1

Chapter 1. Origin and Development of Sociology and Anthropology

(Sociology- ISC XI)

Outline:

(i) Emergence of Sociology and Anthropology as Disciplines. Discuss the definition, origin and

growth of the two disciplines briefly. Define the nature and scope of Sociology.

(ii) Classical Thinkers and Theories. Contribution of the Classical Thinkers on the basis of their

theories. Discuss the contribution of the following on the basis of the given theories:

Auguste Comte – Positivism;

Herbert Spencer – Theory of Evolution (use Social Darwinism, Organic Analogy);

Emile Durkheim - Structural Functionalism (use the concepts sacred and profane, division of

labour, solidarity)

Max Weber - Interpretive Sociology (bureaucracy, types of authority);

Karl Marx - Conflict Theory (class and class struggle).

(iii) Sociology and other Social Sciences. An understanding of the interrelationship between

Sociology and other Social Sciences Relationship between Sociology and other Social Sciences -

Political Science, Economics, Anthropology (Physical Anthropology; Socio-cultural

Anthropology), History, Psychology, Philosophy.

(i) Emergence of Sociology and Anthropology as disciplines

What is Sociology? Sociology is the science of society as it endeavours to study society in its entirety. It is interested in social relationships not because they are economic or political or religious

or legal or educational but because they are at the same time, social. Auguste Comte, a Frenchman, is traditionally considered to the father of Sociology. He

coined 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.

Emergence of Sociology: Sociology came to be established as an independent and a separate social science in the middle of the 19th century when European social observers began to use scientific methods to test their ideas. Definitions:

1}. Auguste 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}.Kingsley Davis says that "Sociology is a general science of society". 3}. Harry M. Johnson opines that "sociology is the science that deals with social groups".

2

4}.Emile Durkhiem: "Science of social institutions". 5}. Park regards sociology as "the science of collective behavior". 6}. Small defines sociology as "the science of social relationships". 7}. Marshal Jones defines sociology as "the study of man-in-relationship-to-men". 8}. Ogburn and Nimkoff : "Sociology is the scientific study of social life". 9}. Franklin Henry Giddings defines sociology as "the science of social phenomena". 10}. Henry Fairchild: "Sociology is the study of man and his human environment in their relations to each other". 11}. 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". 12}. Alex Inkeles says, "Sociology is the study of systems of social action and of their inter-relations". 13}. Kimball Young and Raymond W. Mack say, "Sociology is the scientific study of social aspects of human life". 14}. 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".

Origin and Growth: Social Science is any study concerned with man and society (human relationships,

interactions, behaviour, institutions, etc). Eg. History, Political Science, Economics, Sociology, Anthropology and Psychology.

Sociology has a long past but only a short history. Sociology which is known as the science of society, is one of the youngest as well as one of the oldest of the social sciences.

It is one of the youngest sciences because only recently it came to be established as a distinct branch of knowledge with its own distinct set of concepts and its own methods of inquiry.

Since the dawn of civilization, society has been a subject for speculation and inquiry along with other phenomena which have agitated the restless and inquisitive mind of man.

Even centuries ago men were thinking about society and how it should be organized, and held views on man and his destiny, the rise and fall of people and civilizations.

Though they were thinking in sociological terms they were called philosophers, historians, thinkers, law givers, seers etc. This shows Sociology is one of the oldest of the sciences.

Sociology emerged in the middle of the nineteen century in Europe due to the efforts of French philosopher Auguste Comte.

Three factors led to the development of sociology: 1. Industrial Revolution 2. Growth of Natural Sciences 3. Diverse Societies and Cultures

Industrial revolution: Europe was changing from agriculture to factory production Masses of people moved to the cities in search of work In cities people met anonymity, crowding, filth, and poverty Industrial Revolution challenged the traditional order an opened the door for democratic

changes Social changes undermined the traditional explanations of human existence

Growth of natural sciences: 19th Century – Natural sciences made much progress Success tempted good number of social thinkers to emulate their example It seemed logical to discover the laws underlying social phenomena

Diverse societies and cultures: The Europeans had been successful in obtaining colonies Their colonial empires exposed them to radically different cultures

3

Startled by these contrasting ways of life, they began to ask questions why cultures differed

Nature of Sociology: Sociology is a social science and not a natural science, because it deals with human

beings and social phenomena. It is positive and not normative science because it studies social phenomena as it is and

not as it ought to be. It is pure and not applied science because it studies underlying factors of a social

phenomenon. Sociology is an independent science – it is not treated and studies as a branch of any other

science. It has its own field of study, boundary and method. Sociology is a social science and not a physical science – it concentrates its attention on

man, his social behaviour, social activities and social life. Sociology is a categorical and not a normative discipline – it confines itself to statements

about what is, not what should be or ought to be. It does not make any kind of value judgements. Its approach is neither moral, nor immoral, but amoral. It is ethically neutral.

Sociology is a pure science and not an applied science – its main aim is the acquisition of knowledge about human society, not the utilization of that knowledge. The knowledge thus acquired is of great help to the administrator, legislator, diplomat, teachers etc.

Sociology is relatively an abstract science and not a concrete science – it is not interested in the concrete manifestations of human events. It is more concerned with the form of human events and their patterns. For example: Sociology is concerned with particular wars and revolutions but with war and revolution in general, as social phenomena, as types of social conflict.

Sociology is a generalising and not a particularising or individualistic science –it tries to find out the general laws or principles about human interaction and association, about nature, form, content and structure of human groups and societies. It does not study each and every event that takes place in society.

Sociology is a general science and not a special social science – it is concerned with human interaction and human life in general.

Sociology is both a rational and an empirical science – there are two broad ways of approach to scientific knowledge. One, known as empiricism, is the approach that emphasizes experience and

The facts that result from observation and experimentation. The other, known as rationalism, stresses reason and the theories that result from logical inference.

Scope of Sociology: There are two main schools of thought about the scope of sociology. The Specialistic or Formalistic School:

Believes that scope of sociology should not be generalized but confined to the study of some specific aspects of society.

Subject – pure and independent. Deals with social relationships, social activities and processes of socialization. Chief exponents – George Simmel, Vierkandt, Max Weber, Small, etc.

The Synthetic School of Thought:

Sociology as the synthesis of social sciences Believes that sociology should study society as a whole and not confine itself to the

study of only limited social problems. Social life is inter-related General ; not pure or special Chief exponents – Durkhiem, Hob House, Ginsberg and Sorokin.

4

What is Anthropology? Greek anthropos (“human”) and logia (“study”), it is the study of humankind, from its

beginnings, millions of years ago to the present day. Anthropology is the study of people throughout the world, their evolutionary history, how

they behave, adapt to different environments, communicate and socialise with one another. The study of anthropology is concerned both with the biological features that make us

human (such as physiology, genetic makeup, nutritional history and evolution) and with social aspects (such as language, culture, politics, family and religion).

Whether studying a religious community in London, or human evolutionary fossils in the UAE, anthropologists are concerned with many aspects of people’s lives: the everyday practices as well as the more dramatic rituals, ceremonies and processes which define us as human beings.

Emergence of Anthropology:

Did not appear until the 16th century Many philosophers, like Aristotle, were conducting studies of anthropological nature as

early as 4th century BC. Also, Herodotus in 500 BC, Aristotle in 400 BC and Strabo in 100 BC.

Anthropology, considered as the science of humanity, originated in the region we commonly refer to as ‘the West’, notably in four ‘Western’ countries: France, Britain, the USA and Germany.

Historically speaking, this is a European discipline, and its practitioners, like those of all European sciences, ocasionally like to trace its roots back to the ancient Greeks

Definition of Anthropology: "Anthropology demands the open-mindedness with which one must look and listen, record

in astonishment and wonder at that which one would not have been able to guess" – Margaret Mead (1901-1978)

“The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human differences” – Ruth Benedict (1887-1948)

“Anthropology is the most humanistic of sciences and the most scientific of the humanities” – Anthropologist Alfred L.Kroeber (1876-1960)

Origin and Growth: Anthropology traces its roots to ancient Greek historical and philosophical writings about

human nature and the organization of human society. Anthropologists generally regard Herodotus, a Greek historian who lived in the 400s BC, as the first thinker to write widely on concepts that would later become central to anthropology.

In the book History, Herodotus described the cultures of various peoples of the Persian Empire, which the Greeks conquered during the first half of the 400s BC. He referred to Greece as the dominant culture of the West and Persia as the dominant culture of the East. This type of division, between white people of European descent and other peoples, established the mode that most anthropological writing would later adopt.

The Arab historian Ibn Khaldun, who lived in the 14th century AD, was another early writer of ideas relevant to anthropology. Khaldun examined the environmental, sociological, psychological, and economic factors that affected the development and the rise and fall of civilizations.

Both Khaldun and Herodotus produced remarkably objective, analytic, ethnographic descriptions of the diverse cultures in the Mediterranean world, but they also often used secondhand information.

During the Middle Ages (5th to 15th centuries ad) biblical scholars dominated European thinking on questions of human origins and cultural development. They treated these questions as issues of religious belief and promoted the idea that human existence and all of human diversity were the creations of God.

Beginning in the 15th century, European explorers looking for wealth in new lands provided vivid descriptions of the exotic cultures they encountered on their journeys in

5

Asia, Africa, and what are now the Americas. But these explorers did not respect or know the languages of the peoples with whom they came in contact, and they made brief, unsystematic observations.

The European Age of Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries marked the rise of scientific and rational philosophical thought.

Enlightenment thinkers, such as Scottish-born David Hume, John Locke of England, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau of France, wrote a number of humanistic works on the nature of humankind. They based their work on philosophical reason rather than religious authority and asked important anthropological questions. Rousseau, for instance, wrote on the moral qualities of “primitive” societies and about human inequality. But most writers of the Enlightenment also lacked firsthand experience with non-Western cultures.

With the rise of imperialism (political and economic control over foreign lands) in the 18th and 19th centuries, Europeans came into increasing contact with other peoples around the world, prompting new interest in the study of culture

In the 19th century modern anthrop Anthropology came into being along with the development and scientific acceptance of

theories of biological and cultural evolution. In the early 19th century, a number of scientific observations, especially of unearthed bones and other remains, such as stone tools, indicated that humanity’s past had covered a much greater span of time than that indicated by the Bible.

(ii) Classical Thinkers and Theories

Auguste Comte

1798-1857. Born at Montpellier, France. A decade after the French Revolution. French thinker, famous social philosopher and the first sociologist. Laid the foundation of Sociology- ‘Father of Sociology’. He insisted that Sociology- Science of Society, should be treated on par with other sciences. His lecture notes, published between 1830-1842 in Six volumes (4800 pages), constituted

his masterly work called “Course of Positive Philosophy”. In that work Comte first used the term ‘ Sociology’. He believed in ‘cerebral hygiene’ to preserve his mental health.

Comtean Positivism:

“Philosophy of Science”- Roots in the empiricist tradition. Influenced by the writings of David Hume (Scottish philosopher, essayist and economist)

and Saint- Simon (Socialist thinker and philosopher) Meaning of Positivism The doctrine which asserts that the only true knowledge is scientific knowledge. Describes and explains the co-existence and succession of observable phenomenon,

including both physical and social phenomenon

General aims: to build general laws which demonstrate relationships between social phenomena. to reveal, by observation and experiment, those social phenomena which do or do not fit a

particular hypothesis. to use quantifiable and measurable data to construct explanations which examine the

impact of social structures upon human behaviour. Such explanations are therefore distinct from those which refer to human intentions and motives.

to apply scientific principles of research to the study of society, with the aim of constructing proposals for social change, thus leading to a better society.

6

Nature of Comtean Positivism: Positivism as a doctrine:

Positivism as a way of thinking – Based on assumption that it is possible to observe social life; knowledge can be derived only from sensory experience; methods of physical sciences are the only accurate means of obtaining knowledge

Positivism as a method: Positivism implies the use of scientific method – Methods most often associated with the physical sciences

Criticisms against Positivism: Positivism is not influential at present – Encourages misleading emphasis on superficial

facts and no attention to underlying unobservable mechanisms. For example: human motives, meaning of peoples’ behaviour

Methodological gulf between the physical and social sciences – Inappropriateness of natural-scientific methods in the human or social sciences. For example: cultural norms, symbolic meanings, etc

Problem of verification – Lack of any conclusive basis for verification Herbert Spencer

1820-1903 Evolution was one of the most exciting ideas of the 19th Century Comes from the Latin word “evolvere” which means to “develop” or to “unfold” Spencer applied the principle of evolution to the social world – “Social Evolution” Social Evolution – “A set of stages through which all the societies move from simple to

the complex and from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous Theory of Evolution: Spencer gave some laws and propositions to arrive at the theory of Evolution. Three basic laws:

1. Law of Persistence of Energy or Force 2. Law of Indestructibility of Matter 3. Law of Continuity of Motion

Four secondary propositions: 1. Uniformity of Law 2. Law of Transformation and Equivalence of Forces 3. Law of Least Resistance and Great Attraction 4. Principle of Alteration or Rhythm of Motion

Joint product of the seven laws = the Theory of Evolution “Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion, during which the matter passes from relatively indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a relatively definite, coherent heterogeneity.” Organic Analogy:

The identification of society with a biological organism. Society is thus viewed as being essentially analogous to an organism, with its

interdependent parts or organs making up the body of society.

7

Similarities between a society and a biological organism: Similarity in visible growth – Both society and organism are subject to growth.

For example: a child grows up to be a man; a tiny community becomes a metropolitan area. An increase in the complexity of structure – For example: primitive organisms like

amoeba are simple whereas the highest organisms like the mammals are very complex; primitive community was very simple whereas the modern industrial society is highly complex.

Differentiation of structure, leading to differentiation of functions – For example: the primitive living organism was a unicellular creature; but with the increase in the cells, differentiation of organs resulted, at the highest levels of evolution the structure of the body is quite complex. Similar is the case with society. In case of an organism that has very complex organs, each organ performs a specified function. Similarly, a complex society is sub-divided into many different organizations, and each organization carries out a specified function.

Change in structure leads to change in functions – it means that the function becomes more and more specialized. This applies to the body of a living creature as well as to the society.

Differentiation as well as harmony of organs – each organ is complimentary to the other and not opposed. This holds true both in the body of a living creature as well as to the society.

Loss of an organ does not necessarily result in the loss of an organism – For example: if an individual loses his leg, he does not necessarily die and similarly, in society if some association or a political party disintegrates it does not invariably lead to the decay of the society.

Similar process and methods of organization – in discussing the organic analogy further, Spencer compared the alimentary system of an organism to the productive industries, or the sustaining system in the society. There is a strong parallelism between the circulation system of an organism and the distributing system in society with its transportation lines and with its commercial classes and media of exchange. In both cases, there are developed regulating systems. In society, there is the social control mechanism to fulfil the regulative function. In an organism, there are dominant centres and subordinate centres, the senses, and a neural apparatus to perform the tasks of the regulating systems.

Differences between a society and a biological organism:

Organs are organised, but parts of society are independent – for example: limbs of an organism such as legs, hand etc. cannot have existence outside the physical body of the organism. But the parts of the society such as family, school, political party, etc., are relatively independent and are not organically fixed to the society. The movement of the parts is relatively free here.

Society does not have a definite form as does the organism – organism have an outward form or shape whereas, society is only a mental construct. It is abstract and exists in our mind only in the form of an idea.

Manner of difference in the dependence of organs or parts on the organism or society – parts or organs of the organism such as legs, hands, nose, eyes etc. are dependent upon the body itself. They exist for the sake of the body itself. On the other hand, the parts of the society such as individuals, families, groups etc. are more important than the society. In fact, society exists for the benefit of its parts, that is, individuals.

Difference regarding the centrality of “consciousness” – in an organism, there exists what is known as “consciousness” and it is concentrated in a small part of the aggregate. The parts of the body do not have this. But in case of the society, consciousness ids diffused throughout the individual members.

Differences regarding the structure and functions – in case of an organism, each of its parts performs a definite and fixed function. For example: the eyes, nose, heart, nerves etc. of an organism cannot change their functions. On the contrary, functions of the parts of the

8

society such as institutions, often get changed. For example: some of the functions of family, marriage, etc. have changed.

Social Darwinism:

Any doctrine which makes use or misuse of Charles Darwin’s biologically evolutionary principles to explain or justify the existing forms of human social organization

It is a 19th century adaptation of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution A theoretical explanation of human social life in general, and social inequality in particular It attempts to extend the principles of evolution to explain the developments taking place

in the social world Social Darwinism works on two principles:

1. The principle of “survival of the fittest” The incompetent lose and the strong win that is “survival of the fittest” It is the law of the nature that the weak should be eliminated for sake of the strong Due to the operation of laws of evolution only the “more fit” persons will survive and the

“less fit” ones will decline on their own 2. The principle of “non-interference” Spencer opposed all forms of state interference with private property According to him, state was just like a joint stock company, whose primary business was

protection of rights of individuals and defending the interests of its citizens against external aggression

Emile Durkheim

1858-1917 Most prominent French sociologist of the 19th century Acknowledged Comte as his master; but went far ahead to establish sociology as an

empirical science Defined sociology as a science of social facts ( an external way of thinking, feeling or

acting, which is subjective to the observer and which has a coercive nature) One of the most important progenitors of structural-functionalism in contemporary

sociology and anthropology

Main works include: The Division of Labour in Society (1893) , The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), Suicide (1897) , The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912) Structural Functionalism:

A perspective in sociology that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability

An approach which aims to discover the roles, institutions and processes play in maintaining a social order

A macro sociological analysis, with a broad focus on social structures that shape society as a whole

According to functionalist theories, institutions come about and persist because they play a function in society, promoting stability and integration

Durkheim was concerned with the question of how societies maintain internal stability and survive over time

Other proponents – Robert Merton, Talcott Parsons, etc. Sacred and Profane:

For Durkheim, “religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden.

Religion is about the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane The sacred refers to those collective representations that are set apart from the society, or

that which transcends the humdrum of everyday life.

9

The profane, on the other hand, is everything else, all those mundane things like our jobs, our bills, and our rush hour commute.

Religion is the practice of marking off and maintaining distance between these two realm Durkheim didn't limit or restrict the definition of the sacred to the supernatural, as

according to him any social phenomenon or idea could be sacred so long as there was a 'moral consensus' to that effect

In other words, sphere of the profane is the realm of everyday utilitarian activities – and the sphere of the sacred is the area that pertains to the numenous, the transcendental, the extraordinary.

An object is intrinsically neither sacred nor profane. It becomes the one or the other depending on whether men choose to consider the utilitarian value of the object or certain intrinsic attributes that have nothing to do with its instrumental value.

For example - The wine at mass has sacred ritual significance to the extent that it is considered by the believer to symbolize the blood of Christ; in this context it is plainly

not a beverage. Division of Labour:

Durkheim’s major contribution to sociological thought Reflects the relationship between individual and society A classic study of social solidarity

Used in three ways:

1. The technical division of labour – describes the production process 2. The sexual division of labour – describes social divisions between men and women 3. The social division of labour – differentiation in society as a whole.

Any stable organization, coordinating individuals, or groups carrying out different,

but integrated activities The way in which different tasks are allocated to different people It is the specialization of specific jobs and tasks, which aims to increase efficiency

and productivity, the skill of the workman, and it creates a feeling of solidarity between people

Goes beyond economic interests; it also establishes social and moral order within a society

Solidarity:

Synonymous with social cohesion or social integration the condition within a group in which there is social cohesion plus co-operative,

collective action directed towards the achievement of group goals Durkheim drew comparisons between primitive and civilized societies

1. Primitive societies – with Mechanical solidarity based on “conscience collective” 2. Advanced societies – with Organic solidarity based on the “division of labour”

Mechanical Solidarity:

Social solidarity based upon a homogeneity of values and behaviour, a strong social constraint, and loyalty to tradition and kinship

It is a term applied to small, non-literate societies characterized by a simple division of labour, little specialization of function, only a few social roles and a very little tolerance of individuality

In short, it is a solidarity of resemblance

10

Organic Solidarity: A type of societal solidarity typical of modern industrial society, in which unity is

based on the interdependence of a very large number of highly specialized roles in a system

It involves a complex division of labour that requires cooperation of almost all the groups and the individuals of the society

It is called organic because it is similar to the unity of a biological organism in which highly specialized parts of organs, must work in coordination if the organism is to survive

Max Weber

1864-1920 Born in a comparatively rich protestant family in Germany Great sociologist of the 20th century

Major works: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1930), The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations (1947), Economy and Society (1968) Interpretive Sociology:

Weber’s interpretive sociology, or verstehen, “considers the individual and his action as the basic unit…the individual is also the upper limit and the sole carrier of meaningful conduct.”

Interpretative sociology (verstehende Soziologie) is the study of society that concentrates on the meanings people associate to their social world.

Strives to show that reality is constructed by people themselves in their daily lives. Verstehen roughly translates to “meaningful understanding” or putting yourself in the shoes

of others to see things from their perspective. Deals with the meaning attached to behavior. Sees reality as being constructed by people. Relies on qualitative data.

Bureaucracy:

Finds its origin from the French word “bureau” which means desk. Implies a particular system of administration Best administrative form for the rational pursuit of organisational goals According to Max Weber, Bureaucracy is “a type of hierarchical organization which is

designed rationally to co-ordinate the work of many individuals in pursuit of large scale administrative tasks.”

Large-scale formal organisations of the modern society with specialized functions Characteristics of Bureaucracy:

Fixed Official Jurisdiction Area Hierarchy of Authority Clear-cut Division of Labour Appointment based on Eligibility Fixed Salary, Allowance and Pension Office and Maintenance of Files Appointment of officials on full time and long term service basis Difference between private matter and official issues Supervision of work by higher officials Systematization of official relations with officials Political Neutrality Guidance by past procedures

11

Types of Authority Traditional Authority-

1. Legitimated by the sanctity of tradition. 2. The ability and right to rule is passed down, often through heredity. 3. It does not change overtime, does not facilitate social change, tends to be irrational and

inconsistent, and perpetuates the status quo. Charismatic Authority-

1. Found in a leader whose mission and vision inspire others. 2. It is based upon the perceived extraordinary characteristics of an individual. 3. Followers may consider this quality to be endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or

exceptional powers or qualities. Whether such powers actually exist or not is irrelevant – the fact that followers believe that such powers exist is what is important.

Legal-Rational Authority- 1. Empowered by a formalistic belief in the content of the law (legal) or natural law

(rationality). 2. Obedience is not given to a specific individual leader - whether traditional or charismatic

- but a set of uniform principles. 3. Weber thought the best example of legal-rational authority was a bureaucracy (political or

economic). Karl Marx

• 1818-1883 • Architect of Socialism and Champion of Communism • Member of group called “Young Hegelians”, met his life-long friend Fredrick Engels. • Did not see himself as a Sociologist. • Theory on Social Class and Conflict Theory great sociological significance.

Major works: Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Das Kapital (1867) • Spoke of Dialectical Materialism (Hegelian Concept) • Dialectical = discussion ; Materialism = physical possessions rather than spiritual values, • Dialectic is the study of contradicts. E.g. Democracy and Dictatorship • Opposite forces constitute the moving of history • Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis • They never balance each other. Therefore, class struggle.

Marxian Theory of Social Class:

“Class is the manifestation of economic differentiation” – Karl Marx “A social class in Marx’s terms is any aggregate of persons who perform the same function

in the organization of production.” – R. Bendix and S.M. Lipset From the Marxian point of view, class is not determined by the occupations of income but

by the position an individual occupies and the function he performs in the process of production For example: if there are two blacksmiths of whom one is the owner of a workshop and another a paid worker, they belong to two different classes though their occupation remains the same.

Thus, Marx defined a class as all those people who share a common relationshio to the means of economic production

Those who own and control the means of production – slave owners, feudal landlords, or the owners of property such as factories and capital – are the dominant class

Those who work for them – slaves, peasants, or industrial labourers – are the sub-ordinate class

Two major classes : ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-Nots’ ; or a ruling class and subject class ; or Proletariat and Bourgeoisie – where Bourgeoisie Factory Owners and Proletariat Working Class

12

Marxian Theory of Class Struggle or Class Conflict:

• Central to Marxian thought • In fact, Marxian sociology is often called : the sociology of class conflict • “The history of the hitherto existing society is the history of the class struggle.” – opening

sentence of Marx’s famous work “The Communist Manifesto, 1848” • Thus, at every stage in history, there is war between the classes. The landowner exploits

the landless, and the factory owner exploits the workers. Between classes, there is endless antagonism and hatred. Class conflict is the severest form of class antagonism

Stages or essential aspects of Marxian Theory of Class Conflict: 1) Development of Proletariat – the capitalist economic systems transformed the masses of

people into workers, created for them a common situation and inculcated in them an awareness of common interest. Through the development of class consciousness, the economic conditions of capitalism united the masses and constituted them into “a class for itself”

2) Importance of Property – the most distinguishing feature of any society is its form of property. An individual’s behaviour is determined by his relations to property. Property divisions are the crucial breaking lines in the class structure.

3) Identification of Economic and Political Power and Authority – political power emerges from the economic power. The power of the ruling class therefore stems from its ownership and control of the forces of production. The political and legal systems reflect ruling class interests. The capitalist who hold monopoly of effective private property take control of political machinery. As Raymond Aron points out, “Political power, properly so called, is merely is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.” The political power and ideology thus seem to serve the same functions for capitalists that class consciousness serves for the working class.

4) Polarization of Classes – in the Capitalist society, there could be only two social classes: The capitalists who own the means of production and distribution and the working class who own nothing but their own labour.

5) Theory of Surplus Value – Marxian economic concept that professed to explain the instability of the capitalist system. The capitalists accumulate profit through the exploitation of labour. Karl Marx held that human labour was the source of economic value. The capitalist pays his workers less than the value their labour has added to the goods, usually only enough to maintain the worker at a subsistence level. Of the total worth of the worker’s labour, however, this compensation, in Marxian theory, accounts for only a mere portion, equivalent to the worker’s means of subsistence. The remainder is “surplus labour,” and the value it produces is “surplus value.” To make a profit, Marx argued, the capitalist appropriates this surplus value, thereby exploiting the labourer.

6) Pauperization – Exploitation of workers can only add to their misery and poverty. But the same exploitation helps the rich to become richer. As Marx says: “the wealth of the bourgeoisie is swelled by large profits with corresponding increase in the mass of poverty; of pressure, of slavery, of exploitation” of the proletariat. To Marx, poverty is the result of exploitation not of scarcity.

7) Alienation – the economic exploitation and inhuman working conditions lead to increasing alienation of man. Alienation results from a lack of sense of control over the social world. The social world confronts people as a hostile thing, leaving them “alien” in the very environment that they have created. The workers caught in the vicious circle of exploitation find no way to get out of it. Hence, they lose interest in work. Work becomes and enforced activity, not a creative and a satisfying one. The responsibility of the worker gets diminished because he does not own the tools with which he works, he does not own the final product too. He is “a mere cog in a machine” and nothing else. This situation of alienation ripens the mood of the worker for a conflict.

13

8) Class Solidarity and Antagonism – with the growth of class consciousness among the working class, their class solidarity becomes crystallized. The working class becomes internally more homogeneous and this helps to intensify the class struggle. They are able to form unions against the bourgeoisie, finally leading to a revolt.

9) Revolution – when the class struggle reaches its height, , a violent revolution breaks out which destroys the structure of the capitalist society. This revolution is most likely to occur at the peak of an economic crisis, which is part of the recurring booms and repressions characteristic of capitalism. Marx has asserted that unlike other wars and revolutions, this would be a historic one.

10) Dictatorship of Proletariat – Marx felt that the revolution would be a bloody one. This revolution terminates the capitalist society and leads to the social dictatorship of the proletariat. Since the revolution results in the liquidation of the bourgeoisie, they will cease to have any power and will be reduced to the ranks of the proletariat.

11) Inauguration of the Communist Society – After attaining success in the revolution, the workers, in course of time, would create a new socialist society. In this new society, the means of producing and distributing wealth would be publicly and not privately owned. This new socialist society would be a classless and casteless society free from exploitation of all sorts. The state which has no place in such a society will eventually “wither away.” In this society, nobody owns anything but everybody owns everything. Each individual contributes according to his ability and receives according to his needs.

(iii) Sociology and other Social Sciences

1. Relationship between Sociology and Political Science

Sociology and political science have been very closely related to each other till recently. According to Morris Ginsberg “Historically, Sociology has its main roots in politics and philosophy of history.” The main works on social subjects such as Plato’s Republic, the Politics of Aristotle and other classical works were meant to be complete treatise on political science.

The two subjects have even now much in common. Political science is a branch of social science dealing with the principles of organisation and government of human society. In other words, Political Science deals with the social groups organised under the sovereign of the state.

It is rightly said that without the sociological background the study of political science will be incomplete. The forms of government, the nature of governmental organs, the laws and sphere of the state activity are determined by the social process.

Barnes has written, “The most significant thing about sociology and modern political theory is that most of the changes which have taken place in the political theory in the last thirty years have been along the line of development suggested and marked out by sociology.”

The behavioural approach in politics has taught political scientists to draw heavily on the research methods of the sociologists. In the words of Giddings, “to teach the theory of the state to men who have not learnt the first principles of sociology is like teaching astronomy or thermodynamics to men who have not learnt Newton’s laws of motion.”

In the same way, sociology is also to depend on political science for its conclusions. The special study of political life of the society is indispensable for the complete study of the society as a whole. According to Comte and Spencer, there is no difference whatsoever between the two. G. E. G. Catlin has remarked that political science and sociology are two facets or aspects of the same figure.

In the opinion of F. G. Wilson, “It must be admitted, of course, that it is often difficult to determine, whether a particular writer should be considered as sociologist, political theorist or philosopher”.

14

Eminent sociologists like Durkheim, Malinowski, Parsons, Spencer, Mertons, Max Weber and Leryhaix made important contributions in the field of political science. Political Sociology is an inter-disciplinary science which seeks to combine sociological and political approaches.

The two subjects are, however, different from each other.

Sociology is the science of society, political science is the science of state, Gilchrist says, “Sociology studies man as a social being and as political organisation is a special kind of social organisation; Political science is a more specialized science than Sociology.”

The Scope of Sociology is wider than that of Political Science. The scope of Sociology is much wider than that of Political Science. Political Science studies the state and government only, whereas sociology studies all the social institutions.

Sociology deals with social man, Political science deals with political man. Sociology being the science of society it deals with man in all his associated processes, while Political Science being the science of the political society is concerned with only one form of human association. Garner remarks, “Political science is concerned with only one form of human association – the state: sociology deals with all forms of association.”

Sociology is a general science. Political science is a special science. Political organisation is a special kind of social organisation and that is why political science is a special science while sociology is a general science.

Sociology is the study of both organised and unorganised communities. Political Science deals with organised communities only. Sociology deals with both organised and unorganised communities whereas Political Science is concerned only with organised communities. As such sociology is prior to Political Science.

Sociology deals with unconscious activities also. Unlike Political Science which treats only conscious activities of man, sociology treats unconscious activities of man also.

Difference in approach. Political Science starts with the assumption that man is a political being; sociology goes behind this assumption and tries to explain how and why man became a political being.

2. Relationship between Sociology and Economics

The fact that society is influenced by economic factors while economic processes are

largely determined by the social environments clearly proves that the relation between Sociology and Economics is very intimate. Economics is defined as a study of mankind in ordinary business of life or to be more exact, it is the science of wealth in its three phases of production, distribution and consumption.

It is thus concerned with that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with use of material requisites of well-being. Economics, in other words, is concerned with material welfare of the human beings.

But economic welfare is only a part of human welfare and it can be sought only with the proper knowledge of social laws. Economics cannot go far ahead without the help of sociology and other social sciences. For instance, in order to solve economic problems of unemployment, poverty, business cycle or inflation an economist has to take into consideration the social phenomena existing at the particular time.

Sociology is thus of considerable help to economics in providing specific data into which economic generalisations may be fitted. Economic and social order is inextricably interwoven. Many of the problems of sociology and economics are common.

The problems of population growth, environmental pollution, slum clearance, child and family welfare, and urbanisation are as much economic as sociological which cannot be solved unless and until the social attitudes of the people are given due consideration.

The theories of socialism, communism, democracy and welfare state are nothing but the theories of social reorganisation. According to Thomas, “Economics is, in fact, but one branch of the comprehensive science of sociology.” In the words of Silverman, “It may be

15

regarded for ordinary purposes, as an offshoot of the parent science of sociology, which studies the general principles of all social relations.”

In the same way, sociology is influenced by economics. MacIver writes, “Thus economic phenomena is constantly determined by all kinds of social need and activity and in turn they are constantly redetermining, creating, shaping and transforming social need and activity of every kind.

Economic forces play a very important role in every aspect of our social life. It is for this reason that sociologists have been concerned with economic institutions. The earliest sociologists like Spencer have included the economic activity of man in their analysis of social relationships.

Sumner, Durkheim and Weber also approached the study of society through its economic institutions. Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels had gone to the extent of asserting that economic factor was the sole motive force of the society.

Since their times, economic determination (Economic conditions have a determining influence over the social) has found a significant place in the theories of many social scientists seeking to explain this vital phenomenon.

In spite of inter-dependence of these two sciences, as explained above they are quite distinct from each other

The field of sociology is wider, firstly, the field of Economics is restricted only to the economic activities of man whereas Sociology is concerned with all the relationships which are not simply economic but social. The scope of Sociology is thus much wider than that of economics;

Sociology has a comprehensive viewpoint. Secondly, an economist’s primary concern is with all that is directly or indirectly related to the increase of material happiness of man, with the methods and techniques of production, distribution and consumption. But a sociologist, on the other hand, is primarily interested in the social aspects of economic activities rather than in the mechanism of production and distribution,

Economics is much older than Sociology. Thirdly, economics is much older a science than sociology.

Though philosophers like Comte would subordinate economics to, and include it in sociology. Sociology is a science of only recent growth whereas economics has attained an advanced degree of maturity.

3. Relationship between Sociology and Anthropology

Sociology and Anthropology lie so close together that they often appear as two names for the same field of enquiry.

Anthropology is derived from two Greek words ‘Anthropos’ meaning ‘man’ and ‘Logos’ is meaning ‘study’. Thus according to its etymological meaning, Anthropology is the study of man as such that is a study of the development of human race. Anthropology has thus a very wide field of study.

Anthropology has been divided into three divisions:

(i) Physical anthropology which deals with bodily characteristics of early man and our primitive contemporaries,

(ii) Cultural Anthropology which investigates the cultural remains of early man and of the living cultures of some of the primitive contemporaries,

(iii) Social Anthropology which deals with the institutions and human relationships of primitive, of the past and present

16

Anthropology devotes its attention entirely to the study of man and his culture as they

developed in times long past. Sociology, on the other hand, studies the same phenomena as they exist at present. According to Kluckhon, “The sociological attitude has tended towards the practical and present, the anthropological towards pure understanding and the past.”

Sociology depends very much on the material supplied by Anthropology. In fact the historical part of Sociology is identical with Cultural Anthropology. Anthropology has contributed substantially to the study of Sociology.

Sociology has to depend upon Anthropology to understand the present day social phenomena from our knowledge of the past. Sociology has borrowed cultural area, cultural traits, interdependent traits, cultural lag and other conceptions from social anthropology on whose basis cultural sociology has developed.

The discoveries of Linton and Kardiner have influenced sociology in no small degree. From their researches it is evident that each society has its own culture and the personality of its members is moulded according to it in their infancy. Likewise the research done by Malinowski has proved valuable to sociology.

He has given a functional view point to the study of culture. The researches of Franz Boas and Otto Kineberg have proved that there is no co-relation between anatomical characteristics and mental superiority. The concept of racial superiority has been disproved by anthropology.

According to Hoebel, “Sociology and Social Anthropology are, in their broadest sense, one and the same.” A. L. Karoeber has called sociology and anthropology twin sisters. Evans Pritchard considers social anthropology to be a branch of sociology.

In the same way, some of the conclusions drawn by sociologists have also helped the anthropologists. For example, anthropologists like Morgan and his followers have come to the conclusion regarding the existence of primitive communism from the conception of private property in our modern society.

Robert Redfield writes, “Viewing the whole United States, one sees that the social relations between Sociology and Anthropology are closer than those between Anthropology and Political Science.”

In spite of the interdependence of these two sciences the field of the study of each is quite distinct.

Keesing writes. “But the two academic disciplines have grown up independently, and handle quite different types of problems, using markedly different research methods.”

Firstly, anthropology is the study of the whole society. It studies its political and legal problems, family organisation, religion, art, industries and occupations etc. Sociology studies only its particular aspects.

The focus of sociologist is social interaction. Secondly, Anthropology studies cultures which are small and static while Sociology studies civilizations which are vast and dynamic. That is’ why Anthropology has developed faster and better than Sociology.

Thirdly, Anthropology and Sociology are separate sciences as the former is the study of man and his culture as they developed in times long past; while the latter studies the same phenomena as they are at present.

According to Kluckhohn “the sociological attitude has tended towards the practical and present, the anthropological towards pure understanding and the past.” Lastly, sociology is concerned with both social philosophy and social planning whereas anthropology is not concerned with social planning. It does not make any suggestions for the future.

4. Relationship between Sociology and History

Sociology and History are so intimately related that writers like Von-Bulow have refused to acknowledge Sociology as a science distinct from History. History is the record of the life of societies of men, of the changes which the societies have gone through, of the ideas

17

which have determined the actions of these societies and of the material conditions which have helped or hindered their development.

Sociology is concerned with the study of the historical development of the societies. It studies the various stages of life, modes of living, customs, manners and their expression in the form of social institutions. Sociology has thus to depend upon history for its material. Arnold Toynbee’s book, “A Study of History” is proving very valuable in Sociology.

History supplies facts which are interpreted and co-ordinated by the sociologists. In the same way sociology gives the social background for the study of history. History is now being studied from the sociological point of view. It is rightly said that the Study of history would be meaningless without the appreciation of social significance.

If history is to be useful to understand the present and to serve as a guide for the future, sociological interpretation of facts is absolutely essential. It is because of their such mutual dependence upon each other that has led G. E. Howard to remark that History is past Sociology, and Sociology is present History.

But in spite of their close relationship the two subjects are distinct.

History is concrete and sociology is abstract. There is much in history that has no direct relation to Sociology, while there is much in Sociology which is not in history. According to Park, “history is the concrete, while sociology is the abstract science of human experience and human nature.”

The primary interest of the sociologist is to find the general laws of the society, and that of the historian to narrate the historical events in their chronological order. The sociologist would try to find out the common aspects of the events recorded by historians and then to generalize.

Sociology and History have different attitudes. History would deal with events in all their aspects while sociology would study them from the viewpoint of social relationship involved.

For example, the historians would describe a war, all the circumstances accompanied with it, while sociologists would try to understand a war as a social phenomenon. They will study its impact on the lives of the people, their social institutions, etc.

5. Relationship between Sociology and Psychology

Social Psychology deals with mental processes of man considered as a social being. It studies particularly the influence of group life on the mental development of individual, the effect of the individual mind on the group, and the development of the mental life of the groups within themselves and in their relations with one’ another. Sociology, on the other hand, studies the various kinds of groups which compose the society.

Social Psychology has to depend on Sociology to understand properly human nature and behaviour as it is Sociology which provides the necessary material regarding the structure, organisation and culture of societies to which individuals belong.

According to Kimball Young, “We might say that while our major emphasis is on the individual in interaction with others, such interaction can only be understood within the social life and cultural matrix in which it occurs.”

The sociologists in their turn also have to draw up Social Psychology. They recognise the importance among other things of psychological factors in understanding the changes in social structure. Lapiere and Farnsworth write that “Social Psychology is to sociology and psychology as Bio-chemistry is to Biology and Chemistry”. According to Motwani, “Social Psychology is a link between psychology and sociology.”

As a result of the close relation between the two Karl Pearson has not accepted the two as separate sciences. In the words of MacIver, “Sociology in special gives aid to psychology, just as psychology gives special aid to sociology.”

It is now generally assumed that a scientific study of social phenomenon must have a psychological basis; and the psychological facts regarding human nature should not be assumed but should be explored by direct observation as well as experimentally. The

18

improved understanding of human behaviour will make the science of sociology more objective and realistic.

Mc Dougall and Freud were of the view that whole of the social life could be reduced finally to psychological forces. In that case Sociology would be reduced to a mere branch of Psychology. But this view cannot be accepted as the causes affecting social behaviour are other than psychological also like the economic, geographical, political etc.

Social life cannot, therefore, be studied exclusively with the methods of the Psychologists. The fact of mutual dependence of Social Psychology and Sociology should not be interpreted to mean that one is either identical with or the branch of the other.

As a matter of fact there are important points of distinction between these two related fields of investigation:

(i) Difference of subject-matter:

Firstly, Sociology is a study of the society as a whole while Social Psychology is merely the study of individuals in interaction as members of groups and of the effect of that interaction on them.

Sociology has been aptly compared to the science of mechanics which considers masses of matter and properties of matter in mass, and Social Psychology to Molecular Physics which deals with molecules and their invocation in view of the fact that Sociology studies the organisation of social groups, their central values and the various forms of institutional behaviour arising on account of them and Social Psychology is concerned with the individuals as members of the group.

The individual is the unit of analysis in Social Psychology. As remarked by Klineberg, “The primary concern of the sociologist is group behaviour, and that of the social psychologists is the behaviour of the individual in the group situation.” Bogardus writes, “As psychology analyses mental processes, so Sociology analyses social processes.”

(ii) Difference of attitudes:

Further, Sociology and Social Psychology deal with social life from different angles. The former studies society from the viewpoint of the community element while the latter from the viewpoint of psychological factors involved.

6. Relationship between Sociology and Philosophy

Sociology means the study of society on a generalized or abstract level. In an empirical science the generalizations concerning a specified field of inquiry are drawn

from facts observed in that field or in closely related fields these generalizations are drawn. No propositions are allowed to play a role in the system if it contains knowledge which is not empirical. In other words it is not formulated under the limitations just stated.

On the contrary philosophy is primarily an attempt to understand reality in its totality. From a multitude of observed facts the philosopher proceeds to certain ultimate principles which have taken together attempt to explain reality as a whole.

Thus whereas the sociologist explains society in terms of acts observed in society and eventually in related fields of empirical knowledge, the social philosopher explains society in terms of the explanation he gives to total reality. The latter can speak of the first causes, supreme values and ultimate ends the sociologist is not entitled to do so.

Modern philosophy and sociology came into existence during one time period to explain the social crisis of Europe in the 19th century. Sociology aimed to provide a social doctrine that would guide social policy. This aim has now been abandoned.

There exist some links between sociology and philosophy. There is a philosophy of sociology in the same sense as a philosophy of science that is an examination of the

19

methods, concepts and arguments used in sociology. There is a close relationship between sociology and moral and social philosophy the subject matter of sociology is human social behavior as guided by values: moral and social philosophy studies values and the sociologists study values and human valuation as facts. On occasions the sociologist is made to distinguish between fact and value. It is only by some training that social philosophy becomes competent to distinguish between fact and value.

It can be said that the study of sociology leads to philosophical quest. Durkheim thought that sociology has to necessarily contribute to a renewal of philosophical questions. This made him indulge in some epistemological discussions a branch of philosophy.

Karl Mannheim argued that sociology of knowledge had implications for epistemology. Both of them thought that sociology can make a direct contribution to philosophy.

While sociology leads to philosophical reflections much of it also begins there.

Sociological research will become trivial if it ignores the larger problems of social life which are coordinated in philosophical world-views and in social doctrines.