lAS GURUKUL

SOCIOLOGY PAPER -1

BOOK -1
www.iasgurukul.com 1
Contents

Topic Page No.

UNIT I: SOCIOLOGY- THE DISCIPLINE
An Introduction: What is Sociology? 2
Modernity & Social Changes in Europe and Emergence of Sociology 11
Scope of Sociology 22
Sociology in comparison with other academic disciplines 23
Sociology and Common Sense 30

UNIT II: SOCIOLOGY AS A SCIENCE

Sociology as a Science 34
Positivism and its Critique 36
Fact, Value and Objectivity 37

UNIT III: RESEARCH METHODS & ANALYSIS

Social Research and its importance 42
Qualitative Research Methods 45
Quantitative Research Methods 54

UNIT IV: SOCIOLOGICAL THINKERS

Karl Marx 62
Historical Materialism 64
Modes of Production 68
Alienation 72
Class Struggle 82
Emile Durkheim 91
The Division of Labor in Society 92
Social Facts 97
Suicide 107
Religion & Society 111
Max Weber 116
Social Action 119
Ideal Types 121
Structures of Authority 123
Bureaucracy 127
Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism 129

Talcott Parsons 133

Social System 135
Pattern Variables 136
Robert King Merton 142
Manifest and Latent functions 143
Reference Group 144
Conformity and Deviance 146
G.H. Mead 150
Self and Society 155
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

SOCIOLOGY - THE DISCIPLINE

1
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

AN INTRODUCTION

What is Sociology?

Sociology which had once been treated as social philosophy, emerged as an

independent social science in the 19th century. Comte, Father of Sociology is
accredited with the coining of the term sociology (in 1839). Sociology is composed of
two words: socius, meaning companion or associate; and logos, meaning science or
study. The etymological meaning of sociology is thus the science of society. John
Stuart Mill, another social thinker and philosopher of the 19th century, proposed the
word ethology for this new science. Herbert Spencer developed his systematic study
of society and adopted the word ―sociology in his works.

Sociology has been defined in a number of ways by different sociologists. No single

definition has yet been accepted as completely satisfactory. In fact, there are as many
definitions of sociology as there are sociologists. For our purpose of study a few
definitions may be cited here.

1. August Comte, the founding father of sociology, defines sociology as the

science of social phenomena subject to natural and invariable laws, the discovery of
which is the object of investigation‖.

2. Harry M. Johnson opines that sociology is the science that deals with social
groups.

3. Emile Durkheim defines sociology as the science of social institutions.

4. Ogburn and Nimkoff define sociology as ―the scientific study of social life‖.

5. Henry Fairchild defines sociology as the study of man and his human
environment in their relations to each other‖.

6. Max Weber defines sociology as ―the science which attempts the interpretative
understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a casual explanation of its
course and effects‖.

7. Morris Ginsberg: Of the various definitions of sociology the one given by

Morris Ginsberg seems to be more satisfactory and comprehensive. He defines
sociology in the following way: In the broadest sense, sociology is the study of human
interactions and inter-relations, their conditions and consequences.

2
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Society

Society is the subject matter of Sociology. Sociology is nothing but a scientific study
of society and a variety of interactions that unfold within and between individuals and
groups.

―The term society refers not to group of people, but to the complex pattern of the
norms of interaction, that arise among and between them.‖ - Lapiere

―Society is not a group of people; it is the system of relationships that exists between
the individuals of the group.‖ -Prof. Wright

Modern society

Society as a Process and Society as a Structure

Society as a process is defined as a complex of groups in reciprocal relationship,

interacting upon one another, enabling human organisms to carry on their life-
activities and helping each person to fulfill his wishes and accomplish his interests in
association with his fellows.

―Co-operation crossed by conflict marks society wherever it is revealed‖ - MacIver

From the structural point of view, A society consists of (i) males and females,

3
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

adults and children, various occupational and religious groups and so on, (ii) the
interrelationship between various parts (such as relationship between husband and
wife, between parents and children and between various groups), and (iii) all the parts
of the society are put together to work as a unit. Although, the structure itself remains
invisible, it silently shapes our actions.

Status and Role

The concepts of status and role are integral to the understanding of society as a
process as well as structure. While status refers to a position occupied by an individual
in a group or in society, role is the expected behaviour of an individual who holds a
certain status.
A status is a set of privileges and duties; a role is the acting out of this set of
duties and privileges.

Community
MacIver defines community as “an area of social living marked by
some degree of social coherence.” The bases of community are locality and
community sentiment. Most communities are settled and derive from the
conditions of their locality a strong bond of solidarity. Some scholars argue that
a community always occupies a territorial area. The area need not be fixed
forever. The people may change their area of habitation from time to time just
as nomadic community does.

While society may be defined as a web of social relationships,

community, on the other hand, consists of a group of individuals living in a
particular area with some degree of ‗we-feeling‘. A definite geographic area is
not an essential aspect of society but community always denotes a definite
locality or geographic area. While society is abstract, community is concrete.
Community sentiment or a sense of ‗we-feeling‘ may be present or may not be
present in society but community sentiment is an essential element of
community. There can be no community in its absence. Society is wider; while
there can be more than one community in a society. The objectives and
interests of society are more extensive and varied as compared to that of a
community. Society involves both likeness and difference. Common interests
as well as diverse interests are present in society. But likeness is more
important than difference in community. There is common agreement of
interests and objectives on the part of members.

4
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Difference between Society and Community

Society Community

Web of social relationships. Group of individuals living in a

particular area with some degree of
‗we-feeling‘.

No definite geographical area Definite locality or geographic area

Abstract Concrete

Involves both likeness and difference Likeness is more important than

difference

Presence of common interests as well as Common agreement of interests and

diverse interests. objectives.

Association
―An association may be defined as an organisation deliberately formed for
the collective pursuit of some interest or set of interests which its members share.‖
- MacIver
An association is a group of people organized for a particular purpose or a limited
number of purposes. According to some scholars, to constitute an association there
must be:

a) a group of people

b) these people must be organized ones i.e. there must be certain rules for their
conduct in the group.

c) they must have a common purpose of specific nature to pursue.

Thus family, church, trade union, music club all are the instances of association.
Associations may be formed on several bases, for example, on the basis of duration
i.e. temporary or permanent like Flood Relief Association which is temporary and
State which is permanent. On the basis of power i.e. sovereign like state, semi-
sovereign like university, etc. On the basis of function i.e. biological like family,
vocational like Trade Union, recreational like music club, etc.

5
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Difference between Association and Community

Association Community

A group organized for the pursuit Members share the very

of an interest basic conditions of a
common life

Membership is voluntary Membership by birth

Does not necessarily imply the Community is marked by a

spatial aspects locality

May or may not be stable and Relatively more stable and

long-lasting permanent

Have their own written or Regulates the behaviour by

unwritten rules and regulations to means of customs, traditions
regulate its members. and social norms, etc.

Associations may have their legal Community has no legal

status status

Thus an association is not a community, but an organization within a community and

a community is more than any specific organizations that rise within it. However,
association may become communities at least temporarily over a period of time. For
example, the military units may create their own communities when isolated for a
period of time. But organizations established on class lines such as certain political
parties are associations.

Institutions
―A social institution is a structure of society that is organized to meet the
need of people chiefly through well established procedures.‖ -Bogardus
A social institution refers to an interrelated system of social roles and norms
organized about the satisfaction of an important social need or function. Marriage,
education, property, religion, etc. are some of the main institutions in any given
society. Durkheim defined sociology as the science of social institutions.

Institutions act as the controlling mechanisms in a society. Institutions like

religion, morality, state, government, law, legislation, etc., control the behaviour of
men. These mechanisms preserve the social order and give stability to it.

6
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Institutions are often classified into (i) Primary institutions and (ii) Secondary
institutions. The most basic institutions which are found even in primitive societies
like religion, family, marriage, property, some kind of political system, are primary in
character. As societies grew in size and complexity, institutions became progressive
and more differentiated. Accordingly, a large number of institutions are evolved to
cater to the secondary needs of people. They may be called secondary institutions. For
example, education, examination, law, legislation, constitution, parliamentary
procedure, business etc.

Culture
E.B. Tylor in his book Primitive Culture (1871) defined culture as ― that
complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and
any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.‖

Culture is everything which is socially learned and shared by the members of a

society. It includes symbols signs and languages, besides religion, rituals, beliefs and
artifacts. It is the culture that distinguishes one society from the other. Each society
has a culture of its own that is historically derived and passed on from one generation
to another and constantly enriched by those who live it.

―Culture is the sum total of human achievements, material as well as non-material,

capable of transmission, sociologically, i.e., by tradition and communication vertically
as well as horizontally.‖ - Mazumdar

Chief characteristics of culture

a) Culture is shared therefore, refers not to the beliefs and activities of individuals, but
to those of groups or people who are organized in communities. It is fundamentally a
social phenomenon.

b) Culture is learnt and acquired by human beings in interaction with others. An

individual acquires the characteristics of his parents and his group in two ways.

c) Culture is not only learnt and acquired by individuals in a social context, but it is
also accumulated and transmitted from generation to generation, through the
mechanism of symbolic communication or language.

Herskovits, an American anthropologist, has also identified certain

characteristics of culture in his book Man and His Works. He argues that culture
consists of manmade part of the environment, it is socially created. He states that
culture is learned, thus implying that it is an acquired behaviour.

7
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Robert Bierstedt, in his book The Social Order, has classified the contents of
culture into three categories, i.e. ideas, norms and material i.e., cognitive, normative
and material. Ideas refer to the cognitive dimension of culture which includes beliefs
and knowledge.

The normative dimension includes rules, rules, expectations and standardized

procedures, and ways of behaving in almost all situations that we confront and in
which people participate.

The material culture, referring to what we have or possess as members of

society. Material culture refers mainly to basic conditions, which generally include
material items that the members of a society have and use, and also to science,
technology and instruments of production, transport and communication.

Culture is a system of norms and values, a society is a relatively independent,

self-perpetuating human group which occupies a territory, shares a culture, and has
most of its associations within this group.

Culture and Civilization

Alfred Weber is well known for his analysis of the distinction between culture
and civilization. Civilization refers to a historical phase of culture. A civilization is
characterised by certain distinctive features, such as cities and urbanization,
occupational specialization, monumental structures such as temples, palaces and
tombs, classes and hierarchies, and above all, the art of writing.

Difference between culture and civilization

MacIver appropriately remarks, “Civilization is what we have, culture is what we

are”.

a) Civilization has precise standard of measurement, but not culture.

b) Civilization is always advancing, but not culture. Civilization is unilinear and

cumulative and tends to advance indefinitely. Cultural on the other hand, advances
slowly and is often subject to retrogression. In contemporary scenario, rise in religious
fundamentalism in some societies can be cited as an example of this.

c) Civilization is borrowed without change or loss, but not culture.

d) Civilization is external and mechanical while culture is internal and organic.

Diffusion: The process by which culture traits or complexes spread from one society
to another or one part of a society to another.

8
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Acculturation: Scholars defined acculturation as ‗those phenomena which result

when groups of individuals having different cultures come into first hand contact, with
subsequent change in the original cultural patterns of both groups. In other words, it
refers to the process whereby an individual or a group acquires the cultural
characteristics of another through direct contact and interaction. From an individual
point of view this is a process of social learning. From a social point of view
acculturation implies the diffusion of particular values, techniques and institutions and
their modification under different conditions. It may give rise to culture conflict and to
adaptation leading to a modification of group identity.

Culture shock: Is severe psychological and social maladjustment many individuals

experience when they visit or live in a society different from their own. Culture shock
involves bewilderment due to new customs, unknown expectations, a feeling of being
conspicuous, ―different,‖ and foreign, and often a foreign language.

Ethnocentrism: The term was introduced by William G. Summer in his work

Folkways. Ethnocentrism reflects an inability to appreciate the viewpoint of others
whose cultures have, for example, a different morality, religion, or language. It is an
attitude of regarding one‘s own culture or group as inherently superior. The
ethnocentric attitude judge the worth of other cultures in terms of its own cultural, and
since other cultures are, of course, different, they are held to be inferior, Ethnocentric
view is seen as a threat to the inter-group solidarity and communal harmony in a
complex society where diverse groups belonging to different-different cultural
backgrounds live together. However, for an individual ethnocentrism may be
appealing because it reaffirms the individual‘s ―belongingness‖ to the group. It is also
considered functional for intra-group solidarity. It is argued that ethnocentric groups
seem to survive better than tolerant groups because ethnocentrism reinforces
nationalism and patriotism. Without ethnocentrism, a vigorous national consciousness
is probable impossible. Nationalism is but another level of group loyalty.

Xenocentrism: is exact opposite of ethnocentrism. It is the belief that our own

products, styles, or ideas are necessarily inferior to those which originate else-where.
For example, there are many occasions when people seem happy to pay more for
imported goods on the assumption that anything from abroad is better.

Cultural relativism: Cultural relativism refers to the view that the values, ideas and
behaviour patterns of a people are not to be evaluated and judged in terms of our own
values and ideas but must be understood and appreciated in their cultural context. For
example, premarital pregnancy is bad in many societies, where the mores do not
approve it and where there are no entirely comfortable arrangements for the care of
illegitimate children. Premarital pregnancy is good in a society such as that of the

9
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Bontocs of the Philippines, who consider a woman more marriageable when her
fertility has been established and who have a set of customs and values which make a
secure place for the children. Similarly, adolescent girls in the United States are
advised that they will improve their marital bargaining power by avoiding pregnancy
until marriage, while adolescent girls in New Guinea are given the opposite advice,
and in each setting the advice is probably correct.

Subculture: is part of the total culture of society but it differs from the larger culture
in certain respects-for example, in language, customs, values, or social norms. It is
agreed that ethnic groups have subcultures, but writers also refer to the subcultures of
occupations, adolescents, criminals, social classes, etc.

Contraculture/ Counterculture: The term was introduced by J. Milton Yinger to

designate a particular type of subculture, in which certain values and social norms of
the dominant culture are specifically rejected, and contrary values and norms
deliberately accepted. It is a subculture that stands in opposition to important aspects
of the dominant culture of the society. In fact, the value and normative system of the
contraculture can really by understood only in terms of its theme of opposition to the
dominant culture. However, it should be remembered that a contraculture rejects
some, but not all, of the norms of the dominant culture. For example, delinquency and
drug addiction often have a contracultural aspect.

Culture lag: This concept was introduced by William F. Ogburn, who applied it
especially to modern industrial societies in which the material culture, through rapid
advances in technology and science, has developed at a much faster rate than that part
of the non-material culture (ideas, values, norms, etc.) which regulates man‘s
adjustment to the material culture. Cultural lag as a concept and theory was developed
by Ogburn as part of a wider theory of technological evolutionism. It suggests that
there is a gap between the technical development of a society and its moral and legal
institutions. The failure of the latter to keep pace with the former in certain societies,
is cited as the basic factor to explain (at least some) social conflict and problems.

10
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

MODERNITY & SOCIAL CHANGES IN EUROPE

AND EMERGENCE OF SOCIOLOGY

To understand the emergence of sociology in Europe we need to appreciate the

relationship between society and ideas. Ideas are normally rooted in their social
context. It is in this context that we need to see the emergence of sociology as a
discipline beginning with a discussion of the Enlightenment period.

The Enlightenment Period

The roots of the ideas developed by the early sociologists are grounded in the social
conditions that prevailed in Europe. The emergence of sociology as a scientific
discipline can be traced to that period of European history, which saw such
tremendous social, political and economic changes as embodied in the French
Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. This period of change in European society
is known as the Enlightenment Period as it embodies the spirit of new awakening in
the French philosophers of the 18th century.

The Enlightenment Period marked a radical change from the traditional thinking of
feudal Europe. It introduced the new way of thinking and looking at reality.
Individuals started questioning each and every aspect of life and nothing was
considered sacrosanct - from the church to the state to the authority of the monarch.

The roots of the ideas, such as the belief that both nature and society can be studied
scientifically, that human beings are essentially rational and that a society built on
rational principles will make human beings realize their infinite potentials, can be
traced in the development of science and commerce in Europe. The new outlook
developed as a result of the Commercial Revolution and the Scientific Revolution and
crystalised during the French and the Industrial Revolutions gave birth to sociology as
a discipline.

Structure and Change in European Society

Old Europe was traditional. Land was central to its economic system. There were
owners of land, the feudal lords and the peasants who worked on the lands. The
classes were distinct and clearly demarcated. Religion formed the corner stone of
society. The religious heads decided what was moral, what was not. Family and
kinship were central to the lives of the people. Monarchy was firmly rooted in society.

The New Europe ushered in by the two Revolutions, the French and the industrial,
challenged each and every central feature of old Europe. Classes were recognised. Old
classes were overthrown. New classes arose. Religion was questioned. Religion lost
its important position. Family loyalties gave way to ideological commitments. The

11
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

position of women changed. And finally monarchy was overthrown. Democracy was
heralded in. The contrast between present and past seemed stark.

THE SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN WHICH SOCIOLOGY EMERGED

Sociology emerged as a distinct science in 19th century Europe. Europe then was
passing through a period of immense changes which had set in with the French and
Industrial Revolutions. Indeed, sociology can be considered a science of the new
industrial society. The Commercial Revolution and the Scientific Revolution took
place in Europe between the 14th century and the 18th century i.e. during the
―Renaissance‖ period, leading to significant changes in European society.

The Commercial Revolution (1450 to 1800) signaled a shift from the subsistence
and stagnant economy of medieval Europe to a more dynamic and worldwide system.
The Commercial Revolution signified the expansion of trade and commerce that took
place from the 15th century onwards. This expansion was as a result of the initiative
taken by certain European countries to develop and consolidate their economic and
political power. These countries were Portugal, Spain, Holland and England.

Europe‘s trade with the Eastern countries like India and China was transacted by land
routes. The northern Italian cities of Venice and Genoa were the major centers of
trade. The result of the Italian monopoly was that the prices of goods like spices and
silks imported from the East were extremely high. Portugal and Spain therefore,
wanted to discover a route to the Orient that would be independent of Italian control.

Thus began a shift from land routes to sea-routes. The Portuguese (think Vasco da
Gama) were the pioneers in adventurous navigation and exploration. Christopher
Columbus, an Italian under the patronage of the Spanish King, set sail for India.
However, he landed on the shores of North America. This accidental discovery laid
the foundations of what was to become a Spanish empire in America.

The parts of India and Africa, Malacca, the Spice Islands, West Indies and South
America came under the economic control of Spain, Portugal, England, France and
Holland. Commerce expanded into a world enterprise. The monopoly of the Italian
cities was destroyed.

European markets were flooded with new commodities; spices and textiles from the
East, tobacco from N. America, Cocoa, Chocolate and quinine from S. America, ivory
and, above all, human slaves from Africa. With the discovery of the Americas, the
range of trade widened.

As the Commercial Revolution progressed, the position of Portugal and Spain

declined. England, Holland and France came to dominate Europe and the world.

12
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Expansion of Banking One of the important features of the Commercial

Revolution was the growth of banking. Credit facilities were expanded, making it easy
for merchants all over Europe to do business. The ―cheque‖ was invented in the 18th
century. Paper money came to replace gold and silver coins.

Growth of companies As trade and commerce expanded, new kinds of

business organizations had to be devised to cope with this growth. ―Regulated
companies‖ arose in the 16th century. These were associations of merchants who
bonded together to cooperate for a common venture. Joint-stock companies emerged
in the 17th century. In this set-up, shares of capital were distributed to a large number
of investors.

Rise of a New Class One of the most distinctive characteristics of this

period was the rise of the middle class to economic power. By the end of the 17th
century, the middle class had become an influential group in nearly every western
European country. It included merchants, bankers, ship-owners and investors. Their
power, at this stage, was mainly economic. But later in the unit, we shall see how they
became politically powerful in the 19th century. ―Europeanisation‖ of the world. By
this, we mean the transplanting of European manners and culture in other societies.

The Renaissance period

The ‗Renaissance‘ period saw the beginning of the ‗Scientific Revolution‘. It marked
an area of description and criticism in the field of science. It was a clear break from
the past, a challenge to old authority. Art, literature and science all flourished. A
scientific approach to Nature and the human body became prevalent. We can see this
in the paintings of that period, which explored the smallest details of Nature and the
human body.

Dissection the human body became acceptable. Doctors and physiologists directly
observed how the human body was constructed. The fields of anatomy, physiology
and pathology thus benefited greatly.

The Copernican Revolution

The first major break from the system of ancient thought came with Copernicus. It
was generally believed that the earth was fixed or stationary and the sun and other
heavenly bodies moved around it (geocentric theory). Copernicus however
demonstrated that the earth moved around a fixed sun (heliocentric theory.) The work
of Copernicus is considered revolutionary because it drastically altered patterns of
thought about the universe. Human being was not at the center of the universe, but a
small part of a vast system.

In a nutshell, science in the Renaissance period was marked by a new attitude towards

13
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

man and nature. Natural objects became the subject of close observation and
experiment. The Copernican revolution shattered the very foundations on which the
old world rested.

Experimental Method in Physics and Mathematics

The work of physicists and mathematicians like Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Johannes
Kepler (1571-1630) and subsequently, Isaac Newton (1642- 1727) revolutionised
science. It brought to the forefront the experimental method. Old ideas were
challenged and alternatives were suggested. If these alternative ideas could be proved
and repeatedly verified and checked out, they were accepted. If not, new solutions
were sought.

Scientific methods thus came to be regarded as the most accurate, the most objective.
Later, use of ‗scientific method‘ to study society was recommended by early
sociologists.

Biology and Evolution

Dissection of the human body helped people gain a better understanding of its
working: Circulation of blood was discovered by William Harvey (1578-1657). This
led to rethinking. Human organism came to be viewed in terms of interrelated parts
and systems. This had its impact on thought of Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, to name a
few.

Charles Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859. Darwin put forward the
theory that various living organisms compete for the limited resources the earth has to
offer. Thus ―survival of the fittest‖ is the natural law. Some species evolve or develop
certain traits, which make their survival possible, other species die out.

Darwin studied ‗human evolution‘. He traced the origins of the human species to some
ape-like ancestors, which, over the centuries, evolved into modern human beings.
Darwin‘s evolutionary theory did gain wide acceptance. It was applied to the social
world by ‗evolutionary‘ thinkers, notably Herbert Spencer. Not just organisms, but
societies were seen as constantly ‗evolving‘ or developing from a lower to a higher
stage.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

The French Revolution, which erupted in 1789 marked a turning point in the history
of human struggle for freedom and equality. It put an end to the age of feudalism and
ushered in a new order of society. An outline of this revolution will explain to you the
kind of turmoil that occurred in Europe. This revolution brought about far reaching
changes in not only French society but in societies throughout Europe. Even countries

14
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

in other continents such as, India, were influenced by the ideas generated during this
revolution. Ideas like liberty, fraternity and equality, which now form a part of the
preamble to the Constitution of India, owe their origin to the French Revolution.

The Basic Picture of the French society: Division into Feudal Estates

The French society was divided into feudal ‗estates‘. The structure of the feudal
French society comprised the ‗Three Estates‘. Estates are defined as a system of
stratification found in feudal European societies whereby one section or estate is
distinguished from the other in terms of status, privileges and restrictions accorded to
that estate.

a) The First Estate consisted of the clergy, which was stratified into higher clergy,
such as the cardinal, the archbishops, the bishops and the abbots. They lived a life of
luxury and gave very little attention to religion. In fact, some of them preferred the life
of politics to religion. They spent much of their time in wasteful activities like
drinking, gambling, etc. In comparison to the higher clergy, the lower parish priests
were over worked and poverty-stricken.

b) The Second Estate consisted of the nobility.

c) The Third Estate comprised the rest of the society and included the peasants,
the merchants, the artisans, and others. There was a vast difference between the
condition of the peasants and that of the clergy and the nobility. The peasants worked
day and night but were overloaded with so many taxes that they lived a hand to mouth
existence. They produced the food on which the whole society depended. Yet they
could barely survive due to failure of any kind of protection from the government. The
King, in order to maintain the good will of the other two estates, the clergy and the
nobility, continued to exploit the poor. The poor peasants had no power against him.
While the clergy and the nobility kept on pampering and flattering the King.

As compared to the peasants, the condition of the middle classes, also known as the
bourgeoisie comprising the merchants, bankers, lawyers, manufacturers, etc. was
much better. These classes too belonged to the third estate. But the poverty of the
state, which led to a price rise during 1720-1789, instead of adversely affecting them,
helped them. They derived profit from this rise and the fact that French trade had
improved enormously also helped the commercial classes to a great extent. Thus, this
class was rich and secure. But it had no social prestige as compared with the high
prestige of the members of the first and the second estates.

In spite of controlling trade, industries, banking etc. the bourgeoisie had no power to
influence the court or administration. The other two estates looked them down upon
and the King paid very little attention to them. Thus, gaining political power became a

15
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

necessity for them.

The clergy and the nobility both constituted only two per cent of the population but
they owned about 35 per cent of the land. The peasants who formed 80 per cent of the
population owned only 30 per cent of the land. The first two estates paid almost no
taxes to the government. The peasantry, on the other hand, was burdened with taxes of
various kinds. It paid taxes to the Church, the feudal lord, taxed in the form of income
tax, poll tax, and land tax to the state. Thus, you can see how much burdened and
poverty stricken the peasants had become at this time. On top of it all the prices had
generally risen by about 65 per cent during the period, 1720-1789.

The Political Aspects of the French society

Like in all absolute monarchies, the theory of the Divine Right of King was followed
in France too. For about 200 years the Kings of the Bourbon dynasty ruled France.
Under the rule of the King, the ordinary people had no personal rights. They only
served the King and his nobles in various capacities.

The Economic Aspects of the French society

The kings of France fought costly wars which ruined the country, and when Louis
XIV died in 1715, France had become bankrupt. Louis XVI, a very weak and
ineffective king, inherited the ruin of a bankrupt government.

Intellectual Developments in France

France, like some other European countries during the 18th century, had entered the
age of reason and rationalism. Some of the major philosophers, whose ideas
influenced the French people, were rationalists who believed that all true things could
be proved by reason. Some of these thinkers were, Montesquieu (1689-1755), Locke
(1632-1704), Voltaire (1694-1778), and Rousseau (1712-1778).

Montesquieu in his book, The Spirit of the Law, held that there should not be
concentration of authority, such as executive, legislative, and juridical, at one place.
He believed in the theory of the separation of powers and the liberty of the individual.

Locke advocated that every individual has certain rights, which cannot be taken by
any authority. These rights were (i) right to live, (ii) right to property, and (iii) the
right to personal freedom. He also believed that any ruler who took away these rights
from his people should be removed from the seat of power and replaced by another
ruler who is able to protect these rights.

Voltaire advocated religious toleration and freedom of speech. He also stood for the
rights of individuals, for freedom of speech and expression.

16
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Rousseau wrote in his book, The Social Contract, that the people of a country have the
right to choose their sovereign. He believed that people can develop their personalities
best only under a government which is of their own choice.

The major ideas of these intellectuals struck the imagination of the French people. The
French Revolution played a significant role in the history of human civilisation. It
changed the political structure of European society and replaced the age of feudalism
by heralding the arrival of democracy.

There were many significant themes, which arose due to the impact of this
Revolution, which have been the focus of interest of the early sociologists. These
significant themes included the transformation of property, the social disorder, caused
by the change in the political structure and its impact on the economic structure. A
new class of power holders emerged - the bourgeoisie.

THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

The Industrial Revolution began around 1760 A.D. in England. It brought about great
changes in the social and economic life of the people first in England, then in the other
countries of Europe and later in other continents. In Europe, especially England, the
discovery of new territories, explorations, growth of trade and commerce and the
consequent growth of towns brought about an increase in demand for goods. Earlier
goods (i.e. consumer items like cloth, etc.) were produced at domestic levels. This
means that there existed a domestic system of production. With increased demand,
goods were to be produced on a large-scale.

During Industrial Revolution, new tools and techniques were invented, which could
produce goods on a large-scale. During 1760-1830 A.D., a series of inventions in tools
and techniques and organization of production took place and it gave rise to the
factory system of production. Thus, a change in economy from feudal to capitalist
system of production developed. Subsequently, there emerged a class of capitalists,
which controlled the new system of production. Due to this revolution society moved
from the old age of hand-made goods to the new age of machine- made goods. This
shift heralded the emergence of Industrial Revolution.

Impact of the Industrial Revolution on Society

With the change in the economy of society several social changes followed. As
capitalism became more and more complex, the developments of banks, insurance
companies, and finance corporations took place. New class of industrial workers,
managers, capitalists emerged.

17
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

The Factory system of production significantly changed social relations

The peasants in the new industrial society found themselves with thousands of other
people like themselves, winding cotton in a textile mill. Instead of the famous
countryside they found themselves in unhygienic living conditions. With the increase
in production, population started increasing. Rise of population led to the increased
rate of urbanisation. The industrial cities grew rapidly. In the industrial cities socio-
economic disparities were very wide. The factory workers were involved in repetitive
and boring work, the result of which they could not enjoy. In Marxist terms the
worker became alienated from the product of his/ her labour. City life in the industrial
society became an altogether a different way of life.

These changes moved both conservative and radical thinkers. The

conservatives feared that such conditions would lead to chaos and disorder. The
radicals like Engels felt that the factory workers would initiate social transformation.

Though the judgement of values differed, social thinkers of the time were agreed upon
the epoch-making impact of the Industrial Revolution. They also agreed upon the
importance of the new working class. The history of the period from 1811 to 1850
further indicates that this class increasingly agitated for their rights.

18
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Significant Themes of the Industrial Revolution

The significant themes of the Industrial Revolution, which concerned the early
sociologists, were:

i) The condition of labour: A new population earning their livelihood by working

in the factories arose. In the early years this working class lived in poverty and
squalor. They were socially deprived. At the same time they were indispensable in the
new industrial system. This made them a powerful social force. Sociologists
recognised that poverty of this class of workers is not natural poverty but social
poverty. Thus working class became during 19th century the subject of both moral and
analytical concern.

ii) The transformation of property: The traditional emphasis on land lost its value
while money or capital became important during Industrial Revolution. The feudal
landlords became less significant while the new capitalists gained power. Many of the
new capitalists were erstwhile landlords.

Property was one of the central issues raised in the French Revolution too. Its
influence on the social order is considerable. Property is related to economic
privileges, social status and political power. A change in property system involves a
change in the fundamental character of society. Sociologists have grappled with the
question of property and its impact on social stratification since the days of Marx and
Tocqueville.

iii) The industrial city, i.e. urbanism: Urbanisation was a necessary corollary of the
Industrial Revolution. Industries grew and along with it grew great cluster of
populations, the modern towns and cities. Cities were present in ancient period too,
such as Rome, Athens, etc. but the new cities, such as Manchester in England, famous
for its textile, were different in nature. Ancient cities were known as repositories of
civilised graces and virtues while the new cities were known as repositories of misery
and inhumanity. It was these aspects of the new cities which concerned the early
sociologists.

iv) Technology and the factory system: Technology and the factory system has been
the subject of countless writings in the 19th century. Both the conservative and radical
thinkers realised that the two systems would alter human life for all times to come.

The impact of technology and factory system led to large-scale migration of people to
the cities. Women and children joined the work force in the factories. Family relations
changed. The machine rather than man seemed to dominate work. The relation
between labourers and the products of their labour changed. They worked for their
wages. The owner of the factory owned the product. Life and work became

19
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

depersonalised. Marx saw a form of enslavement in the machine and a manifestation

of alienation of labour.

INTELLECTUAL INFLUENCES AFFECTING EMERGENCE OF

SOCIOLOGY

Sociology emerged as a response to the forces of change, which took place during
18th and 19th centuries in Europe. The ideas, which are discussed again and again in
early sociological writings, are thus essentially ideas of that period. The thinkers of
the Enlightenment of 18th century affected much of the early sociology. The
Enlightenment appears as the most appropriate point of departure in the study of the
origins of sociological theory, for various reasons including those mentioned below.

1) A scientific approach to the study of society dates back to the tradition of

Enlightenment. The 18th century thinkers began more consistently than any of their
predecessors to study the human conditions in a scientific way using the methods of
the natural sciences. They consciously applied scientific principles of analysis to the
study of human beings and their nature and society.

2) The 18th century thinkers upheld reason as a measure to judge social institutions
and their suitability for human nature. Human beings, according to them, are
essentially rational and this rationality can lead them to freedom of thought and action.

3) The 18th century thinkers believed that human beings are capable of attaining
perfection. By criticising and changing social institutions they can create for
themselves even greater degrees of freedom, which, in turn would enable them
increasingly to actualise the potentially creative powers.

Apart from above, 3 other intellectual influences current in the post- Enlightenment
period influenced the emergence of sociology in Europe. They can be identified as:

i) The Philosophy of History

In the early part of the 19th century the philosophy of history became an important
intellectual influence. The basic assumption of this philosophy was that society must
have progressed through a series of steps from a simple to complex stage. We may
briefly assess the contributions of the philosophy of history to sociology as having
been, on the philosophical side, the notions of development and progress. On the
scientific side, it has given the concepts of historical periods and social types. The
social thinkers who developed the philosophy of history such as Abbe Saint Pierre,
and Giambattista, were concerned with the whole of society and not merely the
political, or the economic, or the cultural aspects (Bottomore). Later the contributions
of Comte, Spencer, Marx and many others reflected the impact of the loss of this
intellectual trend in their sociological writings.

20
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

ii) The Biological Theories of Evolution

The influence of the philosophy of history was further reinforced by the biological
theory of evolution. Sociology moved towards an evolutionary approach, seeking to
identify and account for the principal stages in social evolution. It tended to be
modeled on biology, as is evident from the widely diffused conception of society as an
organism, and from the attempts to formulate general terms of social evolution.
Herbert Spencer and Durkheim are good example of this kind of writing.

iii) Surveys of Social Conditions

Social survey forms an important element in modern sociology. It emerged due to two
reasons, one was the growing conviction that the methods of the natural sciences
should and could be extended to the study of human affairs; that human phenomenon
could be classified and measured. The other was the concern with poverty, following
the recognition that poverty was not natural but social. The social survey is one of the
principal methods of sociological inquiry. The basic assumption, which underlines this
method, is that through the knowledge of the social conditions one can arrive at
solutions to solve the social problems prevalent in society.

--------

In conclusion, the social conditions affect the ideas which people have. Certain
changes taking place in the 18th and 19th century in Europe bothered social thinkers.
Sociology thus grew essentially as a product of the reflections of the great thinkers
reflecting on society.

Significant historical developments such as the Commercial, the French and the
Industrial Revolutions birthed the modern society. The intellectual influences such as
the philosophy of history, biological theories of evolution and surveys of social
conditions, affected the emergence of sociology in Europe.

21
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Scope of Sociology

Scope means area of study, field of inquiry or the subject matter. Each subject has its
own field of study, so also sociology. Every subject has its own scope and subject
matter. Study of sociology is organized within a specific boundary which is known as
the scope of sociology. Without which, it is very difficult to study a subject
systematically. Hence, it is necessary to demarcate the boundary or scope of a subject.

Sociologists differ among themselves regarding the scope of sociology. As a result,

there is no unanimity of opinion amongst scholars about the scope of sociology. Some
sociologists opine that sociology studies everything and any- thing under the sun,
whereas, others opine that the scope of sociology is very limited as it studies only
those things which are not studied by other social sciences. V.F. Calberton opines
―since sociology is so elastic a science, it is difficult to determine just where its
boundaries begin and end, where sociology becomes social psychology and where
social psychology becomes sociology or where economic theory becomes sociological
theory, something which is impossible to decide‖. However, an attempt has been
made to demarcate the exact scope of sociology.

There are two main schools of thought among sociologists on the issue of scope and
subject matter of sociology: Formal school or specialistic school of thought and
synthetic school of thought.

Formalistic or specialistic school

This school of thought is headed by German sociologist George Simmel. Max Weber
and Ferdinand Tonnies are other important supporters of this school. According to this
school of thought the subject matter of sociology consists of social action, should
confine its study to formal behaviour instead of studying actual behavior as a result
this school opine that sociology cannot study social life as a whole. Hence, the scope
of sociology is very limited. They want to keep the scope of sociology distinct from
other social sciences. They consider sociology as a pure and independent science.

According to this school sociology studies a particular aspect of social relationships. It

studies the forms of social relationships in their abstract nature not in concrete
situation. Thus, the formalistic school has confined the scope of sociology to the
abstract study of the forms of social relationships.

The formalistic school of thought has been criticized from the following grounds.

1. The formalistic school of thought has extremely narrowed down the scope of
sociology to merely the abstract forms of social relationships.

2. The distinction between the forms of social relationships and the content of social

22
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

relationships is not possible. It is also not possible to study the abstract forms by
separating it from concrete relations.

3. The formalistic idea of pure and independent sociology is purely imaginary in

nature.

Synthetic School

According to this school of thought, the scope of sociology is very wide and all
inclusive. According to this school of thought, different aspects of social life are inter-
related. We can‘t understand society with the study of one aspect only; hence
sociology should attempt to study social life as a whole. It tries to make sociology a
synthesis of the social sciences or a general science and encyclopedic. Sociology
studies the whole of social life; hence its scope is very wide. The main advocates of
this school of thought are Emile Durkheim, P.A. Sorokin, Karl Mannheim and others.

Hence, Sociology is both a general science and a special science. It synthesizes all
special science. Hence the scope of sociology is very wide. One school studies the part
and other studies the whole. Both part and whole are interrelated we can‘t study the
part without studying the whole and vice-versa.

Sociology and other academic disciplines

Sociology is related to various other

social sciences

As a social science, Sociology attempts to study social life as a whole. But for the
complete study of social life as a whole sociology requires the help of other social
sciences. Different social sciences are interrelated and one can‘t make a sharp

23
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

distinction between them.

All other social sciences depend on sociology because no aspect of human life can be
detached from its social aspect. Besides, no social science is in a position to give a
complete picture of society. Sociology endeavors to study social life as a whole by
taking help from other social sciences. Hence, there exists a very close and intimate
relationship between sociology and other social sciences. In this context the study of
interrelationships among social science is very important.

Sociology and Anthropology

A.L. Kroeber considers Sociology and Anthropology as twin sisters. Anthropology

has a wide field of study which can be broadly divided into four main divisions such
as physical anthropology, archeology, cultural anthropology and social anthropology.
Social anthropology deals with the behaviour of man in social institutions. Social
anthropology and sociology are one and the same. Evan Pritchard considers social
anthropology as a branch of Sociology.

Both contribute to the growth of each other. Both have a symbiotic relationship.
Anthropology studies primitive man in a pre-literate society whereas sociology studies
man in modern complex societies. Anthropology is holistic in nature because it studies
all aspects of man in a social setting; whereas this is not possible in sociology because
of its vastness and complexity of modern life.

Anthropology contributes to the growth of Sociology. Without the help of

anthropology the study of Sociology can‘t be complete. Anthropology provides
knowledge about ancient societies. To have a comprehensive understanding of the
origins of family, marriage, religion etc.; sociology takes the help of anthropology.
Contributions of many Anthropologists like R. Brown, Linton, Mead and Pritchard
enriches sociological knowledge.

Similarly, Sociology contributes richly towards the growth of anthropology. Research

and contributions of many Sociologists like Emile Durkheim, Herbert Spencer is of
great help to anthropology. Anthropologists greatly benefited by the Sociological
researches. Ideas and conclusions of Sociology contribute to research in anthropology.

But both differ from each other as follows:

(1) Sociology is a science of society whereas anthropology is a science of man and his
behaviour.

(2) The scope of Sociology is very wide whereas the scope of Anthropology is very
limited.

24
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

(3) Sociology studies society as a whole whereas anthropology studies man as a part
of society.

(4) Sociology studies civilizations which are vast and dynamic on the other hand
Anthropology studies cultures which are simple and primitive.

(5) Sociology studies modern, civilized and complex societies whereas Anthropology
studies ancient and pre-literate societies.

(6) Sociology is concerned with social planning whereas anthropology is not

concerned with social planning. On the basis of social planning sociology make
suggestion for future but anthropology do not make any suggestion for future.

Hence there exists a close and intimate relationship between Sociology and
Anthropology. Both study human society and both are concerned with all kinds of
social groups like families, friends, tribes etc. Many of the ideas and concepts are used
in both the discipline. Hence both are interrelated and interdependent and different at
the same time.

Sociology and Economics

Economics deals with economic activities of man. It is a science of wealth and choice.
According to Prof. Lionel Robbins, Economics is a ―science which studies human
behaviour in relation to his unlimited ends and scarce means which have alternatives
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.

David Silverman opines Economics as offshoot of Sociology which studies the

general principles of all social relations. 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.
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 other economic activities of man. Economics is greatly benefited
by the research conducted by Sociologists like Max Weber, Pareto etc. Karl Marx
considers economic change as the only cause of social change. Economics draws its
generalization basing on the data provided by Sociology.

Similarly, Sociology also takes the help from Economics. Economics greatly enriches
sociological knowledge. Economic factors greatly influence each and every aspects of
social life. Each and every social problem has an economic cause. For the solution of

25
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

social problems like dowry, suicide etc Sociologists take the help form economics.
Marx opines economic relations constitute the foundation of Society. Economic
factors play a very important role in every aspect of our social life; that is why,
Sociologists concerned with economic institutions. For this reason sociologists like
Spencer, Weber, Durkheim and others have taken the help from economics in their
analysis of social relationships.

However, in spite of the above closeness, inter-relationship and inter-dependence both

the sciences have certain differences which are described below:

1) Sociology is a science of society and social relationships whereas economics is

science of wealth.

(2) Sociology is a much younger science which has very recent origin whereas
economics is comparatively old.

(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) Sociology is concerned with the social activities of man whereas economics is
concerned with the economic activities of man.

(6) Society is studied as a unit of study in Sociology whereas man is taken as a unit of
study in economics.

(7) Both Sociology and economics differ from each other in respect of the methods
and techniques they use for their study.

Thus, both sociology and economics are very closely related with each other. There
are some problems which are being studied by both sociologists and economics.
Economic changes results in social changes and vice versa.

Sociology and Political Science

According to G.E.C. Catlin ―Political Science and Sociology are two faces or aspects
of the same figure. Political Science is a science of state and government. It studies
power, political processes, political systems, types of government and international
relation. It deals with social groups organized 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 organized society.

Morris Ginsberg states ―Historically, Sociology has its main roots in politics and

26
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

philosophy of history.‖ Sociology is 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. To
understand different political events sociology takes the help from political science.
Sociology draws its conclusions being dependent 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 interdependent.

Dissimilarities between both these subjects:

(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 organized, unorganized and disorganized society whereas

political science studies only politically organized 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 old 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.

(10) Sociology deals with all forms of association whereas political science deals with
only one form of association named state.

Sociology and History

Sociology is the science of society. It is a study of systems of social action and their
interrelations. History studies the important past events and incidents. It records men‘s
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.‖

27
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

History helps and enriches Sociology. History is the store house of knowledge from
which Sociology gains 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. To know the impact of a particular past event
sociology depends of history.

Sociology also provides help to history and enriches it. 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.

Both disciplines differ from each other from different angles which are:

(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 limed.
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 entirely.

(7) Sociology is a general science whereas history is a special science.

Thus 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.

Sociology and Psychology

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 behaviour. But
psychology is a science of mind or mental processes. It is a science of human
behaviour. It analyses attitudes, emotions, perception, process of learning and values
of individuals and process of perception, process of personality formation in society.

28
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

In the words of Thouless, ‗Psychology is the positive science of human experience

and behaviour.‘

There are many psychologists like Freud, McDougall and others who have enriched
Sociology in many respects. They opine that the whole social life could be reduced
finally to psychological forces. Each and every social problems and social
phenomenon must have a psychological basis for the solution of which sociology
requires the help form psychology. A new branch of knowledge has developed with
the combination of sociology and psychology which is known as social psychology.

Similarly, psychology depends on Sociology to comprehend itself fully. Psychology

also requires help from sociology in many cases. As human mind and personality is
being influenced by social environment, culture, customs and traditions hence
psychology takes the help form Sociology to understand this. To understand human
nature and behaviour properly psychology depends on sociology. There are many
Psychological problems which must have a social cause. Psychology requires the help
from Sociology to understand these social problems. Research in Sociology richly
contributes to psychology. Contributions and theories of many Sociologists also are of
great help to Psychologists.

However, 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 analyzes human behavior from Sociological angle whereas
psychology studies and analyses human behaviour form Psychological angles.

Thus, Sociology and Psychology are mutually dependent on each other. One can‘t
comprehend itself without the help form 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.

According to Simpson, social sciences are united and this unity is not imaginary. It is
the dynamic unity of different parts and every part is necessary for another and all
other parts. One can‘t deny the desired and necessary unity among one specific and

29
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

general social science. In recent years, the social scientists recognize the need for a
comprehensive study of society which can‘t be made in a fragmented manner. The
interdisciplinary approach is one of the basic and fundamental developments in the
area of social science. Now, sociology, social anthropology, political science,
economics, history, psychology, ethics etc. share most of their views and method.

Sociology and Common Sense

Many people mistakenly believe that sociology is the study of the obvious. They claim
that sociology is nothing but the application of common sense. But equating any
science with simple common sense could not be further from the truth! Common
sense is not always ―common,‖ nor ―sensible.‖ Statements like ―Birds of a feather
flock together‖ and ―Opposites attract,‖ while supposedly based on common
knowledge, contradict each other. Because common sense does not always accurately
predict reality, people need something else.

Not every sociological finding is revolutionary; many findings do appear consistent

with common sense. By systematically testing common sense beliefs against facts,
sociologists can sort out which popular beliefs hold true and which do not. To
accomplish this, sociologists use a variety of social science research designs and
methods.

Sociology as a discipline is more than common sense. Sociology is a method of

inquiry that requires the systematic testing of beliefs against evidence. Sociologists,
therefore, make determining whether specific ideas are fact or fiction their job. To
study this difference, we need to define what they exactly are. In layman terms, the
social science which helps people to study the structure and dynamics of the society is
called Sociology. It is more than common sense and this is why it is studied as a
discipline.

Common sense, on the other hand, is based on individual and natural hypotheses that
one makes and this varies from person to person since opinions are not the same
among a group of people. Though there is a close relationship between sociology and
common sense, there is still a gap between them. While in sociology, the sociologist‘s

30
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

research on whether which theories are fact or fiction by elaborately researching

beliefs as well as evidence, in common sense, there is no hard and fast rule that a
particular theory applies to everyone (since people have conflicting opinions). Though
common sense is of use at times, it is not a systematic study and not everything can be
predicted correctly.

Differences between sociology and common sense

Common sense differs from person to person and is influenced by the customs and
beliefs of the family one is born into. It, therefore, calls for no social changes and
wants the status quo. Sociology, on the other hand, studies the intricate details of
evidence as well as the beliefs and decides upon what can be applied and what cannot.
It questions the present situation when the opinions and evidence conflict and then
supports changes in society.

Common sense of a person just an assumption. In this case, one has no evidence to
back what one believes. Unlike common sense, sociological theories are not mere
assumptions but a sociologist concludes upon the theories by collecting evidences and
studying them in-depth. Given this research, the points put forward by these theories
are reliable and truly applicable to real life.

Common sense is based on personal experiences. But Sociology looks at the society
not with respect to individuals but as a whole. While common sense develops as one
experiences various situations but Sociology demands thoughts that are not merely
individual experiences.

Sociology is a scientific study of society. But common sense is not. Since Sociology is
an elaborate study of the society (and includes research), it is a science. But since
common sense doesn‘t require the same it isn‘t.

In Sociology, while one is researching, one comes across the patterns that can be
found everywhere in the world. But common sense is subjective since it differs from
one individual to another based on the society one comes from.

Common sense is very limited since the person‘s horizon is nowhere beyond the
environment in one‘s vicinity. But Sociological findings are applicable to a huge
number of people who come from varying backgrounds.

Sociology calls for a greater research and this allows for the authenticity of the data
provided as well as the theories formulated. But this doesn‘t imply that common sense
is of no use at all. Common sense is very useful and in fact, has helped many
sociologists ponder over them and probe into them. So, both common sense and
sociology are different but are closely knit.

31
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Poverty, from commonsensical point of view, is viewed as a result of indolent

behaviour, while a sociologist may view it in terms of structural inequalities and
disabilities. Thus, like every star gazer is not an astronomer, every commonsensical
observation about society is not a sociological observation. So, it is the way of looking
at things which distinguishes Sociology and common sense.

However, there are a few similarities and complementarities between the two. Firstly,
concepts in Sociology are framed by taking into consideration the commonsensical
knowledge. Common sense helps sociologists in hypothesis building. Secondly,
common sense provides raw material for sociological investigations. Sociology tends
to answer questions generated from common sense knowledge. For example, common
sense views on gender are widely studied in Sociology. Common sense also helps
Sociology by challenging its conclusions and thereby enriching the discipline.
According to Anthony Giddens, sometimes sociological knowledge also itself
becomes a part of common sense knowledge. For example- sociological research into
marital breakdown has led people to believe that marriage is a risky proposition.

According to Goffman, common sense is the knowledge that people use to make
judgments and navigate their way around the world. According to some
ethnomethodologists and phenomenologists, though the words used by the people in
everyday speech are not subject to rigorous definition and there are no set criteria for
establishing what other people mean or are talking about people manage, well enough,
with this seemingly unsystematic body of knowledge called common sense. Hence,
Sociology follows a false path when it tries to ape the sciences and should instead
content itself with the more everyday credentials of common-sense knowledge.

Sociologists perception towards common sense changed over time as the discipline
evolved. For example, Gramsci identified common sense thought with the masses and
theoretical thought with the elite. Earlier, when it was close to philosophy, common
sense was seen as complementary. But when it moved closer to Positivism, common
sense was almost discarded. Anti-Positivist on the other hand again tried to give
importance to common sense. So, relationship between the two is dynamic and even
mutually reinforcing at times.

32
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

SOCIOLOGY AS A SCIENCE

33
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Sociology as a Science

A science of society became possible when it was clearly understood and accepted by
most that society is a creation of humans and not of God. Sociology as a scientific
discipline can be derived from the strict rules of evidence which are reliable and valid.

By examining the relationship between sociology and scientific methodology that is

followed by the natural sciences, we can understand if sociology is scientific in the
same way as a natural science is. It is also possible to find out if sociology can be
scientific even when it does not follow the methodology and methods of the natural
sciences. For this purpose, we need to examine various methodologies followed by
sociologists in their work and then appreciate the claim of calling sociology as
scientific discipline.

In order to appreciate sociology as a Science of Society, it is useful exercise to outline

Comte‘s ideas on the nature of sociology. This will give us an insight into the kind of
scientific approach early sociologists followed. This approach gave an impetus to
sociology to gradually develop into a reflexive science. Comte in his book ‗Course of
Positive Philosophy‘ made a point that laws governing the behavior of people in the
social world could be discovered through the development of a positive philosophy of
human development.

Comte was saying that social scientists could use the methodology and insight of the
natural sciences as the model for the development of social physics or sociology. It is
here have gave an idea of positivism which we learn late in detail. According to
Comte, the aim of science was not to explain why things came into existence or the
cause of their being. He held that the aim of science was the explanation of how things
related to one another in terms of variable and universal laws.

Gathering of factual knowledge is carried out through observation, experimentation,

comparison and prediction so that it would be possible to explain the laws in terms of
their relationship to each other. Positivism of Comte espoused that science means the
progressive discovery of laws and their interrelationships so that science could one
day propound a general law from which all other laws emanate. He assumed that the
social world was a regular and objective as was the natural world. For him, social laws
governed the social world just as natural laws governed the natural world. Thus, he
considered the methodology of the natural sciences as the ideal way to discover laws
governing the social world and he advocated the development of a new positive
outlook, based on the methodology of the natural sciences.

Comte thought that the main task of sociology was to discover the general laws of
social development and he divided the general laws into following categories:

34
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

a) Laws of co-existence or social static: These laws govern the relationship between
different parts of society and as such they determined the functions and
interrelationships between the various parts.

b) Laws of succession or social dynamics: These laws govern social change and
required an exploration of the way the nature and function of social institutions
changed over time.

Hence he argued that task of sociology was to discover the Laws of Development by
a) systemic observation, b) collection of data or facts and c) development of theories
to explain the facts.

Popper believed that it was possible for ‗social sciences‘ in general and sociology in
particular to become scientific by following

Karl Popper saw that scientific method is highly desirable but argued that science is a
deductive rather than inductive methodology. He rejected many sociological theories
as being unscientific because they were not sufficiently precise to generate hypotheses
that could be falsified.

Scientific Method

The scientific method involves developing and testing theories about the world based
on empirical evidence. It is defined by its commitment to systematic observation of
the empirical world and strives to be objective, critical, skeptical, and logical. It
involves a series of prescribed steps that have been established over centuries.

In general, sociologists tackle questions about the role of social characteristics in

outcomes. For example, how do different communities fare in terms of psychological
well-being, community cohesiveness, range of vocation, wealth, crime rates, and so
on? Are communities functioning smoothly? Sociologists look between the cracks to
discover obstacles to meeting basic human needs. They might study environmental
influences and patterns of behaviour that lead to crime, substance abuse, divorce,
poverty, unplanned pregnancies, or illness. And, because sociological studies are not
all focused on problematic behaviours or challenging situations, researchers might
study vacation trends, healthy eating habits, neighbourhood organizations, higher
education patterns, games, parks, and exercise habits.

Typically, the scientific method starts with these steps—1) ask a question, 2) research
existing sources, 3) formulate a hypothesis

1) The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, describe a problem, and
identify the specific area of interest. The topic should be narrow enough to study
within a geography and timeframe.

35
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

2) Research Existing Sources The next step researchers undertake is to

conduct background research through a literature review, which is a review of any
existing similar or related studies. This step helps researchers gain a broad
understanding of work previously conducted on the topic at hand and enables them to
position their own research to build on prior knowledge. It allows them to sharpen the
focus of their research question and avoid duplicating previous research.

3) Formulate a Hypothesis A hypothesis is an assumption about how two or

more variables are related; it makes a conjectural statement about the relationship
between those variables. It is an ―educated guess‖ because it is not random but based
on theory, observations, patterns of experience, or the existing literature. The
hypothesis formulates this guess in the form of a testable proposition.

Successful prediction will determine the adequacy of the hypothesis and thereby test
the theoretical proposition.

Positivism and its critique

Influenced by the prevailing atmosphere of rationalism and science, positivists

attempted to define the subject and the method in scientific and objective terms. Early
sociologists like Saint Simon, Comte, Spencer and Durkheim laid the foundation of
positivistic theory. They contended that society is also governed by certain fixed laws
and hence, is predictable. According to this approach, behaviour of man can also be
objectively measured and statements based on objective measures of cause and effect
can be made leading to formulation of theories.

Comte concretised the conception of a positivist discipline as true knowledge which is

based upon thinking about physical and social world as a causal relationship between
realities which we can observe either directly or indirectly. According to him -
‗Sociology is the last and the most sophisticated of all the science as it deals with all
aspects of humanity and society‘. He suggested four methods for the study of new
discipline, viz. Observation, Experimentation, Historical and Comparative. He defined
the scope of new positive social science as - social dynamics, dealing with social
change and social statics dealing with the equilibrium and stability of social System.

Salient features of positivism can be characterized as follows:

a) It believes in the unity of method. Sociology is not different from the natural
sciences as far as the method of enquiry is concerned.
b) It celebrates objectivity and value neutrality. It, therefore, separates the knower
from the known, subjectivity from objectivity, and fact from value.
c) Sociology is not commonsense. I t rests on explanatory principles, which give a
universal character to the discipline. Sociology is a formal and organised body of
knowledge, characterised by specialised skills and techno-scientific vocabulary.

36
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

d) Sociology can strive for abstraction and generalisation. Human experiences can be
explained through law-like generalisations.
e) The scientific knowledge of society can be used for social engineering.

Thus, Positivism glorified Sociology as scientific discipline, different from other

social sciences like History and Philosophy, which have subjectivity speculations and
value elements. Marxists and functionalists both invariably fall under the category of
Positivists as they make deterministic and predictive statements about the social
actors.

For Karl Popper, the belief that universal laws could be established through repeatedly
experiencing an event was an illogical one. Simply because something has been seen
before is not to say that it is an ahistorical truth and that it will continue to be so
forever. Therefore, regardless of empiricism and objectivity, ‗a non-empirical logical
principle remains intrinsic to scientific method‘.

Positivism‘s greatest shortcoming with reference to the social sciences is in its failure
to distinguish between the natural and social worlds. Positivists do not take into
consideration three important distinctions between the natural and social sciences.
First, social structures do not exist independently of the activities which they shape or
are the product of. Second, social structures reflect upon the institutions to which they
belong and alter their behaviour accordingly. Third, social structures will be shaped by
the actions. The failure to identify and respond to these clear differences between the
social and natural worlds is perhaps positivism‘s greatest failure with regard to the
social sciences.

In the words of Habermas, Positivism loses sight of the actors reducing them to
passive entities determined by natural forces. As the actor in society is distinct, the
critical theorists like Habermas would not accept the idea that the general laws of
science can be applied without taking into account the autonomous human action.

FACT, VALUE AND OBJECTIVITY

Derived from Latin word factum a fact is something that has really occurred or is
actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is its verifiability, that is,
whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Scientific facts are verified by
repeatable experiments. Thus, a fact is regarded as an empirically verifiable
observation.

Thus there is an intricate relation between theory and fact. Facts (empirical research)
and theory are inherently dependent on each other. Factual research and theories can
never completely be separated. We can only develop valid theoretical approaches if
we are able to test them out by means of factual research.

The significance of facts was asserted by the early founding fathers of sociology, be it
Comte, Spencer or Durkheim. They emphasised on the study of only those aspects of

37
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

social reality which could be empirically observed and hence quantified. Anti-
positivist scholars, on the other hand, argued that the subject matter of sociology is the
study of human behaviour in society and all human behaviour is guided by values.
Hence, these scholars, be it Max Weber, Mead, etc. suggested social action approach
to study society.

Value

Values are socially accepted standards of desirability. In other words, a value is a

belief that something is good and desirable. It defines what is important and
worthwhile. Values differ from society to society and culture to culture. For example,
in West, the dominant values are individualism and materialism which are this -
worldly in nature. While in India, moksha had been a long cherished goal of human
life which is other-worldly in nature.

Values often suggest how people should behave. Values portray an ideal culture, the
standards society would like to embrace and live up to. Values are deeply embedded
and critical for transmitting and teaching a culture‘s beliefs. Beliefs are the tenets or
convictions that people hold to be true. Individuals in a society have specific beliefs,
but they also share collective values. Values are not static; they vary across time and
between groups as people evaluate, debate, and change collective societal beliefs.
Values also vary from culture to culture.

Both positivist and anti- positivist scholars are clear that without taking into account
the values that underlie human behaviour, a comprehensive understanding of man‘s
social behaviour would not be possible. Our reliance on positivist approach alone
would produce a partial picture of social reality. But if we undertake study of values
as well in the course of sociological research then the problem of objectivity raises its
head.

Problem of Objectivity

Robert Bierstadt states, ―Objectivity means that the conclusions arrived at as the result
of inquiry and investigation are independent of the race, colour, creed, occupation,
nationality, religion, moral preference, and political predisposition of the investigator.
If his research is truly objective, it is independent of any subjective elements; any
personal desires that he may have‖.

The question of objectivity has been central to the methodological debates of the
social sciences from the beginning.

38
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Objectivity in any scientific study including social science is important because:

a) Though complete objectivity is not possible in social science, aiming at it, or
attaining as much of it as reasonably possible, is a necessary condition for the conduct
of all scientific inquiry.
b) Viewing inquiry as subjective, or as an entirely individual matter, would be the
exclusion of all criticisms.
c) Ignoring objectivity would be the exclusion of rational debate
d) Ignoring objectivity would be the denial of thesis of the intellectual or rational unity
of mankind, which opens the door to irrationalism and elitism.
e) Objectivity is the goal of scientific investigation. Sociology also being a science
aspires for the goal of objectivity.

The need of objectivity in sociological research has been emphasized by Durkheim, in

this ‗Rules of the Sociological Method‘ stated that ‗social facts‘ must be treated as
‗things‘ and all preconceived notions about the social facts must be abandoned.
However, objectivity continues to be an elusive goal at the practical level.

Gunnar Myrdal states that complete objectivity in social sciences is a myth. Gunnar
Myrdal in his book ‗Objectivity in Social Research‘ argues that total objectivity is an
illusion which can never be achieved. Because all research is always guided by certain
viewpoints and viewpoints involve subjectivity. Myrdal argues that subjectivity creeps
in at various stages in the course of sociological research. For example, the very
choice of topic of research is influenced by personal preferences and ideological
biases of the researcher.

Besides personal preferences, the impact of ideological biases on social research can
be very far reaching. Robert Redfield studied Tepoztalan village in Mexico with a
functionalist perspective and concluded that there exists total harmony between
various groups in the village while Oscar Lewis studied this village at almost the same
time from Marxist perspective, and found that the society was conflict ridden. Here
we can see that how the differences of ideological perspectives had a bearing on the
research findings even though the society studied was the same.

Subjectivity can also creep in at the time of formulation of hypothesis. Normally

hypotheses are deducted from existing body of theory. Now all sociological theories
are produced by and limited to particular groups whose view points and interests they

39
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

represent. Thus formulation of hypotheses will automatically introduce a bias in the

sociological research.

Subjectivity as opposed to objectivity creeps in the course of research in collection of

empirical data. For example, in case of participant observation, the observer as a result
of ‗nativisation‘ acquires a bias in favour of the group he is studying. While in non-
participant observation, the sociologist belongs to a different group than that under
study. He is likely to impose his values and prejudices. In all societies there are certain
prejudices. For e.g., in America, people have prejudices against the Blacks and in
India, people have prejudices against untouchables or women. Such prejudices of the
observer may influence his observation.

Finally, subjectivity can also creep in due to field limitations as was found in case of
Andre Beteille‘s study of Sripuram village in Tanjore where the Brahmins did not
allow him to visit the untouchable locality and study their point of view.

Myrdal argues that sociology at best could aspire for the goal of value-neutrality on
the part of the researcher. This could be attained by either of the following ways:

a) The researcher should exclude all ideological or non-scientific assumptions from

his research.
b) The researcher should make his value-preference clear in the research monograph.
c) The researcher should not make any evaluative judgement about empirical
evidence.
d) The researcher should remain indifferent to the moral implication of his research.
e) Highly trained and skilled research workers should be employed.
f) Various methods of data collection should be used and the result obtained from one
should be cross checked with those from the other.
g) Field limitations must be clearly stated in the research monograph.

Nevertheless, the importance of objectivity is recognized by sociologists. There may

be ardent followers of objectivity as an overriding method in social sciences. But the
subject matter of sociology does not allow us to negate role of other values in theory
building and research. Consequently, one can conclude that objectivity must play a
significant role in sociology but it shall not be made a lone standard in judging
research studies of social sciences. Otherwise, the uniqueness of social sciences will
wither away without any tangible gains for the mankind.

40
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

RESEARCH METHODS & ANALYSIS

41
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

What is Research?
Research is a systematised effort to gain new knowledge. It is careful consideration of
study regarding a particular concern or problem using scientific methods. According
to the American sociologist Earl Robert Babbie, ―research is a systematic inquiry to
describe, explain, predict, and control the observed phenomenon. It involves inductive
and deductive methods.‖

Purpose of research is to:

1. Explore: As the name suggests, researchers conduct exploratory studies to
explore a group of questions. The answers and analytics may not offer a conclusion to
the perceived problem. It is undertaken to handle new problem areas that haven‘t been
explored before. This exploratory process lays the foundation for more conclusive
data collection and analysis.
2. Describe: It focuses on expanding knowledge on current issues through a
process of data collection. Descriptive studies describe the behavior of a sample
population. Only one variable is required to conduct the study. The three primary
purposes of descriptive studies are describing, explaining, and validating the findings.
For example, a study conducted to know if top-level management leaders in the 21st
century possess the moral right to receive a considerable sum of money from the
company profit.
3. Explain: Explanatory or causal research is conducted to understand the impact of
specific changes in existing standard procedures. Running experiments is the most
popular form. For example, a study that is conducted to understand the effect of
rebranding on customer loyalty.
Research begins by asking the right questions and choosing an appropriate method to
investigate the problem. After collecting answers to your questions, you can analyze
the findings or observations to draw reasonable conclusions.

Research Structure and Process

Research design is a kind of blueprint that is prepared before carrying out research.
Actually it is a systematically prepared outline stating the manner in which one plans
to carry out their research. Research can be contemplated in terms of two facets,
namely the empirical and analytical facet. In practical terms one may plan research in
terms of a phase of data collection and another phase of analyzing the data.
Theoretical orientation and conceptual models helps deciding the kind of data to
collect and to some extent also how to collect them. Analyzing data will help to
classify and to recognize the pattern in order to explain and present the findings.
Research is an ongoing process consisting of a series of steps, beginning with
identifying various concepts related to research theme and it continues through a set of
regulated steps to its conclusion.

42
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

The structuring of the research process is an essential part of science. This does not
mean that these steps are always in a sequence. In fact, the various phases of research
overlap. At times the first step determines the nature of the last step. The steps
involved are neither mutually exclusive, nor they are separate and distinct.

Defining research questions or research problem: the first step is to select and
clearly define the problem to be researched. A research problem in general refers to
some enquiry, which a researcher undertakes in the context of either a theoretical or
practical situation and wants to obtain an explanation of the same. Essentially two
steps are involved in formulating the research problems, that is, understanding the
problems thoroughly and rephrasing it into meaningful terms from the analytical point
of view.

Research question has to clearly state the topic of research and the theoretical
foundations on which it rests. Unless one has a clear idea of the objectives, the course
of the research will not be smooth and the data will not have the desired consistency
because it is possible that one can approach a topic from the viewpoint of different
perspectives, each addressing a different set of issues.

Literature Review: The purpose of reviewing the existing literature on your research
theme is to help you assess the feasibility of the project but also to formulate an
effective methodology. The outcome of review will be that one can know about

43
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

available data and other materials on the theme of research. A clearer statement of
specific research questions is likely to emerge after literature review.
When researchers prepare a research design they draw an outline of the entire research
process to have a clear picture of the nature of data that would help tackle the research
questions. For instance, researchers decide in advance how many case studies would
help them draw meaningful conclusions or the number of life histories that they need
to collect and of which categories of persons. A lot of hard work and insightful
thinking goes into the process. Researchers review the past studies on their topics and
work upon their research questions to arrive at a realistic research design.

Hypothesis: After extensive literature survey, you need to state in clear terms the
working hypothesis or hypotheses. The hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in
order to test its logical or empirical consequences. Hypothesis can be defined as
proposition or a set of propositions as a set forth as an explanation for the occurrence
of some specified phenomena either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to
guide some investigation or accepted as highly probable in the light of established
facts. A hypothesis may seem contrary to the real situation. It may prove to be correct
or incorrect. In any event, it leads to an empirical test.

Hypothesis needs to be clear and precise and capable of being tested. It is to be limited
in scope and consistent with known or established facts and should be amenable to
testing within the stipulated time. It needs to explain what it claims to explain and
should have empirical reference.

Theoretical orientation: research design needs to clearly spell out the data collection
methods to be employed; as methodological and philosophical orientations govern
choice of methods. Research design would elucidate the methodological and
theoretical basis of research and helps to identify appropriate methods and techniques
of data collection.

For instance, for positivistic orientation, one would rely on observational method as
social reality would be an observable entity. On the other hand to adopt a
phenomenological model, one would employ various kinds of interviews. A
researcher conforming to the post-modernist approach would view social reality as
multidimensional and record multiple voices and interpretations.

Research methods: research methods fall into broad categories of quantitative and
qualitative approaches, but studies frequently use ―mixed methods‖ incorporating
both. Quantitative methods include measurement by sample surveys, statistical
modeling, social networks, and demography. Qualitative methods include interviews,
focus groups, observation, and textual analysis. One must choose their research
method based on the research criteria.

Sampling Strategy: Before starting with data collection one has to identify the
sample to study i.e. universe and the unit of study. The identification of universe
implies demarcation of the physical area and social unit of study. The universe

44
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

consists of the population within a well-defined area where the study is to be

conducted. A smaller and more manageable group may be selected by sampling.
The outlines of the universe and its attributes may be delineated more clearly by a
taking a census and then making the choice of the group(s) to work on. Within the
broad universe the group(s) selected as focus of study is called the unit of study.
Sample is the smaller representation of a larger whole. Sampling allows the researcher
to work scientifically and saves time. The sample must be a true representative of the
universe, as well as being adequate in size.

Pilot Study: The pilot study is the leading study in the research area. The pilot study
leads the researcher to the full-length investigation depending on the size of the
population and the amount of time. It is a pre-testing of research methods and
techniques in order to perfect them. Pilot study will ensure that right questions have
been put in the questionnaires for making the fieldwork fruitful. It makes aware of the
difficulties beforehand and provides you an opportunity of modifying your techniques
to suit field conditions. Pilot study depends upon the size of the population, the time
available and the availability of funds.

Data Collection: There are several ways of collecting data. Primary data are those,
which the researcher collects by themselves. Secondary data can be collected from
reference sources like the library etc. There are two main techniques of data
collection, namely, intensive fieldwork methods and survey methods. Intensive
fieldwork methods include observation, interview, case study, genealogy etc.

Analysis and Report writing: After data collection, analysis requires a number of
closely related operations such as establishing categories and their application to raw
data through coding, tabulation to draw statistical inferences.

Qualitative Research Methods

Qualitative research methods have a long and distinguished history within sociology.
They trace their roots back to Max Weber‘s call for an interpretive understanding of
action. Today, qualitative sociology encompasses a variety of specific procedures for
collecting data, ranging from life history interviews to direct observation of social
interaction to embedded participant observation. In all of these cases, the social
scientist directly interacts with those whom he or she is studying. The social scientist
attempts to see the world from their perspective and to interpret their practices in a
meaningful way.

In fact, scholars such as Howard Becker and Clifford Geertz have argued that the
ultimate test of the validity of a qualitative research study is whether it produces an
account of social action that would make sense to the actors themselves. As this would
imply, the foundational logic underlying qualitative studies differs from that of
variable-oriented quantitative research. The latter measures particular properties of
social phenomena and then uses statistical models to determine patterns of association
among these properties, or variables. Qualitative researchers have at their disposal a

45
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

variety of assumptions, theories, and methods to produce rich accounts of social life.
This can offer unique insight into the relationship between microsocial and
macrosocial worlds and even global forces.

Ethnography

Ethnography is essentially about embedding ourselves as researchers within specific

social settings for a prolonged period of time, in order to develop a richer
understanding of the dynamics and complexities of social life, social relations, and the
workings of society. Within these settings we observe, we listen, and we try to
experience and understand ideas and practices from the perspective of those we are
studying.

Ethnography aims to understand social phenomena from the ‗inside‘, by observing

and participating in social activities, by talking to people in their ‗natural‘ settings and
in collecting materials (photographs, texts, literature, statistics) that helps us to
develop an understanding of the social context in which social meanings and activities
are embedded.

The material ethnographers collect is then used to construct a detailed description and
analysis of the phenomena under investigation. Through this material, knowledge is
produced, theories developed, and research practices are reflected upon that help us to
shed light on aspects of society that can only be accessed through intimate and
extended forms of investigation.

To conduct ethnographic research and produce ethnography, researchers typically

embed themselves in their chosen field site over a long period of time. They do this so
that they can develop a robust dataset composed of systematic observations,
interviews, and historical and investigative research, which requires repeated, careful
observations of the same people and settings. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz referred
to this process as generating "thick description," which means a description that digs
below the surface by asking questions that begin with the following: who, what,
where, when, and how.

One disadvantage of ethnographic research is that it can sometimes be difficult to gain

access to and establish trust within a desired field site. It can also be difficult for
researchers to dedicate the time required to conduct a rigorous ethnography, given
limits on research funding and their other professional commitments (e.g. teaching).

Participant Observation: Participant observation entails data gathering through

participation in the daily life of informants in their natural settings. A social researcher
watches, observes and talks to people in order to understand their interpretations,
social meanings and activities. The classical notion behind such practices is to
discover the gap between what people think, do and say. The researcher adds to this
the dimension of her/his personal experiences of sharing the everyday life of those
under study.

46
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Participant observation allows the researcher to understand people and their behaviour
through direct focused non-verbal observing in their natural settings, whereas in an
interview the focus moves to verbal communication. Observation is used as one of the
primary techniques of data collection in sociological fieldwork, which can be both
intrusive, i.e. as a participant and non-intrusive, i.e. as a non-participant.

Those researchers whose subject of enquiry does not necessarily involve mixing up
with people employ the non-participant type of observation. For instance, a researcher
can observe student-teacher interaction over a period of time in this type of
interaction. The prerequisite of such an observation is working with an observation
schedule where a list of topics is mentioned guiding the researcher to specifically
observe certain types of behaviour. Non-participant observation has been found to be
more useful in complex social situations.

The strengths of participant observation include the depth of knowledge that it allows
the researcher to obtain and the perspective of knowledge of social problems and
phenomena generated from the level of the everyday lives of those experiencing them.
Many consider this an egalitarian research method because it centers the experiences,
perspectives, and knowledge of those studied. This type of research has been the
source of some of the most striking and valuable studies in sociology.

Some drawbacks or weaknesses of this method are that it is very time-consuming,

with researchers spending months or years living in the place of study. Because of
this, participant observation can yield a vast amount of data that might be
overwhelming to comb through and analyze. And, researchers must be careful to
remain somewhat detached as observers, especially as time passes and they become an
accepted part of the group, adopting its habits, ways of life, and perspectives.
Questions about objectivity and ethics were also frequently raised.

Interview

An interview involves an interviewer asking questions verbally to a respondent.

Interviews involve a more direct interaction between the researcher and the
respondent than questionnaires.

The interview methodology is one of the oldest of the research methodologies. It takes
place through a process in which the subject is asked a series of questions to which
they are free to respond as they wish. There is no ideal answer to a question. This
method is useful in the collection of data revealing the values, experiences,
perspectives, and views of the population under study. Interviews can either be
conducted face to face, via phone, video link or social media.

It is different from survey interviews in the sense they are less structured. Although
the interviewer must be ready with a specific set of questions to be asked, it is not
necessary that they ask it in a particular order. An interview can be flexible and
continuous rather than being rigidly structured.

47
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Types of interview

Structured or formal interviews are those in which the interviewer asks the
interviewee the same questions in the same way to different respondents. This will
typically involve reading out questions from a pre-written and pre-coded structured
questionnaire.

Unstructured or Informal interviews (also called discovery interviews) are more

like a guided conversation. The interviewer has complete freedom to vary the
questions from respondent to respondent, so they can follow whatever lines of enquiry
they think are most appropriated, depending on the responses given by each
respondent.

Semi-Structured interviews are those in which interviewer has a list of questions, but
they are free to ask further, differentiated questions based on the responses given.

Group interviews – Interviews can be conducted either one to one (individual

interviews) or in a group, in which the interviewer interviews two or more respondents
at a time.

Focus groups are a type of group interview in which respondents are asked to discuss
certain topics.
Advantages:
1. It provides flexibility to the interviewers
2. The interview has a better response rate than mailed questions, and the people
who cannot read and write can also answer the questions.
3. The interviewer can judge the non-verbal behavior of the respondent.
4. The interviewer can decide the place for an interview in a private and silent
place, unlike the ones conducted through emails which can have a completely
different environment.
5. The interviewer can control over the order of the question, as in the
questionnaire, and can judge the spontaneity of the respondent as well.

48
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Disadvantages:
1. Conducting interview studies can be very costly as well as very time-
consuming.
2. An interview can cause biases. For example, the respondent‘s answers can be
affected by his reaction to the interviewer‘s race, class, age or physical
appearance.
3. Interview studies provide less anonymity, which is a big concern for many
respondents.
4. There is a lack of accessibility to respondents (unlike conducting mailed
questionnaire study) since the respondents can be in around any corner of the
world or country.

Case Study

Involves a careful and complete observation of a social unit, be that unit a person, a
family, an institution, a cultural group or even the entire community. It is a method of
study in depth rather than breadth. The case study places more emphasis on the full
analysis of a limited number of events or conditions and their interrelations. The case
study deals with the processes that take place and their inter relationship. Thus, case
study is essentially an intensive investigation of the particular unit under
consideration.

The object of the case study method is to locate the factors that account for the
behaviour-patterns of the given unit as an integrated totality. According to H. Odum,
―The case study method is a technique by which individual factor whether it be an
institution or just an episode in the life of an individual or a group is analysed in its
relationship to any other in the group.‖

The important characteristics of the case study method are as under:

1. Under this method the researcher can take one single social unit or more of
such units for his study purpose; he may even take a situation to study the same
comprehensively.
2. Here the selected unit is studied intensively i.e., it is studied in minute details.
Generally, the study extends over a long period of time to ascertain the natural
history of the unit so as to obtain enough information for drawing correct
inferences.
3. In the context of this method we make complete study of the social unit
covering all facets. Through this method we try to understand the complex of
factors that are operative within a social unit as an integrated totality.
4. Under this method the approach happens to be qualitative and not quantitative.
Mere
5. Quantitative information is not collected. Every possible effort is made to
collect information concerning all aspects of life.

49
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Advantages:
1. Being an exhaustive study of a social unit, the case study method enables us to
understand fully the behaviour pattern of the concerned unit. In the words of
CH Cooley, ―case study deepens our perception and gives us a clearer insight
into life…. It gets at behaviour directly and not by an indirect and abstract
approach.‖
2. Through case study a researcher can obtain a real and enlightened record of
personal experiences which would reveal man‘s inner strivings, tensions and
motivations that drive him to action along with the forces that direct him to
adopt a certain pattern of behavior.
3. This method enables the researcher to trace out the natural history of the social
unit and its relationship with the social factors and the forces involved in its
surrounding environment.
4. Information collected under the case study method helps a lot to the researcher
in the task of constructing the appropriate questionnaire or schedule for the said
task requires thorough knowledge of the concerning universe.

Disadvantages:
1. The information gathered in case studies is often not comparable as the subject
under case study tells history in his own words, logical concepts and units of
scientific classification have to be read into it or out of it by the investigator.
2. The danger of false generalisation is always there in view of the fact that no set
rules are followed in collection of the information and only few units are
studied.
3. It consumes more time and requires lot of expenditure. More time is needed
under case study method since one studies the natural history cycles of social
units and that too minutely.
4. Case study method can be used only in a limited sphere., it is not possible to
use it in case of a big society. Sampling is also not possible under a case study
method.

The feminist perspective on interviewing

Feminist methodology rejects the assumption that maintaining a strict separation

between the researcher and the researched produces a more valid, objective account.
One way in which feminists avoid treating their subjects as mere objects of knowledge
is to allow the respondent to talk back to the investigator. It aims at building more
from the sharing between the researcher and his respondents. In order to do this the
researchers need to interview in ways that allow the exploration of incompletely
articulated aspects of women's experiences. Ann Oakley's (1981) feminist paradigm
for interviewing seeks to minimize objectification of the subject as data by viewing
the interview as an interactional exchange.

In her framework, answering the questions of interviewees personalises and

humanises the researcher and places the interaction on a more equal footing. The
meaning of the interview to both the interviewer and the interviewee and the quality of

50
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

interaction between the two participants are all salient issues when a feminist
interviews women. Oakley also points out that interactive interviewing is an approach
that documents women's own accounts of their experiences and allows the sociologist
to garner knowledge not simply for the sake of knowledge but for the women who are
providing information.

Traditionally, qualitative researchers have conducted interviews that are "open-ended"

and "intensive", seeking to avoid structuring the interaction in terms of the
researcher's perspective. But eliciting useful accounts is much more than encouraging
women to talk. Most members of a society learn to interpret their experiences in terms
of the dominant language and meaning and women have trouble talking about their
experiences.

Life Histories

The life history approach to social research and theory subsumes several
methodological techniques and types of data. These include case studies, interviews
and use of documents, including letters, diaries, archival records, oral histories and
various kinds of narratives. It was used extensively in the 1920s and 1930s and was
identified with the Chicago School. In the 1970s however, there began a resurgence of
interest in life history research not only in the USA but also in Europe.

The main assumptions of this approach are that the actions of the individual and
groups are simultaneously emergent and structured and that the individual and group
perspectives must be used for analysis. Thus, any materials that served those
perspectives can be regarded as essential to the empirical study of social life.

These data includes newspaper articles, letters to family members, records from courts
and social work agencies. This approach was used in n research on race relations,
delinquency, mass media, migration, occupation and other issues centered primarily in
the veers of ethnic and urban studies. Current uses of life history research display
considerable variation as well as more precise conceptual distinctions. Terms such as
"life story", "bibliography", "discourse", "history", "oral history", "personal
experience narratives", "collective narratives", and "sagas" are now distinguished
from one another and frameworks for linking types of verbal accounts to types of
generalisations have been developed. It is now common to regard life histories as a
legitimate form of data.

In the Indian context, Dalit sociology is making use of the life histories of selected
Untouchables. The scheduled castes have constructed through writings of
untouchables - be it poem, short story, biography or autobiography - lives that have
the essential element of social and economic liberation. The life history of Muli, a
Dalit, written by Freeman (1978) provides an insight into the nature of caste
oppression in Indian society. According to the author many incident in his life show
striking similarities with events in other cultures and his case stands as an indictment
of stratified systems like caste and others.

51
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is a methodology used for interactive processes

of social development: It is a way of learning from people, with the people and by the
people. It is, therefore, a methodology for analyses, planning, monitoring and
evaluation.

The term PRA describes a growing family of approaches and methods to enable local
people to share, enhance and analyse their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan
and to act. PRA flows from and owes much to the activist. Participatory research,
agro-ecosystem analysis, applied anthropology, field research on farming systems and
rapid rural appraisal in RRA information is more elicited and extracted by outsiders;
in PRA it is more shared and owned by local people. The one most important principle
is "use your own best judgment at all times" which implies improvisation. PRA
enables rural people to unravel and analyse their own situation in ways they do not
normally do, and in optimal cases to plan and act on their own premises.

PRA is an assessment and learning process that empowers local people to create the
information base they need for participatory planning and action. Outsiders contribute
facilitation skills and external information and opinions. They generally serve the
purpose of dialogue with the people, information generation, analysis in some cases
and mobilisation of people around certain issues like land rights, water, public
distribution system, etc. Since the NGOs involve multidisciplinary teams, the PRA
exercises take a multidisciplinary perspective.

Questionnaires

A questionnaire, or social survey, is a popular research method that consists of a list of

questions. If administered directly by the researcher to the subject in person then this
is the same as a structured interview, however, questionnaires can also be completed
independently (self-completion questionnaires) and therefore administered in bulk
through the post or electronically, for example. The method can use closed or open
questions or indeed a mixture of the two, depending on what sort data is desired and
how the researcher intends to analyse it. A questionnaire is a list of pre-set questions
to which the participants are asked to answer. A written questionnaire will require the
participant to answer the questions in writing. A spoken questionnaire is an interview.
Questionnaires include the ability to access a large sample and, if using largely closed
questions, the ability to generate a large amount of quantitative data that can be
analysed easily. Of course, for the data to be analysed easily, the questionnaire needs
to have been well designed (this can be tested with a pilot study).

It is also possible to achieve some triangulation with this method without having to
combine with other methods, because using a mixture of open and closed questions
can provide a combination of quantitative and qualitative data. This method is usually
considered to be reliable because everyone is responding to the same questions,

52
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

although this is less true if the questions are open as everyone might interpret them
differently.

Closed questionnaires – are very structured with the participant having a few set
answers to choose from.
Advantages of closed questionnaires
1. Quick to complete
2. Data is quantitative so easy to analyse and compute
3. They allow comparisons to be made with other sets of data
4. The research is easy to repeat
Disadvantages of closed questionnaires
1. You cannot explain a questionnaire to a participant so it could be confusing
2. You cannot follow up with extra questions to gain richer data
3. The participant might not agree with any of the answers they have to choose
from.

Open-ended questionnaires – are less structured than closed questionnaires. There

will normally be a set number of questions, but there is no pre-set choice of answers,
so the participant can say whatever they want. This method will often involve an
interview rather than written question.
Advantages of open questionnaires
1. The participant isn‘t limited by set answers, so they can express what they
really mean and explain why they think this
2. The interviewer can follow up with more questions, meaning you get richer
data.
3. In general you get richer data because the answers will be longer and more in
depth.

Disadvantages of open questionnaires

1. You get qualitative data, which is hard to quantify and analyse
2. This makes it hard to compare one set of data with another
3. The interviewer has to interpret the data, and they could interpret it differently
to how the participant meant it.

Surveys

Surveys – are typically structured questionnaires designed to collect information from

large numbers of people in standardised form.

Social Surveys are written in advance by the researcher and tend to be pre-coded and
have a limited number of closed-questions and they tend to focus on relatively simple
topics. A good example is National Census. Social Surveys can be administered
(carried out) in a number of different ways – they might be self-completion
(completed by the respondents themselves) or they might take the form of a structured
interview.

53
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

This research method is used for collecting data from a predefined group of
respondents to gain information and insights into various topics of interest. They can
have multiple purposes, and researchers can conduct it in many ways depending on
the methodology chosen and the study‘s goal.

The data is usually obtained through the use of standardized procedures to ensure that
each respondent can answer the questions at a level playing field to avoid biased
opinions that could influence the outcome of the research or study. The process
involves asking people for information through a questionnaire, which can be either
online or offline. However, with the arrival of new technologies, it is common to
distribute them using digital media such as social networks, email, QR codes, or
URLs.

Surveys can be of various types –

1. On basis of objective of survey – descriptive or analytical. Descriptive surveys
provide a description of given situation – for example – poverty levels, analytical
survey on the other hand aims to provide an explanation – for example – cause of
poverty.
2. On basis of sampling technique employed – simple random, stratified or cluster.
Since it is not possible to survey the whole population, samples are used in
survey to administer questionnaires or conducting structured interviews.

Success of a survey depends upon the quality of its data. If data is not valid, output of
survey is also affected. One of the major criticisms of survey on Suicide of Durkheim
was its poor quality.

Sociologists conduct surveys under controlled conditions for specific purposes.

Surveys gather different types of information from people. While surveys are not great
at capturing the ways people really behave in social situations, they are a great method
for discovering how people feel and think—or at least how they say they feel and
think.

Quantitative Methods of Research

Sampling Technique

Sampling is a process of selection of a limited number of items from a larger whole or

universe of items. Process of sampling requires defining population set first from
which samples will be chosen. After that sample frame is specified. After that,
sampling method is specified. It is of primarily two types – Probability Sampling and
Non-probability Sampling.

Probability Sampling

The probability model is a technique wherein samples are gathered in a way that gives
all the individuals in the population an equal chance of being selected. Many consider

54
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

this to be the more methodologically rigorous approach to sampling because it

eliminates social biases that could shape the research sample. In probability sampling,
each member of the population has a known non-zero probability of being selected.
The key point behind all probabilistic sampling approaches is random selection. The
advantage of probability sampling is that sampling error can be calculated, which is
the degree to which a sample might differ from the population. Probability methods
include random sampling, systematic sampling, and stratified sampling.

a. Random Sampling

Random sampling is the purest form of probability sampling. Each member of the
population has an equal and known chance of being selected. The prerequisite for a
random sample is that each and every item of the universe has to be identified.
Random selection is effective in a clearly defined population that is relatively small
and self-contained. When the population is large, it is often difficult or impossible to
identify its each and every member, so the assemblage of available subjects becomes
biased. One obtains a list of all residents or the voters list or telephone directory, and
then selects a sample using a sequence of numbers from a random numbers table.
Random numbers can also be created in numerous computer softwares.

A researcher studying a population of 1,000 might wish to choose a random sample of

50 people. First, each person is numbered 1 through 1,000. Then, you generate a list of
50 random numbers, typically with a computer program, and the individuals assigned
those numbers are the ones included in the sample.

When studying people, this technique is best used with a homogenous population, or
one that does not differ much by age, race, education level, or class. This is because
when dealing with a more heterogeneous population, a researcher runs the risk of
creating a biased sample if demographic differences are not taken into account.

b. Systematic Sample

In a systematic sample, the elements of the population are put into a list and then
every nth element in the list is chosen systematically for inclusion in the sample. This
is also called an "Nth-name selection" technique. After the required sample size has
been calculated, every ‗Nth‘ record is selected from a list of population members. As
long as the list does not contain any hidden order, this sampling method is as good as
the random sampling method. Its only advantage over the random sampling technique
is simplicity. Systematic sampling is frequently used to select a specified number of
records from a computer file.

For example, if the population of study contained 2,000 students at a high school and
the researcher wanted a sample of 100 students, the students would be put into list
form and then every 20th student would be selected for inclusion in the sample. To
ensure against any possible human bias in this method, the researcher should select the

55
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

first individual at random. This is technically called a systematic sample with a

random start.

c. Stratified Sample

Is a commonly used probability method that is superior to random sampling as it

reduces the sampling error. A stratum is a subset of the population that shares at least
one common characteristic. Examples of strata might be males and females, or
managers and non-managers. The researcher first identifies the relevant strata and
their actual representation in the population. Random sampling is then used to select a
'sufficient' number of subjects from each stratum. 'Sufficient' refers to a sample size
large enough for the researcher to be reasonably confident that the stratum represents
the population. Stratified sampling is most successful when (i) the within variance of
each stratum is less than the overall variance of the population; (ii) when the strata in
the population are of unequal size or have unequal incidence; and (iii) when sampling
is cheaper in the strata.

For example, to obtain a stratified sample of university students, the researcher would
first organize the population by college class and then select appropriate numbers of
freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. This would ensure that the researcher has
adequate amounts of subjects from each class in the final sample.

d. Cluster Sampling

This method allows one to divide the population into clusters and then select the
clusters at random. Thereafter one can either study all the members of the selected
clusters or again take random (simple or systematic) samples of these sampled
clusters. If the latter system is followed, it is called multi-stage sampling. This
method, for example, could be effective to study a tribal group or a community that is
dispersed. The villages could be used as clusters and can be randomly selected. This
technique is useful when the population is dispersed across a wide geographic region.

Non-Probability Sampling Techniques

The non-probability model is a technique in which samples are gathered in a way that
does not give all individuals in a population equal chance of being selected. While
choosing, a non-probability method could result in biased data or a limited ability to
make general inferences based on the findings, there are also many situations in which
choosing this kind of sampling technique is the best choice for the particular research
question or the stage of research.

a) Convenience sampling is used in exploratory research where the investigator is

interested in getting an inexpensive approximation of the fact. As the name implies,
the sample is selected because it is convenient. Also called haphazard or accidental,
this method is based on using people who are a captive audience, just happen to be
walking by, or show a special interest in research. The use of volunteers is an example

56
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

of convenience sampling. This method is often used during preliminary research

efforts to get a gross estimate of the results, without incurring the cost or time required
to select a random sample.

b) Quota Sampling is the non-probability equivalent of stratified sampling is one in

which units are selected into a sample on the basis of pre-specified characteristics so
that the total sample has the same distribution of characteristics assumed to exist in the
population being studied.
For example, researchers conducting a national quota sample might need to know
which proportion of the population is male and which proportion is female. They
might also need to know the percentage of men and women who fall under different
age, race, or class brackets, among others. The researcher would then collect a sample
that reflected those proportions.

c) Judgment sampling is one that is selected based on the knowledge of a population

and the purpose of the study. The researcher selects the sample based on judgment.
This is usually an extension of convenience sampling. For example, a researcher may
decide to draw the entire sample from one 'representative' village, even though the
population may be distributed over a number of villages. When using this method, the
researcher 'feels' that the chosen sample is representative of the entire population.
For example, when sociologists wanted to study the long-term emotional and
psychological effects of choosing to terminate a pregnancy, they created a sample that
exclusively included women who'd gotten abortions. In this case, the researchers use a
purposive sample because those being interviewed fit a specific purpose or description
that was necessary to conduct the research.

d) Snowball Sampling is appropriate to use in research when the members of a

population are difficult to locate, such as homeless individuals, migrant workers, or
undocumented immigrants. A snowball sample is one in which the researcher collects
data on the few members of the target population he or she can locate and then asks
those individuals to provide the information needed to locate other members of that
population.

It may be extremely difficult or cost prohibitive to locate respondents in these

situations. Snowball sampling relies on referrals from initial subjects to generate
additional subjects. In other words, snowball sampling comprises identification of
respondents who in turn refer researches to other respondents. This technique provides
a means to access relatively invisible and vulnerable social groups.
For example, if a researcher wanted to interview undocumented immigrants from
Bangladesh, she might interview a few undocumented individuals that she knows or
can locate. Afterward, she would rely on those subjects to help locate more
undocumented individuals. This process continues until the researcher has all the
interviews she needs, or until all contacts have been exhausted.

This technique is useful when studying a sensitive topic that people might not openly
talk about, or if talking about the issues under investigation could jeopardize their

57
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

safety. A recommendation from a friend or acquaintance that the researcher can be

trusted works to grow the sample size.

Validity: refers to the accuracy of the data generated by the research instrument,
whether it is an interview or questionnaire or some other means of research.
In order for an experiment to be considered valid, it must first be considered internally
and externally valid. This means that an experiment's measuring tools must be able to
be used repeatedly to generate the same results.
In sociology and research terms, internal validity is the degree to which an instrument,
such as a survey question, measures what it is intended to measure while external
validity refers to the ability of results of an experiment to be generalized beyond the
immediate study.
True validity comes when both the instruments used and the results of experiments
themselves are found to be accurate each time an experiment is conducted; as a result,
all data that is found to be valid must be considered reliable, which means it must be
capable of being repeated across multiple experiments.

Reliability: in general sense refers to consistency or repeatability. Consistency or

repeatability of results is concerned with the instrument used in data collection,
methodology adopted in the study and research design. ‗Reliability is the degree to
which a variable or test yields the same results when administered to the same people,
under the same circumstances‘ (Weller 1998). The research instrument is considered
to be reliable when the results obtained using the same instrument is consistent over
time and space. A research study may be said to be reliable if the results can be
reproduced using the same methodology.

In order to be reliable, research needs to be easily repeatable. Self-Completion

questionnaires have high reliability because it is easy for another researcher to
administer the questionnaire again. More in depth methods such as participant
observation, where the researcher can spend several months or even years with a small
group of respondents are not very reliable as it is impossible to replicate the exact
procedures of the original research. More qualitative methods also open up the
possibility for the researcher to get more involved with the research process, probing
respondents for very detailed information.

Reliability in qualitative research demands that the data are presented in such a way
that the reader can clearly differentiate the voice of the subject from the interpretations
of the researcher. It also demands that the procedures used by the researcher
constantly be re-checked and tuned so that the data obtained may be considered
dependable.

Triangulation: Sociologists use many different research methods when conducting

sociological research. Sociologists recognise the advantages and disadvantages of the
different methods of data collection that are available to them. Triangulation is the use
of more than one research method when carrying out a piece of research, so that the

58
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

different kinds of data will complement each other. Denzin states that triangulation is
a term used to assess the validity and reliability of research methods and data.
Triangulation is used in Sociological research to overcome the weaknesses associated
with each research method. Therefore by using different research methods, a greater
depth of information can be obtained and the data collected is more likely to be valid
and reliable. Triangulation will use both qualitative and quantitative methods so the
weaknesses of one method can be overcome by the strengths of the other method.

Advantages of triangulation
1. Advantage of one method compensates for the disadvantages of another
2. Studying from different perspectives give a fuller picture
3. Qualitative and quantitative data can be obtained
4. Check on reliability and increases validity

Disadvantages of triangulation
1. It is very time consuming
2. Can be expensive

Triangulation allows research strategies to be developed that avoid the problems

associated with using only one method. However, triangulation does not completely
eliminate the problems associated with a research method. It just covers the
weaknesses by utilising other methods with strengths in the areas of weakness in the
first method.

Difficulties & Problems Involved In Sociological Research

The sociologist's subject -matter presents some difficult research problems of a kind
that natural scientists rarely have to deal with. Sociologists are dealing with human
beings and not inanimate objects or unreflecting animals. They are people who have
self-awareness and complex individual personalities. They are capable of choosing
their own course of action for both rational and irrational reasons. The fact that the
sociologist is studying human beings poses some major problems to research
methodology.

1. When people come to know that they are being closely watched and observed
they may not behave in their usual way. The mere act of investigating social
behaviour may alter the very behaviour that is being observed. The presence,
personality and actions of the observer can disrupt the behaviour that is being
investigated.

2. People may give false information deliberately or unintentionally or by

ignorance. They may fail to understand a question put to them or they may
misinterpret it. They may cancel certain facts for reasons of their own. They may also
behave in unpredictable ways for a variety of peculiar reasons of their own. It is for
this reason sociological explanations and predictions are often less precise than those
of the physical sciences.

59
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

3. The origins of social behaviour are almost always extremely complex,

involving many social, psychological, historical and other factors: Establishing the
cause-and-effect relationship is highly problematic here. It is relatively easy to
establish why water boils and how fire bums and bomb explodes. It is much more
difficult to establish why people fall in love, why do they kill, why do they lie, etc.
The causes of social behaviour are usually innumerable and intricate.

4. For ethical reasons it becomes difficult to perform certain kinds of experiments

on human beings: These moral questions do not disturb the physical scientists who are
experimenting with water, gas, rays, minerals, etc. In the human world, the dignity
and privacy of human beings must be respected. We cannot deliberately make the
young boys to stay with young girls separately for a couple of days or weeks just to
test or assess the intensity of sex-morals, which have already been taught to them.
Similarly, we cannot make husbands to divorce their wives to study the impact of
divorce on children. Ethical considerations place severe limitations on the methods the
sociologists can use.

5. The sociologist, unlike the physical scientist, is part of the very subject he or
she is studying. It is therefore very difficult for a sociologist to maintain objectivity or
detached attitude towards his own study. An astronomer may look at and observe the
heavenly bodies without being disturbed emotionally. On the contrary, the sociologist
who is studying issues such as communal riots, race relations, ethnic conflicts, etc. can
become passionately involved in the outcome of the research. The researcher may
identify strongly with the problems and experiences of the subjects. As a result, the
process of investigation and interpretation get distorted.

Sociologists are aware of these problems involved in their research work. In spite of
these problems they aim to make sociology as exact and precise a science as possible.
Most of the sociologists probably accept the viewpoint expressed by Max Weber
many decades ago. Weber believed that sociology must model itself as far as possible
on the natural sciences, but its subject-matter, being so different, sometimes also calls
for an interpretative, subjective approach. '

As Ian Robertson has pointed out subjective interpretation which Weber called
Verstehen or sympathetic understanding is in no sense a substitute for the scientific
method. Wherever possible, the conclusions drawn from subjective interpretation
must be verified by the scientific method‘‘

60
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

SOCIOLOGICAL THINKERS

61
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Karl Marx

Overview

Marx‘s genius lay not so much in his absolute originality but rather in the
constellation and configuration of his ideas and insights gained from cross-
fertilization. Unlike the Hegelian idealism which perceived truth in ideas, Marx
claimed the contrary, namely, that ideas where not the realm of truth but rather matter
is.

Karl Marx (1818 –1883)

Whereas Hegel‘s system could be called ‗dialectical idealism‘, Marx gave himself
over to the development of what came to be called ‗dialectical materialism‘. The
popular image of ‗turning Hegel upside down‘ or ‗standing Hegel on his head‘ is
illustrative of the Marxian corrective to Hegelian idealism. According to Marx,

―In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to

earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out
from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of,
imagined conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from
real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the
development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process---
Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their
corresponding form of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of
independence… Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness
by life.‖

62
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Thus, Marx would not ascribe an independent, determine role to ideas or

philosophical conception. This is because he believed that they reflected, rather than
caused, changed in social and material life. Yet, Marx did not deny the reality of the
subjective consciousness or its significance in social change.

The changing of society was the fundamental focus of Marx‘s intellectual work, for
men must be liberated from the shackles which they unwittingly have produced from
themselves. And in changing society men must come to realize that they themselves
can not only bring about legitimate and positive changes but are personally
responsible for the way things are, for ‗men make their own history‘. Thus, when
men come to realize and accept the fact that ‗human history is the process through
which men change themselves even as they pit themselves against nature to dominate
it‘, they are on their way to self-liberation.

Just as Comte distinguished three phases of human evolution on the basis of ways of
thinking, Marx identified four stages of human history on the basis of modes of
production: primitive communism, ancient slave production, feudalism, and
capitalism. The relationship which men have with one another varies with the mode
of production. Primitive communism signified communal ownership whereas ancient
mode of production was characterized by slavery; the feudal mode of production by
selfdom, and the capitalist system by bourgeois exploitation of wage earners. Each of
these stages, except primitive communism, constituted a distinct mode of man‘s
exploitation of man and his struggle for freedom. Marx was committed not only to
the analysis of this scenario but more particularly to its final culmination the classless
society of socialism. Marx believed that the process of the dialectical materialism in
which men struggle for survival in competition would end when the working people
of the world (the proletariat) became sufficiently strong and politically conscious so
that capitalism would be finally overthrown and socialism would be installed. This
fifth and final state would constitute a classless society with no private property, and
no distinctions between controllers and controlled.

Although Marx did not consistently argue for a crude economic determinism, he left
no doubt that he considered the economy to be the foundation of the whole socio-
cultural system. Throughout their study, Marx and Engels emphasize the primacy of
economics in human relationship and the centrality of the economic dimension in
political structures. The economic system of production and distribution, or the
means and the relations of the production in the Marxian sense, constitute the basic
structure of society on which are built all the social institutions, particularly the state
and legal system. According to Engels, the production of the immediate material
means of subsistence, and consequently, the degree of economic development
attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which

63
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

the state institutions, the legal conceptions, the idea on art, and even on religion, of
the people concerned have been evolved.‘

Consistent with this economic interpretation of the history, Marx developed a variant
of the sociology of the knowledge which the stressed the primacy of the economic
principle in the evolution of ideologies, philosophical systems, politics, ethics, and
religion. The central thesis of Marx is this: ‗It is not the unfolding of ideas that
explain the historical development of the society (as Hegel and Comte would have
argued), but the development of the social structure in response to changing material
conditions that explains the emergence of new ideas.‘ According to Marx‘s ideas
belongs to the realm of the superstructure and are determined by the economic
infrastructure.

He believed that the ideologies prevailing at any particular point in time reflect the
world view of the dominant class. In the other words, ideas depend on the social
positions---particularly on the class position of their proponents. This view,
moreover, tend either to enhance or undermine the power and control of whatever
class happens to be dominant at the time. If generated from the dominant class, they
tend to be supportive and reinforce the predominance of the social structures. ‗The
ideas of ruling class are, in every age, ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is dominant
material force in society is at same time its dominant intellectual force. The class
which has means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time
over the means of mental production‘. Marx believed that we will fall to understand
the historical process if we detach the ideas of the ruling class from the ruling class
and attribute to them an independent existence. Therefore, he sought to trace the
evolutions of ideas to the life conditions in general, and the forces and the relations of
production in particular.

Marx‘s theory of class struggle is the most influential conflict perspective not only in
sociology but in all social sciences.

Historical Materialism

Marx‘s theory of historical materialism seeks to explain human history and

development on the basis of the material conditions underlying all human existence.
For Marx, the most important of all human activities is the activity of production by
means of labor. With his focus on production through labor, Marx argues that it is
possible to provide a materialistic explanation of how human beings not only
transform the world (by applying the ―forces of production‖ to it) but also transform
themselves in transforming the world (by entering into ―relations of production‖ with
one another).

For Marx, the productive labor of human beings – and the resulting interplay between

64
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

the forces and relations of production – function together as the engine which drives
all historical change and development. By understanding how the productive activities
of human beings give rise to the division of labor and class conflict, it becomes
possible, according to Marx, to understand how different historical epochs succeed
one another, and how the trajectory of human history points towards a communist
society within which the division of labor and class conflict will be abolished.

Historical materialism consists, in the first place, of an analysis thought to be

applicable to all but the most primitive of human societies. On the basis of this
analysis, Marx sought to give an account of the rise and fall of various social systems
within history, and he predicted that capitalism – the penultimate stage of human
history – will eventually collapse and be succeeded by a communist society, in which
there will be no division of labor, no private property, no wage labor, no money, no
class distinctions, and no state.

As part of his analysis, Marx distinguished several different elements at work within
developed societies. These were: (1) ―the forces of production,‖ which include the
tools, skills, machinery, technology, and techniques by which human beings labor and
thus obtain the wherewithal for life; (2) ―the relations of production,‖ which are the
social systems or structures or frameworks within which human beings, in the midst of
their laboring on the world and making use of the ―forces of production,‖ also enter
into relations with one another; (3) the political and legal institutions of society which
are the derivative or ―superstructural‖ expressions generated by the more fundamental
or ―basic‖ forces and relations of production; and (4) the ideas, habits of thought,
ideals, and systems of justification, in terms of which the members of the society think
of themselves and of their relations to one another.

Marx thought that these ideas and habits of thought represented distorted pictures, or
ideological representations, of the underlying material or economic reality. For Marx,
such ideologies find expression in various forms of religion, theology, speculative
philosophy or metaphysics, morality, ethics, art, and political theorizing.

According to Marx, in conformity with the change and development of the productive
forces of society in the course of history, men's relations of production, their economic
relations also changed and developed.

Main types of Relations of Production are of five main types: primitive communal,
slave, feudal, capitalist and socialist.

The basis of the relations of production under the primitive communal system is that
the means of production are socially owned. This in the main corresponds to the
character of the productive forces of that period. Stone tools, and, later, the bow and
arrow, precluded the possibility of men individually combating the forces of nature

65
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

and beasts of prey. In order to gather the fruits of the forest, to catch fish, to build
some sort of habitation, men were obliged to work in common if they did not want to
die of starvation, or fall victim to beasts of prey or to neighboring societies. Labor in
common led to the common ownership of the means of production, as well as of the
fruits of production. Here the conception of private ownership of the means of
production did not yet exist, except for the personal ownership of certain implements
of production which were at the same time means of defense against beasts of prey.
Here there was no exploitation, no classes.

The basis of the relations of production under the slave system is that the slave-owner
owns the means of production, he also owns the worker in production – the slave,
whom he can sell, purchase, or kill as though he were an animal. Such relations of
production in the main correspond to the state of the productive forces of that period.
Instead of stone tools, men now have metal tools at their command; instead of the
wretched and primitive husbandry of the hunter, who knew neither pasturage nor
tillage, there now appear pasturage tillage, handicrafts, and a division of labor
between these branches of production. There appears the possibility of the exchange
of products between individuals and between societies, of the accumulation of wealth
in the hands of a few, the actual accumulation of the means of production in the hands
of a minority, and the possibility of subjugation of the majority by a minority and the
conversion of the majority into slaves.

Here we no longer find the common and free labor of all members of society in the
production process – here prevails the forced labor of slaves, who are exploited by the
non-laboring slave-owners. Here, therefore, there is no common ownership of the
means of production or of the fruits of production. It is replaced by private ownership.
Here the slave-owner appears as the prime and principal property owner in the full
sense of the term.

Rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, people with full rights and people with no
rights, and a fierce class struggle between them – such is the picture of the slave
system.

The basis of the relations of production under the feudal system is that the feudal lord
owns the means of production and does not fully own the worker in production – the
serf, whom the feudal lord can no longer kill, but whom he can buy and sell.
Alongside of feudal ownership there exists individual ownership by the peasant and
the handicraftsman of his implements of production and his private enterprise based
on his personal labor. Such relations of production in the main correspond to the state
of the productive forces of that period. Further improvements in the smelting and
working of iron; the spread of the iron plow and the loom; the further development of
agriculture, horticulture, viniculture and dairying; the appearance of manufactories

66
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

alongside of the handicraft workshops – such are the characteristic features of the state
of the productive forces.

The new productive forces demand that the laborer shall display some kind of
initiative in production and an inclination for work, an interest in work. The feudal
lord therefore discards the slave, as a laborer who has no interest in work and is
entirely without initiative, and prefers to deal with the serf, who has his own
husbandry, implements of production, and a certain interest in work essential for the
cultivation of the land and for the payment in kind of a part of his harvest to the feudal
lord. Here private ownership is further developed. Exploitation is nearly as severe as it
was under slavery – it is only slightly mitigated. A class struggle between exploiters
and exploited is the principal feature of the feudal system.

The basis of the relations of production under the capitalist system is that the
capitalist owns the means of production, but not the workers in production – the wage
laborers, whom the capitalist can neither kill nor sell because they are personally free,
but who are deprived of means of production and) in order not to die of hunger, are
obliged to sell their labor power to the capitalist and to bear the yoke of exploitation.
Alongside of capitalist property in the means of production, we find, at first on a wide
scale, private property of the peasants and handicraftsmen in the means of production,
these peasants and handicraftsmen no longer being serfs, and their private property
being based on personal labor.

In place of the handicraft workshops and manufactories there appear huge mills and
factories equipped with machinery. In place of the manorial estates tilled by the
primitive implements of production of the peasant, there now appear large capitalist
farms run on scientific lines and supplied with agricultural machinery

The new productive forces require that the workers in production shall be better
educated and more intelligent than the downtrodden and ignorant serfs, that they be
able to understand machinery and operate it properly. Therefore, the capitalists prefer
to deal with wage-workers, who are free from the bonds of serfdom and who are
educated enough to be able properly to operate machinery.

By producing larger and larger quantities of commodities, and reducing their prices,
capitalism intensifies competition, ruins the mass of small and medium private
owners, converts them into proletarians and reduces their purchasing power, with the
result that it becomes impossible to dispose of the commodities produced. On the
other hand, by expanding production and concentrating millions of workers in huge
mills and factories, capitalism lends the process of production a social character and
thus undermines its own foundation, inasmuch as the social character of the process of
production demands the social ownership of the means of production; yet the means

67
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

of production remain private capitalist property, which is incompatible with the social
character of the process of production.

These irreconcilable contradictions between the character of the productive forces and
the relations of production make themselves felt in periodical crises of over-
production, when the capitalists, finding no effective demand for their goods owing to
the ruin of the mass of the population which they themselves have brought about, are
compelled to burn products, destroy manufactured goods, suspend production, and
destroy productive forces at a time when millions of people are forced to suffer
unemployment and starvation, not because there are not enough goods, but because
there is an overproduction of goods.

This means that capitalism has given rise to revolution, whose mission it is to replace
the existing capitalist ownership of the means of production by socialist ownership.
This means that the main feature of the capitalist system is a most acute class struggle
between the exploiters and the exploited.

The basis of the relations of production under the socialist system is the social
ownership of the means of production. Here there are no longer exploiters and
exploited. The goods produced are distributed according to labor performed, on the
principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Here the mutual relations of
people in the process of production are marked by comradely cooperation and the
socialist mutual assistance of workers who are free from exploitation. Here the
relations of production fully correspond to the state of productive forces; for the social
character of the process of production is reinforced by the social ownership of the
means of production.

Speaking of historical materialism as formulated in The Communist Manifesto,

Engels says: "Economic production and the structure of society of every historical
epoch necessarily arising therefrom constitute the foundation for the political and
intellectual history of that epoch; ... consequently (ever since the dissolution of the
primeval communal ownership of land) all history has been a history of class
struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting, between dominated and
dominating classes at various stages of social development; ... this struggle, however,
has now reached a stage where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can
no longer emancipate itself from the class which exploits and oppresses it (the
bourgeoisie), without at the same time for ever freeing the whole of society from
exploitation, oppression and class struggles...."

Modes of Production

This concept was first introduced by Karl Marx in his efforts to theorize the overall
structure and dynamic of capitalism. It has since been widely used, mainly in Marxist

68
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

political economy and historical studies, to analyse various economic systems.

Although there is broad agreement on its general field of application, different
approaches exist towards defining and distinguishing particular modes of production.

Everything that goes into the production of the necessities of life, including the
"productive forces" (labor, instruments, and raw material) and the "relations of
production" (the social structures that regulate the relation between humans in the
production of goods. According to Marx and Engels, for individuals, the mode of
production is "a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their
part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides
with their production, both with what they produce and how they produce"

Marx used the concept of mode of production in two main ways; to analyse the
economic base and to describe the overall structure of societies. Thus he employed it
to specify the particular combination of forces and relations of production which
distinguished one form of labour process and its corresponding form of economic
exploitation from another. He also employed it to characterize the overall pattern of
social reproduction arising from the relations between the economic base (comprising
production, exchange, distribution and consumption) and the legal, political, social
and ideological institutions of the so-called superstructure. The latter usage is
particularly problematic. Its conceptual basis is blurred and it encourages monocausal
economic analyses of whole societies. But even the more rigorously defined and
carefully theorized analysis of production proper involves problems. For Marx
concentrated on the capitalist mode of production, discussed it in relatively abstract
terms, and considered pre-capitalist modes largely in terms of their differences from
capitalism. Many of these ambiguities and lacunae survive today so that the meaning
and scope of the concept are still contested.

Marx analysed modes of production in terms of the specific economic form in which
the owners of the means of production extracted unpaid surplus labour from the direct
producers. For him this form always corresponded to a definite stage of development
of the methods of labour and their social productivity. He also described this
economic form as ‗the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social
structure‘. For it provides the real foundation on which rise legal and political
superstructures and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.

In general terms a mode of production can be defined as a specific combination of

forces and relations of production so organized that it can sustain a distinctive mode of
appropriating surplus labour. Forces of production include not only the means and
objects of labour but also labour-power itself. They are never purely technical in
character but are always shaped by the prevailing social relations of production. The
latter can be divided analytically into relations in production and relations of

69
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

production. Relations in production comprise the working relations between classes

within a productive entity, for example, between capital and labour in the factory;
relations of production are grounded in the capacities to allocate resources to diverse
productive activities and to appropriate surplus-labour in determinate forms. It is the
combination of these forces and relations which defines the basic pattern of class
relations and determines the overall pattern of production, distribution and
consumption in its articulation with the appropriation of surplus.

Forces of Production, according to Marx, have two aspects which are men and
things. Men are further categorised into the haves and the have nots. Things include
tools, techniques, equipments, skills, etc. Major changes in society occur when new
forces of production are evolved (which also create new relations of production)
which replace the older ones and create a new mode of production. A contradiction
between the older and newer forces of production is resolved by the replacement of
older mode of production by the newer one. In every society, there is centrality of one
major thing.

For example, in feudal society, land is central, in capitalist society, capital is central.
Forces of production help in transforming the things which are available in nature into
things which can be exchanged in market. Forces of production also represent man‘s
control over nature. As the history proceeds, man‘s control over nature increases.
Thus, man and nature are also in a state of constant struggle and the development in
the forces of production can be seen in terms of man‘s increasing control over nature.

Both the forces and relations of production change continuously and together the two
constitute economic base or economic infrastructure or simply the infrastructure of
society. This constant interplay results into a particular type of social formation or
social state, which is called mode of production

Marx had a systemic view of society and he deemed production as central in

understanding the society. The forces and relations of production continuously
interplay and influence each other. According to his systemic view, society or mode of
production consists of two parts -

I. Economic Base - It includes forces and relations, i.e., men and things being
involved in production include classes, tools, techniques, etc. It represents the
centrality of material or economic factors in shaping the whole mode of production.

II. Social Superstructure- It includes all other aspects of society like-culture, law,
state, family, religion and education and it is largely shaped by economic
infrastructure. As economic infrastructure changes, social superstructure also changes.

Economic infrastructure shapes social superstructure which in turns helps in the

70
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

functioning of economic infrastructure. Thus, nature of forces and relations of

production will result in similar superstructure and consequently, a typical
organisation of society will emerge which is called as mode of production.

Relationship between Base & Superstructure in Marxist thought

A major contradiction in any production activity is that there is a conflict between
forces and relations of production. There is a conflict of interest between the various
social groups in the relations of production as forces of production are unequally
controlled by such groups. For example, in capitalist production, forces of production
include collective production by a large number of workers, yet they are privately
controlled by the capitalists. Contradiction is that while production is collective or
social in nature, control over forces is private as a handful of capitalists have the
actual control over these forces. Further, the fruit of these forces is also appropriated
unequally by the capitalists.

Marx is criticized on the following grounds regarding his materialistic conception of

71
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

history -

a. He is criticised as being reductionist for over-emphasising on material factors. He

reduces the importance of all other factors in society into merely economic factors.
Karl Popper termed his approach as economic reductionism for ignoring ideas.

b. Marx also over emphasised conflict and ignored social order aspect. Simmel even
went on to say that conflict also has its own functions.

c. Conflict is attributed to relations within economic infrastructure, but Dahrendorf

says differential authority structure is the root cause of conflict.

d. Marx focused primarily on macro evolutionary aspect and ignored the micro reality
of social life which was explored by non-positivist tradition.

ALIENATION

The concept alienation describes the estrangement of individuals from one another, or
from a specific situation or process. It is central to the writings of Karl Marx and
normally associated with Marxist sociology. There are philosophical, sociological and
psychological dimensions to the argument. Hegel provided the philosophical means to
overcome the Kantian dualism of ‗is‘ and ‗ought‘ since for Hegel, the actual was
always striving to become the ideal. The passage of self-creating, self-knowing idea
through history, its alienation through externalization and objectification and its re-
appropriation through knowledge, provided Marx with his revolutionary imperative.

Turning Hegel on his head and rooting his own ideas in a materialist vision, Marx
argued that humanity is lost in the unfolding historical epochs. Thus Marx argued that
with the advent of communism, there would be a complete return of individuals to
themselves as social beings.

Sociological dimension of the term relates more to his argument that estrangement is a
consequence of social structures which oppress people, denying them their essential
humanity.

De-Humanisation of Labour

We will now outline how labour is ‗de-humanized‘ in the process of production

a) Theory of Surplus Value

Following Adam Smith, Marx distinguished in a commodity, two aspects: they have a
use-value and an exchange value. A commodity is an article, which can satisfy one or
the other human need, is a use value. But a commodity is not just a useful article,
which is to be produced and sold in the market, but to be exchanged with other

72
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

commodities. How to measure the exchange- value of commodities which have

different use-values? What do wheat and linen have in common? One is produced by a
peasant, other by a weaver. They are the products of different types of useful labour.
What they have in common is that they are both products of human labour in general,
what Marx calls ―abstract human labour‖.

On both products a certain amount of human labour has been spent. That determines
their exchange-value. The exchange-value or simply the value, as distinguished from
the use-value, consists of the abstract labour incorporated in the commodity. The
measure is not the time which the individual labourer may have spent which may be
above or below average, but the average time needed on a given level of productivity,
what Marx calls the ―socially necessary labour-time‖.

Capitalist production becomes possible when along with other commodities labour-
power can be bought as a commodity. As any other commodity labour- power has a
use-value for the buyer and an exchange-value for the seller. For the buyer, (the
capitalist), it has the use-value that it can work (produce). He uses, he consumes it for
this purpose and pays the price — strange enough only afterwards – in the form of
wages.

For the worker his labour power has only an exchange value. He cannot use it for his
own purposes, because he has no means of production. But he can sell it in order to
make a living. The exchange value is determined as in the case of every other
commodity by the labour-time necessary for its production or reproduction; that
means, in this case by the cast of the ―means of subsistence‖ needed to maintain the
worker and his children, the future workers. The level of subsistence and of essential
needs varies from situation to situation according to the level of development and
other factors.

The wage covers only what is needed to maintain the labourer, his value. But what he
produces is more than that. The difference is called the surplus-value. The capitalist
appropriates the surplus. To understand this concept of surplus -value, it may be
helpful to have a look at the historical development. In early history people produced
hardly enough for their own subsistence. As soon as they were able to increase their
productivity and to produce a surplus — i.e. through cattle breeding instead of hunting
— the question arose how this surplus was going to be used. In course of time, it
released a section of the people from work for their own subsistence like chiefs, and
priests. They became the ruling class. Thereafter, one can analyse the labour of the
producers as partly ―necessary labour‖, i.e. labour for their own subsistence, and
partly ―surplus-labour‖, i.e. labour to maintain the ruling class. In the middle-ages, the
serfs worked three days on their own lands for their own subsistence and three days on
the lands of the feudal lord without being paid for it. With that surplus-labour they

73
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

produced a social surplus which was appropriated by the ruling class. This
appropriation can take place in different forms, in the form of kind – as in the case of
share-cropping or in the form of money (rent). In the case of money, it is surplus
value.

The capitalist tries to increase the rate of surplus value, which can be achieved in two
ways: absolute and relative surplus value. Absolute surplus value is produced by
―prolongation of the working day‖. By such prolongation the time of surplus-labor is
expanded. This method is especially applied in the earlier stages of capitalism. We
find it still in the unorganised sector of industry in India.

In the early stages of capitalism we find the extraction of surplus value without the
impressive and conspicuous technological revolution which characterizes the later
stage of capitalist development. The level of technology is still more or less the same
as in pre-capitalist society. Most other aspects of society are yet un-changed or only
slowly changing. But one decisive thing has changed: the labour process is
subordinated to capital. The labourer is no longer an independent producer or a serf
tied to the soil. He is under the control of the capitalist in one way or the other. Marx
calls this the ―formal subsumption of labour under capital‖. Once capital has
established its hold and has accumulated sufficiently it may proceed to the ―real
subsumption of labour‖ when it starts transforming the process of labour, re-
organising it and bringing it on a new technological level.

It may be noted here that this distinction is relevant to the on-going debate about the
dominant mode of production in India. Whereas capitalist farmers in the Punjab get
their crops sprayed with pesticides from small aeroplanes, there are sharecroppers in
other parts of India making out a meagre existence in ways, which seem to belong to a
pre-capitalist form of society. But the appearance may be misleading. Even where no
technological changes have taken place and where the old society still is alive
culturally and ideologically, capital may already be in charge economically, through
the formal subsumption of labour, extracting absolute surplus value.

The key to Marx‘s critique of capitalism is his theory of surplus-value which explains
how capital grows by consuming living labour. Because only labour power produces
surplus value, its exploitation is the basis of the capitalist system. But labour power is
not only an economic factor, as it appears in the calculations of the capitalists. Labour
is not only ―variable capital‖. Labour power is provided by living human beings who
have their own needs and aspirations. Capitalism has separated labour and the
satisfaction of human aspirations. Labour-power is treated as a commodity in
exchange for which workers may satisfy some of their most immediate needs. But for
Marx labour itself is the most essential characteristic of human life. Without it, human
kind not only cannot survive, it even cannot become human. Human labour is

74
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

imaginative, it is conscious and not instinctual.

―We presuppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider

conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an
architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect
from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises its structure in imagination before
he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour -process, we get a result that already
existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement‖.

Human labour is social. It is self-realisation through the production for others and with
others. Isolated individuals cannot survive on their own. Productive interaction with
nature requires co - operation, division of labour and exchange. In the process, the
human species realises itself. One might even say that the meaning of labour lies in
this self-realisation of the human species. As a social process human labour creates
society in its various forms. But as such it is also conditioned by society in its
different forms. In the course of history the development of class societies threatens
the human quality of labour. The climax of this threat is reached in capitalism, the
main target of Marx‘s critique.

b) Emergence of Classes

When humanity first developed fire, it took thousands of years to complete the process
— being able to turn heat back into motion. The same kind of process can be seen in
the development of classes. When humans began to organise themselves in
accordance with their relations of production (the division of labour), classes in
society formed based on the different positions and roles humans found and created
themselves in. What once was a society with little or no class structure, i.e. tribal or
nomadic society, became a society that split and divided itself into a diversity of
classes fulfilling a broad range of productive roles.

The motion of nature, dialectics, applies in class development as it applies in all

things. As the productive forces of humans increased, and class distinctions deepened
and divided further, soon the advancement of the productive forces reached such
heights that certain classes were no longer necessary. The small craftsperson and shop
owner were pushed out of existence by the advancement of modern industries that
could produce a much greater quantity at much lower cost.

Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels explained the processes of change brought forth by
Industrial revolution just beginning to unfold in a particular direction:

―Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master
into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of laborers, crowded
into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial

75
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

army, they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers
and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the
bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the
over-looker, and, above all, in the individual bourgeois manufacturer
himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and
aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is‖.

The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their
livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and
individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two
classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the
bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found
permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional
revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.

Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their
battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers.
This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by
Modern Industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one
another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local
struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes wrote
Marx in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts.

This ―alienation‖ [caused by private property] can, of course, only be abolished given
two practical premises. For it to become an ―intolerable‖ power, i.e. a power against
which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of
humanity ―property-less‖. And at the same time should have produced, the
contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture. Both these conditions
presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development.

Alienation

Although Marx believed that there is an inherent relation between labor and human
nature, he thought that this relation is perverted by capitalism. He calls this perverted
relation alienation. The present discussion of Marx‘s concept of human nature and of
alienation is derived mainly from Marx‘s early work. In his later work on the nature of
capitalist society, he shied away from such a heavily philosophical term as alienation,
yet alienation remained one of his main concerns.

Marx analyzed the peculiar form that our relation to our own labor has taken under
capitalism. We no longer see our labor as an expression of our purpose. There is no
objectivation. Instead, we labor in accordance with the purpose of the capitalist who
hires and pays us. Rather than being an end in itself—an expression of human

76
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

capabilities— labor in capitalism is reduced to being a means to an end: earning

money. Because our labor is not our own, it no longer transforms us. Instead we are
alienated from our labor and therefore alienated from our true human nature.

Although it is the individual who feels alienated in capitalist society, Marx‘s basic
analytic concern was with the structures of capitalism that cause this alienation. Marx
uses the concept of alienation to reveal the devastating effect of capitalist production
on human beings and on society. Of crucial significance here is the two-class system
in which capitalists employ workers (and thereby own workers‘ labor time) and
capitalists own the means of production (tools and raw materials) as well as the
ultimate products. To survive, workers are forced to sell their labor time to capitalists.
These structures, especially the division of labor, are the sociological basis of
alienation.

―First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his
essential being; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies
himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical
and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker
therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside
himself. He is at home when he is not working, and when he is working he is
not at home. His labor therefore is not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor.
It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs
external to it.‖ --Marx

As a result, people feel freely active only in their animal functions—eating, drinking,
procreating. In the essentially human process of labor, they no longer feel themselves
to be anything but animals. What is animal becomes human, and what is human
becomes animal. Certainly eating, drinking, procreating, and so on are human
functions, but when separated from the sphere of all other human activity and turned
into sole and ultimate ends, they become animal functions.

Alienation can be seen as having four basic components.

1. Workers in capitalist society are alienated from their productive activity. They do
not produce objects according to their own ideas or to directly satisfy their own needs.
Instead, workers work for capitalists, who pay them a subsistence wage in return for
the right to use them in any way they see fit. Because productive activity belongs to
the capitalists, and because they decide what is to be done with it, we can say that
workers are alienated from that activity. Furthermore, many workers who perform
highly specialized tasks have little sense of their role in the total production process.
For example, automobile assembly-line workers who tighten a few bolts on an engine
may have little feel for how their labor contributes to the production of the entire car.

77
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

They do not objectivate their ideas, and they are not transformed by the labor in any
meaningful way. Instead of being a process that is satisfying in and of itself,
productive activity in capitalism is reduced, Marx argued, to an often boring and
stultifying means to the fulfillment of the only end that really matters in capitalism:
earning enough money to survive.

2. Workers in capitalist society are alienated not only from productive activities but
also from the object of those activities—the product. The product of their labor
belongs not to the workers but to the capitalists, who may use it in any way they wish
because it is the capitalists‘ private property. Marx tells us, ―Private property is thus
the product, the result, the necessary consequence of alienated labour.‖The capitalist
will use his or her ownership in order to sell the product for a profit.

If workers wish to own the product of their own labor, they must buy it like anyone
else. No matter how desperate the workers‘ needs, they cannot use the products of
their own labor to satisfy their needs. Even workers in a bakery can starve if they
don‘t have the money to buy the bread that they make. Because of this peculiar
relation, things that we buy—that are made by others—seem to us to be more an
expression of ourselves than do the things we make at our jobs. People‘s personalities
are judged more by the cars they drive, the clothes they wear, the gadgets they use—
none of which they have made—than by what they actually produce in their daily
work, which appears to be an arbitrary and accidental means for making money in
order to buy things.

3. Workers in capitalist society are alienated from their fellow workers. Marx‘s
assumption was that people basically need and want to work cooperatively in order to
appropriate from nature what they require to survive. But in capitalism this
cooperation is disrupted, and people, often strangers, are forced to work side by side
for the capitalist. Even if the workers on the assembly line are close friends, the nature
of the technology makes for a great deal of isolation.

Much the same is true in the newest version of the assembly line: the office cubicle.
But in this social situation, workers experience something worse than simple isolation.
Workers often are forced into outright competition, and sometimes conflict, with one
another. To extract maximum productivity and to prevent the development of
cooperative relationships, the capitalist pits one worker against another to see who can
produce more, work more quickly, or please the boss more.

The workers who succeed are given a few extra rewards; those who fail are discarded.
In either case, considerable hostility is generated among the workers toward their
peers. This is useful to the capitalists because it tends to deflect hostility that
otherwise would be aimed at them. The isolation and the interpersonal hostility tend to

78
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

alienate workers in capitalism from their fellow workers.

4. Workers in capitalist society are alienated from their own human potential. Instead
of being a source of transformation and fulfillment of our human nature, the
workplace is where we feel least human, least ourselves. Individuals perform less and
less like human beings as they are reduced in their work to functioning like machines.
Even smiles and greetings are programmed and scripted. Consciousness is numbed
and ultimately destroyed as relations with other humans and with nature are
progressively controlled. The result is a mass of people unable to express their
essential human qualities, a mass of alienated workers.

Alienation is an example of the sort of contradiction that Marx‘s dialectical approach

focused on. There is a real contradiction between human nature, which is defined and
transformed by labor, and the actual social conditions of labor under capitalism. What
Marx wanted to stress is that this contradiction cannot be resolved merely in thought.
We are not any less alienated because we identify with our employer or with the
things that our wages can purchase. Indeed, these things are a symptom of our
alienation, which can be resolved only through real social change.

Features of Alienation

Marx‘s exposition of the functioning and prospects of capitalist economy cannot be

studied in isolation from his anthropological ideas and his philosophy of history. His
theory is a general one embracing the whole of human activity in its various
interdependent spheres. His successive writings culminating in capital itself are more
and more elaborate versions of the same thought which may be expressed as follows:

―we live in an age in which the dehumanisation of man, that is to say the alienation
between him and his own works, is growing to a climax which must end in a
revolutionary upheaval; this will originate from the particular interest of the class
which has suffered the most from dehumanisation, but its effect would be to restore
humanity to all mankind‖.

The fundamental novelty of capital consists in two points, which entail wholly
different view of capitalist society from that of the classical economists:

a) What the worker sells is not his labour but labour power, and that labour has two
aspects – abstract and concrete. Exploitation consists in the worker selling his labour
power and thus divesting himself of his own essence; the labour process and its results
become hostile and alien, deprivation of humanity instead of fulfillment.

b)Marx, having discovered the dual nature of labour as expressed in the opposition
between exchange value and use value, defines capitalism as a system in which the
sole object of production is to increase exchange- value without limit. The whole of

79
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

human activity is subordinated to a non-human purpose, the creation of something that

man cannot as such assimilate for only use-value can be assimilated. The whole
community is thus enslaved to its own products, abstractions which present
themselves to it as an external, alien power. The deformation of consciousness and the
alienation of the political superstructure are consequences of the basic alienation of
labour – which, however, is not a ‗mistake‘ on history‘s part but a necessary
precondition of the future society of free beings in control of the vital process of their
own lives. In this way,

1)Alienation is nothing but a process in which man deprives himself of what he truly
is, of his own humanity.

2) Marx unlike Hegel did not identify alienation with externalisation, i.e. the labour
process whereby human strength and skill are converted into new products. It would
be absurd to speak of abolishing alienation in this sense, since in all imaginable
circumstances, men will have to expend energy to produce the things they need. Hegel
identified alienation with externalisation and could therefore conceive man‘s final
reconciliation with the world by way of abolishing the objectivity of the object.

To Marx however, the fact that people ‗objectivize‘ their powers does not mean they
become poorer by whatever they produce; on the contrary, labour in itself is an
affirmation and not a denial of humanity being the chief form of the unending process
of man‘s self-creation. It is only in a society ruled by private property and division of
labour that productive activity is a source of misery and dehumanisation. And labour
destroys the workman instead of enriching him. When alienated labour is done away
with, people will continue to externalise and ‗objectivize‘ their power, but they will be
able to assimilate the work of their hands as an expression of their collective ability.

Objectification

Marx analyses the impact of machinery and modern industry on labour. He shows
how the development of technology under capitalism is geared towards the maximum
production of surplus value and how it transforms the worker on the basis of the
capitalist division of labour in to a living appendage of a lifeless mechanism.

―In handicrafts and manufacture, the workman makes use of a tool, in the
factory, the machine makes use of him. There the movements of the instrument of
labour proceed from him, here it is the movements of the machine that he must follow.
In manufacture the workmen are parts of a living mechanism. In the factory we have
lifeless mechanism independent of the workman, who becomes it mere living
appendage‖.

The fundamental characteristic of machinery is that it removes the tool from the hands

80
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

of the worker and fits it into a mechanism, which is moved independently from the
worker. This opens new avenues for exploitation. And above all it leads to the further
degradation of the worker by completing the ―separation of the intellectual powers of
production from the manual labour, and the conversion of those powers into the might
of capital over labour‖. Thus machinery becomes:

―for most the working population, the source not of freedom, but of enslavement, not
of mastery, but of helplessness, and not of the broadening of the horizon of labour but
of the confinement of the worker within a blind round of servile duties in which the
machine appears as the embodiment of science and the worker as little or nothing‖.

Technically speaking it is the transformation of labour from processes based on skill

to processes based upon science. That this process led to the degradation of the
workers is not an unavoidable result of the development of science and technology,
but it is the consequence of the subordination of science and technology to the purpose
of capital. Marx repeatedly characterized the alienation of the worker who faces the
gigantic machinery of modern, capitalist, industry, and who experiences his
powerlessness in front of it, as the rule of dead labour over living labour. The worker
does not see it like this. He sees the machinery as representing the wealth, the capital
of the capitalist and the superior knowledge of the scientists compared to which he
himself is poor and ignorant and doomed to remain so.

What confronts him is in fact ―objectified labour‖, the result of labour in the past. In
pre-capitalist society the producer was not confronted with means of production
dominating and threatening him as alien power.

―Hence the rule of the capitalist over the worker is the rule of things over man,
of dead labour over the living, of the product over the producer, what we are
confronted by here is the alienation of man from his own labour. To that extent
the worker stands on a higher plane than the capitalist from the outset, since the
latter has his roots in the process of alienation and finds absolute satisfaction in
it. Whereas right from the start the worker is a victim who confronts it as a
rebel and experiences it as a process of enslavement.‖

Marx summarizes the alienation of labour in the following words:

First, the fact that, labour is external to the worker i.e. it does not belong to his
essential being. That in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies
himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and
mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only
feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He is at home
when is not working and when is working he is not at home. His labour is therefore
not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labour. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a

81
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character merges
clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labour is
shunned like the plague. External labour, labour in which man alienates himself, is a
labour of self-sacrifice, of mortification.

Lastly, the external character of labour for the worker appears in the fact that it is not
his own, but someone else‘s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to
himself, but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human
imagination, of the human brain and the human heart, operates independently of the
individual – that is, operates on him as an alien, divine or diabolical activity – in the
same way the worker‘s activity, is not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another;
it is the loss of his self.

Alienation is inevitable in modern society because with the demand for better
technology, and rising consumerism, men will continue to be alienated in one form or
the other. Increasing division of labour.

Class Struggle

Marx‘s sociology is in fact, sociology of class struggle. According to Bendex and

Lipset, ―A social class in Marx‘s terms is any aggregate of persons who perform the
same function in the organization of production.‖ According to Marx, ―Class is the
manifestation of economic differentiation.‖

Without the labour power of workers, capitalists can‘t make profits. The system can‘t
function. Of all the things a capitalist can buy to build their business, only labour
power adds value; meaning the business can produce something worth more than the
original cost of the components that went into the finished product. The time, thought
and energy applied by workers in the production process – whose efforts are only
partially compensated by the employer who keeps the output – is the ultimate source
of profit (or surplus value) in a capitalist economy. Put simply, all profits come from
the unpaid work of workers. And of course the drive for profit is the beating heart of
capitalism.

This revolutionary discovery by Karl Marx paved the way for a comprehensive
explanation of the workings of the capitalist system – identifying exploitation, and
therefore injustice, at its core. It underlies the socialist understanding of the world‘s
economies and societies today; the contradictions and antagonisms in social relations
and the inherent instability and conflict arising from the fundamental division of the
world into those who own capital and exploit others, and those who own little or
nothing and are exploited; namely, capitalists and workers.

Workers are those who have none of the necessary premises, equipment, materials, or

82
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

the money to acquire these things, that are needed to engage in production or
exchange – to make a living on the market – and can trade only their ability to work
(labour power). Capitalists do have the above, but to put them to use efficiently
enough to make a profit they need other people to work them. So they offer wages to
workers that will (a) allow the workers to subsist, and (b) allow the capitalist to profit
from everything made after this subsistence is paid for. The lower the wage and the
more hours worked for that wage, the more the capitalist is exploiting the worker, i.e.
the more money they‘re making at the worker‘s expense.

Disparity and Inequality arises

The arrangement of worker and capitalists is one that both the employer and the
employee enter into freely, and centuries of ideological sugarcoating have created the
impression that this is a fair deal for both parties. From a certain point of view, with a
narrow focus on individuals, this can seem reasonable – both worker and capitalist get
paid at the end of the day. The problem is that they both get paid from the work that
only one of them engages in. This reality becomes clearer when looked at from the
perspective not of individuals but classes. When the above scenario is generalised
across the whole economy we find two main classes: (1) a majority-class of labourers
who do virtually all of the work and create all of the wealth, but own very little, and
(2) a minority-class who do very little work and create none of the wealth, but own
virtually all of it.

Competition in the market and their insatiable need to make more profits compels the
capitalists to expand their enterprises by intensifying the exploitation and amassing
greater numbers of – increasingly restless – employees; who in order to defend and
extend their rights and conditions are likewise compelled to organise together. This
instinctive desire on the part of both capitalist and worker to push the rate of
exploitation in opposite directions creates a constant tension in capitalist society: the
class struggle (with all its social manifestations in conflicting ideas, organisations,
institutions), the very existence of which is denied by right-wing ideologues: but the
class struggle, with its ups, downs, swings and roundabouts over time, in the last
analysis, decisively influences all social and historical change.

Recognising this ingrained friction (which heightens significantly in times of crises)

and their central role in production (which gives them huge potential power), Marx
identified the working class as key to challenging the rule of the exploiters; and
moreover, establishing a society where the wealth that‘s produced collectively would
be enjoyed collectively.

„Oppressor and oppressed‟

The Communist Manifesto opens with the declaration that, ―The history of all hitherto

83
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

existing society is the history of class struggles.‖ Engels later clarified that this meant
all ‗written history‘, since for the vast bulk our existence human societies were based,
by necessity, on cooperation and equality. Primitive conditions and an egalitarian
ethos prevented the accumulation of private wealth and property and the development
of any significant hierarchy within social groups.

A cartoon depicting the appropriation of the surplus value of labour by capitalist

class

A revolution from this ‗primitive communist‘ way of life took place with the
domestication of animals and the beginning of farming about 10,000 years ago. This
allowed for the production of a permanent surplus product for the first time, and from
that – over hundreds or thousands of years – came class divisions between those who
had ownership of the surplus, who became the rich, and those who didn‘t, who
became the poor. Other new features of the more complex, technologically and
culturally advanced class society included: wars for land and resources; slavery for
exploitation; the state with its armed bodies to protect property; the patriarchal family
to pass on privileges to next generations; and popular uprisings of the lower classes,

84
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

including at times, revolutionary movements.

Class-divided society made inequality and injustice systemic, whereas before they
were irregular occurrences. Sections of society were now denied the fruits of their
collective labour by other sections, who developed institutions and ideological or
religious justifications to maintain their powerful positions. These elite minorities
made up the ruling classes in pre-capitalist societies: the pharaohs, emperors, kings,
sultans, popes, tsars and their relations and ‗noble‘ supporters. Beneath these supreme
orders, in the societies and economies they ruled over, a class struggle was in constant
motion. ―An uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight‖, as Marx and Engels put it,
between ―freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and
journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed.‖

Marx wasn‘t the first to see class division and struggle in human societies, but what he
did uncover was the relationship between the class struggle and ―the particular,
historical phases in the development of production‖, which was key to understanding
how and why revolutions happen.

Reviewing the history of class society, Marx noted that while a general trend of
advancement in civilisation was clear, it was not a simple, continuous, unswerving
process, but included regression and stagnation as well as progress (in the sense of
advances towards a society that, in theory, could produce enough to provide for
everyone‘s needs), and crucially that the development of the productive capacity of
society was the fundamental driver of that progress. He identified three primary
modes of production – with various hybrid offshoots also common – these were:

One, the Ancient Mode, in which ‗masters‘ literally owned slaves who they exploited
in these largely agricultural economies where trade also took place, the type of
societies that existed in ancient Greece and Rome for example; Two, the Feudal
Mode, a more advanced and widespread agriculture-based economic system, where
the main relations were between lords who owned land that was worked for them by
serfs who also worked for themselves, the mode of production in most of Europe until
the 18th century; and three, the Bourgeois Mode, where industry and trade is
dominant and where the main contending classes are capitalists and wage-workers.

Each distinct mode of production had its exploited classes and its ruling classes. And
each mode contributed, in its own way and for a definite period, to the evolution of the
productive forces. The ruling classes, by establishing the supremacy and expansion of
their system for their own selfish interests, also oversaw a break with the old ways of
operating. In this sense they played an historically progressive role. But at certain
points in time, when the right conditions came together, further technological and
scientific breakthroughs were made, opening the way for new, more efficient ways of

85
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

organising production – but which were inevitably constrained by the existing class
relations that were specially suited to a particular (now outmoded) economic and
social structure. At this point the progressive character of the ruling class was no
more. Marx put it like this:

―At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of

society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or – what is
but a legal expression for the same thing – with the property relations within
which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the
productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of
social revolution.‖

Its worth noting how this applies to the capitalist world we live in today. Take just one
example, agriculture, where the productive forces actually produce 50% more than
what would be needed to feed everyone on the planet, and yet 815 million people went
hungry and malnourished in 2016. The reason for this comes back to the relations of
production under capitalism, which mean that the profits of the capitalists, and not the
needs of the majority in society, are all that matters. In this sense they are clearly a
block on so much potential. Only a socialist, democratically planned economy could
harness the productive capacity and potential that exists to actually provide for
everyone.

To be sure, the beginning of an ‗epoch of social revolution‘ does not necessarily

conclude in a revolutionary transition from one mode of production to another. A
rising social class has to exist that can move the situation on and challenge the class in
power, and even then ―the common ruin of the contending classes‖ is always a
possibility. Hence, a mechanical interpretation of Marx‘s stress on production as the
motor force of history is one-sided and wrong. As he wrote elsewhere, ―History does
nothing, it ‗possesses no immense wealth‘, it ‗wages no battles‘. It is man, real, living
man who does all that, who possesses and fights.‖ The outcome of an epoch of social
revolution, therefore, depends on the class struggle.

The role of the Bourgeoisie

What Marx‘s materialist conception of history proved is that nothing is fixed,

ordained or inevitable. Empires, dynasties and whole social systems that seemed at
one time all-powerful and everlasting have in fact disappeared. To invoke Heraclitus,
one of Marx‘s favourite philosophers, change is the only constant in history. Marx
was keen to convey the implications of this for the social system that was predominant
in his own time – capitalism. And to that end, his orientation was to the emerging
class of wage-labourers, which ―of all the classes that stand face to face with the
bourgeoisie‖ he considered to be the only ―really revolutionary class.‖ Quickly

86
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

enough he located the root of inequality in class-divided society itself and its modern
incarnation, ‗bourgeois‘ society, which in the course of its relatively short reign, had
shown itself to be incredibly dynamic, and just as brutal.

Marx believed in the inevitability of the working class revolution

However, Marx and Engels, in their collaborative investigations came to realise that
this dynamism is both capitalism‘s main strength, and at the same time, its main
weakness. They wrote:

―Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of

property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and
of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of
the nether world whom he has called up by his spells… The productive forces
at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the
conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too
powerful for these conditions… they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois
society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of
bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them.‖

87
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Capitalism‘s aggressive and unruly ways are the product of acute internal
contradictions, which also result in periodic economic crises. But unlike crises in the
past which stemmed from scarcity, these crises of competition come as a result of too
much being produced, too fast, such that the market is overwhelmed, profits decline
and investments dry up. Then the familiar effects of scarcity are felt as human and
material waste piles up, while the market tries to adjust itself. As The Communist
Manifesto explains:

―And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by
enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the
conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old
ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive
crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.‖

Then ―The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are
now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the
weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to
wield those weapons – the modern working class – the proletarians.‖

Marx and Engels went on to assert that, ―What the bourgeoisie therefore produces,
above all, are its own grave-diggers.‖

Marx explained that capitalism, by its very nature, first makes the working class, and
second, makes the working class revolutionary. So what are the special characteristics
that bestow on the working class its revolutionary potential?

They can be summed up as follows:

1) Capitalism concentrates workers into large towns and cities based around
workplaces where the exploitation for surplus value takes place. The organising and
collective struggle against this exploitation is likewise concentrated in ways that isn‘t
possible for peasants who are tied to plots of land spread out across the countryside.
More broadly, working-class communities understand that they can resist only by
linking with their neighbours who are in the same position. These processes produce a
collective class-consciousness (class for itself), far beyond what most atomized slaves
or serfs ever could.

2) The capitalist economic model instills workers with a sense of discipline,

cooperation and organisation, in two ways. First, a certain degree of regimentation
and teamwork is demanded of workers by management who are tasked with extracting
as much labour as possible within the timeframe of the working day. Second, in order
to mitigate the worst excesses of this same regimentation and the adverse impact of
recurring economic crises, workers have always instinctively moved to form their own

88
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

organisations – trade unions and then also independent political parties – to safeguard
and fight for their economic and political rights.

3) The advancements made by the capitalist system in science and technology means
that production and exchange are more complicated arenas, requiring the mass of
producers and distributors attain a higher level of basic skills (literacy and numeracy)
and knowledge in order for society to function. On top of this, workers have fought
for the right to education on a higher level again, for themselves and their families.

4) The world market is based on a global division of labour that connects all workers.
Most of the commodities that we use in our everyday lives are the products of labour
by not one, but many workers, using diverse skills and from completely different parts
of the world. The struggle of the working class is a global one.

5) The liberation of the working class – that is the successful culmination of its
political and economic struggle – can only come about by ending the exploitation of
its labour under capitalism. As Engels put it: ―The slave frees himself when, of all the
relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby
becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private
property in general.‖

6) The working class is the only social force with the power to challenge the rule of
the capitalist class. No other class, group or demographic has the necessary weight,
cohesion, or organisation to take on the might of the capitalists, and their ideological
and physical apparatus (including the surveillance state with its intelligence agencies,
police and armies).

All of which produces unevenness in the consciousness – the moods, attitudes and
awareness – of the working class, which counteracts its unity, confidence and
revolutionary power. Since its very emergence there have always been different layers
of the working class, most obviously skilled and unskilled. Its evolution involves
absorbing sections of the middle class on the one hand and the urban and rural poor on
the other. Its mass character means that it is animated by multiple genders,
nationalities, religions, ethnicities and sexual orientations; all of which leads naturally
to many shades of political opinion, identity etc. But this diverse, lively and colourful
working class is organically united by a common exploitation by a common enemy,
which it can only challenge through unity and solidarity in a common struggle.

If it can achieve this, in the right conditions and with the necessary organisation and
leadership, then it can make a revolution – the very experience of which is the key to
the socialist transformation of society. Wrote Marx and Engels:

―Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and

89
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is
necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a
revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling
class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class
overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck
of ages and become fitted to found society anew.‖

90
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Emile Durkheim

Durkheim believed that sociology, as an idea, was born in France in the nineteenth
century. He wanted to turn this idea into a discipline, a well-defined field of study. He
recognized the roots of sociology in the ancient philosophers—such as Plato and
Aristotle—and more proximate sources in French philosophers such as Montesquieu
and Condorcet. However, in Durkheim‘s view, previous philosophers did not go far
enough because they did not try to create an entirely new discipline.

Emile Durkheim was born on April 15, 1858, in Epinal, France. He was descended
from a long line of rabbis and studied to be a rabbi, but by the time he was in his
teens, he had largely disavowed his heritage. From that time on, his lifelong interest in
religion was more academic than theological. He was dissatisfied not only with his
religious training but also with his general education and its emphasis on literary and
esthetic matters. He longed for schooling in scientific methods and in the moral
principles needed to guide social life. He rejected a traditional academic career in
philosophy and sought instead to acquire the scientific training needed to contribute to
the moral guidance of society. Although he was interested in scientific sociology,
there was no field of sociology at that time, so between 1882 and 1887 he taught
philosophy in a number of provincial schools in the Paris area.

Durkheim is most often thought of today as a political conservative, and his influence
within sociology certainly has been a conservative one. Durkheim had a deep and
lifelong interest in morality and the moral crisis confronting modern society.

Durkheim had a profound influence on the development of sociology, but his

influence was not restricted to it. Much of his impact on other fields came through the
journal L‘année sociologique, which he founded in 1898. An intellectual circle arose
around the journal with Durkheim at its center. Through it, he and his ideas influenced
such fields as anthropology, history, linguistics, and psychology.

Rules of Sociological Method, appeared in 1895, followed (in 1897) by his empirical
application of those methods in the study Suicide. By 1896 he had become a full
professor at Bordeaux. In 1902 he was summoned to the famous French university the
Sorbonne, and in 1906 he was named professor of the science of education, a title that
was changed in 1913 to professor of the science of education and sociology. The other
of his most famous works, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, was published in
1912.

Durkheim died in 1917; a celebrated figure in French intellectual circles, but it was
not until over twenty years later, with the publication of Talcott Parsons‘ The
Structure of Social Action, that his work became a significant influence on American
sociology.

91
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

THE DIVISION OF LABOR IN SOCIETY

According to Emile Durkheim, Division of labour is seen as the separation and

specialization of work among people. By separation, it is meant that various
components of the work process are separated. By this is meant that the various
aspects that make up the work is set up into various component and co-functioning
processes. For instance, in the production of a car, the productions of the tyres are
separated from the production of the engines. According to this, in these separated
components, production can be maximized as in the production of the car; the
producers will be able to produce several tyres while the producers of the engine will
produce several engines. Therefore in Durkheim‘s opinion, separation leads to
specialization. Because separation is viewed as one of the constitutive element of
division of labour, it means that producers must be specialized in specific tasks in any
activity of labour.

Division of labour includes separation of the work force into different categories of
labour; dividing the work required to produce a product into a number of different
tasks that are performed by different workers. Durkheim specifically defines division
of labour in the following words ―...Social harmony comes essentially from the
division of labour. It is characterized by a cooperation which is automatically
produced through the pursuit in each individual of his own interests. It suffices that
each individual consecrate himself to a special function in order, by the force of
events, to make himself in solidarity with others.‖

The Division of Labor in Society (Durkheim, 1893) has been called sociology‘s first
classic. In this work, Durkheim traced the development of the modern relation
between individuals and society. In particular, Durkheim wanted to use his new
science of sociology to examine what many at the time had come to see as the modern
crisis of morality. The preface to the first edition begins, ―This book is above all an
attempt to treat the facts of moral life according to the methods of the positive
sciences.‖ In France in Durkheim‘s day, there was a widespread feeling of moral
crisis. The French Revolution had ushered in a focus on the rights of the individual
that often expressed itself as an attack on traditional authority and religious beliefs.
This trend continued even after the fall of the revolutionary government.

By the mid- nineteenth century, many people felt that social order was threatened
because people thought only about themselves and not about society. In the less than
100 years between the French Revolution and Durkheim‘s maturity, France went
through three monarchies, two empires, and three republics. These regimes produced
fourteen constitutions. The feeling of moral crisis was brought to a head by Prussia‘s
crushing defeat of France in 1870, which included the annexation of Durkheim‘s
birthplace by Prussia. This was followed by the short-lived and violent revolution

92
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

known as the Paris Commune. Both the defeat and the subsequent revolt were blamed
on the problem of rampant individualism.

In 1776, Adam Smith opened The Wealth of Nations with the observation that "the
greatest improvements in the productive powers of labour, and the greatest part of the
skill, dexterity, and judgement with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to
have been the effects of the division of labour." Despite the numerous economic
advantages thus derived, however, Smith insisted that the division of labor was not
itself the effect of any human wisdom or foresight; rather, it was the necessary, albeit
very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature -- "the
propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another." Common to all men,
this propensity could be found in no other animals; and, subsequently encouraged by
the recognition of individual self-interest, it gave rise to differences among men more
extensive, more important, and ultimately more useful than those implied by their
natural endowments.

More than a century later, Durkheim could observe, apparently without exaggeration,
that economists upheld the division of labor not only as necessary, but as "the supreme
law of human societies and the condition of their progress. Greater concentrations of
productive forces and capital investment seemed to lead modern industry, business,
and agriculture toward greater separation and specialization of occupations, and even
a greater interdependence among the products themselves. And like Smith, Durkheim
recognized that this extended beyond the economic world, embracing not only
political, administrative, and judicial activities, but aesthetic and scientific activities as
well.

Durkheim was deeply concerned with the impact of the large scale structure of
society, and society itself, on the thoughts and action of individuals. His works, as
interpreted by Talcott Parsons and others, was most influential in shaping structural
functional theory, with its emphasis on social structure and culture. On the intellectual
front, a large body of scholars have given insight into the study of society, most
significantly, Fustel de Coulanges – teacher of Emile Durkheim, had a large
intellectual influence on Emile Durkheim sociological thinking. He advocated that
animal societies are mechanically integrated, and human societies are integrated by
ideas. This explanation offered directive to Durkheim to conclude how conscience
collective (collective ideas) do influence individual motives, giving rise to regularity
and continuity in social life.

In Durkheim sociology, one notices the enormous influence of Simon, Rousseau and
August Comte. All of them profoundly agree that when general will prevail the gulf
between individual desire and the collective institution is entirely integrated.
Therefore, integration, harmony, and trust are the essential precondition for the

93
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

continuity of social life. One can find out the presence of influence of J.S. Mill and his
theory of ‗Concomitant Variation‘ is offering a methodological tool to Durkheim to
explain ‗dynamic density‘ to understand the ‗social solidarity‘. The Montesquieu ideas
of ‗spirit of the law‘ canter around with his explanation of ‗social solidarity‘. Being
influenced by Montesquieu‘s theory of spirit of the laws Durkheim asserts that the
structure of law may be different, but its function stands universally similar.

The principal role of law includes:

1. It controls and neutralise the negative solidarity.

2. It repairs injuries inflicted on conscience collective through the action of violators.

3. It reinforces the faith of the collectivism on the power of society doing right thing
in the right place at right time.

4. Finally, the presence of law never does mean an end to crime. Instead, enforcement
of the law is a voluntary reaction of society to the action of the offender.

Thus, in conclusion, the spirit of law inherently motivates people to internalise, accept
to the command of society, considering them as moral. Therefore, the law is a
stimulation to promote integration between individual and collective consciousness.
Thus, a collective correlation is present between the function of law and the goal of a
division of labour in society.

Theory of division of labour

Division of labour is a sociological question addressed by Emile Durkheim for various

reasons. Firstly, he has witnessed a drastic transformation in the social life of France,
where the monarchy has crumbled, a new middle class has made its appearance
controlling the state apparatus, and the bourgeoisie has created presence inducing
control over education. In France, a large section of society has given conformity to
the traditional pattern of governance, and a part of intellectuals was also offering
support to the call of the revivalist. Thus, the entire society was polarised into two
groups, one standing in favour of change and others in search of revivalism.

Behind everything visible, there is something invisible. The concern of sociology is to

establish negation between the two; it is the foundation of Durkheim‘s thinking. He
asserts, terminologically speaking, a division of labour means the hierarchical
gradation of occupation, which is concrete and visible. But occupational gradation
present in given society is guided by, the size of a population, nature of the needs of
the individual, role of community, functions of institution present in society, role of
law and so on.

94
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Therefore, the division of labour cannot be studied in isolation to a mode of

production, the rule of law, and every possible form of division of labour is guided by
a given pattern of social interrelationship which cannot be wishfully ignored. Thus, a
single variable such as demographic, technological, institutional cannot be considered
as adequate cause to explain the division of labour in society. Therefore, he advocates
that division of work is a social fact which should be understood by casual analysis
method, reduction analysis method, comparative method.

Durkheim‘s division of labour is influenced by positivistic methodology explaining

functional integration in society. Thus, sociologically speaking, the division of labour
establishes a balance between positivism and functionalism in society. While
discussing the division of labour, Durkheim considers the notion of individual action.
He believed that the action of man is expressive and when his action is governed by
collective well- being, it gives rise to normalcy, and when individual action is driven
by pathological stimulation, i.e. self-centric & utilitarian, it gives rise to the growth of
abnormal, unwanted morbid element in social life. Thus, in every social institution,
there are healthy and pathological elements, pathology Induce strain, it is undesirable
but unavoidable.

Every society tolerates to certain aspects of pathological strain in routine and

regularised manner. But in most of the situation, normalcy prevails, where the firm
desire of man fits into the conscious and the collective will of the society promoting
social solidarity. Thus, a division of labour is a story of the structure of social life
where there is a presence of harmony, integration, accomplishment and continuity.

While discussing the division of labour, Emile Durkheim intended to offer a critic
from the standpoint of the utilitarian tradition developing in the field of economics
with the contribution of Adam Smith, David Richardo and J.M. Keynes. All of them
advocate that nor it is a state, neither is it the government which would contribute to
the growth and the promotion of human happiness, accelerating production and having
a vast accumulation of resources. They believe that ‗man is the master of his destiny‘.
Therefore, it is individual talent, expertise derives and dreams which transform a
simple society into a vibrant and prosperous country. This agreement is not acceptable
to Durkheim because individualism and Durkheim‘s sociology stand mutually
opposite to each other. Thus, Durkheim instead of addressing to what made modern
capitalism possible prepares to study the conditions present in the new capitalist
societies of Europe.

Durkheim is not too comfortable with the writing of Hobbes and Locke. In their
theory of individualism Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke strongly assert that state; the
government are the conscious creation of individual for the promotion of individual
happiness. In their ‗social contract theory‘, Hobbes and Locke advocate that how

95
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

rational man evaluating his benefits developed negotiation with the fellow being, from
out of which grew; clan, tribe, confederation and consequently state. Therefore, a
social organisation in particular and societies, in general, are the conscious creation of
individual desire and motives.

Durkheim prefers the ideas of Hobhouse and Rousseau who advocate that man in
search of freedom accept enslavement or when a man is driven by self -love, he thinks
about himself, but when he is motivated by sympathy, he established interconnectivity
between individual desire and collective happiness. Collective happiness can
contribute to personal satisfaction. Thus, the man instead of being utilitarian reposes
his faith in the wisdom of collectively. Therefore, individual desire and collective will
positively correspond to each other, and that is the essence of the division of labour in
society. It drives the point back home that division of labour is not an explanation of a
shift from a state of nature to state. It is rather how this shift moralise the relationship
between individual and society being the essence of the division of labour, a division
of labour is social fact that being a matter of political inquiry.

Durkheim was primarily influenced by the writing of Tonnies, in his book

‗Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft‘. Tonnies advocate that when there is a shift from
community type of condition to society type of condition, people undergo through the
spirit of strain, restlessness and maladjustment. However, these experiences are
temporal. Thus, over a period, a new institution, new laws will moralise new form of
relationships, offer direction to the people to go for harmony and integration.
Consequently, change brings happiness and pleasure, integrating the distinction
between individual desire and collective will. Thus, a division of labour is not a story
of how utilitarian man makes society possible; rather it is an explanation of the social
change, the emergence of new social structure and individual negotiation with the will
of collectively. Hence, the division of labour is not an economic fact; rather it is a
social reality.

Durkheim contends that man controls his self-centric origin, internalizing the values
and normative condition of society. Therefore, in individual thinking feeling and
perception, one can find the wisdom of collectivity about ‗what is moral or immoral‘.
Thus, the individual feeling and sensation, drives and derivatives the positive
reflection of collective desire and motives. Therefore, a particular action is an
extension of collective judgment, cumulative evaluation, which is the essence of
debate on the division of labour. Hence, a division of labour is not a manifestation of
individual psychology; instead of being a social fact, it explains how own
consciousness necessarily negotiates with a collective consciousness.

96
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Division of Labour as Social Fact

The development and use of a concept of the social fact lie at the heart of Durkheim‘s
sociology. Durkheim believes firmly that the potential function of the division of
labour as a social fact is to explain the moral integration between man and man, man
and the social institution, man and society. Division of labour ultimately produces a
harmonious union between individual and society, contributing to the moral
integration between both. Thus, a division of labour being moral and binding,
sociology must have to understand that how by confirming to given occupation
voluntarily, man becomes an invisible part of the social life. To Durkheim, a division
of labour being moral, sociology must have to understand it in the light of demand and
supply in the view of the theory of economics. In voluntary manner, every society
offers to its member's different kinds of vocations essential for its continuity. By
adhering to its vocation unquestionably, man necessarily supplies to the demands of
the society. Hence, integration and continuity are found in society.

Durkheim‘s understanding of division of labour never commits itself to the fact that
where there is a division of labour, there is bound to be present no violation, no
deviance and no discontinuity to the moral preaching of society. Instead, in every
society integration and challenge to integration would exist that means both
conformity and deviance are mutually coexistent. Though division of labour
stimulates the sense of inclusion between man and society, there are present in every
society a handful of people those who love to differ, disagree, and manifest deviance.
Durkheim explains their course of action as abnormal or pathological, mutually
coexistent with normal, hence, considered as usual.

Therefore, he believes that no society is threatened by the presence of deviation of

violation because every society has an efficient mechanism within its control to repair
the injuries manifested by the violators on the course of the action of conferment.
Thus, the mechanism is known as the rule of law which must be understood to
examine the structure and function of the division of labour in society.

Simple society and Complex society

Durkheim‘s sociology conceptualizes that if the division of labour is universal,

equally universal is a violation and the presence of law to neutralise the bearing of a
breach on the action of the collectivity, which conform to the will of society.
Durkheim believes that division of labour is universal, the law is also equally
universal, but the structure of law is substantially dependent on the structural character
of society. Hence, in the simple society where every individual is a functional
duplicative of another individual repressive law make an appearance. While speaking
about the division of labour, Durkheim considers two different social conditions

97
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

where the division of labour is present which include: division of labour at the time of
social continuity and division of labour at the time of social change.

While explaining the division of labour about social continuity, he considers two
different social conditions, i.e. simple society and complex society. In a simple
society, the size of the population being restrictive, if a violator is shown mercy, and
then there is a probability that the conformist may follow the footsteps of the deviant,
considering that as moral. Hence the structural charter of the society defines the nature
and the form of law useful to the society to reinforce social solidarity. To its contrast,
in case of modern society, specialisation has given way to diversity,
compartmentalisation (economic life separated from political life) of a different
section of human activities. Thus, in a complex society, crime is evaluated, and
corresponding to that punishment is accorded. Therefore, to modern society, the
restitutive law can be considered as exclusively functional.

Mechanical and Organic solidarity

The change in the division of labor has had enormous implications for the structure of
society. Durkheim was most interested in the changed way in which social solidarity
is produced, in other words, the changed way in which society is held together and
how its members see themselves as part of a whole. To capture this difference,
Durkheim referred to two types of solidarity—mechanical and organic. A society
characterized by mechanical solidarity is unified because all people are generalists.
The bond among people is that they are all engaged in similar activities and have
similar responsibilities. In contrast, a society characterized by organic solidarity is
held together by the differences among people, by the fact that all have different tasks
and responsibilities.

Because people in modern society perform a relatively narrow range of tasks, they
need many other people in order to survive. The primitive family headed by father-
hunter and mother–food gatherer is practically self -sufficient, but the modern family
needs the grocer, baker, butcher, auto mechanic, teacher, police officer, and so forth.
These people, in turn, need the kinds of services that others provide in order to live in
the modern world. Modern society, in Durkheim‘s view, is thus held together by the
specialization of people and their need for the services of many others. This
specialization includes not only that of individuals but also of groups, structures, and
institutions.

Durkheim argued that primitive societies have a stronger collective conscience, that is,
more shared understandings, norms, and beliefs. The increasing division of labor has
caused a diminution of the collective conscience. The collective conscience is of
much less significance in a society with organic solidarity than it is in a society with

98
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

mechanical solidarity. People in modern society are more likely to be held together by
the division of labor and the resulting need for the functions performed by others than
they are by a shared and powerful collective conscience. Nevertheless, even organic
societies have a collective consciousness, albeit in a weaker form that allows for
more individual differences.

For Durkheim, a volume of the population is the necessary cause which defines the
inter-relationship among the population. To explain this inter-relationship, he uses the
term ‗intensity‟ meaning how frequently purposely, people in each society relate
themselves to each other. This relationship may be direct, immediate, personal and
face to face in simple society, but it may be indirect, variable, impersonal, contractual,
psychological yet moral, binding, and integrative in case of modern society.

The interrelationship between the populations does sufficiently explain rigidity,

meaning how strongly people feel about each other, considering themselves close to
each other. Thus, a volume of population offers a direction to intensity and rigidity
present in each population in the light of which one must understand dynamic density.
Dynamic density ordinarily means the psychological, moral integration among the
population which is purposely developed. Thus, Durkheim concludes that dynamic
density is moderate or low in a society where the volume of the population is less, and
it is highly frequent in societies where material density is high. Thus, variation in
magnetic density produce a form of moral density in a simple society which can be
defined as mechanical solidarity, and in a complex society, it provides organic
solidarity.

In the explanation of organic solidarity, he advocates how an increase in the

population gives way to the growth of multiple needs. Consequently, a sophistication
of technology, variability of products, particular specialisation results in masking the
identity of man as one who is producing to gratify the consumption needs of the
people unknown to him. As an outcome, specialisation gives way to the reduction of
man into a part producer, dependent on the functional skills of others for his survival.
Thus, Durkheim advocates that higher is the population more intensive are
specialisation and a more high dependency on each other accelerating the mutual
interchange among people.

The people being mostly unknown to each other, yet dependent on each other, they
search for an efficient mechanism which could ensure others contributing to his needs
and vice-versa. As a result, voluntarily man confirms to the rule of society. Thus,
mercantile laws, industrial laws, civil laws of different kind enforced by the state
promote moral integration between man and man and consequently between man and
society. Therefore, a structure of modern society necessarily demands the presence of
organic union among individual on one hand and occupational group on the other.

99
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

To Durkheim, both organic and mechanical solidarity explains a regular form of

division of labour, present in two different kinds of societies. Where the standard form
of division of labour exists, there is spontaneous adherence to a given kind of
occupation, a given form of law which consequently produce a given form of
solidarity. Thus, selection of occupation promotes a normal form of division of labour.

Durkheim‟s Division of Labour vis-à-vis Karl Marx

Durkheim‘s optimistic view of division of labour Durkheim meets Marx in his

explanation of the division of labour and comes close to Marx to explain the economic
conditions present in simple societies about the mechanical society and both considers
the economic factors and their consequence on social life. While Marx was
pessimistic about the division of labour in society, Durkheim was thoughtfully
optimistic. They stand different to each other based on their understanding of the
consequences of industrialisation, a growth of capitalism and their bearing on
individual experience.

Durkheim advocates that in simple society family and kinship determine the nature
and form of production, supply labour to the process of production, transmit skills
from one generation to another and production skills are known to every member of
the family. Hence, in the absence of one, other can take work with the same drive,
bringing home the same output.

In case of these societies, every family and individual being economically self-
sufficient, they are not dependent on others for their survival. However, a common
mode of livelihood, popular participation in rituals periodically brings people closer to
each other. Thus, Durkheim concludes that even the size of a population is low
physical co-presence is high, also though the functional dependency is being lowed;
the synergistic relationship among the population is moderate in case of this society.

Every person is functional duplicative to every other person, and any violation gives
way to the severe sanction. Thus, in such society, mechanical solidarity means
solidarity of resemblance is present which can best be understood in term of
conventional thinking, collective participation in the mode of production and shared
understanding about enforcement of justice, in this situation man directly relates
himself with society. Therefore, mechanical solidarity is suitable to the structural
character of simple society.

Social change and division of labour

In his explanation of social change and division of labour, Durkheim asserts that when
the old order goes out, and the new order is yet to make its appearance, one doesn‘t
find a well-defined conscience collective which can be moralised by the individual. A

100
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

person becomes directionless, helpless and hopeless in this kind of situation and
society suffers from lawlessness or anomie. Thus, loses its vitality and strength to
regulate or control the deviance behaviour, in such a situation, one becomes the
master of his destiny. One gets sufficient space and scope to gratify his utilitarian
interest thus, ‗I stand taller than our‘ giving rise to disillusionment and suffocation. In
such a situation, work is reduced to a wage-earning activity as one never enjoys his
work nor committed to his work, work never offers man eternal happiness and societal
appreciation.

Thus, man reduces into a machine, and the industrialist exploit workers as their
working hours keep increasing, the value of wages decline, and price of essential
commodities rise sky high making a man entirely disillusioned. The provincial
mechanisms are dead. No family, no kinship, no religion come to rescue of man to at
least a lip service to neutralise his frustration. Industries are not morally committed to
the state. Therefore, tax evasion, a concentration of capital becomes the essential goal
of the industrial house.

Division of Labour and Anomie

Emile Durkheim is a moralist; he lives in hope thus, believes that ‗anomie is

temporal‘. Anomie has contributed to chaos in the social life and society is conscious
of it. Hence, when society revitalises itself new form of law, new social group, and a
new form of education will be making an appearance which will be contributing to
social reconstruction. As a result, trade union, school, a family will offer individual
the values of professionalism, moralism, a spirit of cooperation, a merit of conformity
to law.

As a result, these new benefits, new ethos will bring man back to the state of
happiness where the gulf between individual will and collective expectation will be
meeting its natural ends. Thus, in modern society, man will learn to respect his work
moralise his industry, occupation, family, peer group, school. He will be concerned
about his functional role towards a different section of society. Hence, an exclusive
form of moral integration between individual and society. In conclusion, one can
advocate that when Durkheim was emerging as sociologist while speaking about the
structure of division of labour he gives an impression that he is more a social priest
than sociologist when he offers a solution to the problem of anomie.

At the end of The Division of Labour in Society, Durkheim does note that there can be
problems in society. These could be moments of crises or conflicts. There are two
abnormal forms of the division of labour, these are the anomic division of labour and
the forced division of labour. Division of labour itself does not always function as
well as it could in modern society because of these abnormal forms.

101
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

ANOMIC DIVISION OF LABOUR

This may arise as a result of industrial and commercial crises, there may be a partial
break in organic solidarity. A break in organic solidarity implies that a consensus may
be difficult to arrive as one component which may complete the given task could be
lacking. Also, where there is conflict between capital and labour, this may be an
unusual situation. Part of this is caused by the increased separation of employee and
employer under capitalism, so that the conditions for a lack of solidarity are expanded
as capitalism and the division of labour develop. Irregular forms such as crime are not
treated as part of the breakdown, rather these are treated by Durkheim as
differentiation, not part of division of labour. Durkheim compares these with cancer,
rather than with normal organs.

The real problem for a breakdown or abnormal forms is a lack of regulation or a

weakened common morality that can occur in modern society. For instance, in the
economic sphere, one would realize that there are no rules which fix the number of
economic enterprises, and there is no regulation of production in each branch of
industry. This might be an overall form of irrationality. There can be ruptures in
equilibrium, capital labour relations may become indeterminate. In the scientific field
there may be greater separation of different sciences.

According to Ritzer, if the division of labour does not produce solidarity in all these
cases, it is because the relations of the organs are not regulated, because they are in a
state of anomy. For the individual this means there are not sufficient moralconstraints
and individuals do not have a clear concept of what is proper and acceptable

But the aspect of sufficient moral constraints further brings out the necessity of a
moral dimension when it comes to division of labour. Also, the state of anomy is
impossible when solidary organs are sufficiently in contact or sufficiently prolonged.
... if some opaque environment is interposed, then only stimuli of a certain intensity
can be communicated from one organ to another. Relations, being rare, are not
repeated enough to be determined.

Durkheim also discusses conditions of the worker under capitalism in terms that come
very close to Marx‘s description of alienation and exploitation. He discusses the
degrading nature of the division of labour on the worker, the possibility of
monotonous routine, and the machine like actions of the worker. However, Durkheim
does not consider these to be the normal form, but one which results when the worker
does not have a sufficient vision of the whole process of production.

In view of this, he posits that: ... The division of labour does not produce these
consequences because of a necessity of its own nature, but only in exceptional and
abnormal circumstances. ... The division of labour presumes that the worker, far from

102
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

being hemmed in by his task, does not lose sight of his collaborators that he acts upon
them, and reacts to them. He is, then, not a machine who repeats his movements
without knowing their meaning, but he knows that they tend, in some way, towards an
end that he conceives more or less distinctly.

Collaboration is very vital in division of labour. If a partner does not collaborate, then
individual parts will come to mean nothing. It is only when specialist‘s works in view
of a goal can their work having meaning and is productive. This is where partners
have to collaborate for the realization of a common goal in the division of labour.

FORCED DIVISION OF LABOUR

Another anomaly is the forced division of labour. The forced division of labour is
where the division of labour is not allowed to develop spontaneously, and where some
act to protect themselves and their positions. Here division of labour might not be
voluntary. Something obstructs its natural flow. There is bound to be a breakdown in
this process. Some of these which cause a breakdown could be traditional forms,
which are external to the division of labour, or they could be castes, Weber‘s status
groups, or Marx‘s classes. Any factors that prevent individuals from achieving
positions which would be consistent with their natural abilities indicates a force
division of labour.

Ritzer notes that this could be inequalities in the structure of work or inadequate
organization, with the wrong people in particular positions or incoherent
organizational structures. This is quite evident in today‘s society and could greatly
affect outputs. Any interference with the operation of the division of labour that
results in the position being filled by those who are not most apt for the position
would mean forced division of labour. In some society where the rich and strong rule,
one could experience that through bribes, the unqualified could take up some specific
jobs and make a whole mess out of it.

Therefore, we may say that the division of labour produces solidarity only if it is
spontaneous and in proportion as it is spontaneous. ... In short, labour is divided
spontaneously only if society is constituted in such a way that social inequalities
exactly express natural inequalities. ... It consists, not in a state of anarchy which
would permit men freely to satisfy all their good or bad tendencies, but in a subtle
organization in which each social value, being neither overestimated nor
underestimated by anything foreign to it, would be judged at its worth.

Inadequate organization or poorly coordinated division of labor – If work is not

organized properly, it creates imbalances and generates conflicts. In this abnormal
form the very purpose of division of labor is destroyed. Work is not well organized
and coordinated. Workers are often engaged in doing meaningless tasks. There is no

103
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

unity of action. Thus solidarity breaks down and disorder results.

Abnormal division of labor also explains why there was a situation of chaos in Europe
at that time, despite his claim that division of labor brings integrity in society.
According to Durkheim division of labor must be kept in a normal state and there
must be some mechanism to take care of abnormal forms. Durkheim gives a
conception of a socialist state in which division of labor will be kept in normal state
by a large number of occupational associations which will implement the ethical code
corresponding to their own occupation. This will also help in organizing the work
properly. But unlike Marx who suggested a radical solution to overcome alienation,
Durkheim believed that solution can be provided within existing framework of
society. Self-interest which dominates business and commerce should be replaced by a
code of ethics which emphasizes the needs of society as a whole.

Durkheim‘s ideas on the Division of labour are quite plausible enough and relevant
for our world today. For our world with increasing population, I think that the only
way to maximize output is through high division of labour where all individuals
within society work together for the common good realized in the collective
conscience brought about by mechanical solidarity where there is no differentiation.

His view of organic solidarity which brings about differentiation is quite plausible
enough. Organic solidarity is at the heart of division of labour. Also the desire for
happiness can lead to the cause of division of labour though Durkheim insists on
causes within social structures like population density.

Emile Durkheim‘s sociology is intellectually obliged to distinctive tradition to explain

the social change and social continuity. In his well-known work ‗The Division of
Labour in Society‘ Durkheim strained to determine the social consequences of the
division of labour in modern societies. A major theme in all Durkheim‘s writings is
the significance of collective social norms and values in upholding social cohesion
and solidarity. He contended that the nature of this social solidarity depends on the
extent of the division of labour. Durkheim embraced that only if all the members of a
society were knotted to a common set of symbolic representations or to common set of
beliefs about the world around them, the moral unity of the society would be
innocuous. Without them, Durkheim contended, any society, whether primitive or
modern, was certain to degenerate and decay.

SOCIAL FACTS

In order to help sociology move away from philosophy and to give it a clear and
separate identity, Durkheim proposed that the distinctive subject matter of sociology
should be the study of social facts. Briefly, social facts are the social structures and
cultural norms and values that are external to, and coercive of, actors. Students, for

104
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

example, are constrained by such social structures as the university bureaucracy as

well as the norms and values of American society, which place great importance on a
college education. Similar social facts constrain people in all areas of social life.

Crucial in separating sociology from philosophy is the idea that social facts are to be
treated as ―things‖ and studied empirically. This means that we must study social facts
by acquiring data from outside of our own minds through observation and
experimentation. The empirical study of social facts as things sets Durkheimian
sociology apart from more philosophical approaches.

Durkheim defined social facts as ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that are
experienced by individuals as external and constraining, and that are general
throughout a social group.

A social fact is every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the
individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general
throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right
independent of its individual manifestations.

Note that Durkheim gave two ways of defining a social fact so that sociology is
distinguished from psychology. First, a social fact is experienced as an external
constraint rather than an internal drive; second, it is general throughout the society and
is not attached to any particular individual.

Durkheim argued that social facts cannot be reduced to individuals, but must be
studied as their own reality. Durkheim referred to social facts with the Latin term sui
generis, which means ―unique.‖ He used this term to claim that social facts have their
own unique character that is not reducible to individual consciousness. To allow that
social facts could be explained by reference to individuals would be to reduce
sociology to psychology. Instead, social facts can be explained only by other social
facts.

To summarize, social facts can be empirically studied, are external to the individual,
are coercive of the individual, and are explained by other social facts.

Durkheim himself gave several examples of social facts, including legal rules, moral
obligations, and social conventions. He also refers to language as a social fact, and it
provides an easily understood example. First, language is a ―thing‖ that must be
studied empirically. One cannot simply philosophize about the logical rules of
language. Certainly, all languages have some logical rules regarding grammar,
pronunciation, spelling, and so forth; however, all languages also have important
exceptions to these logical rules. What follows the rules and what are exceptions must
be discovered empirically by studying actual language use, especially since language

105
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

use changes over time in ways that are not completely predictable.

Second, language is external to the individual. Although individuals use a language,

language is not defined or created by the individual. The fact that individuals adapt
language to their own use indicates that language is first external to the individual and
in need of adaptation for individual use. Indeed, some philosophers have argued that
there cannot be such a thing as a private language. A collection of words with only
private meanings would not qualify as a language because it could not perform the
basic function of a language: communication. Language is, by definition, social and
therefore external to any particular individual.

Third, language is coercive of the individual. The language that we use makes some
things extremely difficult to say. For example, people in lifelong relationships with
same-sex partners have a very difficult time referring to each other. Should they call
each other ―partners‖—leading people into thinking they are in business together—
―significant others,‖ ―lovers,‖ ―spouses,‖ ―special friends‖? Each seems to have its
disadvantages. Language is part of the system of social facts that makes life with a
same-sex partner difficult even if every individual should be personally accepting of
same-sex relationships.

Finally, changes in language can be explained only by other social facts and never by
one individual‘s intentions. Even in those rare instances where a change in language
can be traced to an individual, the actual explanation for the change is the social facts
that have made society open to this change. For example, the most changeable part of
language is slang, which almost always originates in a marginal social group. We may
assume that an individual first originates a slang term, but which individual is
irrelevant. It is the fact of the marginal social group that truly explains the history and
function of the slang.

Some sociologists feel that Durkheim took an ―extremist‖ position in limiting

sociology to the study of social facts. This position has limited at least some branches
of sociology to the present day. Furthermore, Durkheim seemed to artificially sever
sociology from neighboring fields. As Lemert puts it, ―because he defined sociology
so exclusively in relation to its own facts, Durkheim cut it off from the other sciences
of man.‖

The major criticism of Durkheim‘s concept of social facts is that the statistics he
claims to be ‗social facts‘ aren‘t – suicide stats are open to manipulation by the people
who record them (coroners) – and there is huge potential for several suicides
(intentional deaths) to be mis-recorded as open verdicts or accidental deaths and thus
we can never be 100% certain of the validity of this data, thus theorizing on the basis

106
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

of cross national comparisons based on said data is risky.

Peter Berger accuses him of doing an injustice to discipline by ignoring individual

human behavior in his bid to objectivity. Further, objectivity is not possible in social
observation. Whereas Stephen Lukes in his ‗Power: A Radical View, 1974‘ contends
that Durkheim has glorified empiricism and moralism and hence neglected emotions
and individual subjectivity.

Nevertheless, whatever its subsequent drawbacks, Durkheim‘s idea of social facts

both established sociology as an independent field of study and provided one of the
most convincing arguments for studying society as it is before we decide what it
should be.

SUICIDE

Le Suicide in French by Emile Durkheim is a classic text in sociology that is widely

taught to psychology students. Published in 1897, the book was the first to present a
sociological study of suicide, and its conclusion that suicide can have origins in social
causes rather than just being due to individual temperament was groundbreaking at the
time.

Durkheim‘s most important reason for studying suicide was to prove the power ofthe
new science of sociology. Suicide is generally considered to be one of the mostprivate
and personal acts. Durkheim believed that if he could show that sociologyhad a role to
play in explaining such a seemingly individualistic act as suicide, itwould be relatively
easy to extend sociology‘s domain to phenomena that are muchmore readily seen as
open to sociological analysis.

As a sociologist, Durkheim was not concerned with studying why any specific
individual committed suicide. That was to be left to the psychologists. Instead,
Durkheim was interested in explaining differences in suicide rates; that is, he was
interested in why one group had a higher rate of suicide than did another.
Psychological or biological factors may explain why a particular individual in a group
commits suicide, but Durkheim assumed that only social facts could explain why one
group had a higher rate of suicide than did another.

Durkheim proposed two related ways of evaluating suicide rates. One way is to
compare different societies or other types of collectivities. Another way is to look at
the changes in the suicide rate in the same collectivity over time. In either case, cross-
culturally or historically, the logic of the argument is essentially the same. If there is
variation in suicide rates from one group to another or from one time period to
another, Durkheim believed that the difference would be the consequence of

107
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

variations in sociological factors, in particular, social currents. Durkheim

acknowledged that individuals may have reasons for committing suicide, but these
reasons are not the real cause: ―They may be said to indicate the individual‘s weak
points, where the outside current bearing the impulse to self-destruction most easily
finds introduction. But they are no part of this current itself, and consequently cannot
help us to understand it‖.

Even today, Suicide is largely studied as a psychological phenomenon

Durkheim defined suicide as ―death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or

negative act of the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result.‖
However, Durkheim‘s analysis relied on official suicide statistics that were collected
without regard to his definition. For instance, those who sacrificed their lives for
others were never recorded in official statistics; those whose deaths resulted only
―indirectly‖ from their acts generally did not appear in the statistics either.

Durkheim began Suicide by testing and rejecting a series of alternative ideas about the
causes of suicide. Among these are individual psychopathology, alcoholism, race,
heredity, and climate. Not all of Durkheim‘s arguments are convincing. However,
what is important is his method of empirically dismissing what he considered
extraneous factors so that he could get to what he thought of as the most important
causal variables.

While agreeing that modernity was ultimately to blame for rising suicide rates,

108
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Durkheim took a more analytical view. He sought to understand how negative

meanings and emotions were produced in individuals and groups during times of
dramatic social change and how such changes made some groups more vulnerable
than others to self-destruction. He provided a multifaceted theoretical scheme that
privileged social explanations and dismissed other popular lay and scientific
explanations, such as mental illness, imitation, climate, and temperature.

TYPES OF SUICIDE

The result of his efforts was a fourfold typology of suicide derived from the
intersection of two major axes, which he termed integration and regulation. By
integration, he targeted the sense of social belonging and inclusion, the love, care, and
concern that can flow (or not flow) from social ties. Well-integrated groups, he
argued, enjoy stable, durable, and cohesive social ties. Individuals in such groups are
supported in their lives, particularly during times of personal crisis, thereby reducing
their vulnerability to suicide.

Low High
Integration Egoistic suicide Altruistic suicide

Regulation Anomic suicide Fatalistic suicide

Durkheim described the nature and influence of social integration in family, religion,
and political domains and famously concluded from his empirical analyses that
―suicide rates vary inversely with the degree of integration of the social groups to
which the individual belongs‖. However, this finding has often been taken in isolation
from his other major conclusion: that groups that tie together individuals in loyalty or
love too closely also contribute to group suicide rates. Individuals who are overly
integrated into social structures (for example, martyrs or war heroes) are also at risk of
suicide precisely because these groups (and the individuals within them) value the
needs of the group over the individual‘s need to survive.

Although Durkheim never explicitly defined social integration, it serves as the core
insight that has dominated, and continues to dominate, sociological thinking and
analysis. Yet Durkheim was quite clear that he was also concerned with what he
called regulation, the monitoring, oversight, and guidance that come from social ties.
For Durkheim, individuals require moral guidance and external restraint because
without them their desires and expectations will exceed their grasp, with the resulting
failures and frustrations leading to continuous states of despair.

109
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Thus Durkheim‘s fourfold typology of suicide arises in social structures characterized

by extremes.

Suicides due to Integration: where care and concern deviate from moderate levels.

Egoistic suicide: This is seen as stemming from the absence of social integration. It is
committed by individuals who are social outcast and see themselves as being alone or
an outsider. These individuals are unable to find their own place in society and have
problems adjusting to groups. They received little and no social care. Suicide is seen
as a solution for them to free themselves from loneliness or excessive individuation.

Altruistic suicide: occurs when social group involvement is too high. Individuals are
so well integrated into the group that they are willing to sacrifice their own life in
order to fulfill some obligation for the group. Individuals kill themselves for the
collective benefit of the group or for the cause that the group believes in. An example
is someone who commits suicide for the sake of a religious or political cause. Suicide
bombers around the world were willing to give up their lives in order to make a
political or religious statement because they firmly believed in their group‘s cause.

Suicides due to Regulation: comes from social structures with under- or

overregulated systems.

Anomic suicide: represent the increased risk that comes from social structures with
under. This is caused by the lack of social regulation and it occurs during high levels
of stress and frustration. Anomic suicide stems from sudden and unexpected changes
in situations. For example, when individuals suffer extreme financial loss, the
disappointment and stress that individuals face may drive them towards committing
suicide as a means of escape.

Fatalistic suicides: occurs when individuals are kept under tight regulation. These
individuals are placed under extreme rules or high expectations are set upon them,
which removes a person‘s sense of self or individuality. Slavery and persecution are
examples of fatalistic suicide where individuals may feel that they are destined by fate
to be in such conditions and choose suicide as the only means of escaping such
conditions. For example a singer committed suicide due to exhaustion to keep up with
society‘s rules and regulations.

When and where forces of integration and regulation are extremely low or extremely
high, more people become more vulnerable to suicide. Only when these forces are
balanced, when individuals feel in harmony with their own needs and the demands of
the group, does the suicide rate diminish.

Apart from its importance, Durkheim‘s theory of suicide has been criticized on
theoretical and methodological grounds internally within the positivist perspective and

110
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

externally from the outside within the positivist perspective by the followers and other
prominent thinkers. Despite the specific criticism, his theory of suicide has been
greatly praised by many and used for more than 100 years as an excellent example of
positivistic study in sociology. Durkheim did an outstanding job by giving such an
inspirational study to the complex world. Theory of suicide generally denotes an
important turning point and helps in the development of sociological studies and has
an enormous impact on sociological thoughts. Theory of suicide is still relevant and
considered as a classical text in sociology and provides the basis for most sociological
theories of suicide in 21st century too.

RELIGION and SOCIETY

In his book, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life Durkheim put forward a
sociology of religion. His sociology of religion consisted of an attempt to identify the
enduring essence of religion through an analysis of its most primitive forms. His
theory of knowledge attempted to connect the fundamental categories of human
thought to their social origins. It was Durkheim‘s great genius to propose a
sociological connection between these two disparate puzzles. Put briefly, he found the
enduring essence of religion in the setting apart of the sacred from all that is profane.
This sacred is created through rituals that transform the moral power of society into
religious symbols that bind individuals to the group. Durkheim‘s most daring
argument is that this moral bond becomes a cognitive bond because the categories for
understanding, such as classification, time, space, and causation, are also derived from
religious rituals.

He dwells upon idea of religion in this ‗Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 1912‘
and he defines religion as ‗A unified system of beliefs and practices related to sacred
things, that is to say – things set apart and forbidden, beliefs and practices which
unite them into a single moral community, for all those who adhere to them’.
According to Durkheim, society (through individuals)creates religion by defining
certain phenomena as sacred and others as profane. Those aspects of social reality that
are defined as sacred —that is, that are set apart from the everyday—form the essence
of religion. The rest are defined as profane —the common place, the utilitarian, the
mundane aspects of life. On the one hand, the sacred brings out an attitude of
reverence, awe, and obligation. On the other hand, it is the attitude accorded to these
phenomena that transforms them from profane to sacred.

Unlike Marx, Durkheim refused to believe that all religion is nothing but an illusion.
Such a pervasive social phenomenon must have some truth. However, that truth need
not be precisely that which is believed by the participants. Indeed, as a strict agnostic,
Durkheim could not believe that anything supernatural was the source of these
religious feelings. There really is a superior moral power that inspires believers, but it

111
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

is society and not God. Durkheim argued that religion symbolically embodies society
itself. Religion is the system of symbols by means of which society becomes
conscious of itself. This was the only way that he could explain why every society has
had religious beliefs but each has had different beliefs.

Society is a power that is greater than we are. It transcends us, demands our sacrifices,
suppresses our selfish tendencies, and fills us with energy. Society, according to
Durkheim, exercises these powers through representations. In God, he sees ―only
society transfigured and symbolically expressed‖. Thus society is the source of the
sacred.

The differentiation between the sacred and the profane and the elevation of some
aspects of social life to the sacred level are necessary but not sufficient conditions for
the development of religion. Three other conditions are needed. First, there must be
the development of a set of religious beliefs. These beliefs are ―the representations
which express the nature of sacred things and the relations which they sustain, either
with each other or with profane things.‖ Second, a set of religious rituals is
necessary. These are ―the rules of conduct which prescribe how a man should
comport himself in the presence of these sacred objects‖. Finally, a religion requires
a church, or a single overarching moral community. The interrelationships among the
sacred, beliefs, rituals, and church led Durkheim to the following definition of a
religion: ―A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices which unite into one
single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them”

Here beliefs are ‗system of ideas‘ which explain the sacred, they constitute of myths,
spiritual ideas, ethical code etc. Practices are rites or rituals explaining individual‘s
behavior towards the sacred. There are two types of such rites – positive and negative.
Positive rites bring individual and sacred together and are easier to perform, for
example – worship. Negative rites help in maintaining the distance between the two
and keep them separated, for example – fasting, sacrifice etc. These are difficult to
perform.

The Most Primitive Religion

Durkheim saw Totemism as one of the earliest and simplest form of religious practice.
It is most commonly found among aboriginal peoples, such as the Australian
aborigines, and North West Native American Indians, who have clan based societies.

The most fundamental of these beliefs is that the members of each clan consider
themselves bound together by a special kind of kinship, based not on blood, but on the
mere fact that they share the same name. This name, moreover, is taken from a
determined species of material objects (an animal, less frequently a plant, and in rare
cases an inanimate object) with which the clan members are assumed to enjoy the

112
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

same relations of kinship. But this "totem" is not simply a name; it is also an
emblem, which, like the heraldic coats-of-arms, is carved, engraved, or designed upon
the other objects belonging to the clan, and even upon the bodies of the clan members
themselves. Indeed, it is these designs which seem to render otherwise common
objects "sacred," and their inscription upon the bodies of clan members indicates the
approach of the most important religious ceremonies.

Clan members are thus forbidden to kill or eat the totemic animal or plant except at
certain mystical feasts (see below), and the violation of this interdiction is assumed to
produce death instantaneously. Moreover the clan members themselves are "sacred" in
so far as they belong to the totemic species, a belief which gives rise to genealogical
myths explaining how men could have had animal and even vegetable ancestors.

To explain totemism is thus to explain this belief in a diffused, impersonal force. How
might such a belief arise? Obviously, not from sensations aroused by the totemic
objects themselves, Durkheim argued, for these objects -- the caterpillar, the ant, the
frog, etc. -- are hardly of a kind to inspire powerful religious emotions: on the
contrary, these objects appear to be the symbols or material expressions of something
else. Of what, then, are they the symbols? Durkheim's initial answer was that they
symbolize both the "totemic principle" and the totem clan; but if this is the case, then
surely that principle and the clan are one and the same thing: "The god of the clan, the
totemic principle," he insisted, "can therefore be nothing else than the clan itself,
personified and represented to the imagination under the visible form of the animal or
vegetable which serves as totem."

It was insisted, for example, that a society has all that is necessary to arouse the idea
of the divine, for it is to its members what a god is to his worshippers. It is both
physically and morally superior to individuals, and thus they both fear its power and
respect its authority; but society cannot exist except in and through the individual
conscience, and thus it both demands our sacrifices and periodically strengthens and
elevates the divine "principle" within each of us -- especially during periods of
collective enthusiasm, when its power is particularly perceptible.

Throughout his discussion of the nature and causes of totemic beliefs, Durkheim
insisted that no idea of the soul, spirits, or gods plays any role. Every known
society, for example, acknowledges the existence of the human soul -- a second,
ethereal self, which dwells within and animates the body; and since the Australian
aborigines provide the most primitive instance of this belief, Durkheim's search for its
origin began by asking how the aborigines themselves explained it.

According to the Australians, Durkheim observed, the souls which enter and animate
the bodies of new-born children are not "special and original creations"; on the

113
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

contrary, they are the old souls of dead ancestors of the clan, whose reincarnation
explains the phenomena of conception and birth. To such ancestors superhuman
powers and virtues are attributed, rendering them sacred; and most important, they are
conceived under the form not of men, but of animals and plants. Durkheim thus
concluded that the human soul is simply a form of "individualized mana," the totemic
principle incarnate, and the most primitive form of that conception of the "duality of
human nature" which has perplexed the philosophers and theologians of more
advanced societies for centuries.

Sacred and Profane

The key defining feature of religion for Durkheim was its ability to distinguish sacred
things from profane things. Sacred things are those rather dramatically separated from
their profane counterparts; and a substantial group of totemic rites has as its object the
realization of this essential state of separation. In so far as these rites merely prohibit
certain actions or impose certain abstentions, they consist entirely of interdictions or
"taboos"; and thus Durkheim described the system formed by these rites as the
"negative cult."

The Swastika is a sacred symbol in Hindu society

The interdictions characterizing these rites were in turn divided into two classes: those
separating the sacred from the profane, and those separating sacred things from one
another according to their "degree of sacredness"; and even the first class alone
assumes a variety of forms -- certain foods are forbidden to profane persons because
they are sacred, while others are forbidden to sacred persons because they are profane;
certain objects cannot be touched or even looked at; certain words or sounds cannot be
uttered; and certain activities, particularly those of an economic or utilitarian
character, are forbidden during periods when religious ceremonies are being
performed. For all their diversity, however, Durkheim argued that all these forms are
reducible to two fundamental interdictions: the religious life and the profane life
cannot coexist in the same place, and they cannot coexist in the same unit of time.

This basic dichotomy creates two distinct aspects of life, that of the ordinary and that

114
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

of the sacred, that exist in mutual exclusion and in opposition to each other. This is the
basis of numerous codes of behavior and spiritual practices. Durkheim argues that all
religions, in any form and of any culture, share this trait. Therefore, a belief system,
whether or not it encourages faith in a supernatural power, is identified as a religion of
it outlines this divide and creates ritual actions and a code of conduct of how to
interact with and around these sacred objects.

In Durkheim‘s terms, all religious belief and ritual function in the same way. They
create a collective consciousness and a focus for collective effervescence in society.
Collective consciousness is the shared set of values, thoughts, and ideas that come into
existence when the combined knowledge of a society manifests itself through a shared
religious framework. Collective effervescence, on the other hand, is the elevated
feeling experienced by individuals when they come together to express beliefs and
perform rituals together as a group: the experience of an intense and positive feeling
of excitement.

In a religious context, this feeling is interpreted as a connection with divine presence,

as being filled with the spirit of supernatural forces, but Durkheim argues that in
reality it is the material force of society itself, which emerges whenever people come
together and focus on a single object. As individuals actively engage in communal
activities, their belief system gains plausibility and the cycle intensifies. In
worshipping the sacred, people worship society itself, finding themselves together as a
group, reinforcing their ties to one another and reasserting solidarity of shared beliefs
and practices.

The fundamental principles that explain the most basic and ancient religions like
totemism, also explain the persistence of religion in society as societies grow in scale
and complexity. However, in modern societies where other institutions often provide
the basic for social solidarity, social norms, collective representations, and collective
effervescence, will religious belief and ritual persist?

In his structural-functional analysis of religion, Durkheim outlined three functions that

religion still serves in society, which help to explain its ongoing existence in modern
societies. First, religion ensures social cohesion through the creation of a shared
consciousness form participation in rituals and belief systems. Second, it formally
enforces social norms and expectations of behavior, which serve to ensure
predictability and control of human action. Third, religion serves to answer the most
universal, ‗meaning of life‘ questions that humans have pondered since the dawn of
consciousness. As long as the needs remain unsatisfied by other institutions in modern
social systems, religion will exist to fill that void.

115
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Max Weber

Generally regarded as the greatest sociologist, Max Weber made substantive

contributions to almost every branch of sociology with original theories and
perspectives. His scholarship has vastly enriched not only sociology but most other
social sciences and humanities such as history, political science, economics, religion,
art, and philosophy. Weber defined sociology as ‗a science which attempts the
interpretive understanding of the social action in order thereby to arrive at a casual
explanation of its course and effects.‘ Social action is reciprocally oriented action
which is intentional, meaningful, and symbolic. In contemporary sociology the term
refers to interaction. Weber was primarily interested in the subjective meaning of
action or the meaning actors give to their own actions. What intrigued Weber was the
actually assigned ‗reasons‘ for identifiable behavior given by actor themselves. These
behavior complexes, oriented by individuals within specifiable socio-historical
settings, were the subject of sociologist analysis.

In the absence of assigned ‗meanings‘ by the individuals, the actions are meaningless
and thus outside the purview of sociology. In the context, Weber introduced a key
methodological concept called verstehen is based on what Weber perceived as an
advantage of the social sciences over the natural sciences. In the natural sciences we
can only observe uniformities and deduce generalizations about the functional
relationships of elements; comprehension is, therefore, mediate. In the social sciences,
on the other hand, we can understand the actions and comprehend the subjective
intentions of the actors; comprehension is immediate. Our understanding of why
lightning strikes or liquids freeze is mediate; they have no inside story to tell. But
when students go on strike or political parties call for a hartal we must investigate the
inside meaning. Verstehen makes possible the scientific study if social behaviour in
two ways: it facilitates direct observational understanding of the subjective meaning
of actions and it facilitates understanding of the underlying motive.

Max Weber is also well known for what is usually labelled the value –free approach in
sociology. For Weber, values are precisely the subject matter and make possible a
truly scientific study of human actions. However, values are a matter of faith, not
scientific testimony; science cannot validate them. Therefore, sociologists must
investigate values but cannot provide binding norms. Sociologists must investigate
values but cannot provide binding norms. Sociologists, Weber felt, must study what is
and not what ought to be or ought not to be. They should investigate things as they are
but cannot prescribe how they should be. Weber does not deny an individual
scientist‘s right to upload values and be guided by them. But in his scientific pursuit
he must only be guided by objectivity and scientific integrity.

Weber‘s development of the concept of ideal type is a major contribution to

116
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

sociological theory. An ideal type is an analytical construct that helps the researcher
ascertain similarities as well as deviations in concrete cases. It is neither a statistical
average nor a hypothesis; rather, it is a mental construct, an organization of intelligible
relations within a historical entity, formed by exaggerating certain essential features of
a given phenomenon so that no one case of that phenomenon corresponds exactly to
the constructed type but every case of that phenomenon falls within the definition
framework. In the words of Shills and Finch, ‗An ideal type is formed by the one
sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many
diffuse, discrete, more or less present and occasionally absent concreteindividual
phenomena, which are arranged according to those one-sidedly, emphasized
viewpoints into a unified analytical construct‘.

Weber developed three kinds of ideal types based on their level of abstraction:

1. Ideal types of historical particulars which refer to specific historical realities

such as ‗Western city‘, ‗protestant ethic‘, or ‗modern capitalism‘;
2. Ideal types which refer to abstract elements of the historical reality that are
observable in a variety of historical and cultural contexts, such as
‗bureaucracy‘ or ‗feudalism‘;
3. Ideal types ‗that constitute rationalizing reconstructions of a particular kind of
behavior‘.

All propositions in economic theory may be said to fall in this category since they ‗are
merely ideal-typical reconstructions of the way men would behave if they were pure
economic subjects.‘

The ideal type as Weber understood it had nothing to do with moral ideal, for the type
of perfection implied in the ideal is purely a logical one and not to be found in pure
form in any socio-historical situation. Weber cautioned against the tendency to treat
the ideal typology as a carte blanch solution to all social analysis. It is strictly a
‗methodological device‘ and is not intend to suggest that social phenomena are
essentially rational complexes, though the ideal types is a rational grid for logical
observation and analysis. Applied primarily to various types of rational behaviour, it is
fundamentally a ‗model of what an agent would do if he were to complete rationally
according to the criteria of rationality involved in his behaviour‘s sense.‘

In such instances, the ideal type provides a milieu of precise language and procedure
for analysing specific behaviour while aiding in the formulation of theoretical
explanations for behavioural instances which vary from what is called the ‗ideal-
typical norm‘. Weber also applied this ideal-typical norm to define and classify so
many other concepts such as authority/domination.

Weber‘s theory of protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism is one of the most

117
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

influential pieces which have inspired numerous studies. In this Weber argued that a
certain cluster of values embedded in Protestantism promoted hard work, thrift, and
several similar values which fostered capitalism in the West. Weber‘s perspectives on
bureaucracy, social stratification, and sociological methodology continue to guide
contemporary sociology.

There are also other masters of sociological thought who substantially influenced the
subject matter of sociology. Georg Simmel is one of the founders of micro-sociology
and formal sociology with emphasis on the study of small groups and social
interaction. Ferdinand Tonnies typology of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft which
corresponds to ‗traditional‘ or ‗folk‘ communities and ‗modern‘ or ‗urban‘ societies
has provided a powerful conceptual scheme for the analysis of social and behavioural
systems. Vilfredo Pareto‘s conceptualization of society as a system in equilibrium
remains a central theme in current structural-functionalism.

To put the history of sociology in perspective, it must, however, be pointed out that
sociology as an academic discipline emerged only in the nineteenth century. Comte,
Marx, Spencer and other founding fathers made substantial contribution to the
development of sociology. But they were primarily social philosophers rather than
social scientists. While Comte was preoccupied with moral reconstruction of society,
Marx envisioned a utopian society based on equality and justice. Whereas Spencer
endorsed the process of natural evolution, Durkheim emphasized social solidarity
based on consensus.

There were also significant difference between European and American sociology.
Marxian sociology had considerable influence in the early development of sociology
in Europe, but its influence was very limited in America. Moreover, the subfields of
sociology were not given equal attention in every country. For example, while
American sociology was almost alone in its attempt to develop research methodology
as a special field, European sociology made substantial progress in the sociology of
knowledge and the study of values.

Max Weber is known as a principal architect of modern social science along with Karl
Marx and Emil Durkheim. Weber‘s wide-ranging contributions gave critical impetus
to the birth of new academic disciplines such as sociology as well as to the significant
reorientation in law, economics, political science, and religious studies. His
methodological writings were instrumental in establishing the self-identity of modern
social science as a distinct field of inquiry; he is still claimed as the source of
inspiration by empirical positivists and their hermeneutic detractors alike. More
substantively, Weber‘s most celebrated contributions were the ―rationalization thesis,‖
and the ―Protestant Ethic thesis,‖ a non-Marxist genealogy of modern capitalism.

118
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Together, these two theses helped launch his reputation as one of the founding
theorists of modernity. In addition, his avid interest and participation in politics led to
a unique strand of political realism comparable to that of Machiavelli and Hobbes. As
such, Max Weber‘s influence was far-reaching across the vast array of disciplinary,
methodological, ideological and philosophical reflections that are still our own and
increasingly more so.

Social action

Weber's fourfold typology of social action-affectual, traditional, value-rational, and

means-end rational action-refers to universal capacities of Homo sapiens. Instead of
depending for their existence on societal, cultural, or historical constellations, these
types of social action stand "outside of history" as anthropological traits of man.

Weber argued that man did not acquire his "rationality" with the Enlightenment and
that individuals in all previous epochs were not incapable of rational action. On the
contrary, even everyday actions of "primitive" man could be subjectively means-end
rational, as, for example, when specific religious rituals were performed with the aim
of receiving favors from a god. In Weber's eyes, this pure exchange relationship as it
existed in sacrifice and prayer was identical in form to the modern businessman's
calculation of the most efficient means to acquire profit. Likewise, the fact that the
values in pre-modern societies diverged widely from modern values did not, for
Weber, call into question the basic capacity of man to orient his actions rationally on
the basis of values. On the other hand, traditional and affectual action were not
uprooted and swept away to the degree that modernization movements advanced.

Weber‘s definition of sociology:―Sociology is a science concerning itself with the

interpretive understanding of social action and thereby with a causal explanation of
its course and consequences.‖Weber‘s entire sociology was based on his conception of
social action. He differentiated between action and purely reactive behavior. The
concept of behavior is reserved, then as now, for automatic behavior that involves no
thought processes. A stimulus is presented and behavior occurs, with little intervening
between stimulus and response. Such behavior was not of interest in Weber‘s
sociology. He was concerned with action that clearly involved the intervention of
thought processes (and the resulting meaningful action)between the occurrence of a
stimulus and the ultimate response. To put it slightly differently, action was said to
occur when individuals attached subjective meanings to their action.

To Weber, the task of sociological analysis involved ―the interpretation of action in

terms of its subjective meaning‖. A good, and more specific, example of Weber‘s
thinking on action is found in his discussion of economic action, which he defined as
―a conscious, primary orientation to economic consideration. . . for what matters is not

119
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

the objective necessity of making economic provision, but the belief that it is
necessary.‖

In his action theory, Weber‘s clear intent was to focus on individuals and patterns and
regularities of action and not on the collectivity. ―Action in the sense of subjectively
understandable orientation of behavior exists only as the behavior of one or more
individual human beings‖. Weber was prepared to admit that for some purposes we
may have to treat collectivities as individuals, ―but for the subjective interpretation of
action in sociological work these collectivities must be treated as solely the resultants
and modes of organization of the particular acts of individual persons, since these
alone can be treated as agents in a course of subjectively understandable action‖. It
would seem that Weber could hardly be more explicit: the sociology of action is
ultimately concerned with individuals, not collectivities.

Types of Social Action

Weber distinguishes four types of social action. These are ideal types in that Weber
focuses on the unique features of each form of social action, abstracting the essential
aspects of action that typify each ideal type. No actual action in the social world is
likely to be entirely of one ideal type, but combines features of one of the four ideal
types. These ideal types are useful in examining how actual actions deviate from the
ideal type, allowing the analyst to determine what aspect of meaning produces
deviation from the ideal type.

1. Traditional Social Action: In this case, custom, tradition, or habit is the source of
social action. Again, some forms of this type of behaviour would not necessarily be
considered social, but to the extent that these customs and traditions are meaningful,
Weber considers these social.. To the extent that people feel a duty to abide by
customs or traditions, social order is created and maintained, and this acquires a
legitimacy in the minds of those who accept the traditions.

2. Emotional or Affectual: This is a form of social action which is performed in

emotional state of mind. It is "determined by the actor‘s specific affects and feeling
states‖ It combines ends and means and can be impulsive and emotional. While some
emotional behaviour is not considered social in that it is entirely impulsive, Weber
considers this social action in that the behaviour does have meaning, Social action of
this type is not ordinarily considered to be rational in any normal sense of the term.

3. Value-Rational (Wertrational): These are the rational actions which are

performed while keeping the social values in mind. Eg. The pilots stay in the sinking
ships because they believe in the traditional maxim ―captain sails with the ship‖. The
individual has a commitment to a certain end, and this could be any end based upon
values. Weber considers this to be "determined by a conscious belief in the value for

120
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

its own sake of some ethical, aesthetic, religious, or other form of behavior,
independently of its prospects of success".

4. Goal based Rational Action (Zweckrational): This kind of goal oriented rational
action is a social action where a social action is performed to achieve a goal. It is "the
selection of the most effective means for the achievement of an immediately practical
goal or end‖. For example, a group of students preparing for the examinations. This
form of action has likely become more common in western society.

His idea of social action and other methods and approaches are generally
criticized on following grounds :

a. According to Hans Gerth and C Wright Mills, although Weber implied that he had a
great concern with mental processes, he actually spent little time on them.

b. He laid greater stress on individual meanings and ignores influence of social

structure in the understanding of reality.

c. His claim of objectivity is also not true. His methods of Verstehen and Ideal Type
are highly susceptible to subjectivity of investigator.

d. His idea of social action has focus on individual and collective action is ignored.

e. Weber also ignores unintended meanings and consequences of social action. Merton
highlights such consequences in terms of latent functions.

f. His definition of social action is also handicapped by inclusion of ‗orientation

towards others‘. Parsons expanded meaning of social action by including situational
choices, constraints and aspiration of actor as well.

Ideal Types

The ideal type is one of Weber‘s best -known contributions to contemporary. Weber
believed it was the responsibility of sociologists to develop conceptual tools, which
could be used later by historians and sociologists. The most important such conceptual
tool was the ideal type.

An ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view
and synthesis of many discrete, more or less present and occasionally absent concrete
individual phenomena, which are arranged according to those one-sidedly
emphasized viewpoints into a unified analytical construct . . . In its conceptual purity,
this mental construct . . . cannot be found empirically anywhere in reality.

According to Weber:

1. The Ideal types are not hypotheses.

121
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

2. Ideal types do not state or imply an ethical ideal.

3. They do not state an average type.

4. They do not exhaust reality, i.e., they do not correspond exactly to any empirical
instances.

5. They serves to guide empirical research.

According to Weber: ―Function of Ideal types is to compare them with empirical

reality in order to establish its divergences or similarities, to describe them with the
most unambiguously intelligible concepts, and to understand and explain them
causally.‖ Ideal types are heuristic devices to be used in the study of slices of
historical reality. For example, social scientists would construct an ideal typical
bureaucracy on the basis of their immersion in historical data. This ideal type can then
be compared to actual bureaucracies. The researcher looks for divergences in the real
case from the exaggerated ideal type. Next, the social scientist must look for the
causes of the deviations. Some typical reasons for these divergences are:

1. Actions of bureaucrats that are motivated by misinformation.

2. Strategic errors, primarily by the bureaucratic leaders.

3. Logical fallacies undergirding the actions of leaders and followers.

4. Decisions made in the bureaucracy on the basis of emotion.

5. Any irrationality in the action of bureaucratic leaders and followers.

Ideal types are not formed out of a nexus of purely conceptual thought, but are
created, modified and sharpened through the empirical analysis of concrete
problems. This in turn, increases the precision of that analysis. Ideal type, a key term
in Weber‘s mythological essays has been used by him as a device in understanding
historical configurations or specific historical problems.

For this he constructed Ideal types that are to understand how events had actually
taken place and to show that if some antecedents or other events had not occurred or
had occurred differently, the event we are trying to explain would have been different
as well. For example, because of the implementation of the land reform laws and
penetration of other modernizing forces like education, modern occupation etc. the
joint family system has broken down in rural India. This means that there is a causal
relation between the event (Land reform, education etc.) and the situation (Joint
family). In this way Ideal type concept also helps in the causal explanation of a
phenomenon.

122
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Weber does not believe that one element of society is determined by another. He
conceives the causal relations both in history and sociology as partial and probable
relations. It means that a given fragment of reality makes probable or improbable,
favourable or un-favourable to another fragment of reality.

In Weber‘s view, the ideal type was to be derived inductively from the real world of
social history. Weber did not believe that it was enough to offer a carefully defined set
of concepts, especially if they were deductively derived from an abstract theory. The
concepts had to be empirically adequate. Thus, in order to produce ideal types,
researchers had first to immerse themselves in historical reality and then derive the
types from that reality.

He argued that ideal types should be neither too general nor too specific. For example,
in the case of religion he would reject ideal types of the history of religion in general,
but he would also be critical of ideal types of very specific phenomena, such as an
individual‘s religious experience. Rather, ideal types are developed of intermediate
phenomena such as Calvinism, Methodism, and Baptism.

Ideal types should make sense in themselves, the meaning of their components should
be compatible, and they should aid us in making sense of the real world. Weber
believed that they could describe static or dynamic entities. Thus we can have an ideal
type of a structure, such as a bureaucracy, or of a social development, such as
bureaucratization.

Ideal types also are not developed once and for all. Because society is constantly
changing, and the interests of social scientists are as well, it is necessary to develop
new typologies to fit the changing reality. This is in line with Weber‘s view that there
can be no timeless concepts in the social sciences.

Kalberg argues that while the heuristic use of ideal types in empirical research is
important, it should not be forgotten that they also play a key theoretical role in
Weber‘s work. Although Weber rejects the idea of theoretical laws, he does use ideal
types in various ways to create theoretical models. Thus, ideal types constitute the
theoretical building blocks for the construction of a variety of theoretical models (for
example, the routinization of charisma and the rationalization of society— both of
which are discussed later in this chapter), and these models are then used to analyze
specific historical developments.

Authority

Weber defines authority as legitimate forms of domination, that is, forms of

domination which followers or subordinates consider to be legitimate. Legitimate does
not necessarily imply any sense of rationality, right, or natural justice. Rather,

123
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

domination is legitimate when the subordinate accept, obey, and consider domination
to be desirable, or at least bearable and not worth challenging. It is not so much the
actions of the dominant that create this, but rather the willingness of those who
subordinate to believe in the legitimacy of the claims of the dominant.

Weber outline three major types of legitimate domination: traditional, charismatic, and
legal or rational. These three forms do not constitute the totality of types of
domination but they show how it is possible for some people to exercise power over
others. Authority extends and maintains power and shows a study of its origins can
show how people come to accept this domination as a regular and structured
phenomenon. Also note that these are ideal types, with any actual use of power being
likely to have aspects of more than one type of authority, and perhaps even other
forms of power such as the use of force or coercion.

Authority Types

Traditional authority is legitimated by the sanctity of tradition. The ability and right
to rule is passed down, often through heredity. These could be:

(i) religious, sacred, or spiritual forms,

(ii) well established and slowly changing culture, or

(iii) tribal, family, or clan type structures.

It does not change overtime, does not facilitate social change, tends to be irrational
and inconsistent, and perpetuates the status quo. In fact, Weber states: ―The creation
of new law opposite traditional norms is deemed impossible in principle.‖ Traditional
authority is typically embodied in feudalism or patrimonialism. In a purely patriarchal
structure, ―the servants are completely and personally dependent upon the lord‖, while
in an estate system (i.e. feudalism), ―the servants are not personal servants of the lord
but independent men‖. But, in both cases the system of authority does not change or
evolve.

For Weber, traditional authority is a means by which inequality is created and

preserved. Where no challenge to the authority of the traditional leader or group is
made, then the leader is likely to remain dominant. Marx might argue that there are
economic reasons for such dominance, but Weber would be more likely to claim that
commonly accepted customs or religion constitute the underlying source of such
authority. Status honour is accorded to those with traditional forms of power and this
status helps maintain dominance. Weber notes that traditional authority blocks the
development of rational or legal forms of authority.

124
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Charismatic authority is found in a leader whose mission and vision inspire others.
It is based upon the perceived extraordinary characteristics of an individual. Weber
saw a charismatic leader as the head of a new social movement, and one instilled with
divine or supernatural powers, such as a religious prophet.

Routinization of charisma: Many Indians see Priyanka Gandhi as carrying

the charisma of her grandmother, Indira Gandhi

The charismatic leader gains and maintains authority solely by proving his strength in
life. If he wants to be a prophet, he must perform miracles; if he wants to be a war
lord, he must perform heroic deeds. Above all, however, his divine mission must
'prove' itself in that those who faithfully surrender to him must fare well. If they do not
fare well, he is obviously not the master sent by the gods.

The subjects may extend a more active or passive 'recognition; to the personal mission
of the charismatic master. His power rests upon this purely factual recognition and
springs from faithful devotion. It is devotion to the extraordinary and unheard-of, to
what is strange to all rule and tradition and which therefore is viewed as divine. It is a
devotion born of distress and enthusiasm.

Genuine charismatic domination therefore knows of no abstract legal codes and

125
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

statutes and of no 'formal' way of adjudication. Its 'objective' law emanates concretely
from the highly personal experience of heavenly grace and from the god-like strength
of the hero. Charismatic domination means a rejection of all ties to any external order
in favor of the exclusive genuine mentality of the prophet and hero. Hence, its attitude
is revolutionary and transvalues everything; it makes a sovereign break with all
traditional or rational norms: 'It is written, but I say unto you.'"

Charisma has shortcomings as a long term source of authority, but it can be quite
effective during the lifetime of the charismatic leader. If it is to be continued, it has to
be transformed into a traditional or legal form of authority. In addition, it may be
exercised in an irrational manner, preventing the development of more rational forms,
especially those leading to capitalism. There is also a possibility that administration of
charismatic authority leads to the development of legal and rational authority.

Legal-rational authority is empowered by a formalistic belief in the content of the

law (legal) or natural law (rationality). Obedience is not given to a specific individual
leader - whether traditional or charismatic - but a set of uniform principles. Weber
thought the best example of legal-rational authority was a bureaucracy (political or
economic). This form of authority is frequently found in the modern state, city
governments, private and public corporations, and various voluntary associations. In
fact, Weber stated that the ―development of the modern state is identical indeed with
that of modern officialdom and bureaucratic organizations just as the development of
modern capitalism is identical with the increasing bureaucratization of economic
enterprise.

With the development of a rational legal system, there is likely to be a political system
which becomes rationalized in a similar way. Associated with this are constitutions,
written documents, established offices, regularized modes of representation, regular
elections and political procedures. These are developed in opposition to earlier
systems such as monarchies or other traditional forms, where there are no well
developed set of rules.

As a political or legal system develops in this rational manner, authority takes on a

legal form. Those who govern or rule either have, or appear to have, a legitimate legal
right to do so. Those who are subordinate within this system accept the legality of the
rulers, believing they have the legitimate right to exercise power. Those with power
then exercise power based on this right of legitimacy.

Weber viewed the future as one where rational-legal types of authority would become
more dominant. While a charismatic leader or movement might emerge, the dominant
tendency was for organizations to become more routinized, rational and bureaucratic.
It is in this sense that legal authority can be interpreted. In modern societies, authority

126
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

is in large part exercised on the basis of bureaucracies.

However, no authority structure, Weber wrote, could actually be exclusively

bureaucratic, because some positions would be held by a variety of charismatic
leaders. He also stated that non-bureaucratic legal authority could be found in
organizations that have rotating office holders, such as ―Parliamentary and committee
administration and all sorts of collegiate and administrative bodies‖. Weber‘s feelings
about bureaucracies sometimes came through in his writing and he tended to view the
move towards legal-rational authority as a move into an ―iron cage‖.

His theory of authority is criticised on various grounds

1. Weber‘s conception of authority is primarily criticised for the anomaly in Ideal

Types of social action and Ideal Types of authority. He mentions four types of social
actions, but mentions only three types of authority.

2.Michel Foucault has argued that authority and power don t lie with particular
institutions and persons, as Weber suggested. Power is highly dispersed in society and
operates at all levels in different situations.

3. According to Robert Dahl, authority is situational and one may hold different kinds
of authority. It is also relative. One may be in a controlling position in one instance
and may be controlled by others in another instance.

Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy, like his many other concepts, is also linked to the Ideal Type construct
and Weber associated it with the rising rationalization of society. It is an Ideal Type of
organisation in which, structure is based on legal rational authority. According to
Weber, bureaucracy is a type of organisation which suits most of the modern societies
where work is done rationally. It is a hierarchical organisation, designed rationally to
coordinate the work many individuals, in the pursuit of large scale administrative
tasks and organizational goals. Capitalism, which is the basis of economy in the
modern world also works on rational organisation and it requires bureaucratic
organisations for its working.

According to him, from a purely technical point of view, a bureaucracy is capable of

attaining the highest degree of efficiency, and is in this sense, formally the most
rational known means of exercising authority over human beings. It is superior to any
other form in precision, in stability, in the stringency of its discipline, and in its
reliability. It thus, makes possible, a particularly high degree of calculability of results,
for the heads of the organisation and for those acting in relation to it.

Weber distinguished the ideal-typical of bureaucracy from the ideal-typical

127
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

bureaucrat. He conceived bureaucracies as structures and bureaucrats as positions

within those structures.

Weber specified certain typical, elements associated with the bureaucracy, like -

a. Bureaucracy works on the basis of written legal rational rules. Activities of

bureaucrats are in the form of official duty.

b. There is a hierarchy of officials in authority.

c. Work is specialized in bureaucracy and staff is trained accordingly.

d. Bureaucrats are permanent and paid and they may have to work overtime.

e. Office work is vocation for bureaucrats and they are expected to do their work
honestly.

f. The incumbent is not allowed to appropriate the position. Position always remains a
part of the organisation.

g. Administrative acts, decisions, and rules are formulated and recorded in writing.

This Ideal Type bureaucracy is only approximated in reality, but Weber argues that
bureaucracies of modern societies are slowly moving towards this pure type as this
type of organisation has technical superiority over other types of organisations.

Weber had certain skepticism also about bureaucracy and despite it being most
efficient type of organisation, Weber foresaw it as a source of alienation of human
being. He referred it as iron cage of rationality which makes human beings, slave of

128
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

rationality, who cannot escape it as they get too addicted to it. His major fear was that
the rationalization that dominates all aspects of bureaucratic life was a threat to
individual liberty and creativity. He described bureaucracies as escape proof,
practically unshatterable and among the hardest institutions to destroy once they are
established. Unlike Marx, he didn‘t see future in terms of dictatorship of proletariat,
but in terms of dictatorship of officials.

Weber‘s concept of bureaucracy attracted wide criticism. Roberto Michels, in his

Political Parties, 1911, said that bureaucracy becomes so dominating in democracy,
that it reduces a democracy into an oligarchy. Bureaucratic institutions were criticised
for reducing human beings as simply cogs in the organizational machines. Others also
claimed that this conception of pure legal rational institutions was utopian as humans
cannot be totally rational. Organisations need flexible behaviour to deal with uncertain
events and bureaucratic structures cannot provide such flexibility.

Protestant ethic and the Spirit of capitalism

Weber‘s theory of Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism is contained in his ‗The
Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism, 1904‘. According to Weber, though
knowledge and observation of great refinement have existed elsewhere, only inthe
West has rationalization in science, law and culture developed to such a great degree.
The modern West absolutely and completely depends for its whole existence, for the
political technical, and economic conditions of its life, on a specially trained
organization of individuals, so that the most important functions of everyday life have
come to be in the hands of technically, commercially and above all legally trained
government officials. Nowhere else does this exist to such a degree as it does in the
West.

He says that the most fateful force in modern life is capitalism. The impulse to
acquisition has existed always and everywhere and has in itself nothing to do with
capitalism. Capitalism is the pursuit of profit, and forever renewed profit, by means of
continuous, rational, capitalistic enterprise. This enterprise must be continuous,
because in a capitalistic society, anyone who did not take advantage of opportunities
for profit-making would be doomed to extinction.

Characteristics of modern Western capitalism: rational industrial organization (that

is ,attuned to a regular profit and not to political nor irrational speculative
opportunities for profit); separation of business from the household; rational
bookkeeping. Capitalistic adventurers (in search of booty, whether by war or
exploitation) have existed everywhere, but only in the modern West has developed...
the rational capitalistic organization of(formally) free labor.

Religious Affiliation and Social Stratification

129
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Catholics show a stronger propensity to remain in their crafts, and become master
craftsmen, while Protestants are attracted to a larger extent to the upper ranks of
skilled labor and administrative positions in factories. Protestants own a
disproportionate share of capital. All other things equal, Protestants have been more
likely to develop economic rationalism than Catholics. Weber seeks the explanation in
'the permanent intrinsic character of their religion,' and not only in their temporary
external historico-political situations.

John Calvin

The Reformation meant not the elimination of the church's control over everyday life,
but a substitution of a new form of control for the previous one. While the Catholic
Churchwas fairly lax, Calvinism 'would be for us the most absolutely unbearable form
of ecclesiastical control of the individual which could possibly exist.'

The Spirit of Capitalism

The spirit of capitalism is ''an historical individual: a complex of elements associated

in historical reality which we united into a conceptual whole from the standpoint of
their cultural significance'.

In this ethic, economic acquisition is no longer considered a means of subsistence: it is

the ultimate purpose of a man's life along with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous
enjoyment of life.

130
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

People now are born into a capitalistic economy which presents itself to them as the
unalterable order of things in which they must live. In so far as a person born now is
involved in the system of market relationships, he must conform to capitalistic rules of
action. Today's capitalism selects the subjects it needs through economic survival of
the fittest.

The idea of a calling -- a life-task, a definite field in which to work -- is peculiar to

Protestants. Protestantism had a further new development, which was the valuation of
the fulfillment of duty in worldly affairs as the highest form which the moral activity
of an individual could assume. The only way of living acceptably to God was solely
through the fulfillment of the obligations imposed upon the individual by his position
in the world (his calling), NOT by trying to surpass worldly morality by monastic
asceticism.

In such a system, this leisureliness is destroyed, without any essential change in the
form of work organization. The spirit of capitalism is the cause of this change. Where
the spirit of capitalism appears and is able to work itself out, it produces its own
capital and monetary supplies as the means to its ends, but the reverse is not true.

Worldly Asceticism.

Calvinists believed in predestination. God designated before the creation of the world
who would be saved and who would get to rot in hell. All creation exists for the sake
of God, and has meaning only as means to the glory and majesty of God. Human merit
or guilt plays no part in the possession of grace, since that would make God's decrees
subject to human influence. This doctrine 'must above all have one consequence... a
feeling of unprecedented inner loneliness of the single individual'. The individual was
forced to follow the path of his own destiny decreed for him from eternity without
help from others or from the Church -- complete elimination of salvation through the
Church and the sacraments (which Lutheranism retained). This meant the elimination
of magic from the world.

For Catholics, good works were not a part of a rationalized system of life -- they could
be performed sporadically, to atone -- whereas for Calvinists they are. The God of
Calvinism demanded not single good works, but a life of good works combined into
aunified system. The moral conduct of the average man was subjected to a
consistentmethod for conduct as a whole. The end of this asceticism was to be able to
lead an alert, intelligent life: the most urgent task the destruction of spontaneous,
impulsive enjoyment. The most important means was to bring order into the conduct
of its adherents.

Ideal type of capitalism is explained with following elements –

131
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

 It is an economic system which is aimed at unlimited accumulation of profit

 Work in modern capitalism is organized rationally
 Various ethics in capitalism are – time is money, work should be done well,
work is for an end called profit.
 Capitalism honors individualism, innovation, profit pursuit and hard work

In his book ‗Religion of China, 1951‘, he concludes that despite the presence of
developed economy, trade and commerce the Confucius ethics didn‘t permit the rise
of capitalism as it stressed upon collective harmony, traditionalism and family
obligation. Similarly, in his book ‗Religion of India, 1958‘, he concluded that ideas of
‗Karma‘, ‗Dharma‘ and ‗Punarjanma‘ prevented rise of capitalism. In India too
substance was there, but spirit was absent as there were many structural barriers in
form of caste and spiritual barriers in form of ideas of karma and punarjanma. As a
result, for Hindus, activity in this world was not important, because the world was
seen as a transient abode and an impediment to the spiritual quest. Similarly, in case
of Judaism in his ‗Ancient Judaism, 1952‘, Judaist ethics had elements which could
have promoted capitalism, but certain Historical factors scattered Jews. So, spirit was
there, but substance was absent.

Weber‘s idea of rise of capitalism is criticized on following grounds –

 Weber's causal claim that the Protestant ethic led to capitalism has been
criticized by Kautsky where he says that, it is capitalism which led the
foundation of this religious ethic.
 H. M. Robertson, in his book Aspects of Economic Individualism, argued that
capitalism began to flourish not in Britain, but in 14th century Italy.
 The economist and historian Henryk Grossman criticises Weber's analysis and
says that capitalism came by force and not by Protestantism.
 Sombart says that the Calvinism is against greed and pursuit of money for its
own sake against to what Weber has theorized.
 Ideal types which Weber draws may be erroneous. He seems to have
concentrated on certain aspects of religion only.
 He seems to be selective while drawing elements for his analysis. For example,
according to Milton Singer, he took selective elements out of Hinduism, there
is an equivalent of Calvinists in forms of Chettiyars of Madras.
 Lawrence Stone‘s studies in England concluded that it were not Protestant
ethics, but British aristocracy which had accounted for the rise of capitalism.

132
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Talcott Parsons

Parsons was initially trained in economics at the Amherst college, although he was
originally scheduled to study biomedical sciences. Later on his training at the London
School of Economics, and particularly at Heidelberg paved the way for the remarkable
career which he was to follow. His initial training in economics and particularly his
concern for delineating the various disciplines of social sciences, particularly
economics and sociology, laid the foundation of his future career. It can be truly said
that he was trying to grapple with the western civilization, trying to absorb its best
features and also trying to understand its weaker elements at the same time. Even
more important has been Parsons' attempt to theorize about all that the western
civilization has stood for, rather continues to stand for.

While Parsons kept on evolving, expanding and evaluating both his own work, there is
a complicated balance in him between continuity and change. While he familiarized
English knowing scholars with the works of Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, (in his famous
work: The Structure of Social Action), he also in a way revisited these authors after
initial introduction and encounter. For Parsons, any contribution which tried to
grapple with the problem of social reality in its complexity was adequately
stimulating. Particularly in view of his initial love for economics and his branching
away to sociology meant that he really tried to scan the entire field of social and
economic organization.

In his professional career he started as an Instructor in Economics although later on he

gave up economics in preference to sociology which has certainly been a great gain to
the world of sociology. After accepting the position in sociology, he started by
enquiring into the distinctive features of modern society with special reference to the
study of professions. Study of capitalism, study of societal complexities and the
characteristic features of a modern society occupied a special place in his mind.

Having been trained in economics and having particularly ad dressed himself to the
complexity of western civilization, he tried to formulate a general theory of action,
emphasizing the relationship between social system, cultural system and personality
as a system. In his another monumental work ‗The Social System‘, Parsons provides a
unified knowledge of the working of society, instead of fragmented knowledge. He
tried to encompass total social reality which has been attempted by very few social
scientists. Moreover on the basis of his analysis, he has even provided some clues
about the shape of things to come. In this context special reference must be made to
his formulations about future society, particularly with reference to the importance of
bureaucracy, science and secularism. Even while studying the western civilization and
modern societies, he felt that rationality would not provide a comprehensive
framework and therefore, he turned his attention to the contribution of Freud. Parsons

133
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

came under the influence of Henderson — a famous scientist at Harvard and was
greatly impressed by Conant who had contributed a great deal to the biological
sciences. In fact, the concept of system and homeostasis were internalized by Parsons
by virtue of his interaction with Henderson and Conan. For him evolution of societies
meant emphasis on cultural and structural features without neglecting the biological
aspects of evolution too.

Systems Theory

For Parsons, there are many systems or action systems where ―the parts are
connected‖. A system is something that has a boundary, so that there is an inside and
an outside to the environment comprising the system. Examples of systems are the
social, cultural, and personality systems. Systems have interdependent parts, order or
equilibrium, and a tendency to maintain the boundaries and relations of the parts to the
whole. These could be the society as a whole, structures or institutions within society
(economy, legal system, religious institutions), or smaller subsystems (family or
individual) that form part of society. These are action systems in the sense that they
involve social action, and each system has certain needs or conditions that are
necessary for the survival and continued operation of the system. Systems also have
goals that may be created as a result of needs and desires of members of these
systems.

A physical analogy to the systems of Parsons is a heating or cooling system for a

building. The building has boundaries, an outside and an inside, and the boundaries
are generally fixed or maintained over time. There are interdependent parts to the
system which function together to maintain a certain level of temperature in the
building. Thermostats and furnaces or air conditioners are used to heat or cool the
building, and these are self-regulating, maintaining a certain equilibrium temperature.

Parsons was primarily interested in the social system, viewing it as the preserve of
sociology, and examining social interaction and the relationships among individuals.
A personality system, concerning human motivation and orientation, underlies the
social system. Individuals might be motivated by culture and social factors, looking
for approval in social relationships. Individual personality was considered to be a
combination of biological drives and culture, with actors being relatively passive.
Drives may come from the behavioral or biological organism, with its ―organization ...
affected by the processes of conditioning and learning that occur in the individual's
life.‖ Ritzer notes that Parsons would be opposed to the socio-biological
interpretation, arguing instead that biological drives were socially developed.

Above the social system is the cultural system, the system of patterned and ordered
symbols. While it is created by humans, this is the ―social stock of knowledge,

134
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

symbols, and ideas‖. This includes language and other forms of communication,
systems of morality, and all of the shared knowledge of people. Parsons refers to this
as the cultural tradition, and argues that elementary communication is not possible
without ―some degree of conformity to the 'conventions' of the symbolic system‖.
Symbols are interpreted by individuals and individual actors in different situations so
that they may react somewhat differently to them. For social interaction to occur, it is
important that there be a stability in the symbol system, ―a stability which must extend
between individuals and over time, [and] could probably not be maintained unless it
functioned in a communication process in the interaction of a plurality of actors.‖

Because it is composed of symbols, the cultural system can move easily between
systems, and strongly affects other systems. Note that it is a separate system, and one
that cannot be reduced to aspects of the social system. It affects the social system,
creating norms and values that guide social behaviour, and the personality system
through socialization and learning. Given the power of the cultural system to
influence and control other systems, ―Parsons came to view himself as a cultural
determinist‖ .

The social system was Parsons' main concern. This is society as a whole, or the
various institutions such as the family within society. Parsons' definition of the social
system is:

A social system consists in a plurality of individual actors interacting with each other
in a situation which has at least a physical or environmental aspect, actors who are
motivated in terms of a tendency to the "optimization of gratification" and whose
relation to their situations, including each other, is defined and mediated in terms of a
system of culturally structured and shared symbols.

The basic unit of the system for Parsons was the status-role complex. These are
structural elements, and are not characteristics of the individual or of interaction.
Rather they are like the positions within the stratification model. A status is a
structural position within the social system, and a role is what the individual who has
that status does. For example, brother or sister could refer to a status, and there are
certain roles that are generally associated with these statuses. Note that these statuses
need not be hierarchical as in the stratification model.

Within this social system, Parsons considered the needs of the system as important,
and individuals fulfilled certain system functions by taking on various roles as means
of carrying out the function of their statuses. Individuals are discussed by Parsons as
carrying out actions that maintain order in the system. Socialization, education and
learning in the child, and continued socialization throughout life are the means by
which the norms and values of society are learned by individuals. This is what binds

135
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

the individual to the social system as a whole. If successful, this socialization process
means that the norms and values become internalized by individuals, and when people
pursue their own interests, they also serve the needs of the society as a whole.

In modern society there are many roles, statuses and opportunities for individuals to
express their different personalities. For Parsons, this is a positive feature of a social
system, and a flexible system of this sort is more able to maintain order. However, if
people become too deviant, there are social control mechanisms that either stop the
deviance (ultimately at the legal level). In most cases though, there are stronger
mechanisms that the social system has to maintain order. This is the socialization
process, and the continued operation of the socialization process through one's whole
life. Parsons comments

Without deliberate planning on anyone's part, there have developed in our type of
social system, and correspondingly in others, mechanisms which, within limits, are
capable of forestalling and reversing the deep-lying tendencies for deviance to get into
the vicious circle phase which puts it beyond the control of ordinary approval-
disapproval and reward-punishment sanctions.

Each social system, according to Parsons, develops a vested interest or interests of

different kinds over a period of time as it integrates itself in accordance with its
functional prerequisites (adaptation, goal attainment, integration and latency). But the
demands of new ideas from within, need for changes in technology or the mere
pressure of external factors on the system, such as changes in climate, ecology or
pestilence, etc., force social systems to shed pre-existing vested interests and give way
to accepting new modes of thinking; to new ideas, technology, patterns of work,
division of labour, and so on. These contribute to disturbances in the older mode of
equilibrium and to its replacement by a new equilibrium in the social system which he
calls as moving equilibrium.

Pattern Variables

Parsons constructed a set of variables that can be used to analyze the various systems.
These are the ―categorization of modes of orientation in personality systems, the value
patterns of culture, and the normative requirements in social systems‖. These became
a way of describing and classifying different societies, and the values and norms of
that society. All of the norms, values, roles, institutions, subsystems and even the
society as a whole can be classified and examined on the basis of these patterned
variables. For Parsons, these were necessary to make the theory of action more
explicit and ―to develop clearer specifications of what different contingencies and
expectations actors were likely to face. The patterned variables are set up as polar
opposites that give the range of possible decisions and modes of orientation. Any

136
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

actual role or decision may be a combination of the two, between the opposites. For
Parsons though, these provided an ideal type conceptual scheme that allowed analysis
of various systems of parts of systems. The five pattern variables are as follows.

Talcott Parsons‟ concept of Pattern Variables

Pattern variables A Pattern variables B

Ascription Achievement
Status is ascribed; the type Status is achieved through a
of family into which a person's own efforts: for
person is born determines it. example, through hard work.
Diffuseness Specificity
People enter into relationships with others People enter into relationships with others to
to satisfy a large range of needs: for satisfy particular needs: for example, the
example, the relationship between mother relationship between a customer and shopkeeper
and child.
Particularism Universalism
Individuals act differently towards Individuals act according to universal principles:
particular people: for example, they are for example, everyone is equal before the law,
loyal to their family but not to strangers. so a policewoman would arrest her husband if
necessary.
Affectivity Effective neutrality
Gratification is immediate. People act Gratification is deferred: for example, saving
to gratify their desires as soon as possible. money to put a deposit on a house in the future.

Collective orientation Self-orientation

People put the interests of the social People pursue their own interests first, rather
groups to which they belong before their than those of the social groups to which they
own interests. belong.

The pattern variables provide a means of looking at various forms that norms and
social actions can take, and what their orientation is. These can describe the nature of
societal norms, or the basic values that guide, and form the basis for decisions in, the
personality system. The range of possible types of motivation and action is
considerably broader in Parson's scheme than in much of the classical sociological
writers, at least the utilitarians, Durkheim and Marx. Weber viewed motivation and
meaning as key, but did not provide a guide concerning how to apply these in general.
Perhaps these pattern variables can be thought of as a way that people do relate to
situations they face, the type of orientation they have, and how they are likely to
interpret meaning in each social action.

137
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

a. Affectivity and Affective Neutrality: Neutrality refers to the amount of emotion or

affect that is appropriate or expected in an given form of interaction. Again,
particularism and diffuseness might often be associated with affectivity, whereas
contacts with other individuals in a bureaucracy may be devoid of emotion and
characterized by affective neutrality. Affective neutrality may refer to self-discipline
and the deferment of gratification. In contrast, affectivity can mean the expression of
gratification of emotions.

b. Collective Orientation or Self Orientation: These emphasize the extent of self-

interest as opposed to collective or shared interest associated with any action. Where
individuals pursue a collective form of action, then the interests of the collectivity may
take precedence over that of the individual. Various forms of action such as altruism,
charity, self-sacrifice (in wartime) can be included here. In contrast, much economics
and utilitarianism assumes egoism or the self-seeking individual as the primary basis
on which social analysis is to be built.

c. Diffuseness and Specificity: These refer to the nature of social contacts and how
extensive or how narrow are the obligations in any interaction. For example, in a
bureaucracy, social relationships are very specific, where we meet with or contact
someone for some very particular reason associated with their status and position, e.g.
visiting a physician. Friendships and parent-child relationships are examples of more
diffuse forms of contact. We rely on friends for a broad range of types of support,
conversation, activities, and so on. While there may be limits on such contacts, these
have the potential of dealing with almost any set of interests and problems.

d. Particularism and Universalism: These refer to the range of people that are to be
considered, whereas diffuseness and specificity deal with the range of obligations
involved. The issue here is whether to react ―on the basis of a general norm or
reacting on the basis of someone‘s particular relationship to you‖. A particular
relation is one that is with a specific individual. Parent-child or friendship
relationships tend to be of this sort, where the relationship is likely to be very
particular, but at the same time very diffuse. In contrast, a bureaucracy is
characterized by universal forms of relationships, where everyone is to be treated
impartially and much the same. No particularism or favoritism is to be extended to
anyone, even to a close friend or family member.

e. Ascription and Achievement: Ascription refers to qualities of individuals, and

often inborn qualities such as sex, ethnicity, race, age, family status, or characteristics
of the household of origin. Achievement refers to performance, and emphasizes
individual achievement. For example, we might say that someone has achieved a
prestigious position even though their ascribed status was that of poverty and
disadvantage.

138
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Expressive and Instrumental: Parsons regards the first half of each pair as the
expressive types of characteristics and the second half of the pattern as the
instrumental types of characteristics. Expressive aspects refer to ―the integrative and
tension aspects‖ (Morgan, p. 29). These are people, roles, and actions concerned with
taking care of the common task culture, how to integrate the group, and how to
manage and resolve internal tensions and conflicts. This may take many different
forms but often is associated with the family, and more specifically with the female
role in the family.

The instrumental characteristics refer to ―the goal attainment and adaptation

aspects‖. These are the characteristics, people, roles, and actions associated with
ideas, problem solving, getting the task done. These tasks are often associated with
male roles, public activities, the economy, or politics.

These can also be used to refer to the type of society. Social action and interaction in
early forms of society were more likely to be characterized by expressive
characteristics. In contrast, in modern societies, with a more complex division of
labour and differentiation of statuses and roles, much of social action and interaction
is characterized by instrumental characteristics.

Functional System Problems– AGIL

Social systems have needs. In order to survive and continue, each social system or
subsystem has four characteristics that must be met. These are functional needs of the
system, ―a complex of activities directed towards meeting a need or needs of the
system.‖ The first two are necessary for survival and continued operation, with the last
two being a means of regulation of the social system. These functional needs can be
remembered by the acronym AGIL.

a. Adaptation (A): Each system exists in an environment, and must be able to adapt
to this environment. In the process of adaptation, the environment is also affected and
may be adapted to the society. This is the mobilization of resources so that the system
can survive and that things can be done to meet goals of the system. In the family or
household, adaptation could include obtaining economic resources -- earning an
income to support the family. For larger social systems, the economy is the system
which allows the system to survive, grow, and change. The major institutions in the
economic sphere, such as agriculture, industry and services provided through the
market are the means by which adaptation takes place. These serve the function of
allowing the system to survive and provide the goods and services required for society
to operate. As economists describe the economy, there are many equilibrating
mechanisms within the economy that produce order. The market mechanism itself
can be regarded as a system that has some tendencies in the direction of stable

139
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

equilibria. Some of the government institutions relating to the economy also help
serve this function.

b. Goal Attainment (G): Each system has certain purposes associated with it. The
goals of the system must be defined, means of attempting to achieve these goals must
be laid out, and then these goals must be achieved. Within the social system, the
polity (political sphere and government) is an important aspect of this, setting and
altering the goals for the society as a whole, and ―mobilizing actors and resources to
that end‖. The state bureaucracy and other organizations – business and nonprofit – all
help to implement and achieve these goals.

Smaller scale institutions also have goals, for example, the University of Delhi as a
system has the goal of teaching, research, and community service. Within a family or
individual system, there will also be goals, although these may not be so clearly
spelled out as in formal organizations. Each organization, as a subsystem, has certain
goals, and within this there will be positions with roles to play in helping the
organization achieve these goals. Within a business, there will be marketing,
production, finance, etc. positions that each have specific roles within the context of
attempting to make profits for the business and help the business expand. Within the
family, husband and wife, parents and children are each statuses with roles for
meeting family goals.

c. Integration (I): This is the means by which social relationships, and

interrelationships among units or groups, are regulated. By integration, Parsons means
the need to coordinate, adjust, and regulate relationships among various actors or units
within the system in order to keep the system functioning.

As various social processes functions occur, strains, tensions and conflicts may
emerge. These are a result of the way that individuals relate to each other, and as
different units carry out their tasks and roles that need to be done in a system. Means
of managing these tensions, diffusing and resolving conflicts and ensuring that orderly
means of carrying on activities can be ensured. At the level of society as a whole,
there are a variety of institutions that do this. Religion, education, the media, the legal
structures – police and courts – all play a role.

d. Latency (L) or pattern maintenance (P): Parsons also refers to this as the
cultural-motivational system. These are referred to as latent because they may not
always be as apparent as the A, G, or I functions. For Parsons, "All
institutionalization involves common moral as well as other values. Collectivity
obligations are, therefore, an aspect of every institutionalized role. But in certain
contexts of orientation-choice, these obligations may be latent.‖ Even though these
exist they may not be readily apparent and thus are latent. The test of their nature

140
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

would be to determine the actors reaction in a specific situation.

The AGIL functions must exist at all levels, in society as a whole, and in each
subsystem. These may not be consciously worked out functions, and roles and
functions can be shared among organizations or individuals. In traditional societies,
most of these functions would have been centred in family and kinship structures, and
in local communities. In these societies, there may have been little differentiation in
functions, although culture and the integration function often came to be associated
with religion. As societies have developed, these functions tend to evolve, with
different institutions developing different functions, and with different functions
developing within each organizations. Specialized functions and roles develop, and
specialized institutions to carry these out also evolve, and it is best to have specialized
roles and specialized institutions to carry out the functions of a modern, complex
society. These may develop in an evolutionary fashion, without any conscious
consideration, much like Durkheim's ―natural‖ development of the division of labour.
Or, as in bureaucracies, they may be consciously worked out organizational structures.
Some of this can be seen by examining Parsons' view of change

141
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Robert K. Merton

Overview

Merton was born July 4, 1910, and his extraordinary life story evokes both a very
American trajectory appropriate to the holiday birthday and the universalism of
science. Merton‘s parents were Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, and indeed
the future RKM was born Meyer R. Schkolnick. The family lived above his father‘s
small dairy products shop in South Philadelphia until it burned down, without
insurance, and his father became a carpenter‘s assistant. Merton‘s family lacked
wealth, but he insisted his childhood did not lack opportunity—and cited such
institutions as a very decent public high school and the library donated by their well-
wishers. Indeed, suggested Merton in 1994, that seemingly deprived South
Philadelphia slum provided ―a youngster with every sort of capital—social capital,
cultural capital, human capital, and, above all, what we may call public capital—that
is, with every sort of capital except the personally financial.‖

He won a scholarship to Temple University he was content to let the new name
become permanent. Later on his encounter with Parsons during his apprenticeship has
deepened his idea of sociology itself. Still, as he wrote later, ―although much
impressed by Parsons as a master-builder of sociological theory, I found myself
departing from his mode of theorizing (as well as his mode of exposition).‖

Merton in his life turned in several directions. Which is evident from his first articles,
written as a graduate student and published in 1934-35, addressed ―Recent French
Sociology,‖ ―The Course of Arabian Intellectual Development, 700-1300 A.D.,‖
―Fluctuations in the Rate of Industrial Invention,‖ and ―Science and Military
Technique.‖ Ultimately, he wrote his first major study on Science, Technology, and
Society in Seventeenth Century England (1938), and in the process helped to invent
the sociology of science.

Merton was perhaps the last of an extraordinary generation of sociologists whose

work shaped the basic definition of the discipline in the mid-20th century. Along with
Parsons, he helped make Emile Durkheim‘s notion of functional analysis central to the
field—though Merton preferred to speak of ―structural-functional analysis‖ and tried
to avoid reduction of an approach to an orthodoxy or ―ism.‖ Merton eschewed the
building of grand theoretical systems in favor of what he called ―middle-range
theories‖ designed to guide empirical inquiry. He made famous the distinction of
―manifest‖ from ―latent‖ functions, denied that social cohesion could be assumed as
‗normal,‘ and gave analysis of social conflict more attention than did Parsons, though
not enough to escape the widespread criticism of functionalism that started in the
1960s.

142
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Latent and Manifest Functions

Merton laid out his theory of manifest function (and latent function and dysfunction
too) in his 1949 book Social Theory and Social Structure. Manifest function refers to
the intended function of social policies, processes, or actions that are consciously and
deliberately designed to be beneficial in their effect on society. Meanwhile, a latent
function is one that is not consciously intended, but that, nonetheless, has a beneficial
effect on society. Contrasting with both manifest and latent functions are
dysfunctions, a type of unintended outcome that is harmful in nature.

Merton used the example of a rain dance performed by the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and
New Mexico. The Hopi believe that the ceremony will bring the rain they need for
their crops (manifest function). This is why they organize and participate in it. But
using Durkheim‘s theory of religion, Merton argued that the rain dance also has the
effect of promoting the cohesion of the Hopi society (latent function).

The manifest function of slavery, for example, was to increase the economic
productivity of the South, but it had the latent function of providing a vast underclass
that served to increase the social status of southern whites, both rich and poor. This
idea is related to another of Merton‘s concepts— unanticipated consequences. Actions
have both intended and unintended consequences. Although everyone is aware of the
intended consequences, sociological analysis is required to uncover the unintended
consequences; indeed, to some this is the very essence of sociology.

Merton made it clear that unanticipated consequences and latent functions are not the
same. A latent function is one type of unanticipated consequence, one that is
functional for the designated system. But there are two other types of unanticipated
consequences: ―those that are dysfunctional for a designated system, and these
comprise the latent dysfunctions,‖ and ―those which are irrelevant to the system which
they affect neither functionally or dysfunctionally . . . non-functional consequences‖.

The thing about latent functions is that they often go unnoticed or uncredited, that is
unless they produce negative outcomes. Merton classified harmful latent functions as
dysfunctions because they cause disorder and conflict within society. However, he
also recognized that dysfunctions can be manifest in nature. These occur when the
negative consequences are known in advance and include, for example, the disruption
of traffic and daily life by a large event like a street festival or a protest.It's the former,
though, that primarily concern sociologists. In fact, one could say that a significant
portion of sociological research is focused on just that—how harmful social problems
are unintentionally created by laws, policies, rules, and norms that are intended to do
something else.

To look for the dysfunctional aspects of social behavior means focusing on features of

143
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

social life that challenge the existing order of things. For example, it is mistaken to
suppose that religion is always functional—that it contributes only to social cohesion.
When two groups support different religions or even different versions of the same
religion, the result can be major social conflicts, causing widespread social disruption.
Thus wars have often been fought between religious communities—as can be seen in
the struggles between Protestants and Catholics in European history. For a long while,
functionalist thought was probably the leading theoretical tradition in sociology,
particularly in the United States.

Merton contended that not all structures are indispensable to the workings of the
social system. Some parts of our social system can be eliminated. This helps
functional theory overcome another of its conservative biases. By recognizing that
some structures are expendable, functionalism opens the way for meaningful social
change. Our society, for example, could continue to exist (and even be improved) by
the elimination of discrimination against various minority groups.

Reference Groups

Reference group has its origin in psychology; coined by Herbert Hyman to refer to the
group against which individual evaluates his or her own situation or conduct .Later on
Robert Merton and Alice Kittrefined the concept and provided a functionalist
formulation of it.

Hyman found in his study of social class that people thought of as their status could
not be predicted solely from such factors as income or level of education. To a certain
extent, an individual‘s self-evaluation of status depended on the group used as a
framework for judgment. In many cases, people model their behavior after groups to
which they do not belong. Quite often, an individual is torn between the demands of a
membership group to which he belongs but with which he does not identify and the
motivational dictates of a reference group of which he is not a member. Social
psychologists have termed this position as marginality.

Reference Group is defined as a group, with which, one always makes a comparison,
in order to evaluate ones achievement, aspirations, role performance and ambition.
They act as normative standards for the individual .It is totally up to an individual to
decide what reference group one will make. So, a membership group may not be a
reference group, but a non-membership group can be.

Reference groups can be of two types

(i) Positive Reference Groups:

These are the ones we want to be accepted by. Thus, if we want to be a film actor, we
might carefully observe and imitate the behaviour of film actors. These are the groups,

144
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

collectivities or persons that provide the person with a guide to action by explicitly
setting norms and espousing values.

(ii) Negative Reference Groups:

These groups we do not want to be identified with, also serve as sources of self-
evaluation. A person might, for example, try to avoid resembling members of a
particular religious group or a circus group. A group rejected by or in opposition to
ego‘s own group, it is ‗the enemy‘ or the negative group.

Cricketers are an influential reference group for many Indians.

Advertising plays up such aspirations.

Merton also suggested some factors which are decisive in making a group, a reference
group -

a) Power and Prestige

b) Isolation in membership group

c) Open vs Closed group

d) Reference individuals or role models in a group

Anticipatory Socialization: Here individual starts to behave in a manner in

which members of aspirational reference group behave. It leads to change in the value
system of individual and it facilitates easy merger of individual in the aspirational
group.

145
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

Reference Group and Interaction Group

Interaction groups are a more general part of the individuals social environment but
may neither set normative standards for individual nor serve as a standard of
comparison. On the other hand, reference group is the aspirational group and is
defined in normative terms as a standard of comparison. It implies that relative
deprivation is also akin to reference group behavior.

SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY

A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that becomes true, due to the very fact that it
is a prophecy and because of a purported positive feedback mechanism between
behaviour of the actor and belief of the prophecy maker. For example, if a teacher in a
class openly says that a student X will top, there are chances that student may actually
tops the class. A corollary of this is that subjects often perform according to the social
expectations attached to them. This concept is also applicable in sociology of work.

Conformity and Deviance

Drug addiction is a form of deviance

Study of conformity examines the pressures on individuals to conform to the

expectations of a group, society, organization, or leader. Merton bases his theory on
sociological assumptions about human nature. Merton replaces Durkheim‗s
conception of insatiable passions and appetites with the assumption that human needs
and desires are primarily the product of a social process: i.e., cultural socialization.

146
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

For instance, people reared in a society where cultural values emphasize material
goals will learn to strive for economic success. Merton extends this materialistic
portrait to include all of American society. Merton not only argues that all Americans,
regardless of their position in society, are exposed to the dominant materialistic
values, but that cultural beliefs sustain the myth that anyone can succeed in the pursuit
of economic goals.

Merton‟s Response Matrix

Response Means Goals Example

Conformist + + School Students

Innovator - + Criminals

Low level
Ritualist + - bureaucrats

Retreatist - - Drug Addicts

Rebellion - + - + Revolutionaries

According to him, when a system of cultural values extols, virtually above all else,
certain common success-goals for the population at large while the social structure
rigorously restricts or completely closes access to approved modes of reaching these
goals for a considerable part of the same population, deviant behavior ensues on a
large scale. This chronic discrepancy between cultural promises and structural realities
not only undermines social support for institutional norms but also promotes
violations of those norms. Blocked in their pursuit of economic success, many
members of society are forced to adapt in deviant ways to this frustrating
environmental condition.

These adaptations describe the kinds of social roles people adopt in response to

147
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

cultural and structural pressures.

a) Conformity: is a non-deviant adaptation where people continue to engage in

legitimate occupational or educational roles despite environmental pressures toward
deviant behavior. That is, the conformist accepts and strives for the cultural goal of
material success (+) by following institutionalized means (+).

b) Innovation: involves acceptance of the cultural goal (+) but rejection of legitimate,
institutionalized means (-). Instead, the innovator moves into criminal or delinquent
roles that employ illegitimate means to obtain economic success. Merton proposes that
innovation is particularly characteristic of the lower class – the location in the class
structure of American society where access to legitimate means is especially limited
and the ―strain toward anomie is most severe. Driven by the dominant cultural
emphasis on material goals, lower-class persons use illegitimate but expedient means
to overcome these structural blockages. Thus, Merton‗s analysis of innovation, like
Durkheim‗s analysis of anomic suicide, arrives at an environmental explanation of an
important set of social facts; i.e., the high rates of lower class crime and delinquency
found in official records.

c) Ritualism: is an over-conformist. Here, the pursuit of the dominant cultural goal of

economic success is rejected or abandoned (-) and compulsive conformity to
institutional norms (+) becomes an end in itself. Merton argues that this adaptation is
most likely to occur within the lower middle class of American society where
socialization practices emphasize strict discipline and rigid conformity to rules. This
adaptation is exemplified by the role behavior of the bureaucratic clerk who, denying
any aspirations for advancement, becomes preoccupied with the ritual of doing it ―by
the book. Since the ritualist outwardly conforms to institutional norms, there is good
reason to question, as does Merton, ―whether this (adaptation) represents genuinely
deviant behavior.

d) Retreatism: involves complete escape from the pressures and demands of

organized society. Merton applies this adaptation to the deviant role ―activities of
psychotics, autists, pariahs, outcasts, vagrants, vagabonds, tramps, chronic drunkards,
and drug addicts. Despite the obvious importance of ritualism to the study of deviant
behavior, Merton provides few dues as to where, in the class structure of society, this
adaptation is most likely to occur. Instead, Merton‗s analysis of retreatism has a more
individualistic flavor than does his discussion of other types of adaptation. Retreatism
is presented as an escape mechanism whereby the individual resolves internal conflict
between moral constraints against the use of illegitimate means and repeated failure to
attain success through legitimate means. Subsequently, Merton‗s conception of
retreatism as a private way of dropping out was given a more sociological
interpretation by theorists in the sub-cultural tradition.

148
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

e) Rebellion: The two ± signs show that the rebel not only rejects the goals and means
of the established society but actively attempts to substitute new goals and means in
their place. This adaptation refers, then, to the role behavior of political deviants, who
attempt to modify greatly the existing structure of society. The rebel publicly
acknowledges his or her intention to change those norms and the social structure that
they support in the interests of building a better, more just society. Merton implies that
rebellion is most characteristic of ―members of a rising class, who become inspired
by political ideologies that ―locate the source of large-scale frustrations in the social
structure and portray an alternative structure which would not, presumably, give rise
to frustration of the deserving.

Merton claimed his analysis showed how the culture and structure of society generate
deviance. The overemphasis upon the cultural goals of financial success and high
status in American society, at the expense of institutionalised means, creates a
tendency towards anomie. This tendency exerts pressure for deviance, a pressure
which varies depending on a person's position in the class structure.

Merton has been criticised for assuming that there is a value consensus in American
society and that people only deviate as a result of structural strain. His theory fails to
explain why some people who experience the effects of anomie do not become
criminals or deviants.

Laurie Taylor criticised Merton for not carrying his analysis far enough: for failing to
consider who makes the laws and who benefits from them. Some critics also believe
that Merton's theory over-predicts and exaggerates working-class crime, and under-
predicts and underestimates middle-class or white-collar crime.

Robert Reiner points out that Merton acknowledged that not all Americans accept the
success goals of the American Dream, though such goals are sufficiently widespread
in the lower strata to account for their deviance.

Albert Cohen argues that Merton has failed to take into account non-utilitarian crimes
such as vandalism, which don‘t produce any rewards that can be explained by the idea
of a subculture, but not by goals-means dichotomy, as proposed by Merton.

Despite the criticisms, Merton's theory remains one of the more plausible attempts to
explain crime rates in whole societies. Joachim J.Savelsberg (1995) argues that
Merton‘s strain theory can help to explain the rapid rises in the crime rate in post-
communist Poland, former Czechoslovakia, eastern Germany and Russia. Poland is an
example of how dramatic these rises sometimes were. Other sociologists have
modified and built on his theory in order to try to develop more complete explanations
for crime and delinquency.

149
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

G H Mead

Mead is the most important thinker in the history of symbolic interactionism and his
book Mind, Self and Society is the most important single work in that tradition. He
gave a unique explanation of the human interactions in society and rejected a
behaviouristic view of human beings. He believed that people had consciousness, a
self, and that it was the responsibility of the sociologist to study this aspect of social
reality. Influenced by psychological behaviorism, Mead offered Sociology, a social-
psychological theory that stood in stark contrast to the prevailing theories offered by
most of the major European theorists which is central towards the evolution of
symbolic Interactionism.

After Mead‘s death in 1931 his students at the University published his teachings as a
book Mind, Self, and Society in 1934. Herbert Blumer, Mead‘s pupil, further
developed his theory and coined it ―Symbolic Interactionism.‖This theory is the
process of interaction in the formation of meanings for individuals. In simple form,
people act based on symbolic meanings they find within a given situation. The goals
of our interactions are to create a shared meaning.

In Mead‘s view, traditional social psychology began with the psychology of the
individual, in an effort to explain social experience. In contrast, Mead always gave
priority to the social world in controlling man‘s destiny.

Self

For Mead, the self is fundamentally social and cognitive. It should be distinguished
from the individual, who also has non-cognitive attributes. The self, then, is not
identical to the individual and is linked to self-consciousness. It begins to develop
when individuals interact with others and play roles. What are roles are these? They
are behaviors that are responses to sets of behaviors of other human beings. The
notions of role-taking and role playing are familiar from sociological and social-
psychological literature. For example, the child plays at being a doctor by having
another child play at being a patient. To play at being a doctor, however, requires
being able to anticipate what a patient might say, and vice versa. Role playing
involves taking the attitudes or perspectives of others.

His ideas involve the critically important concept of the self, basically the ability to
take oneself as an object; the self is the peculiar ability to be both subject and
object.To Mead, the social whole precedes the individual mind both logically and
temporally.A thinking, self-conscious individual is, as we will see later, logically
impossible inMead‘s theory without a prior social group. The social group comes first,
and it leadsto the development of self-conscious mental states.

150
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

The important role of Society in shaping the Self is everyday

experienced by the current social media-obsessed generation

Mind

Mead's conception of mind is a "social phenomenon--arising and developing within

the social process, within the empirical matrix of social interactions."The mind
emerges through such exchanges, thus its nature is that of an internal process of
communication grounded in the utilization of significant symbols. Therefore, the mind
is formed through self-conversation and interactions with others. Shared symbols,
dominate the process. Our most vital and distinctive symbolic communication is
language. In Mead's words, "out of language emerges the field of mind.‖ For Mead
and later symbolic interactionists, language is the distinguishing criterion for being
human. Mead believed that if one's actions evoke the same response in others, then the
meaning of symbols is no longer private but a behavioral reality that can be studied.

The mind, according to Mead is a process and not a thing, is an inner conversation
with one‘s self, is not found within the individual; it is a social phenomenon. It arises
and develops within the social process and is an integral part of that process. The
social process precedes the mind; it is not, as many believe, a product of the mind.
Thus, the mind, too, is defined functionally rather than substantively. Given these
similarities to ideas such as consciousness, is there anything distinctive about the
mind? We already have seen that humans have the peculiar capacity to call out in
themselves the response they are seeking to elicit from others. A distinctive
characteristic of the mind is the ability of the individual ―to call out in himself not
simply a single response of the other but the response, so to speak, of the community
as a whole. That is what gives to an individual what we term ‗mind.‘ To do anything

151
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

now means a certain organized response; and if one has in himself that response, he
has what we term ‗mind‘.‖ Thus, the mind can be distinguished from other like-
sounding concepts in Mead‘s work by its ability to respond to the overall community
and put forth an organized response.

For Mead, if we were simply to take the roles of others, we would never develop
selves or self-consciousness. We would have a nascent form of self-consciousness that
parallels the sort of reflexive awareness that is required for the use of significant
symbols. A role-taking (self) consciousness of this sort makes possible what might be
called a proto-self, but not a self, because it doesn't have the complexity necessary to
give rise to a self. How then does a self arise? Here Mead introduces his well-known
neologism, the generalized other. When children or adults take roles, they can be said
to be playing these roles in dyads. However, this sort of exchange is quite different
from the more complex sets of behaviors that are required to participate in games. In
the latter, we are required to learn not only the responses of specific others, but
behaviors associated with every position on the field. These can be internalized, and
when we succeed in doing so we come to ―view‖ our own behaviors from the
perspective of the game as a whole, which is a system of organized actions.

Child Development

Mead traces the genesis of the self through two stages in childhood development.

First stage: Play Stage: it is during this stage that children learn to take the attitude of
particular others to themselves. Although lower animals also play, only human beings
―play at being someone else.‖

Mead gives the example of a child playing (American) ―Indian‖: ―This means that the
child has a certain set of stimuli which call out in itself the responses they would call
out in others, and which answer to an Indian‖. As a result of such play, the child learns
to become both subject and object and begins to become able to build a self. However,
it is a limited self because the child can take only the roles of distinct and separate
others. Children may play at being ―mommy‖ and ―daddy‖ and in the process develop
the ability to evaluate themselves as their parents, and other specific individuals, do.
However, they lack a more general and organized sense of themselves.

Second Stage: Game Stage: It is the next stage, here a person is to develop a self in
the full sense of the term. Whereas in the play stage the child takes the role of discrete
others, in the game stage the child must take the role of everyone else involved in the
game. Furthermore, these different roles must have a definite relationship to one
another. In illustrating the game stage, Mead gives his famous example of a baseball
(or, as he calls it, ―ball nine‖) game:

152
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

But in a game where a number of individuals are involved, then the child
taking one role must be ready to take the role of everyone else. If he gets in a
ball then he must have the responses of each position involved, in his own
position. He must know what everyone else is going to do in order to carry out
his own play. He has to take all of these roles. They do not all have to be
present in consciousness at the same time, but at some moments he has to have
three or four individuals present in his own attitude, such as the one who is
going to throw the ball, the one who is going to catch it, and so on. These
responses must be, in some degree, present in his own make -up. In the game,
then, there is a set of responses of such others so organized that the attitude of
one calls out the appropriate attitudes of the other.

In the play stage, children are not organized wholes because they play at a series of
discrete roles. As a result, in Mead‘s view they lack definite personalities. However,
in the game stage, such organization begins and a definite personality starts to emerge.
Children begin to become able to function in organized groups and, most important, to
determine what they will do within a specific group.

Generalized Other

The game stage yields one of Mead‘s best-known concepts, the generalized other. The
generalized other is the attitude of the entire community or, in the example of the
baseball game, the attitude of the entire team. The ability to take the role of the
generalized other is essential to the self: ―Only in so far as he takes the attitudes of the
organized social group to which he belongs toward the organized, co-operative social
activity or set of such activities in which that group is engaged, does he develop a
complete self‖. It is also crucial that people be able to evaluate themselves from the
point of view of the generalized other and not merely from the viewpoint of discrete
others. Taking the role of the generalized other, rather than that of discrete others,
allows for the possibility of abstract thinking and objectivity.

According to him, the organized community or social group which gives to the
individual his unity of self may be called ―the generalized other.‖ The attitude of the
generalized other is the attitude of the whole community. Thus, for example, in the
case of such a social group as a ball team, the team is the generalized other in so far as
it enters—as an organized process or social activity—into the experience of any one
of the individual members of it.

For him, self is dialectically related to the mind. That is, on the one hand, Mead argues
that the body is not a self and becomes a self only when a mind has developed. On the
other hand, the self, along with its reflexiveness, is essential to the development of the

153
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

mind.The self also allows people to take part in their conversations with others. That
is, one is aware of what one is saying and as a result is able to monitor what is being
said and to determine what is going to be said next.

In order to have selves, individuals must be able to get ―outside themselves‖ so that
they can evaluate themselves, so that they can become objects to themselves. To do
this, people basically put themselves in the same experiential field as they put
everyone else. Everyone is an important part of that experiential situation, and people
must take themselves into account if they are to be able to act rationally in a given
situation. Having done this, they seek to examine themselves impersonally,
objectively, and without emotion.

Children attain Selfhood during the Game stage

However, people cannot experience this by themselves directly. They can do so only
indirectly by putting themselves in the position of others and viewing themselves from
that standpoint. The standpoint from which one views one‘s self can be that of a
particular individual or that of the social group as a whole. As Mead puts it, most
generally, ―It is only by taking the roles of others that we have been able to come back
to ourselves‖.

So the self reaches its full development by organizing these individual attitudes of
others into the organized social or group attitudes, and by thus becoming an individual
reflection of the general systematic pattern of social or group behavior in which it and
others are involved—a pattern which enters as a whole into the individual‘s
experience in terms of these organized group attitudes which, through the mechanism
of the central nervous system, he takes toward himself, just as he takes the individual
attitudes of others.

154
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

In other words, to have a self, one must be a member of a community and be directed
by the attitudes common to the community. While play requires only pieces of selves,
the game requires a coherent self.

Society

Society is the third component in Mead's system. It is little more than an extension of
his "organized self." More precisely, through interaction the self takes on "generalized
social attitudes" toward a wider environment. Such references are beyond the
immediate spheres of personal relationships, intimate groups, or communities. For
Mead, the institution of society consist of "common responses" rooted in such
attitudes by which "the modern civilized human individual is and feels himself to be a
member not only of a certain local community or state or nation, but also of an entire
given race or even civilization as a "whole."Society is thus maintained by virtue of
humans‘ ability to role-take and to assume the perspective of generalized other.

Education is the process by which the common habits of the community (the
institution) are ―internalized‖ in the actor. This is an essential process because, in
Mead‘s view, people neither have selves nor are genuine members of the community
until they can respond to themselves as the larger community does. To do this, people
must have internalized the common attitudes of the community.

Communication through significant symbols is that which renders the intelligent

organization of social acts possible. Significant communication, as stated earlier,
involves the comprehension of meaning, i.e., the taking of the attitude of others
toward one‘s own gestures. Significant communication among individuals creates a
world of common (symbolic) meanings within which further and deliberate social acts
are possible. The specifically human social act, in other words, is rooted in the act of
significant communication and is, in fact, ordered by the conversation of significant
symbols.

To Mead, institutions should define what people ought to do only in a very broad and
general sense and should allow plenty of room for individuality and creativity. Mead
here demonstrates a very modern conception of social institutions as both constraining
individuals and enabling them to be creative individuals. Mead was distinct from the
other classical theorists in emphasizing the enabling character of society—arguably
disregarding society‘s constraining power.

“I” and “Me”

One of Mead's most significant contributions to social psychology is his distinction

between the ―I‖ and the ―Me.‖ It's worth emphasizing that while this distinction is
utilized in sociological circles, it is grounded philosophically for Mead. ―I‖ and ―Me‖

155
www.iasgurukul.com
SOCIOLOGY BY PRANAY AGGARWAL IAS GURUKUL Call 99996 93744

are functional distinctions for Mead, not metaphysical ones. He refers to them as
phases of the self, although he more typically uses the word self to refer to the ―Me‖.

The self that arises in relationship to a specific generalized other is referred to as the
―Me.‖ The ―Me‖ is a cognitive object, which is only known retrospectively, that is, on
reflection. When we act in habitual ways we are not typically self-conscious. We are
engaged in actions at a non-reflective level. However, when we take the perspective of
the generalized other, we are both ―watching‖ and forming a self in relationship to the
system of behaviors that constitute this generalized other. So, for example, if I am
playing second base, I may reflect on my position as a second baseman, but to do so I
have to be able to think of ―myself‖ in relationship to the whole game, namely, the
other actors and the rules of the game. We might refer to this cognitive object as my
(second baseman) baseball self or ―Me.‖

Mead lays great stress on the ―I‖ for four reasons. First, it is a key source of novelty in
the social process. Second, Mead believes that it is in the ―I‖ that our most important
values are located. Third, the ―I‖ constitutes something that we all seek—the
realization of the self. It is the ―I‖ that permits us to develop a ―definite personality.‖
Finally, Mead sees an evolutionary process in history in which people in primitive
societies are dominated more by the ―me‖ while in modern societies there is a greater
component of the ―I.‖

With ―I‖, Mead is able to deal with the changes brought about not only by the great
figures in history (for example, Einstein) but also by individuals on a day-to-day basis.
It is the ―I‖ that makes these changes possible. Since every personality is a mix of ―I‖
and ―me,‖ the great historical figures are seen as having a larger proportion of ―I‖ than
most others have. But in day-to-day situations, anyone‘s ―I‖ may assert itself and lead
to change in the social situation. Uniqueness is also brought into Mead‘s system
through the biographical articulation of each individual‘s ―I‖ and ―me.‖ That is, the
specific exigencies of each person‘s life give him or her unique mix of ―I‖ and ―me.‖

Mead also looks at the ―I‖ and the ―me‖ in pragmatic terms. The ―me‖ allows the
individual to live comfortably in the social world, while the ―I‖ makes change in
society possible. Society gets enough conformity to allow it to function, and it gets a
steady infusion of new developments to prevent it from stagnating. The ―I‖ and the
―me‖ are thus part of the whole social process and allow both individuals and society
to function more effectively.

156
www.iasgurukul.com