is a theoretical perspective that sees social behavior 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
In sociology, interactionism is a theoretical perspective that understands social processes (such
as conflict, cooperation, identity formation) as emerging from human interaction. Scholars of this
perspective study how individuals act within society and believe that meaning is produced
through the interactions of individuals. According to interactionists, gender stratification exists
because people act toward each other on the basis of the meanings they have for one another.
Interactionists believe that these meanings are derived through social interaction and that these
meanings are managed and transformed through an interpretive process that people use to make
sense of, and handle, the objects that constitute their social worlds.
Goffman and Control
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, emphasized the
importance of control in social interactions. According to Goffman, during an interaction,
individuals will attempt to control the behavior of the other participants, in order to attain 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
Symbolic interactionism aims to understand human behavior by analyzing 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 feminity 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’s 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 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 emphasized
that gender is maintained through accountability. Men and women are expected to perform their
gender to the point that it is naturalized, 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.

The Relationship of Sociology with Other Social Sciences

Sociology is a science of society. As a social science it attempts to study social life as a whole.
But for the understanding of social life as a whole sociology requires the help of other social
sciences which studies a particular aspect of society. it is obvious that other social sciences are
closely related to sociology.
Sociology and Political Science:
As a mother of social sciences Sociology has close and intimate relationship with all other social
science. Hence it has close relationship with political science as well. Their relationship is so
close and intimate that led G.E.C. Catlin to remark “Political Science and Sociology are two
faces 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 the organised society. However their inter-relationship and inter-dependence can be
known from interdependence and mutual relationship.
Sociology depends on political science. In the words of Morris Ginsberg, “Historically Sociology
has its main roots in politics and philosophy of history.” Sociology greatly benefited by the
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 cause. Political Science is a part of sociology.
Hence sociology depends on political science to comprehend itself. To understand different
political events sociology takes the help from political science. Sociology to draw it’s
conclusions depends 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 inter-dependent.
Differences:
(1) Sociology is a 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 scope of political science is limited.
(3) Sociology is a general science but political science is a special science.
(4) Sociology studied organised, unorganized and disorganized society whereas political science
studies only politically organised society.
(5) Sociology studies the social activities of man whereas political science studies political
activities of man.
(6) Sociology is a new or young science but political science is an older science.
(7) Sociology studies man as a social animal whereas political science studies man as a political
animal.
(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.
Sociology and History:
Sociology is the science of society. It is a study of systems of social action and their inter-
relations. Sociology is a science of social groups and social institutions. History studies the
important past events and incidents. It records men 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 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 inter-related and interdependent on each other. Both
study the same human society. Their mutual dependence led G.H. Howard to remark that,
“History is past Sociology and Sociology is present history.” Both takes 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 store house 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 Sociological angle. Every historical event has a social cause
or social background. To understand that historical event history need 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 Sociological angle and Sociology also now studied from historical point of view. Historical
sociology now became a new branch of Sociology which depends on history. Similarly
Sociological history is another specialized subject which based on both the Sciences. But in spite
of the above close relationship and inter-dependence 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) Attitude 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 entirety.
(7) Sociology is a general science whereas history is a special science.
Sociology and Economics:
Sociology is a science of society. It is concerned with the association of human beings.
Sociology is the study of human interactions and inter-relations their conditions and
consequences. But Economics deals with economic activities of man. It is a science of wealth
and choice. According to Prof. Robbins Economics is a social “science which studies human
behavior in relation to his 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 organizations 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 inter-related with each other. Because of this inter-relationship Thomas
opines that, “Economics is, in fact, but one branch of Sociology.” Similarly Silverman opines
Economics is regarded as offshoot of sociology which studies the general principles of all social
relations. 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 takes the help of sociology and takes
into account the social events of that particular time. At the same time society controls the
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. Economic draws its generalization basing 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. An economic factor greatly influences each and every aspects of social
life. Economics is a part of sociology hence without the help of economics we can’t understand
sociology properly.
Differences:
(1) Sociology is a science of society and social relationships whereas economics is a science of
wealth and choice.
(2) Sociology is a much younger science which has very recent origin whereas economics is
comparatively an older science.
(3) 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) The scope of sociology is very wide whereas the scope of economics is very limited.
(6) Sociology is concerned with the social activities of man whereas economics is concerned
with the economic activities of man.
(7) Society is studied as a unit of study in Sociology whereas man is taken as a unit of study in
economics.
(8) Both Sociology and economics differ from each other in respect of the methods and
techniques they use for their study.

Sociology and Anthropology:

Sociology is a science of society. It studies behavior of man in groups. The relationship is so

close that Anthropologists like A.L. Kroeber consider Sociology and Anthropology as twin
sisters. They often appear as two names for the same subject. R. Reddfield recognizes the
closeness between these two social sciences.
Anthropology studies the biological and cultural development of man. Anthropology has a wide
field of study which can be broadly divided into three main divisions such as physical
anthropology, cultural anthropology and social anthropology.
Archeology studies cultures of pre-historic 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 behavior of man in social institutions.
Social anthropology and sociology are one and the same. Evan Pritchard considers social
anthropology as a branch of Sociology. The term social anthropology has a historical background
in the field of anthropology. We need to explore to some extent the theoretical framework as
well to trace the emergence of the term social anthropology. Along with this the term cultural
anthropology would also come in our discussion, as these two terms have a close interpretation.
Sometimes these two terms overlap in the fields of practice. There exists similarities and
differences between sociology and social anthropology
Traditionally, sociology emerged as the study of society in industrial societies but social
anthropology emerged as the study of remote and “primitive” societies.
Similarities
a. Sociology and social anthropology both study human society and culture. They study
elements such as norms, values, behavior, attitude, institutions, organizations and
social change.
b. Sociology and social anthropology both can use ethnography as a research method for
data collection.
c. Sociology and social anthropology are relatively new that originated as university
disciplines in late 19th century and early 20th century
Differences
The use of ethnography is absolutely crucial for social anthropology. The use of ethnography is
optional for sociology as there are other qualitative and quantitative methods.
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. Relationship between the two is so close and intimate that Psychologist like Karl
Pearson refuses to accept both as special science. Both depend on each other for their own
comprehension. Their relationship will be clear if we analyze their inter-relationship and mutual
dependency.
Sociology is a science of social phenomena and social relationship. It is a science of social group
and social institutions. It is a science of collective behavior. It studies human behavior in groups.
But psychology is a science of mind or mental processes.
It is a science of human behavior. It analyses attitudes, emotions, perception, process of learning
and values of individuals and process of personality formation in society. In the words of
Thouless ‘Psychology is the positive science of human experience and behavior.’ But both the
sciences are closely related to each other which can be known from the following.
Sociology and Psychology are mutually dependent on each other. One can’t comprehend itself
without the help from others. Besides there are some common area of study such as social
disorganization, 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
Crutchfield Social Psychology is the science of behaviour of the individuals in society.
Differences:
However, inspite 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 scope of Psychology is limited.
(3) Society is the unit of study in sociology but 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 behavior from Sociological angle whereas psychology
studies and analyses human behavior from Psychological angles.
Significance of sociology
Sociology studies society in a scientific way
Before the emergence of sociology there was no systematic and scientific attempt to study
human society with all its complexities. Sociology has made it possible to study society in a
scientific manner. This scientific knowledge about human society is needed in order to achieve
progress in various fields.
Sociology throws more light on the social nature of man
Sociology delves deep into the social nature of man. It tells us why man is a social animal, why
he lives in a group, communities and societies. It examines the relationship between individual
and society, the impact of society on man and other matters.
Sociology increases the power of social action
The science of society assists an individual to understand himself, his capacities, talents and
limitations. It enables him to adjust himself to the environment. Knowledge of society, social
groups, social institutions, associations, their functions etc. helps us to lead an effective social
life.
Sociology studies role of the institutions in the development of the individuals
It is through sociology that scientific study of the great social institutions and the relation of the
individual to each is being made. The home and family, the school and education, the church and
religion, the state and government, industry and work, the community and association, these are
institutions through which society functions. Sociology studies these institutions and their role in
the development of the individual and suggests suitable measures for strengthening them with a
view to enable them to serve the individual better.
Study of sociology is indispensable for understanding and planning of society
Society is a complex phenomenon with a multitude of intricacies. It is impossible to understand
and solve its numerous problems without support of sociology. It is rightly said that we cannot
understand and mend society without any knowledge of its mechanism and construction.
Without the investigation carried out by sociology no real effective social planning would be
possible. It helps us to determine the most efficient means for reaching the goals agreed upon. A
certain amount of knowledge about society is necessary before any social policies can be carried
out.
Sociology is of great importance in the solution of social problems
The present world is suffering from many problems that can be solved through scientific study of
the society. It is the task of sociology to study the social problems through the methods of
scientific research and to find out solution to them. The scientific study of human affairs will
ultimately provide the body of knowledge and principles that will enable us to control the
conditions of social life and improve them.
Sociology has drawn our attention to the intrinsic worth and dignity of man
Sociology has been instrumental in changing our attitude towards human beings. In a specialized
society we are all limited as to the amount of the whole organization and culture that we can
experience directly. We can hardly know the people of other areas intimately. In order to have
insight into and appreciation of the motives by which others live and the conditions under which
they exist knowledge of sociology is essential.
Sociology has changed our outlook with regard to the problems of crime
It is through the study of sociology that our whole outlook on various aspects of crime has
change. The criminals are now treated as human beings suffering from mental deficiencies and
efforts are accordingly made to rehabilitate them as useful members of the society.
Sociology has made great contribution to enrich human culture
Human culture has been made richer by the contribution of sociology. The social phenomenon is
now understood in the light of scientific knowledge and enquiry. According to Lowie most of us
harbor the comfortable delusion that our way of doing things is the only sensible if not only
possible one. Sociology has given us training to have rational approach to questions concerning
oneself, one's religion, customs, morals and institutions. It has further taught us to be objective,
critical and dispassionate. It enables man to have better understanding both of himself and of
others. By comparative study of societies and groups other than his existence, his life becomes
richer and fuller than it would otherwise be. Sociology also impresses upon us the necessity of
overcoming narrow personal prejudices, ambitions and class hatred.
Sociology is of great importance in the solution of international problems
The progress made by physical sciences has brought the nations of the world nearer to each
other. But in the social field the world has been left behind by the revolutionary progress of the
science. The world is divided politically giving rise to stress and conflict. Men have failed to
bring in peace. Sociology can help us in understanding the underlying causes and tensions.
The value of sociology lies in the fact that it keeps us update on modern situations
It contributes to making good citizens and finding solutions to the community problems. It adds
to the knowledge of the society. It helps the individual find his relation to society. The study of
social phenomena and of the ways and means of promoting what Giddens calls social adequacy
is one of the most urgent needs of the modern society. Sociology has a strong appeal to all types
of mind through its direct bearing upon many of the initial problems of the present world.
Study of society has helped governments to promote the welfare of the tribal and
marginalized communities
The tribal and marginalized communities face many socio-economic and cultural problems.
Studies conducted by sociologists and anthropologists regarding tribal societies and problems
have helped governments in undertaking social welfare measures and programmes for the
welfare purposes.
An informed citizen is one that knows or seeks to know how the different aspects of politics,
geology, sociology, environment and economy that are prevalent and how to affect them. So the
knowledge of sociology helps in understanding the society in a better way. Well informed
citizenship –concept used by Alfred Schutz. - Knowledge is socially distributed and distribution
can be made the subject discipline.