SOC1101 Notes

Unit 2. Perspectives in Sociology

2.1 THE SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION

Sociologists talk about the connection between learning to understand

and then change society as being the sociological imagination. C. Wright Mills
(1916–62), a colorful and controversial professor at New York’s Columbia University
who is profiled below, coined this term. The sociological imagination is
the ability to see the interrelationships between biography and history, or the
connections between our individual lives and larger social forces at work shaping
our lives (e.g., racism or political agendas). Mills urged us to understand that
our own personal fortunes or troubles (e.g., gain/loss of a job, divorce) must be
understood in terms of larger public issues (e.g., the health of the economy, societal
changes in the institution of marriage). They cannot be fully understood
outside of this social context.
Mills opens his well-known classic The Sociological Imagination by
noting how intertwined social forces and personal lives are:

When a society is industrialized, a peasant becomes a worker; a feudal lord is liquidated

or becomes a businessman. When classes rise or fall, a man is employed
or unemployed; when the rate of investment goes up or down, a man takes a new
heart or goes broke. When wars happen, an insurance salesman becomes a rocket
launcher; a store clerk, a radar man; a wife lives alone; a child grows up without a
father. Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood
without understanding both. (1959, 3; italics mine)
Without a sociological perspective, we might tend to think of these personal experiences
primarily in individual terms. We might locate both the source of a
problem and the solution to that problem as lying within individuals. Unemployment,
for example, is an individual problem for the unemployed person that
may be due to his or her characteristics such as work ethic, job skills, or opportunities.
If this person is one of few unemployed in a city, then employment
might be secured if these factors change at the individual level: the person decides
to get up when the alarm rings and work hard enough to keep a job, gain
job training, or move to a different town where there is a demand for their existing
skills. However, when the unemployment rate soars and large numbers of
people are unemployed, something is clearly amiss in the structure of the society
that results in inadequate employment opportunities. Although there will certainly
still be lazy or unskilled people among the unemployed, millions of cases
of unemployment cannot be explained at these individual levels, and individual
solutions will not solve the problem. Working harder, getting more training, or
seeking different work venues will not produce jobs when the economy is poor
and there are no jobs to be had. As Mills puts it, “The very structure of opportunities
has collapsed” (1959, 9). Finding solutions to these large-scale problems
requires examining the structure of society (Mills 1959).
Mills felt that developing a sociological imagination will help us to
avoid becoming “victims” of social forces and better control our own lives. By
understanding how social mechanisms operate, we can better work to bring
about change and influence history.

2.2 The Three Main Sociological Perspectives

Theories in sociology provide us with different perspectives with which to view our social
world. A perspective is simply a way of looking at the world. A theory is a set of interrelated
propositions or principles designed to answer a question or explain a particular phenomenon;
it provides us with a perspective. Sociological theories help us to explain and predict the social
world in which we live.
Sociology includes three major theoretical perspectives: the functionalist perspective, the
conflict perspective, and the symbolic interactionist perspective (sometimes called the
interactionist perspective, or simply the micro view). Each perspective offers a variety of
explanations about the social world and human behavior.

Functionalist Perspective
The functionalist perspective is based largely on the works of Herbert Spencer, Emile
Durkheim,
Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton. According to functionalism, society is a system of
interconnected parts that work together in harmony to maintain a state of balance and social
equilibrium for the whole. For example, each of the social institutions contributes important
functions for society: Family provides a context for reproducing, nurturing, and socializing
children; education offers a way to transmit a society’s skills, knowledge, and culture to its
youth; politics provides a means of governing members of society; economics provides for the
production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services; and religion provides moral
guidance and an outlet for worship of a higher power.
The functionalist perspective emphasizes the interconnectedness of society by focusing
on how each part influences and is influenced by other parts. For example, the increase in single
parent and dual-earner families has contributed to the number of children who are failing in
school because parents have become less available to supervise their children’s homework. As
a result of changes in technology, colleges are offering more technical programs, and many
adults are returning to school to learn new skills that are required in the workplace. The
increasing number of women in the workforce has contributed to the formulation of policies
against sexual harassment and job discrimination.
Functionalists use the terms functional and dysfunctional to describe the effects of social
elements on society. Elements of society are functional if they contribute to social stability and
dysfunctional if they disrupt social stability. Some aspects of society can be both functional
and dysfunctional. For example, crime is dysfunctional in that it is associated with physical
violence, loss of property, and fear. But according to Durkheim and other functionalists, crime
is also functional for society because it leads to heightened awareness of shared moral bonds
and increased social cohesion.
Sociologists have identified two types of functions: manifest and latent (Merton 1968).
Manifest functions are consequences that are intended and commonly recognized. Latent
functions are consequences that are unintended and often hidden. For example, the manifest
function of education is to transmit knowledge and skills to society’s youth. But public
elementary schools also serve as babysitters for employed parents, and colleges offer a place
for young adults to meet potential mates. The baby-sitting and mate-selection functions are not
the intended or commonly recognized functions of education; hence they are latent functions.
Conflict Perspective
The functionalist perspective views society as composed of different parts working together.
In contrast, the conflict perspective views society as composed of different groups and interest
competing for power and resources. The conflict perspective explains various aspects of our
social world by looking at which groups have power and benefit from a particular social
arrangement. For example, feminist theory argues that we live in a patriarchal society—a
hierarchical system of organization controlled by men. Although there are many varieties of
feminist theory, most would hold that feminism “demands that existing economic, political,
and social structures be changed” (Weir and Faulkner 2004, p.xii).
The origins of the conflict perspective can be traced to the classic works of Karl Marx.
Marx suggested that all societies go through stages of economic development. As societies
evolve from agricultural to industrial, concern over meeting survival needs is replaced by
concern over making a profit, the hallmark of a capitalist system. Industrialization leads to the
development of two classes of people: the bourgeoisie, or the owners of the means of
production (e.g., factories, farms, businesses); and the proletariat, or the workers who earn
wages.
The division of society into two broad classes of people—the “haves” and the “havenots”—
is beneficial to the owners of the means of production. The workers, who may earn only
subsistence wages, are denied access to the many resources available to the wealthy owners.
According to Marx, the bourgeoisie use their power to control the institutions of society to their
advantage. For example, Marx suggested that religion serves as an “opiate of the masses” in
that it soothes the distress and suffering associated with the working-class lifestyle and focuses
the workers’ attention on spirituality, God, and the afterlife rather than on such worldly
concerns as living conditions. In essence, religion diverts the workers so that they concentrate
on being rewarded in heaven for living a moral life rather than on questioning their exploitation.

Symbolic Interactionist Perspective

Both the functionalist and the conflict perspectives are concerned with how broad aspects of
society, such as institutions and large social groups, influence the social world. This level of
sociological analysis is called macro sociology: It looks at the big picture of society and
suggests how social problems are affected at the institutional level.
Micro sociology, another level of sociological analysis, is concerned with the social
psychological dynamics of individuals interacting in small groups. Symbolic interactionism
reflects the micro-sociological perspective, and was largely influenced by the work of early
sociologists and philosophers, such as George Simmel, Charles Cooley, George Herbert Mead,
and Erving Goffman. Symbolic interactionism emphasizes that human behavior is influenced
by definitions and meanings that are created and maintained through symbolic interaction with
others.
Sociologist W.I. Thomas (1966) emphasized the importance of definitions and meanings
in social behavior and its consequences. He suggested that humans respond to their definition
of a situation rather than to the objective situation itself. Hence Thomas noted that situations
that we define as real become real in their consequences.
Symbolic interactionism also suggests that our identity or sense of self is shaped by social
interaction. We develop our self-concept by observing how others interact with us a label us.
By observing how others view us, we see a reflection ourselves that Cooley calls the “looking
glass self.”

2.3 Scientific and Humanistic Orientation

Some of the major sociological perspectives are as follows: 1. Empiricist or scientific
perspective 2. Humanistic perspective 3. Humanistic and scientific combined perspective.
Sociologists are by no means in total accord regarding the objectives, the mode of analysis or
even all the basic assumptions of their discipline. As stated above, a fundamental question is
sometimes asked as to whether it is scientific or humanistic discipline.
There are sociologists who consider it to be both. They say that sociology is and must be a
scientific endeavour with a strong humanistic bent. For them, the two worlds of science and
humanities are not mutually exclusive. Yet there is a difference between these two major
perspectives in sociology.
1. Empiricist or scientific perspective:
Sociology seeks to apply to the study of man and society the methods of science. It rests upon
the assumption common to all the social sciences that the scientific method can make a
significant contribution to our understanding of human behaviour. The objective of science is
the gaining of empirically verified knowledge.
The empiricists or the positivists, as they are sometimes called, believe that there is no
difference in the methods used to study physical or natural world and those used to study social
world. Sociologists of this tradition emphasise that sociology is a “pure” science, i.e., the
pursuit of knowledge in a value-free scientific manner. For them, “knowledge for knowledge
sake” should be the main goal of sociology. The objective of science is the gaining of empirical
knowledge about the world without regard for the possible uses of such knowledge.
Many of the founding, fathers, including Auguste Comte (1798-1857), argued that it would be
possible to establish a ‘positive science of society’ on the same principles and procedures
(methodology) as the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology. Comte stated
that the purpose of sociology is “to understand, in order to predict, in order to control society”.
Positivist sociology is largely based on this assumption that behaviour in the social and natural
worlds is governed by the same principles of cause and effect then natural science methodology
(observation and experimentation) is appropriate for the human society also. It argues that both
man and matter are part of the natural universe and the behaviour is governed by natural laws.
Sociology’s main aim is also to establish universal social laws. Just as matter reacts to external
stimuli, so man reacts to forces external to his being. Social and natural behaviour is therefore
determined and can be explained in terms of cause and effect relationship. The same procedures
are possible in the observation of human behaviour as used in natural sciences.
Just as natural science involves the construction of theories based on observable data, so
sociology can also develop theories based on direct observation of human behaviour. Thus,
natural science methodology is applicable to the study of man and human society.
The main adherents of this tradition were Emile Durkheim, Lundberg, Talcott Parsons, K.
Davis, R.K. Merton and Paul Lazarsfeld. Contemporary sociologists are more cautious about
claims for the scientific status of their discipline.
Indeed many reject the view that natural science methodology is appropriate for the study of
human behaviour; for instance, C.W. Mills (The Sociological Imagination, 1959) wrote: “Some
sociologists become so committed to being scientific that they lose sight of the practical value
of sociology. The major defect of empiricist is that they do not accept the fundamental
difference between natural and social data that affect the way in which the broader principles
are applied.”
2. Humanistic perspective:
Sociologists, who believe in humanistic perspective, are interested in and concerned about
human welfare, values and conduct. They want to improve the lot of man. An ultimate goal for
the humanist is self-realisation and full development of the cultivated man. The main advocates
of this school of thought are C.W. Mills, Alfred McClung Lee, Peter Berger, Robert Nisbet and
so many modem sociologists.
Humanists hold that human social world is different from the natural world. As a result, the
methods and assumptions of the natural sciences are inappropriate to the study of man and
society. The natural sciences deal with matter. It has no meanings, feelings and purposes which
affects its behaviour. Matter simply reacts ‘unconsciously’ to external stimuli. But quite
different from matter, man has consciousness—thoughts, feelings, meanings, intentions and an
awareness of being.
His actions are, therefore, meaningful. As a result, he does not merely react to external stimuli
like physical matter but he acts. He attaches a range of meanings to it and- these meanings
direct his actions. He actively constructs his own reality. Meanings do not have an independent
existence—a reality of their own, which is somehow separate from social actors. It follows that
sociologists must discover those meanings in order to understand social actions.
This approach is quite different from the positivists who believe that facts like meanings,
feelings and purposes are not directly observable; as such they are not much important in the
study of man. But, this claim of the positivists, when applied to human behaviour, is not
tenable. This can obscure the real cause or intention of their behaviour. To treat social reality
as anything other than a construction of meanings is to distort it. It is constructed and
reconstructed by actors in the course of social interaction.
Humanist sociology is a philosophical orientation and sense of responsibility for the welfare of
mankind as well as an academic school of thought. The proponents of this perspective tend to
emphasise an existential view of society. They believe that society and institutions should be
analysed in terms of the shared realities and actions of individuals as they understand them.
Existentialists believe man as an individual rather than a group animal.
Thus, where Durkheim believed that individual cannot, without contradicting his very nature,
liberate himself from the limits imposed upon him by his participation in the social world, the
existentialist argues that man cannot be “authentic” if he says, “I am as you want me”.
This newly developed perspective in sociology has altered the oft-repeated very important
question of Prof. R. Lynd from “knowledge for what?” to “knowledge for whom?” This
thought demands that the benefits of social scientific research and study should not be limited
to a particular class of people but these are to be used for the welfare of humanity as a whole,
specially for the downtrodden, exploited, oppressed and deprived class.
This perspective encourages such enquires, which help in bringing changes in social life so that
human dignity, freedom, creativity and on the whole human life can be saved. For the
investigation of this type of knowledge, humanistic sociology gives more importance to the
methods of historical introspection, intuition, empathy and interpretative understanding. These
sociologists do not believe in the differentiation of morality of what is said and what is done.
Sociologists of this tradition attempt to provide a social analysis in the service of humanity.
They act as critics, demystifies, reporters and clarifiers.
In contrast to the traditional positivist or scientific perspective of sociology, these days, we find
a growing interest in the application of humanist values to the sociological enterprise. John R.
Strande (Humanistic Society: Today’s Challenge to Sociology) has attempted to indicate the
various orientations that make up the humanistic approach. These include: ethno methodology
(Harold Garfinkel), phenomenology (Alfred Schuz), existential sociology (Tiryakin), the
sociology of knowledge (Peter Berger and Luckman), neo-symbolic Interactionism (Erving
Goffman), the sociology of the absurd (Scott and Lyman), and the sociology of everyday life
(Marcello Truzzi).
It is not possible here to discuss each of these orientations at length. They have in common an
attitude that sociology should study “man in society” or that it should place the interaction
between individuals in the centre of social life. This perspective (Interactionism of various
brands) places emphasis on the interaction of self with others. All the approaches (as mentioned
above) committed to humanism in some way or the other are known today as ‘Interpretative
Sociology’ from methodological view.
All these approaches have a common background in the ideas of Max Weber and Alfred Schutz.
Weber emphasised that sociology should base its explanations of society in the intuitive
understanding of people’s actions and motivations (Verstehen method), which direct the
actions of the actor. Schutz combined Weber’s inductive methods with the phenomenology of
Edmund Husseral, which emphasises that the social world is a world of meaning.
There is no objective reality which lies behind that meaning. To treat this aspect of ‘social
facts’ as things (as Durkheim said), is to distort and misrepresent social reality. The
responsibility of sociology, according to Schutz, is to first understand the meaning that
individuals give to their experiences and then construct more abstract explanations of those
experiences and their meaning in a societal context. For understanding meaning
phenomenological perspective emphasises direct observation of everyday activity as against
interview, questionnaire and social surveys employed by mainstream sociologists.
Thus, it is clear that positivist and humanistic perspectives employ very different research
methodologies because of their diametrically opposed assumptions about the nature of social
reality. This leads on the one hand to an acceptance of the logic and methods of the natural
sciences as appropriate for the study of man and society and, on the other, to an outright
rejection of this research strategy.
To many sociologists, an objective science of society remains the goal of sociology. For such
sociologists, “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 predispositions of the investigator. If his research is truly objective, it
is independent of any subjective elements, any personal desires that he may have” (Bierstedt,
Social Order, 1963).
The implications of this view are serious. An increasing number of sociologists now argue that
the pursuit of an objective, value-free sociology is the pursuit of an illusion. In this connection,
Derek Phillips (1971, 1973) words seem worth quoting, “An investigator’s values influence
not only the problems he selects for study but also his methods for studying them and the
sources of data he uses”.

Humanistic and Scientific combined perspective:

Sociology is, on the one hand, a humanitarian discipline and on the other plane it is a positive
science. Martindale writes: “Humanism is a system of values describing what ought to be and
modes of conduct designed to secure them; science is the value-free pursuit of knowledge, ‘of
what is’, renouncing all concern with what ought to be. Scientist is more interested in
‘means’—gaining knowledge; the humanist, in the ends—improving the lot of man.” Despite
these varying positions, it is reasonable to say that modern sociologists are attempting to direct
their energies towards humanistic goals. The disagreement seems to be over the means to attain
them. Perhaps, this agreement is a sign of the vitality of this discipline.
Most sociologists operate with a combination of scientific and humanistic viewpoints. Peter
Berger (Invitation to Sociology, 1963) puts this view when he argues that sociology must be
used for humanity’s sake: “Social science, like other sciences, can be and sometimes is
dehumanising and even inhuman. It should not be. When sociologists pursue their task with
insight, sensitivity, empathy, humility and a desire to understand the human condition rather
than with a cold and humourless scientism, then indeed, the sociological perspective helps
illuminate man’s social existence.”