The Nature of Sociological Theory

A sociological theory is a set of ideas that provides an explanation for human society.
Theories seek to explain things. And thus, sociological theory attempts to explain how the
social world operates. This social world consists of the behaviors, interactions, and patterns
of social organization among humans, although some would argue that a sociology of
nonhuman animals that organize is also possible. As we will see, sociological theory tends to
focus on interaction and organization more than behavior per se, but interactions are
interpersonal behaviors, and patterns of social organization are ultimately built from
interactions among individuals. And so, even though interaction and organization are the
subject matter of most theories, there are almost always implicit theories of human
behavior tagging along with this emphasis on interaction and social organization.
Theorizing about the social world is, of course, hardly new. Humans have always sought to
explain the social world around them from their very beginnings, and today, each of us is a
kind of “folk sociological theorists” offering explanations for why people behave and interact
with others in a particular manner. We all are social critics of society, and in so being, we are
also folk sociologists of patterns of social organization. Moreover, people generally do not
see their folk theorizing as highly speculative; in fact, they typically think that have captured
the essential reason for why and how people behave, interact, and organize. And yet,
people often consider the theories of others, even scientists, to be speculation or “just a
theory,” as when someone argues that the modern synthesis that produced the biological
theory of evolution is “just a theory,” or a matter of speculation that has “yet to be proven.”
But, theory is more than just speculation; the goal of articulating theories is to assess them
against the facts of the empirical world to see if they are plausible.
And so, most theories in science that have been around for some time are much more than
idle speculation. They are explanations for why and how social processes operate the way
they do. They are generally backed up by considerable evidence and data; and still, they are
often doubted, just as the modern theory of biotic evolution is doubted by many in some
societies, particularly in the United States but elsewhere as well. Thus, people often chose
not to believe a theory, even one that is well supported, because it violates their
perceptions of how the world really works or their beliefs that are important to them. And
people tend to have strong beliefs about human nature, appropriate behaviors and
interpersonal demeanors, and how societies should be organized. These beliefs can be more
powerful than a clearly stated theory in science, even one supported by evidence. And such
is most likely to be the case for sociological theories because our theories are about what
people often experience in their daily lives, leading them to assume that they understand
the social world and, thereby, do not need sociologists to tell them about “their” world.
There is, then, always a problem in developing sociological explanations that contradict
people’s folk theorizing.
From its very beginnings, when Auguste Comte proclaimed in 1830 that there could be a
“social physics,” immediate controversy arose over whether or not there could be scientific
sociology built around explanatory theories of the social universe. This controversy persists
to the present day and, no doubt, will persist well into the future. One way to put the
controversy into a broader perspective is to outline the fundamental beliefs of scientific
theory in a broader context of other belief systems. Science is a belief system, but it is
obviously not the only set of beliefs that influence people perceptions and judgments. There
are different types of knowledge possessed by humans, and science is only one of several
types, which means, inevitably, that science as a way of knowing about the world will
sometimes clash with knowledge generated by other belief systems.

Sociological theories are embedded in a particular social context, and are deeply influenced
by them. Each sociological thinker or theorist has to respond to the social situation in which
he or she exists and to try and make sense of the enveloping culture. That is to say that
sociological theory is the sociologist’s response to the context in which he lives and works.
However, it needs to be pointed out that there is an inner context and an outer context. The
interplay between these two interrelated arenas of living creates sociological theory. The
inner context is the background and mind-set of the theorist and also the strong influences
and ideas that motivate a thinker to become a social theorist. The outer context is the
overall environment, social and physical that the society is embedded in.
Sociological theory is different from social theory. Social theory focuses on commentary and
critique of modern society rather than explanation, and its goals are intensively political.
Prominent social theorists include Jürgen Habermas, Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens,
Erving Goffman, Michel Foucault, Dorothy Smith, Alfred Schutz, Jeffrey Alexander, and
Jacques Derrida.
Sociological theory, on the other hand, is centered on the attempt to understand the
society. Whereas sociological theory relies heavily on the scientific method, is objective, and
does not presume to judge the society, social theory is closer to philosophy, more
subjective, and is much more likely to use the language of values and judgment, referring to
concepts as "good" or "bad". Prominent sociological theorists include Talcott Parsons,
Robert K. Merton, Randall Collins, James Samuel Coleman, Peter Blau, Immanuel
Wallerstein, George Homans, Harrison White, Theda Skocpol, Gerhard Lenski, Pierre van
den Berghe and Jonathan H. Turner.
Social theory as it is recognized today emerged in the 20th century as a distinct discipline,
and was largely equated with an attitude of critical thinking and the desire for knowledge
through (A posteriori knowledge is that which depends on empirical evidence) methods of
discovery.

Comte and The Enlightenment

Comte’s (1798-1857) pioneering work in Sociology (a term he coined) comprised partly an

analysis and reaction to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Thus Comte’s
“positive philosophy” was aimed at what he felt to be a counter to that he considered to be
the ill effects of the Enlightenment.
Comte’s sociology of “social physics” or what he called sociology was developed as a
counter to the social anarchy unleashed in France after the Revolution. He wanted to build
sociology after the rigorous approach of Social Theory and its Context science especially
physics. Comte’s was an evolutionary theory which comprised a law which has three
ascending steps or ‘stages’ which have a claim to universality that is they apply to all
societies.
Thus in this theory we have:
1) Theological stage (circa 1300) in which supernatural powers, and religious icons are the
most important factors impacting on society, and even the world is believed to be a product
of God
2) The metaphysical stage (circa 1300-1800) was one in which “nature” was held to explain
everything about man and society.
3) The positivistic stage (1800-) came next and was fundamentally influenced by science,
and the laws that it discovered. Thus there was no God or nature in this stage so far as
explanations are concerned. Comte’s position is that it is intellectual confusion that leads to
social anarchy. According to him to positivistic stage dominates only when even the traces
of the theological and metaphysical stages have been finally reduced if not completely
eliminated from society. Only then would order prevail and the evolutionary scheme be
proved correct.

Durkheim and The Enlightenment

Durkheim was a prolific writer and wrote many classical works in sociology. Thus in The
Rules of Sociological Method (1895) he stressed that sociology is the study of “social facts.”
These social facts are such that they are external to and coercive of individuals in society.
This emphasis of study had a great influence on other sociologists. He demonstrated the
usefullness of this approach in his study of Suicide (1897) in which he showed how social
forces have an impact on individuals and their actions within society. His emphasis however,
was not on the individual but the social causes behind it. He was keen to study differences in
the suicide rate in different social Approaching Sociological Theory 13 categories and groups
(e.g. groups, regions, countries). According to Durkheim it was the variations within the
social facts which explained different rates of suicide in different groups. Durkheim
enunciated two types of social facts (a) material and (b) non material. Material facts
(bureaucracy, law) differ from non material facts (social institutions and culture) and it was
the latter that Durkheim focused upon in most of his work.
In The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life 1912/1965 Durkheim studied a primitive
society so that he could find religion in a primitive form. In doing this the research would
also shed light on religion in the modern world. For Durkheim society itself is the basis for
religion itself. This insight implied that Durkheim was for the status quo so far as society is
concerned for “society as God” is sacred and cannot be over thrown only ameliorated.
Durkheim’s work ensured that sociology had made a place for itself in France by the end of
the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Durkheim in 1898 set up a scholarly
journal called “L’annee Sociologique” which was very successful in promoting the
Durkheimian brand of sociology to the other schools and academics.
The Marxian Ideology

Let us now turn to sociology in Germany in the same span of time. In Germany there was
since the beginning a distinction between Marx and Weber and other sociologists.
For Marx capitalism was the problem which led to alienation, polarisation and revolution.
Marx was fueling through his studies a mood of hostility and aggression which Marx felt
would lead to a “polarisation” of classes and the poor exploited proletariat would violently
dispossess the capitalist class of their factories, industries, banks and so on. Thereafter a
period of social harmony would begin in which there was a societal/community ownership
of the means of production. There would be an end to exploitation of the ‘havenots’by the
‘haves’.

Weberian Ideology

Another major German sociologist that of Max Weber (1864-19 20). It has often been
observed that Max Weber developed his ideas Approaching Sociological Theory and
theories keeping Marxian thought as a counterpoint or point of reference/ departure to
begin his theorising.
According to Weber Marx had developed a uni-causal theory in which every social aspect
was driven or propelled forward by the economy and the economic factors. In short
Weber’s idea was that any aspect of social process had several causes that made it operate
and no single complex of factors (e.g. the economy) could be given primacy so far as social
processes are concerned.
Ultimately Weber’s theories proved more acceptable than those of Marx, especially the
political and economic applications. They were liberal in some ways and conservative in
other ways and unlike Marx he did not espouse total radicalism and violent revolutions in
order to find a solution to the “problems” of capitalism.

Spencer’s Evolutionism

Spencer was a ‘Social Darwinist’ and was of the opinion that society would progress by itself
and that this evolution should not be interfered with. Spencer went to the extent of
comparing social institutions with plants and animals. Thus he felt that social institutions
would progressively adapt to their environment by themselves without any definite
impetus. Spencer took Darwin’s premise of “survival of the fittest” where those people who
could adapt to the social and natural environment would live while those who could not so
adapt met with their end
Conclusion
The early ideas of sociologists were very important indications of how the context creates
an impact of the mind of the sociologist. The sociologists we have discussed were all
affected by their social and psychological environment. However, as we have seen that each
one of them tended to Social Theory and its Context interpret the social world in their own
individualistic ways.

Concepts in Sociology: Some Illustrations

In natural sciences, say in Physics and Chemistry, we come across words (Concepts). Their
interrelations and then inter connections among concepts (expressed in quantities) that
lead to theory or better ‘laws’. We take an example of an apple. It fell down from the tree, a
normal occurrence. But Newton asked the question why did the apple fall to the ground. He
propounded the theory of gravity. not apple alone, but all objects fall towards the ground. If
the earth is round then why do people on the other side of the earth do not fall away. This
doubt was expressed by our villagers — why do the Americans on the other side of the
globe do not fall away. Newton had an answer. All things fall towards the centre of the
earth. This explained all falls.
Human beings can be put into different categories eg. Male, female. Brother and Sister
belong to the same generation. Father and son to different generations; So do mother
and .....(You try).. and add your own example.... mother-in-law and (1) .......... in law
(2) .........in law. Thus we begin to describe a relationship among two persons.
When we talk of a relationship, we ask a question: Is the relationship limited to one event or
is it repeated time and again? Then we raise a second question: Is the relationship limited to
two persons only, or many people in similar situations are involved in it. ‘A student-teacher’
relationship is found among two persons, but then there are many teachers and many
students. There is a common acceptance that students will get related to teachers in some
defined way. Here let us introduce a few concepts : A student in getting related to the
teacher performs a Role. It gets defined when repeated time and again it acquires a pattern.
This pattern is expected to be performed, An individual performing the role has been
defined as a person by Nadel. Let us go ahead. The role of a student is performed by many
students. Hence Nadel says one role is performed by many individuals: or a person is many
individuals. Now our individual enters into more than one interrelationship every day. In the
family he may be a brother or a sister of some one else. Next he may a son related to father,
a son related to mother, and in a three generation family, a grandson related to the
grandparents ....... and so on. This situation is described (or conceptualised) by saying that
one individual is many persons.
Towards Social Science: Durkheim and Weber
There has been a lot of discussion whether social sciences can follow the method of natural
sciences. These need separate discussion. Comte ‘Durkheim, and Radcliffe-Brown answered
‘Yes’.
Durkheim’s study of suicide rates and explanation of their variations is the best example of
theory formation from the existing data. It will be helpful to understand his method: Firstly,
Durkheim clarified the term, and located three (or four) types of suicides and their nature.
For each type, the existing data available in official records were classified in terms of their
distribution in various social categories. This classification needed intelligence and brilliance
of the author. Each type of suicide rate varied according to the data on social facts, and
comparisons were made. Explanations were given for each type. A theory of suicides was
formulated in terms of the variations of the degree of integrated (solidarity) in society.
Max Weber
There have been ample discussion on Weber v. Marx, and a sort of convergence signifying
Marx and Weber as complements of each other. The classical writers who developed ways
of looking at social facts, currents, and actions, in their own times, are being increasingly
discovered for their relevance to addressing the problems of the new societies, or our
contemporary periods. This dynamism constitutes the process of science linking concepts
and theories of the classical writers and modern situations.
Parsons and Merton
Among the twentieth century writers Talcott Parsons is the most significant for
conceptualising human actions and connecting economy, polity, institutions and pattern
maintenance. This exercise required contribution from economics anthropology, psychology
and sociology, and their integration into a general theory of action. As Parsons grew mature,
he examined economy, polity, family and professions, specially medicine, as sub –systems
and in cooperation with valued colleagues looked into specifics of the American society.
Merton was among the most serious of the students who attempted a fresh combination of
empirical studies and grand theory taking some aspects selectively at a time. Merton is
important for having coined the phase ‘theories of the middle range’ — middle between
grand theory and pure description.
Conceptualising for studying special features of the Indian society has been attempted by
M.N. Srinivas through ‘SANSKRITIZATION’ and ‘Dominant Caste’.
There is an increasing trend in sociology in India for showing the limits within which some of
the concepts made popular in the west can help us grasp the nature of social processes
operating in India.
Conclusion
and concepts are products of mind, and when their meaning is shared, communication of
ideas takes place in daily life as well as in academic circles. The development of science
made the meanings more and more specific, as also grammar and logic. Natural sciences
connect concepts with experiments, and conclusions affect the inter connection among
various concepts, and their combinations. Science keeps on growing and doubling itself
faster than social sciences or humanities. History of ideas is more significant for the latter, as
old formations and theories are discovered to provide insight into current problems. Yet,
refinements keep on happening. This has been illustrated chiefly with respect to the
methods and approaches used by Durkheim and Weber; and the nature of the middle range
theories initiated by Merton over the grand theories of Parsons. In the body of the Unit, the
manner in which words like structure and function have developed has been briefly touched
upon. Students are advised to study the related material supplied in specific unit. Merton
also developed ‘protocols’ for observation, and paradigms for studying questions in a
theoretical or structural perspective. The next lesson deals with the Paradigms and Theories.

Theories and Paradigms

Theories vary in scope depending on the scale of the issues that they are meant to explain.
Macro-level theories relate to large-scale issues and large groups of people, while micro-
level theories look at very specific relationships between individuals or small groups.
Grand theories attempt to explain large-scale relationships and answer fundamental
questions such as why societies form and why they change. Sociological theory is constantly
evolving and should never be considered complete. Classic sociological theories are still
considered important and current, but new sociological theories build upon the work of
their predecessors and add to them.

In sociology, a few theories provide broad perspectives that help explain many different
aspects of social life, and these are called paradigms. Paradigms are philosophical and
theoretical frameworks used within a discipline to formulate theories, generalizations, and
the experiments performed in support of them. Three paradigms have come to dominate
sociological thinking, because they provide useful explanations: structural functionalism,
conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.
Sociological Paradigm Level of Analysis Focus

Structural Functionalism Macro or mid The way each part of society functions together to contribute to the whole

Conflict Theory Macro The way inequalities contribute to social differences and perpetuate differences in power

Symbolic Interactionism Micro One-to-one interactions and communications

1. Structural-Functional Theory

Functionalism, also called structural-functional theory, sees society as a structure with

interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of the individuals in that
society. Functionalism grew out of the writings of English philosopher and biologist, Hebert
Spencer (1820–1903), who saw similarities between society and the human body; he argued
that just as the various organs of the body work together to keep the body functioning, the
various parts of society work together to keep society functioning (Spencer 1898). The parts
of society that Spencer referred to were the social institutions, or patterns of beliefs and
behaviors focused on meeting social needs, such as government, education, family,
healthcare, religion, and the economy.

Émile Durkheim, another early sociologist, applied Spence’s theory to explain how societies
change and survive over time. Durkheim believed that society is a complex system of
interrelated and interdependent parts that work together to maintain stability (Durkheim
1893), and that society is held together by shared values, languages, and symbols. He
believed that to study society, a sociologist must look beyond individuals to social facts such
as laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashion, and rituals, which all serve to
govern social life.
Alfred Radcliff-Brown (1881–1955) defined the function of any recurrent activity as the part
it played in social life as a whole, and therefore the contribution it makes to social stability
and continuity (Radcliff-Brown 1952). In a healthy society, all parts work together to
maintain stability, a state called dynamic equilibrium by later sociologists such as Parsons
(1961).
Another noted structural functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), pointed out that social
processes often have many functions. Manifest functions are the consequences of a social
process that are sought or anticipated, while latent functions are the unsought
consequences of a social process. A manifest function of college education, for example,
includes gaining knowledge, preparing for a career, and finding a good job that utilizes that
education. Latent functions of your college years include meeting new people, participating
in extracurricular activities, or even finding a spouse or partner. Another latent function of
education is creating a hierarchy of employment based on the level of education attained.
Latent functions can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Social processes that have
undesirable consequences for the operation of society are called dysfunctions. In education,
examples of dysfunction include getting bad grades, truancy, dropping out, not graduating,
and not finding suitable employment.

Criticism

One criticism of the structural-functional theory is that it can’t adequately explain social
change. Also problematic is the somewhat circular nature of this theory; repetitive behavior
patterns are assumed to have a function, yet we profess to know that they have a function
only because they are repeated. Furthermore, dysfunctions may continue, even though they
don’t serve a function, which seemingly contradicts the basic premise of the theory. Many
sociologists now believe that functionalism is no longer useful as a macro-level theory, but
that it does serve a useful purpose in some mid-level analyses.

2. Conflict Theory

Conflict theory looks at society as a competition for limited resources. This perspective is a
macro-level approach most identified with the writings of German philosopher and
sociologist Karl Marx (1818–1883), who saw society as being made up of individuals in
different social classes who must compete for social, material, and political resources such
as food and housing, employment, education, and leisure time. Social institutions like
government, education, and religion reflect this competition in their inherent inequalities
and help maintain the unequal social structure. Some individuals and organizations are able
to obtain and keep more resources than others, and these “winners” use their power and
influence to maintain social institutions. Several theorist suggested variations on this basic
theme.
German sociologist Max Weber agreed with Marx but also believed that, in addition to
economic inequalities, inequalities of political power and social structure cause conflict.
Weber noted that different groups were affected differently based on education, race, and
gender, and that people’s reactions to inequality were moderated by class differences and
rates of social mobility, as well as by perceptions about the legitimacy of those in power.
German sociologist Georg Simmel (1858–1918) believed that conflict can help integrate and
stabilize a society. He said that the intensity of the conflict varies depending on the
emotional involvement of the parties, the degree of solidarity within the opposing groups,
and the clarity and limited nature of the goals. Simmel also showed that groups work to
create internal solidarity, centralize power, and reduce dissent. Resolving conflicts can
reduce tension and hostility and can pave the way for future agreements.
More recently, inequality based on gender or race has been explained in a similar manner
and has identified institutionalized power structures that help to maintain inequality
between groups.
Criticism

Just as structural functionalism was criticized for focusing too much on the stability of
societies, conflict theory has been criticized because it tends to focus on conflict to the
exclusion of recognizing stability. Many social structures are extremely stable or have
gradually progressed over time rather than changing abruptly as conflict theory would
suggest.

3. Symbolic Interactionist Theory

Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theory that focuses on the relationships among

individuals within a society. Communication—the exchange of meaning through language
and symbols—is believed to be the way in which people make sense of their social worlds.
Theorists Herman and Reynolds (1994) note that this perspective sees people as being
active in shaping the social world rather than simply being acted upon.

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is considered a founder of symbolic interactionism

though he never published his work on it. Mead’s student, Herbert Blumer, coined the term
“symbolic interactionism” and outlined these basic premises: humans interact with things
based on meanings ascribed to those things; the ascribed meaning of things comes from our
interactions with others and society; the meanings of things are interpreted by a person
when dealing with things in specific circumstances (Blumer 1969). If you love books, for
example, a symbolic interactionist might propose that you learned that books are good or
important in the interactions you had with family, friends, school, or church; maybe your
family had a special reading time each week, getting your library card was treated as a
special event, or bedtime stories were associated with warmth and comfort.

Social scientists who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of interaction
between individuals. Their studies often involve observation of one-on-one interactions. For
example, while a conflict theorist studying a political protest might focus on class difference,
a symbolic interactionist would be more interested in how individuals in the protesting
group interact, as well as the signs and symbols protesters use to communicate their
message.

Constructivism is an extension of symbolic interaction theory which proposes that reality is

what humans cognitively construct it to be. We develop social constructs based on
interactions with others, and those constructs that last over time are those that have
meanings which are widely agreed-upon or generally accepted by most within the society.

One situation that illustrates this is what you believe you’re to do if you find a wallet in the
street. In the United States, turning the wallet in to local authorities would be considered
the appropriate action, and to keep the wallet would be seen as deviant. In contrast, many
Eastern societies would consider it much more appropriate to keep the wallet and search
for the owner yourself; turning it over to someone else, even the authorities, would be
considered deviant behaviour.

Criticism

Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of
remaining objective. Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interaction.
Proponents, of course, consider this one of its greatest strengths.

Sociological Theory Today

These three approaches are still the main foundation of modern sociological theory, but
some evolution has been seen. Structural-functionalism was a dominant force after World
War II and until the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, sociologists began to feel that structural-
functionalism did not sufficiently explain the rapid social changes happening in the United
States at that time.

Conflict theory then gained prominence, as there was renewed emphasis on

institutionalized social inequality. Critical theory, and the particular aspects of feminist
theory and critical race theory, focused on creating social change through the application of
sociological principles, and the field saw a renewed emphasis on helping ordinary people
understand sociology principles, in the form of public sociology.

Postmodern social theory attempts to look at society through an entirely new lens by
rejecting previous macro-level attempts to explain social phenomena. Generally considered
as gaining acceptance in the late 1970s and early 1980s, postmodern social theory is a
micro-level approach that looks at small, local groups and individual reality. Its growth in
popularity coincides with the constructivist aspects of symbolic interactionism.
 Sociological Theorization in Sociology
There are rigors and challenges in comprehending abstract sociological theories and their
application to real life situations. To have an overall view of sociological theorizing, let us
look at the following compelling questions with the aim of providing answers to each in the
course of analysing the subject matter: what are concepts, variables, propositions,
hypotheses and statements in sociological theorizing? To what extent is it relevant to know
concepts such as ‘ontology’ and ‘epistemological foundation’ underpinning numerous
sociological theories? What are quantitative and qualitative methods? What role does each
play in sociological theorizing? What is a sui-generis? What about nomological network in
sociological theorizing?
When ontology is mentioned, what does it stand for? Ontology, explains the claim of what
things exist, the form in which they exist and their relationship to other things that are also
said to exist. Every discipline has its own ontology. In short, it is the historical foundation of
social phenomenon in sociological theorizing. What about epistemology? It defines thoughts
underpinning a theory and it is embedded in the knowledge-base of a sociological theory.
Theories should explain why things happen, rather than just describe or predict them. The
compelling questions continue as how do we arrive at a theory? What are the prerequisites
or ethical values needed of a person theorizing? Of what value does theory add to our lives?
What calls for a sociological theory in the first place? How and when do we need
sociological theories? When constructing a sociological theory, do we need to follow a
systematic way or do we randomize the process? What would happen if there were no
sociological theories? When we use sociological theory to explain a particular social
phenomenon then what? How do we put sociological theories into practice? How do other
theories vary from sociological theories?
Why do we have different sociological theories? Why do sociological theorists differ in their
explanations of a particular social phenomenon? What are the fundamentals of theory
construction in sociology? Is it so important to know the essence of methods in sociological
theories? What are the available methods imbedded in sociological theorizing? When do we
need sociological theories to answer questions? Is it when the institutional arrangements of
the society are isolated or when they are interconnected?
How relevant is deductive nomology (general to particular) and inductive probabilistic
(particular to general) in our understanding of sociological theorizing? Must we make
classifications of bulk of data in sociological theorizing? What is theoretical saturations?
When we say inductive and deductive methods in sociological theorizing, what do we mean
by that? What are we looking at when we code or classify data under themes and sub
themes during analyses? When we say flagging themes, what do we mean?
Do we need one method, two or several methods in sociological theorizing? What is the
essence of demography in sociological theorizing? How does sociological theory differ from
sociological perspective? What is positivism and how is it relevant in understanding
sociological theories? What is phenomenology and how does it differ from ethno-
methodology in our understanding of sociological theories? What is symbolic
interactionism? What is a structural functionalist perspective?
Having briefly discussed the above compelling questions in sociological theorizing, we then
search for the larger picture i.e. the major theories proper, and implicitly answer some of
these critical questions while treating the major theoretical postulates and perspectives in
Sociological theorizing.

Approaches to sociological theorizing

the first approach to sociological theorizing is to build theories inductively based on
observed patterns of events or behaviours. Such an approach is often called “grounded
theory building” because the theory is grounded in empirical observations. This technique is
heavily dependent on the observational and interpretive abilities of the researcher, and the
resulting theory may be subjective. Furthermore, in our effort to theorize, observing certain
patterns of events will not necessarily make for a theory, unless the researcher is able to
provide consistent explanations for the observed patterns of a social phenomenon.
The second approach to theorizing is to use a predefined framework to conduct a bottom-
up conceptual analysis to identify different sets of predictors relevant to the social
phenomenon of interest. One such framework, according to Bhattacherjee (2012) may be a
simple inputprocess-output framework, where the researcher may look for different
categories of inputs, such as individual, organizational, and/or technological. This approach
looks at factors potentially related to the social phenomenon of interest (the output), and
describe the underlying processes that link these factors to the target social phenomenon.
This is also an inductive approach that relies heavily on the inductive abilities of the
researcher, and interpretation may be biased by the researcher's prior knowledge of the
social phenomenon being studied.
Similarly, the third approach to theorizing is to extend or modify existing theories to explain
a new context, such as the extension of the Durkheimian Anomie theory, amplified by
Robert, K. Merton to explain normlessness and/or lawlessness in the human society. While
making such an extension, certain concepts, propositions, and/or boundary conditions of
the old theory i.e. nomological network of the old theory may be retained and others
modified to fit the new context. This deductive approach leverages the rich inventory of
social science theories developed by prior theoreticians, and is an efficient way of theorizing
on emerging social phenomenon when we build on the existing theories.
The fourth approach is to apply existing theories in entirely new contexts by drawing upon
the structural similarities between the two contexts. This approach relies on reasoning by
analogy, and is probably the most creative way of theorizing using a deductive approach
(Bhattacherjee A. (2012); Newmann, F. et al (2001), Pressley, M. et. al. (1992).
The Elements of Theorizing
Theory is a mental activity revolving around the process of developing ideas that explain
how and why events occur. Theory is constructed with several basic elements or building
blocks: (1) concepts, (2) variables, (3) statements, and (4) formats. Although there are many
divergent claims about what theory is or should be, these four elements are common to all
of them. Let me examine each of these elements in more detail.
Concepts: The Basic Building Blocks of Theory
Theories are built from concepts. Most generally, concepts denote phenomena; in so doing,
they isolate features of the world that are considered, for the moment at hand, important.
For example, notions of atoms, protons, neutrons, and the like are concepts pointing to and
isolating phenomena for certain analytical purposes. Familiar sociological concepts would
include production, power, interaction, norm, role, status, and socialization. Each term is a
concept that embraces aspects of the social world that are considered essential for a
particular purpose.
Concepts are constructed from definitions. A definition is a system of terms, such as the
sentences of a language, the symbols of logic, or the notation of mathematics, that inform
investigators as to the phenomenon denoted by a concept. For example, the concept
conflict has meaning only when it is defined. One possible definition might be the following:
Conflict is interaction among social units in which one unit seeks to prevent another from
realizing its goals. Such a definition allows us to visualize the phenomenon that is denoted
by the concept. It enables all investigators to see the same thing and to understand what it
is that is being studied.
The concepts of theory reveal a special characteristic: abstractness. Some concepts pertain
to concrete phenomena at specific times and locations. Other, more abstract, concepts
point to phenomena that are not related to concrete times or locations. For example, in the
context of small-group research, concrete concepts would refer to the persistent
interactions of particular individuals, whereas an abstract conceptualization of such
phenomena would refer to those general properties of face-to-face groups that are not tied
to particular individuals interacting at a specified time and location. Whereas abstract
concepts are not tied to a specific context, concrete concepts are. In building theory,
abstract concepts are crucial, although we will see shortly that theorists disagree
considerably on this issue.
Variables as an Important Type of Concept
When used to build theory, two general types of concepts can be distinguished: (1) those
that simply label phenomena and (2) those that refer to phenomena that differ in degree.
Concepts that merely label phenomena would include such commonly employed
abstractions as dog, cat, group, social class, and star. When stated in this way, none of these
concepts reveals the ways in which the phenomena they denote vary in terms of such
properties as size, weight, density, velocity, cohesiveness, or any of the many criteria used
to inform investigators about differences in degree among phenomena.
Those who believe that sociology can be like other sciences prefer concepts that are
translated into variables—that is, into states that vary. We want to know the variable
properties—size, degree, intensity, amount, and so forth— of events denoted by a concept.
For example, to note that an aggregate of people is a group does not indicate what type of
group it is or how it compares with other groups in terms of such criteria as size, degree of
differentiation of roles, and level of cohesiveness. And so, some concepts of scientific theory
should denote the variable features of the world.
To understand events requires that we visualize how variation in one phenomenon is
related to variation in another. Others, who are less enamored by efforts to make sociology
a natural science, are less compulsive about translating concepts into variables. They are far
more interested in whether or not concepts sensitize and alert investigators to important
processes than they are in converting each concept into a metric that varies in some
measurable way. They are not, of course, against the conversion of ideas into variables, but
they are cautious about efforts to translate each and every concept into a metric.
Theoretical Statements and Formats
To be useful, the concepts of theory must be connected to one another. Such connections
among concepts constitute theoretical statements. These statements specify the way in
which events denoted by concepts are interrelated, and at the same time, they provide an
interpretation of how and why events should be connected. When these theoretical
statements are grouped together, they constitute a theoretical format. There are, however,
different ways to organize theoretical statements into formats. Indeed, in sociological
theory, there is relatively little consensus over just how to organize theoretical statements;
in fact, much of the theoretical controversy in sociology revolves around differences over
the best way to develop theoretical statements and to group them together into a format.
Depending on one’s views about what kind of science, if any, sociology can be, the structure
of theoretical statements and their organization into formats differ dramatically. Let us
review the range of opinion on the matter.
There are five basic approaches in sociological theory for generating theoretical statements
and formats: (1) meta-theoretical schemes, (2) analytical schemes, (3) discursive schemes,
(4) propositional schemes, and (5) modeling schemes.
1. Meta-theoretical schemes- they are not, by themselves, theories that explain
specific classes of events; rather, they explain the basic issues that a theory must
address.
2. Analytical schemes- concepts organized into a classification scheme that denotes
the key properties, and interrelations among these properties, in the social
universe.
3. Discursive schemes- They simply outline in everyday language key variables and
forces, discursively suggesting the ways in which they affect each other.
4. Propositional schemes- A proposition is a theoretical statement that specifies the
connection between two or more variables. It tells us how variation in one concept
is accounted for by variation in another.
 5. Analytical Modeling schemes- An analytical model is quantitative in nature, and
used to answer a specific question or make a specific design decision.

Grand theory is a term coined by the American sociologist C. Wright Mills in The Sociological
Imagination to refer to the form of highly abstract theorizing in which the formal
organization and arrangement of concepts takes priority over understanding the social
reality. In his view, grand theory is more or less separate from concrete concerns of
everyday life and its variety in time and space.
In Mills' view "grand theory" integrated not only sociological concepts, but also
psychological, economic, political, and religious or philosophical components. He tried to
integrate all the social sciences within an overarching theoretical framework. By the 1980s,
grand theory was reformulated to include theories such as critical
theory, structuralism, structural Marxism, and structuration theory.
There are two analytically distinct positions to sociological theory. Thus, micro and macro
sociological theories are also called grand and the second-middle range theories. Macro or
the grand theories are those theories which deal with the universal aspects of social
phenomena or problems and are based on abstract ideas and concepts rather than on case
specific evidence. These include evolutionism, conflict, functionalism, Marxism etc are
regarded as macro, while Symboloci interactionism or the phenomenology are regarded as
micro-sociology because of its emphasis on microcosmic analysis of interaction and
emphasis on symbol.
These five sets of theories are the ‘Five alive’ grand sociological theoretical perspectives due
to their universality and pocketing of a number of theoretical postulates and second middle
range theories. The other position is called the second middle range theories. These are
theories derived from specific scientific findings and focus on the interconnectivity of two or
more variables applied to a very specific social phenomenon or problem. Examples of
second middle range theories are: Merton’s (1957) ‘Theory of Anomie’, Southerland’s
(1939) ‘Differential Association Theory’ Shaw and Mckay’s (1929) ‘Social Disorganization or
Cultural Transmission’, and Cohen’s (1955) ‘The Delinquent Boys’ theories, among others.
The second middle range theories focused on smaller but more specific and precise aspects
of a social phenomenon.
Middle-range theory, developed by Robert K. Merton, is an approach
to sociological theorizing aimed at integrating theory and empirical research. It is currently
the de facto dominant approach to sociological theory construction, especially in the United
States.
Middle-range theory starts with an empirical phenomenon (as opposed to a broad abstract
entity like the social system) and abstracts from it to create general statements that can be
verified by data. This approach stands in contrast to the earlier "grand" theorizing of social
theory, such as functionalism and many conflict theories.
The term "middle-range theory" does not refer to a specific theory, but is rather an
approach to theory construction. Raymond Boudon defines middle-range theory as a
commitment to two ideas. The first is positive, and describes what such theories should do:
sociological theories, like all scientific theories, should aim to consolidate otherwise
segregated hypotheses and empirical regularities; "if a 'theory' is valid, it 'explains' and in
other words 'consolidates' and federates empirical regularities which on their side would
appear otherwise segregated." The other is negative, and it relates to what theory cannot
do: "it is hopeless and quixotic to try to determine the overarching independent variable
that would operate in all social processes, or to determine the essential feature of social
structure, or to find out the two, three, or four couples of concepts ... that would be
sufficient to analyze all social phenomena".
Relationship Between Theory and Research
Theory is integral to research and research is integral to theory. Theory guides the
development of many research questions and research helps generate new theories, as well
as determining whether support for theories exists. What is important to remember is that
theory is not fact: it is a belief about how things work; theory is a belief or “best guess” that
awaits the support of empirical evidence.
Countless theories exist, and some are more well-developed and well-defined than others.
More mature theories have had more time and effort devoted to supporting research,
newer theories may be more tentative as supporting evidence is being developed. Theories
are sometimes disproven and need to be scrapped completely or heavily overhauled as new
research evidence emerges. And, exploratory research leads to the birth of new theories as
new phenomena and questions arise, or as practitioners discover ways that existing theory
does not fit reality.
Sociologists have been working with theory and fact. This has led to the belief that theory
and fact must interact and they do interact. This interaction between theory and empirical
research is a two way process and theories influence empirical research. Theory helps in
initiating designs and presenting of empirical research. Empirical Research on the other
hand helps in the development of social theories. One of the important function of empirical
research is to test and verify hypothesis, by confirming or refuting it. However, empirical
research goes much beyond testing and verifying theory, it performs four major functions it
initiates, it reformulates, it deflects and it clarifies theory. These functions helps in shaping
and development of a theory.
1) Under certain conditions research findings give rise to theory. This may be called the
serendipity component of the research. It is by chance getting a result which was not sought
during the course of the research. Serendipity pattern refers to unanticipated, unexpected
anomalous and strategic datum which leads to developing a new theory or for extending an
existing theory. It is unanticipated because it occurs by chance while testing one hypothesis
and has bearing on the theory. It is anomalous because it seems inconsistent with the
existing theory or with other established facts. Therefore it pushes forward the research
further. It is strategic because it ha a bearing on the generalised theory. The serendipity
pattern then involves the unanticipated, anomalous and strategic datum which exerts
pressure upon the investigator for a new direction of inquiry which extends theory.
2) Empirical research invites the extension of theory when neglected facts are repeatedly
observed. It therefore leads to the reformulation of the research as the new variable which
till now had not been included in the conceptual framework is introduced in the scheme of
analysis. These data are important but had not been included in the conceptual framework,
and when it occurs frequently it necessitates its inclusion in the conceptual framework
which requires the reformulation of the research. Empirical research therefore pressurises
theory to be re-casted.

3) Empirical research also affects, not just a particular theory but also more general trends
in the development of theory. This happens when new ways of doing research are invented
which in turn tends to change the foci of theoretical interests to the growing points of
research. A good theory relies on good facts and newly invented methods helps us to
provide good facts. When new methods provides us with new data and facts it can
encourage new hypothesis and other hypotheses may also be put to test with the help of
these new research techniques. The creation of sociological statistics can be seen as the
most direct impact of research procedures on theory. Early statistical data were not
sociological and it was pre collected and not set in sociological categories important for
theoretical system. Therefore sociologists had to do with makeshift data which had high
chances of error, due to which theories could not make much progress.
4) Theorising deals with clarifying concepts. Research activated by interest in methodology
pays attention to design research in a manner that it establishes a causal relationship
between variables without actually analysing the variables. This is what characterises large
part of theories today. When researches does not analyse the empirical variable in terms of
conceptual elements then it does not add to the stock of social sciences theory. Research
should not ignore conceptual as this enters into research in the form of indices of the
variables under consideration. Index is the correlated pair of variables. The development of
valid and observable indices becomes central to the use of concepts for the conduct of a
research.