Download International Journal of Research in Sociology

International Journal of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology
2013, 1(1) : 1-5
www.ijrssa.com
ISSN 2321–9548
SOCIAL THINKING TO SCIENTIFIC SOCIAL THEORY: AN INTRODUCTION TO
SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Anil Kumar
Assistant Professor of Sociology, Central University of Kashmir, Srinagar, India
Abstract: “Social thinking to scientific social theory‖ is an expedition not only passed through by the conventional
social thinkers but everyone who showed a concern for culture in general and the understanding of it in particular.
Therefore, this journey is travelled by the academic civilization as well as the non-scholarly people through
experiences of the ―world‖ – we call society.
Keywords: Society; Social Anthropology; Sociology; Social theory; Scientific study.
I
In order to introduce sociology and social
anthropology, it is indispensable that we should
first take a concise review of the evolutionary
growth of ―human society‖ which is the subject
matter of sociology and social anthropology.
Neither it is uncomplicated to find the exact
period of the emergence of human society, nor
the sociologists nor are social anthropologists
interested in it. They are interested in ‗patterned
social relationships referred to as social
structures‘ (Shepard, 1999). These social
structures are interconnected with culture to form
a social order. We, as human race, exist in this
order principally identified as ―social world‖ in
which we get to originate and learn to live. While
living in this sphere that influences us as human
beings we tend to get disturbed in our
assessment of ―being in the world.‖ Such
annoyances make us think about our existence.
We find out that ‗social world guides our
actions,‘ (Macionis, 1997) it affects the
preferences we make for ourselves in this world.
Human beings organize themselves in groups
and societies, which in turn develop a culture to
meet various needs. This is a situation where
human beings develop into social beings. They
assist others in order to build relationships.
Society can never be built without ―social inputs.‖
These inputs are vital and also taken as ordinary
in everyday life. But for a scholar, who is
associated as a researcher with these every day
phenomena, such inputs are critical and have to
be revisited with inquisitiveness. There is a
sequence of inputs along with certain facets.
Firstly, ―interdependence‖ is responsible for
putting human beings together in one place.
Aristotle said that ―man is a social animal.‖ Man
lives in the society and fulfils the needs of his
fellow beings. And we understand that there is a
continuity of the social system even beyond the
life-span of any one individual or generation. It is
indeed a generously proportioned scheme.
Irrespective of their types all the societies have
certain common needs which must be fulfilled.
These needs which may be regarded as ‗primary
needs,‘ as Kingsley Davis calls them, define the
necessary conditions for the existence of any
society (Davis, 1949). Secondly, ―interaction‖
among the members of the society confirms an
approach in the direction of social cohesion which
is an outcome of shared conduct through
interdependence of social human beings. Human
beings have greater neural complexity and hence
have greater capacity for learning. They have
evolved a system of communication through
Anil Kumar
which ideas, knowledge, attitudes, skills etc., are
passed on from one generation to the next. The
possession of language is such an advantage to
the human beings through which one can convey
to the others a clear idea of situations which are
not present and of the behaviour appropriate to
such situations. The invention of writing too has
made communication and cultural transmission
easier. The symbolic communication is thus a
process whereby men interpenetrate the minds of
each other making society a group in which
people continue to interact among themselves.
Such social interaction is made possible for the
reason that human beings in any society are
―reciprocally conscious‖ of each other. It seems to
a student who studies society as if a mutual
agreement of understanding or not-understanding
has been outlined between members of the same
as well as different societies. And thirdly,
―interrelationship‖ is an essential social input to
the foundation of society. MacIver and Page,
while defining the concept of society, emphasise
on the ‗network of social relationships‘ (MacIver
and Page, 1962). It is understood that members
of the society possess a spirit of mutual
cooperation, harmony, competition, hostility and
sometimes struggle. Such processes are always
found wherever we find the existence of a
society. When a number of people live together,
they
establish
consanguineous,
sexual,
economic, and political relationships among
themselves. For example, the sexual and
consanguineal relationships are found between a
husband and a wife, and parents and children,
within a family. Outside the purview of a family,
but well within the society, economic relation
exists between a customer and a salesman.
Political relations exist between a candidate for
the political position and a voter. Similarly, scores
of such relations between doctors and patients,
teachers and students, employers and employees
etc., are found to exist all through the society. All
these are again, mutually interrelated, creating a
whole network of social relationships. Thus,
following the traces of social inputs, society is a
―collectivity‖ in which individual members are
bound together by interdependence, interaction
and interrelationship.
2
II
Social thinking refers to the concern for human
society. It is the welfare thinking. Being a member
of society one thinks of it and being a researcher
or wonderer who feels and understands reflects
over certain social issues. Why are we members
of the society? Can we survive as individuals
without any membership in any society? While
thinking about the relationship between individual
and society one realises how relevant the
process of socialisation is. This ―process of
learning‖, which is understood by the social
scientists in terms of its significance in
understanding the concept of society, ‗is a lifelong
process of inheriting and disseminating norms,
customs and ideologies, providing an individual
with the skills and habits necessary for
participating within his own society‘ (Clausen,
1968). Like social institutions such processes
also form the important components of social
structure. Every society has a social structure, a
complex of major institutions, groups, and
arrangements, relating to status and power. They
are cultural elements. They tie up to structure
cultural organization and eventually the social
world. The culture of the social world is the totality
of learned and socially transmitted behaviour
from one generation to the next. It includes
symbols, signs and language, besides religion,
rituals, beliefs and artefacts. In fact, culture is a
guiding force in everyday life. It is the culture that
distinguishes one society from the other.
Elements of one culture may migrate to another
culture, but they get properly assimilated in the
arriving culture, and are at times given a different
meaning or role. In that sense, each society has a
culture that is historically derived and passed on
from one generation to another and constantly
enriched by those who live into it. Therefore,
culture and society are inseparable and are
coterminous to each other. For example, a cricket
match is a social organization but the rules and
regulations of the match which the players are
supposed to observe form its cultural aspect. The
family is a social unit but the interpersonal
relations, child-rearing practices and distribution
of responsibilities and authorities among the
International Journal of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology, 2013, 1(1): 1-5
Social thinking to scientific social theory
members of the family are its cultural aspects. A
certain minimal degree of integration of culturetraits is necessary for the maintenance of society.
Lack of integration in the cultural system
produces confusion for the individuals, loss of
efficiency for the society and the rise of conflict
and consequently society tends to disintegrate.
So, a thinking that is shaped out of concern for
culture contributes to an exacting assessment of
the society. Sociology and social anthropology try
to do such meticulous assessment. Social
thinking is an inauguration of these disciplines.
Such thinking is the result of human cooperation
and usually comprised of progressive or
constructive social proposals which are clearly
designed to bring about progressive changes in
the society. The persons behind such thinking are
inspired by the love of humanity and welfare of
the society.
The manner of thinking on the subject of society
has not been customized since its inception
rather it was becoming disciplinary in nature.
‗From the earliest of human thinking about human
activity, of theorizing about social life, the human
community has sought to understand not merely
the ―what‖ of human endeavours but the ―why‖ of
these endeavours‘ (Abraham and Morgan, 2003).
Thinking was being developed in order to refine
itself and also to take another form, for example
the form of theory or ―scientific social thinking.‖
That means social thinking is unscientific and
could be one sided in the sense that the welfare
aspect aims at the betterment of the society
which also means good of the minority at the
expense of the majority. Here social thinking may
be regarded as negative social thinking which is
characterised by selfishness, disregard of general
welfare and retrogression. It is, in short,
parochial. By scientific thinking, one enables to
grasp the social facts adequately and in their
proper perspective. The scientific social thinking
is impartial and unbiased. It is uninfluenced by
considerations of social good or social ill. Today,
scientific thinking is sufficiently developed and
has evolved techniques suitable to the
investigation of society. Science has its
significance in making study of human society
further valid. ‗When scientific methods are applied
to the study of human behaviour, rather than to
the nonhuman ―natural‖ world, we call that study
a social science‘ (Popenoe, 1974). Any discipline
is considered to be scientific when it is empirical,
theoretical, cumulative, and value-neutral.
Scientific temper in the study of natural sciences
inspires social sciences to strive for objectivity
and value-neutrality. Science refers to the
application of objective methods of investigation,
reasoning and logic to develop a body of
knowledge about given phenomena. There are
three goals of science. The first is to explain why
something happens. The second is to make
generalizations, that is, to go beyond the
individual cases and make statements that apply
to a collectivity. The third is to predict, to specify,
what will happen in future, in the light of the
available stock of knowledge. Thus, science is a
body of verified knowledge about physical or
social reality.
III
‗The idea of applying the scientific method to the
social world, known as ―positivism,‖ apparently
was first proposed by Auguste Comte‘ (Henslin,
2003). ‗Comte invented the term ―sociology,‖
meant to designate the rigorous study of social
phenomena according to the precepts of positive
philosophy‘ (Ferré, 1988). Auguste Comte (17981857), a French philosopher, ‗called this new
science sociology—―the study of society‖ (from
the Greek logos, ―study of,‖ and the Latin socius,
―companion,‖ or ―being with others‖). He stressed
that this new science not only would discover
social principles but also would apply them to
social reforms‘ (Henslin, 2003). Sociology is a
scientific study or a science (or it came out as a
new science) because it fulfils the basic
requirements of objective and rational knowledge
of social reality. It is empirical and theoretical. Its
foundation is both logical and experiential. If the
logic is not sustained by empirical evidence,
obviously, the theory becomes only a speculative
formulation. Theory is central to sociology, which
is ‗an account of the world which goes beyond
what we can see and measure. It embraces a set
of interrelated definitions and relationships that
International Journal of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology, 2013, 1(1): 1-5
3
Anil Kumar
organizes our concepts of and understanding of
the
empirical
world
in
a
systematic
way‘ (Marshall, 2004). In other words there is a
close relationship between theory and facts. ‗The
interplay between theory and research is a matter
of striking a balance between quality and
quantity. The emptiness of speculative theory
without substantiating data and the blindness of
raw empiricism without substantive theory have
been talked about much in sociological
writing‘ (Abraham, 2012). Theory attempts to
summarize complex observations in abstract
logically interconnected terms, which purport to
explain
causal
relationships.
To
some
sociologists, the main aim of theory is to interpret
and to interrelate sociological data in order to
explain the nature of social phenomena and to
produce hypotheses whose final validity can be
checked by further empirical research and to the
others, a ‗theory is an explanation of the
relationships between phenomena which is not as
solidly established as a law, but is more than a
mere hypothesis‘ (Mihanovich et al., 1957). Social
thinking has evolved as social theory of a
methodical and scientific character, that is,
sociology has evolved as a scientific discipline in
the sense that it has engaged objectively and
systematically to draw methods of investigation
and evaluation of social reality in the light of
empirical evidence and interpretation.
All social sciences deal with man as a member of
social group. Focus in social sciences is on the
study of man whose activities are oriented toward
other members of the society who may belong to
the same or different groups or collectivities. This
feature essentially directs us to understand how
social anthropology and sociology are different
from anthropology in general which is ‗sometimes
thought of as the study which tells us all about
man‘ (Mair, 2007). But the fact that ‗anthropology
(i.e. not yet social anthropology) and sociology
could work in close agreement with each other‘
can never be denied (Fletcher, 2011). Social
anthropology which is a branch of anthropology is
also a branch of sociology. ‗It is often said that
although sociology and social anthropology had
quite different origins (the one in the philosophy
4
of history, political thought, and the social survey,
the other in physical anthropology and ultimately
in
biology)
they
are
now
practically
indistinguishable‘ (Bottomore, 1986).
EvansPritchard considers social anthropology a branch
of sociology (Evans-Pritchard, 2004). ‗In the
broadest
sense,
sociology
and
social
anthropology deal with social relations, social
processes, social structures, social institutions
and social change in all societies comparatively in
order to deepen the understanding of each
society‘ (Béteille, 2009). Thus, it is sensible to
declare
that
sociologists
and
social
anthropologists are engaged in studying cultural
phenomena. Peter Berger describes a sociologist
as someone concerned with understanding
society in a disciplined way and the nature of this
discipline is scientific (Berger, 1963). This means
that
what
the
sociologists
and
social
anthropologists find and say about the social or
cultural phenomena the studies occur within a
certain rather strictly defined (scientific) frame of
reference. As a scientist, the sociologist tries to
be objective, to control his personal preferences
and prejudices, to perceive clearly rather than to
judge normatively.
Though the new science of society—―sociology‖
was born in the nineteenth century in Europe as a
result of enlightenment, industrial revolution, and
French revolution that initiated a process of
thinking
about
society,
particularly
the
consequences of revolutionary happenings, it
spread all over the world through various
encounters with diverse
philosophical and
scientific traditions. Anthropology took birth
simultaneously with sociology and both are also
regarded as sister disciplines to each other
(Robertson, 1987). The dissimilarity that created
the distance among these two was the idea of
―this culture‖ and the ―other culture.‖ Sociology
took birth in a climate where industrialization,
urbanization and capitalism and the related
consequences began transforming the societies
of Europe. Anthropology was the result of contact
with other cultures. For example, as a result of
industrial revolution societies of Europe came in
contact with non-European cultures in Asia,
International Journal of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology, 2013, 1(1): 1-5
Social thinking to scientific social theory
Africa, America and in the island countries in the
Pacific and the Caribbean. While sociologists
began
studying
their
own
societies,
anthropologists went to far off places to study the
primitive tribal communities as societies distinct
from the Western societies. Anthropology defined
as the scientific study of man became the study
of other cultures. As Lucy Mair remarks:
social anthropology has been very largely
concerned with peoples who ‗do‘ very differently
from ‗This country‘ or from any other of the
industrialized nations that are commonly called
(with a fine disregard of geography) ‗western‘. Its
centre of interest has always been the peoples who
are called ‗primitive‘, or, when there is time to speak
at greater length, ‗peoples of simple technology‘—
peoples who have to get on without our array of
gadgets, not only without radar and mechanical
transport, but without money and without writing.
(Mair, 2007).
Thus, it is being concluded that both sociology
and social anthropology study human society,
what separated them initially was the type of
society being studied but now this distinction is
being disregarded.
REFERENCES
Abraham, F., and J.H. Morgan. 2003.
Sociological Thought. Reprint edition. Delhi:
Macmillan, p.IX.
Abraham, M.F. 2012. Modern Sociological
Theory: An Introduction. 19th impression. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, p.34.
Berger, P.L. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A
Humanistic Perspective. New York: Anchor
Books.
Béteille, A. 2009. Sociology: Essays on Approach
& Method. 2nd edition. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, p.53.
Bottomore, T.B. 1986. Sociology: A Guide to
Problems and Literature. 5th impression. New
Delhi: Blackie & Son (India Ltd), p.65.
Clausen, J.A. 1968. Socialization and Society
(Edited). Boston: Little Brown and Company,
p.5.
Davis, K. 1949. Human Society. The University of
Michigan: Macmillan.
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. 2004. Social Anthropology.
reprint edition. New York: Routledge.
Ferré, F. 1988. Auguste Comte: Introduction to
Positive Philosophy (Edited). Indianapolis/
Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co, p.13.
Fletcher, R. 2011. The Making of Sociology: A
Study of Sociological Theory. Volume 2
Developments. Jaipur & New Delhi: Rawat
Publications, p.16.
Henslin, J.M. 2003. Sociology: A Down-To-Earth
Approach. 6th edition. Boston and New York:
Allyn & Bacon, p.9.
Macionis, J.J. 1997. Sociology. 6th edition. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall, p.1.
MacIver, R.M., and C.H. Page. 1962. Society: An
Introductory Analysis. The University of
California: Macmillan.
Mair, L. 2007. An Introduction to Social
Anthropology. 2nd edition. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, p.1&2.
Marshall, G. 2004. A Dictionary of Sociology. 2nd
impression of the Indian edition (Edited). New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, p.666.
Mihanovich, C.S. et al. 1957. Glossary of
Sociological
Terms.
Milwaukee:
Bruce
Publishing Co, p.24.
Popenoe, D. 1974. Sociology. 2nd edition. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, p.5.
Robertson, I. 1987. Sociology. 3rd edition. New
York: Worth Publishers, p.11.
Shepard, J.M. 1999. Sociology. 7th edition. New
York: Wadsworth, p.3.
Correspondence to:
Anil Kumar
[email protected]
International Journal of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology, 2013, 1(1): 1-5
5