* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download PDF Version - Economic and Political Weekly
Actor–network theory wikipedia , lookup
Social group wikipedia , lookup
Frankfurt School wikipedia , lookup
Structuration theory wikipedia , lookup
Social constructionism wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of the family wikipedia , lookup
Development theory wikipedia , lookup
Social network wikipedia , lookup
Symbolic interactionism wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of terrorism wikipedia , lookup
Postdevelopment theory wikipedia , lookup
Structural functionalism wikipedia , lookup
Differentiation (sociology) wikipedia , lookup
Public sociology wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of culture wikipedia , lookup
Index of sociology articles wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of knowledge wikipedia , lookup
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.