Download PDF Version - Economic and Political Weekly

Book
Review
Future of Sociological Research
Andre Beteille
The Sociological Imagination,
Price 6 $ ,
By C
THE
p u b l i c a t i o n of The Sociological Imagination
by
Professor
C W r i g h t M i l l s provides an occasion
to take stock of some of the recent
currents of A m e r i c a n sociology and
their bearing u p o n sociological research i n I n d i a . The book falls i n t o
two parts, the first being a c r i t i q u e
of m o d e r n A m e r i c a n sociology, its
bureaucratic and ideological roles,
while the second is of a more positive and p r o g r a m m a t i c character.
T h e two parts may be separately
treated w i t h o u t d o i n g very great violence to the ideas developed by the
author. In the present article attention w i l l be devoted to the first part
alone, and some references w i l l also
be made to certain popular styles not
discussed by W r i g h t M i l l s . This, of
course, is not to deny the importance
of the positive nature of
Wright
M i l l s ' s suggestion w h i c h some may
find to be more useful than his c r i ticisms a n d w h i c h , it is hoped, we
w i l l be able to discuss elsewhere ( i n
a separate a r t i c l e ) .
Sociology in Disrepute
It has to be remembered that Professor W r i g h t M i l l s has, in his own
r i g h t , established h i m s e l f as one of
the leading figures of contemporary
A m e r i c a n sociologyH i s earlier
books, and p a r t i c u l a r l y The Power
Elite ( N e w Y o r k , 1 9 5 6 ) , have given
hope that sociology in the U n i t e d
States may vet be taken out of its
rut and f r u i t f u l l y develop the classic
t r a d i t i o n . Professor M i l l s writes w i t h
a keen sense of history and an awareness of the need to understand the
relation between isolated social facts
and the total social structure. He
follows the classic t r a d i t i o n of M a x
Weber some of whose essays he has,
in fact, translated and edited in coll a b o r a t i o n w i t h Hans Gerth. ( F r o m
Max Weber:
Essays
in
Sociology
edited by H E Gerth and C W
M i l l s . London 1947).
Sociology in the U n i t e d States has
fallen i n t o disrepute. This, in itself,
is not a l a r m i n g . What really is
a l a r m i n g is that few who are sensitive w i l l
f a i l to be
convinced by
Professor W r i g h t M i l l s ' s argument
Wright Mills. New York. Oxford University Press.
that this disrepute is indeed welldeserved.
Sociology has undergone a decline
in the countries of its o r i g i n . France
and Germany, understandably, as a
consequence of the two w o r l d wars.
R i g h t l y or w r o n g l y sociologists t u r n
more and more to the United States
for lead and i n s p i r a t i o n in the development o f their discipline. A m e r i can sociology has come to dominate
the w o r l d through sheer weight of
numbers—number of U n i v e r s i t y departments, number of books, number
of j o u r n a l s , number of research programmes and also the number of
Foundations. In the under-developed countries A m e r i c a n sociology has
the further fascination that it comes
f r o m a country w h i c h to many is an
epitome of all that is scientific, mod e r n and go-ahead.
People have f o u n d fault w i t h American sociology for its lack of historical depth, its outlandish j a r g o n
and its puerile technicalities, Professor M i l l s believes, however, that
there are more fundamental questions — questions of p o l i t i c a l and
moral
responsibility
and
of
intellectual
i n t e g r i t y . There
has
been
a
growing
suspicion that
much of the
theoretical sophist r y of contemporary sociology is a
facade w h i c h has nothing but the
most t r i v i a l and sterile ideas to stand
u p o n . It is important that one of
the most distinguished sociologists of
contemporary A m e r i c a has come out
w i t h a forthright attack on this k i n d
of sham and hypocrisy.. There are
many who w i l l be offended by his
c r i t i q u e ; some may consider the attack to be overdone; but the book is a
t i m e l v corrective to the abuses of the
sociological t r a d i t i o n .
M o d e r n A m e r i c a n sociology is plagued w i t h two very specific kinds of
malady. These are referred to as
G r a n d Theory on the one hand, and
Abstracted E m p i r i c i s m on the other.
G r a n d Theory has achieved final perfection in the works of Talcott
Parsons, a d m i r e d by many as the
greatest contemporary
sociologist.
The influence of Talcott Parsons is
not confined to the U n i t e d States, but
315
1959.
Pp 234.
has spread to many countries, i n c l u d i n g I n d i a . Followers of this school
of thought concentrate on the b u i l d ing of theoretical models in terms of
what has been given the fashionable
name of the A c t i o n Frame of Reference. Such models are, by their very
nature, stripped of historical content and seek to present the general
and specific features of Social Systems.
There is, of course, no h a r m in
t r y i n g to analyse the properties of
social systems, but there appear to
be good ways and bad ways of doi n g this. A n y theoretical d i s c i p l i n e
has. at some p o i n t , to deal w i t h the
abstract
and general, but
Grand
Theory
specialises
in
the reifixations of
abstractions.
Grand
Theory concerns itself w i t h the
b u i l d i n g of various k i n d s of models
of social systems, sub-systems and
the " a n a l y t i c a l " relations between
them. A recent w o r k along these
lines is Economy
and
Society by
Parsons and Smelser (Glencoe, 1956)
w h i c h apparently is understood neither by economists nor by sociologists. G r a n d T h e o r y is essentially
deductive in approach, p i c k i n g up
e m p i r i c a l material here and there in
order to give substance to its "anal y t i c a l " models.
Talcott Parsons and His School
Talcott Parsons and his school
have evolved a special style of exposition w h i c h appears to be p a r t i cularly a p p r o p r i a t e to their theoretical preoccupations. G r a n d T h e o r y
gives a safe berth to the observation and description of facts so that
it may b r i n g to bear a l l its adroitness in the "associating and dissociating of concepts." T h i s leads
very soon f r o m sociological theory
to problems of semantics. To meet
the requirements of clear and precise conceptual analysis a new Ian
guage has been created w h i c h , to
say the least, is u n i n t e l l i g i b l e .
W r i g h t M i l l s reproduces several
passages f r o m Talcott Parsons for
w h i c h translations in ordinary English are thoughtfully provided. Not
that Talcott Parsons alone writes in
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
F e b r u a r y 18, 1 9 6 1
316
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
this style. The master has many
able disciples, and here is a veritable
tongue-twister f r o m M a r i o n Levy J r :
"Functions refer to what is done.
and structure refers to how (including
in the meaning of "how"' the concept
"by what") what is done is done."
(The Structure of Society. Pp 60-61y
One may ask, what are the purposes subserved by this k i n d of theoretical style?
Grand Theory has
many functions to fulfil, some obvious, others not so obvious. To those
who wish to achieve r e p u t a t i o n as
theorists w i t h o u t a patient and painstaking analysis of facts, it affords
infinite opportunities for hair-splitt i n g argumentation. To the g u l l i b l e
it is the acme of theoretical sophistication. W r i g h t M i l l s believes that
in the United States today G r a n d
T h e o r y has, in a d d i t i o n , an ideological role. By creating impressive
models of the "integrated social
system" out of meaningless words it
diverts attention f r o m the real dist r i b u t i o n of power in society. Grand
Theory, in
i g n o r i n g history. has
failed to take account of the dynamics of change. It has dealt almost
exclusively
with
static
models
thereby j u s t i f y i n g i m p l i c i t l y the
status quo.
The real danger in this k i n d of
theory is not only that it is sterile,
but that it is so catching. T h e A c t i o n
Frame of Reference has become a byw o r d among those whose self-esteem
is flattered by their f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h
difficult words, if Grand Theory has
few ideas that are new, its language,
at least, is very different f r o m anyt h i n g that ever existed before. Grand
Theory, w h i c h in the hands of Tab
colt Parsons may or may not be a
serious endeavour, has become among
his followers a poor facade for ideas
without coherence or meaning.
" N o w all this raise., a sore pointi n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , ' ' The point becomes
all the more sore when G r a n d Theory
has to be considered in terms of the
requirements of a U n i v e r s i t y course.
The followers of G r a n d Theory are
not merely satisfied w i t h the use of
this k i n d of t h i n g for their o w n research, but they w o u l d also l i k e to
make it a fundamental part of any
theoretical t r a i n i n g in sociology. The
works of Talcott Parsons are m a k i n g
r a p i d inroads into U n i v e r s i t y syllabuses, not only in the U n i t e d States,
but in this country as w e l l . Since sociology in I n d i a is usually taught
straight f r o m the postgraduate level.
February 18, 1961
the student in some cases makes his
first acquaintance w i t h the
subject
through the works of Talcott Parsons.
T h e experience, to say the least, is
l i k e l y to be shattering.
The teaching of sociology in I n d i a
at the post-graduate level is tied up
w i t h a special k i n d of problem—the
p r o b l e m of language. The difficulties
of c o m m u n i c a t i n g through a foreign
language have always existed, and
seem to be p a r t i c u l a r l y serious now
in view of what many regard as a
decline in the standard of English in
I n d i a n Universities.
Students are
h a r d put as it is to read and w r i t e
t h r o u g h the m e d i u m of a foreign
language. T h e i r troubles are not
likely to be reduced i f , in a d d i t i o n to
this, they have to master a vocabulary which trained scholars i n B r i tain and A m e r i c a often find it impossible to comprehend. It is d o u b t f u l
whether a l l those who are required to
teach this k i n d of thing themselves
fully understand what it is about.
Students, at the best, can hope to memorise some of the master terms and
disgorge them in their examination
papers,
Most Methods Fewest Results
But G r a n d Theory, from the point
of view of research, is a lesser e v i l
when compared w i t h Abstracted Em
p i r i c i s m . I f G r a n d Theory i s sterile,
the other k i n d of t h i n g is positively
misleading. Abstracted E m p i r i c i s m
studies the interrelations of concrete
social facts torn f r o m their historical
and structural matrices. Whereas
Grand T h e o r y is all-embracing in its
generality. Abstracted E m p i r i c i s m
picks and chooses p a r t i c u l a r "variables" and studies their interconnections. B o t h have in c o m m o n the
fact that they ignore the existence
of given historical structures, in the
first ease, in their relations to abstract theoretical models, and in the
second case in their bearing u p o n
the variations of particular social
facts. Abstracted E m p i r i c i s m , by
choosing some variables rather than
others, leads to conclusions that arc
often distorted, and sometimes false.
The variables are chosen less in
terms of their importance in a given
historical context than for their adequacy w i t h regard to The Scientific
Method.
The increasing p o p u l a r i t y of Abstracted E m p i r i c i s m gives cogency to
Poincare's statement about sociology
that
it is the science
w i t h the
most methods and the fewest results.
317
Substantive studies are pushed into
the background so that attention may
be properly focussed on Methodology.
Each methodologist begins afresh and
expounds his own logic of procedure
appropriate to his particular substantive studies w h i c h , however, are not
always f o r t h c o m i n g . Part of this
preoccupation w i t h Methodology a r i ses out of a desire to make sociology
respectable by creating a place for it
among the established sciences. Since
great prestige attaches to the natural
sciences today, if sociology cannot be
ranked w i t h the best k i n d of academic endeavour, it can, at least, be
ranked w i t h the second best. There
are many who seek vicarious satisfaction in this manner, and sometimes this is evident f r o m the very
names they select for their works, as
in the case of a book entitled The
Mathematical Biology of Social Behaviour by N
Rashevsky
(Chicago.
1951).
Obsession w i t h 'scientific methods'
leads to the selection of problems
that are t r i v i a l and without, i n t r i n sic sociological significance.
In
fact, there are some sociologists of
whom it may be said that they have
methods, but
no problems.
Such
people are, however, far f r o m inactive.
A m o n g their many creations are what go by the names of
Operational Research and Inter-Disciplinary
Research.
inter-Discip l i n a r y Research calls for
the cooperation of large teams of scientists and technicians, and this, as we
shall presently see. has other than
purely theoretical advantages.
Lazarsfeld has been
one of the
most enthusiastic advocates for the
i n t r o d u c t i o n of "mathematical thinki n g " into sociological theory. T w o
of his books w h i c h have gained wide
acclaim in the
U n i t e d States and
here are, Mathematical Thinking in
the Social Sciences (Lazarsfeld. Paul
E (e d.) Gleneoe, 1954) and The
Language of Social Research (Lazarsfeld. Paul F) and Rosenberg. M o r r i s
(eds. ). Gleneoe. 1955'). Such works
are recommended to
those who
would achieve expertise in the application of
multivariate and other
types of a n a l y s t in social research.
There can be l i t t l e doubt that
precision adds greatly to the cogency of a theoretical
exposition.
Sometimes quantitative data re\eal
new insights that are not otherwise
available. One of the classics of
sociology. D u r k h e i m ' s Suicide is a
testimony to the merits of statistical
THE
F e b r u a r y 18, 1961
analysis w h e n i n f o r m e d w i t h a proper sociological insight. It m a y be
recalled
that
the
statistical
techniques at D u r k h e i m ' s disposal
were l i m i t e d , and some of the tools
he used were crudely fashioned out
by himself. Y e t D u r k h e i m was
able to produce a masterly sociological analysis w h i l e today we have
nothing but correlations and m u l tivariate analyses of meaningless soc i a l facts. The difference lies fundamentally i n this that D u r k h e i m
analysed social facts not merely as
isolated variables b u t i n terms o f
t h e i r place in the total social structure w h i c h was always the starting
p o i n t of D u r k h e i m ' s analyses. Those
w h o do not w o r k w i t h any clear conception of the t o t a l social structure
can only d r i f t , and select problems
w h i c h may be amenable to statistical
analysis, but are w i t h o u t any i n t r i n sic sociological significance.
Indifference to I n s t i t u t i o n a l Setting
There is another basic difference
between D u r k h e i m ' s w o r k and the
w o r k o f m o d e r n sociometricians. The
latter have erred when D u r k h e i m
specifically urged sociologists to
a v o i d . Abstracted E m p i r i c i s m tries
to understand the i n s t i t u t i o n a l structure of society by s i m p l y studying
the psychological reactions o f i n d i viduals, i g n o r i n g thereby the difference between social facts and psychological facts. One needs o n l y to
t u r n to the w o r k s of D u r k h e i m and
Racliffe-Brown to realise that social
facts cannot be reduced to psychological facts, and that a mere addit i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l reactions cannot
lead to an understanding of the i n stitutional structure.
r i c a n f a c t o r y ; ( i i ) an A m e r c a n street
g a n g ; ( i i i ) the f a m i l y i n T i k o p i a ;
( i v ) a New E n g l a n d t o w n , and ( v )
a g r o u p of executives in an A m e r i can company. T h i s is Comparative
Method w i t h a vengeance.
However, the more sociology becomes laboratory-oriented, the more
it becomes quantified and inter-disc i p l i n a r y , the easier it is to impress
officials and the p u b l i c about its practical u t i l i t y . In the U n i t e d States
sociological research is r a p i d l y bec o m i n g a p a r t of bureaucratic activity.
W h a t M a x Weber wrote fifty
years ago about the alienation of the
scholar f r o m the means of his w o r k
seems more or less to be f u l f i l l i n g
itself in the case of sociology today.
The sociologist is becoming increasi n g l y a technician whose problems
are dictated to h i m by the needs of
large scale governmental and other
bureaucracies. Lest it be thought
that W r i g h t M i l l s i s u n d u l y prejudiced against his colleagues, it may
be mentioned that Robert M e r t o n ,
one of the most p o p u l a r figures in
contemporary A m e r i c a n sociology,
has come to very m u c h the same conclusions in
his paper on The Role
of the Intellectual in Public Bureau-
Psychologism o f this k i n d runs
t h r o u g h the w h o l e range of what
goes under the r u b r i c of Small G r o u p
Research. T h i s k i n d of study, w h i c h
requires the observation of h u m a n
reactions
under l a b o r a t o r y conditions, makes, in fact, l i t t l e distinct i o n between sociology and psychol o g y . Needless to say that this can
o n l y lead to f u r t h e r confusions in
both the branches o f study. A n
example of a Small G r o u p Study
made w i t h almost complete indifference to the i n s t i t u t i o n a l setting of
human
interactions is a book by
George C Homans entitled The Human Group.
( L o n d o n , 1 9 5 1 ) . Here
five groups are studied as comparable units in order to a r r i v e at cert a i n invariable relations between the
"social elements". T h e groups are:
( i ) a w o r k room in a modern Ame318
ECONOMIC
WEEKLY
cracy,
( i n Social Theory and
cial Structure, Glencoe, 1 9 5 7 ) .
So-
Bureaucratic Ethos
The bureaucratic ethos seems to
have pervaded social science research
i n A m e r i c a . W h a t are its i m p l i c a tions f o r the future of sociology in
I n d i a ? Certain k i n d s of sociological research appear to be more v u l nerable
to bureaucratic
pressures
than others. As l o n g as the sociologist can depend u p o n his o w n field
research, or his o w n l i b r a r y studies,
he can keep himself detached f r o m
external
pressures.
On the other
h a n d , certain k i n d s of research req u i r e large personnel, and these, in
t u r n , depend f o r f i n a n c i a l support
u p o n governmental agencies or research foundations w h i c h appear to
be fast increasing in number. Sociologists should be the last to harbour illusions that bureaucratic facilities can be made use of w i t h o u t
s u b m i t t i n g to bureaucratic pressures.
Perhaps there is time to reconsider
and to adopt once again the older
type o f w o r k i n w h i c h the sociologist
was free to choose his own line of
research, his o w n problems a n d h i s .
o w n methods.