Download intro to sociology

INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY
Rethinking Civilization
Dr. Gary Payne
Copyright 2016
A WELCOME TO THE READER
As I began my first college classes at Penn Valley Community College in Kansas
City in 1970, I had just returned from duty aboard an aircraft carrier in the combat
zone during the Vietnam War. I did not understand my social world at all. But I was
ready to learn, for I had seen the consequences of ignorance, including my own. I
was looking for answers and solutions. I found them in sociology.
Page 2 of 29
You may not understand your social world very well either, even if you think you do.
This statement is not meant as an insult. At some point in our lives we all struggle
with the same question no matter how self-assured we may seem to be. Who are
we…as a people, and…as individuals?
An understanding of sociology puts you in far better control of the facts of your
existence, and by doing so, allows you to answer this question for yourself.
Sociology at the college level is meant to be a liberating discipline. That is why I love
it. When this class is over you will understand humanity – and your place in it - like
never before.
But...a note of caution: sociology asks questions which can be disturbing, especially
to the centers of power and tradition in any society. Looking back in history, it is a
wonder that sociology has survived as a discipline, having made so many capable
enemies. The only possible explanation lies in its undeniable usefulness at improving
societies.
Sociology is the scientific study of society.* And since we are a society that
usually respects scientific achievement, it seems odd that few modern countries are
less willing to apply sociological solutions than the United States of America. But, for
reasons we shall examine later, the USA is a country that focuses almost exclusively
on the individual for its answers.
Unfortunately, this has left most of our citizens with only a vague idea about what the
terms “culture” or “society” really mean. Therefore, those who accept the challenge
of studying sociology at the college level gain an advantage in understanding
humanity that relatively few in this nation possess.
Good luck in your effort to understand your social world. Never forget that because
you are a part of this social world you are really studying yourself. But in this case,
you will be studying yourself from the outside in!
It will take a while to get comfortable with the sociological perspective. It may seem
the reverse of everything you know, or think you know. But be patient. There is a
light up ahead.
Ready? Scroll on down to Chapter 1.
* These statements in bold often become test questions!
Page 3 of 29
CHAPTER 1
SOCIOLOGY EMERGES AS A DISCIPLINE
Government of Cuba, photographer unknown
The unique idea behind Sociology was that the group was the basic unit of humanity, not the individual.
For example, the behavior of this man perched on the streetlight could only be understood in the context
of his surrounding social environment. And the same is true for everyone in the crowd beneath him.
Sociology is an objective method of learning about the human social world.
Instead
of merely guessing, or taking the word of an authority, teacher, preacher, celebrity,
parent or friend, we use the scientific method to get our facts.
Page 4 of 29
Then we test our assumptions by examining reliable statistics or doing surveys to see
if they are accurate…or not. And if we test a whole set of assumptions on a subject,
we might be able to develop evidence for an explanation - a "theory" - about that
entire subject area. For example: what social factors cause juvenile delinquency?
Juvenile delinquency is a subject that requires a lot of testing to understand, because
there is so much to know. So then- a theory is a systematic explanation of a
subject backed up by a tested set of assumptions.
Yes, it is a lot of trouble to go through to find something out. But otherwise, what do
we really know with a high degree of confidence?
Using science to get answers is something fairly new for humankind. It does not
seem new to us, because everyone alive today has grown up with science as a part
of their social world. But in terms of human history, the use of the scientific method is
only a few hundred years old. According to genetic evidence, you and I are tweaked
chimpanzees that began to wander out of Africa about 150,000 years ago [1] and it
took this long for us to develop a method of thinking rationally…that is, scientifically.
In fact, we humans still do not make most of our decisions on a rational basis. Our
behavior is usually guided by a desire to conform, or by orders or opinions from the
authority figures mentioned above, who dominate our thought processes. Much of
our behavior is influenced by cultural myths and forms of superstition that cannot be
scientifically tested. Humans have not completely graduated from the Stone Age.
The scientific method is now at our service to answer many of life’s questions, if we
choose to use it. Of course, science does not always give us the answers we wish
were true. Perhaps this is another reason we so often ignore science, at our peril.
Yet we humans are gradually inching towards rationality because…it works so well!
HOW SCIENCE EMERGED FROM SUPERSTITION
The first major intellectual ideas focused on religious philosophy, 8000 years ago in
agrarian empires of the Middle East. The religious elite of every continent were often
the most literate citizens. Religious leaders spent less time in everyday work, and
were free to contemplate human existence. Thus, synagogues, temples, churches
and mosques were the main intellectual centers of humanity. Without much local
competition in the realm of ideas and explanations, the various unique religious
doctrines they created became deeply entrenched in each geographical area. These
doctrines became sacred rulebooks, the foundation of civilizations.
It is likely that these doctrines often placed their authors in a very beneficial light.
Understandably, the priestly classes and castes were not appreciative of ideas that
contradicted their version of reality. Religious beliefs tend to be portrayed as
Page 5 of 29
absolute. But then any apparent weakness discovered in those beliefs posed a
threat to the credibility of the entire religious institution. Religious leaders feared their
regional critics and competitors, and often did what they could to eliminate them,
setting the stage for the brutal religious wars that continue today.
These would not seem to be good conditions for an entirely new method of rational
thinking to emerge. But that is what happened. Sociologist Randall Collins
masterfully explained how and why the scientific method – and eventually sociology –
came into existence.[2] I have summarized his explanation here below.
Early human tribes in what is now referred to as Greece lived in independent "citystates" between the borders of Middle Eastern empires. They were fortunate to
have the intellectual benefits of religious centers without the authoritarian control of
actually being trapped inside a major power. Free thinking citizens were allowed to
brainstorm here 2500 years ago. They formed the first nonreligious (secular)
schools and communities without a fundamental built-in bias towards religious
traditions or political beliefs.
These Greek academic institutions were clearly the forerunners of higher
learning, the colleges and universities.
Philosophy was the initial focus. Among the familiar names are Plato and his most
famous pupil, Aristotle. Aristotle formed a school to train intellectuals (educated
thinkers). That is, to train people to think rationally, logically, intelligently. Aristotle’s
school gathered knowledge for its own sake, and thus this era is often called the
Golden Age. We cannot call this science, because they did no scientific testing of
theory. But the seeds of science were sown here, as the Greeks were recording and
analyzing history, free from religious and political control and censorship.
The Golden Age was not to last. Religious and authoritarian powers eventually redominated Greece, and superstition regained control. But the Greek’s use of logic
and ideas had already spread to other lands. Arabian thinkers like Ibn Kaldun kept
the Greek’s historical analysis alive during many long centuries (known as the “Dark
Ages”) when their ideas were nearly forgotten by European societies.
Ironically, the next period of secular intellectual freedom sprang from the religious
centers themselves. Religious universities became popular in the 1200s in European
cities like Paris. Eventually, some of the students acquired charters (permits or rights
from government) to operate independently, so they were not totally connected to
religious thinking and tradition. The original intent of these schools was to pursue
training for lawyers, administrators and businessmen.
Page 6 of 29
But many newly independent universities began toying with all manner of ideas,
including a few that contradicted the ideas of the Church, which was in general
control of Europe. The citizens of Europe, as everywhere, were hungry for new ideas
and intellectual freedom, and once out of the box, ideas flourished despite savage
attempts by the Church to stop it: scientists, philosophers and artists were frequently
tortured, imprisoned or even executed.
But the desire for factual information was so exciting that it actually resulted in an
over-building of universities, which occasionally used up the pool of students, and
forced some would-be professors to seek employment as intellectual advisors among
wealthy princes and merchants. And here, completely free from the influence of the
religious institutions that spawned them, many intellectuals turned in earnest towards
“Humanism,” a movement and set of ideas which looked purely to humanity rather than to religion - to answer questions about morality, about the movement
of the stars, about inequality, about drought and disease, about everything that
interested, worried or fired the imagination of the public. This historical period is what
is known as the Renaissance, beginning in the 1500s.
Mary Rosenberg 2015
At the New Orleans Museum of Art I am standing in the middle of an exhibit of hundreds of ancient religious
symbols and figures from all over the world that have come and gone over thousands of years of human history. At
the time these artifacts were created they were all taken very seriously as absolute truths by the people who
worshipped them. How do you think people will view today’s religious beliefs five thousand years from now?
Page 7 of 29
The pressure of the Renaissance on religious leaders no doubt added to the turmoil
of Catholic vs. Protestant wars that annihilated a large part of Europe’s population in
the late 1600s. Kings could no longer rely on the Catholic Church to support their
rule, and so began to replace churchly advisors with secular civilian administrators.
In France, Napoleon eventually abolished the religious universities altogether, and
put secular ones in their place, while Germany forced its religious schools under
secular government authority.
With the Church’s enormous power held at bay by governments, the path was
opened further for scientific discovery and public notice of the findings. It was
gradually becoming safer to discuss in public the shape of the Earth, or how it
revolved around the sun (questions from the “natural” sciences). But the social
sciences focus entirely on people, and thus were even more controversial. Social
sciences touched on very sensitive political and economic subjects that were far
more threatening to powerful interests, and even to the secular governments. Thus
the social sciences tiptoed onto the scene after the natural sciences opened the door.
Examples of "Natural" Sciences
Physics, Biology, Geology,
Herpetology, Oceanography
Astronomy, Ecology
Examples of "Social" Sciences
Sociology, Cultural Geography,
Political Science, Psychology,
Economics, Anthropology
Social sciences began in the 1700s, in England. The first social science discipline to
surface was economics, probably because the free thinking of the Renaissance had
created a dire need for expertise in matters of currency, taxation, and commerce.
The key economic thinker was a man from Scotland, Adam Smith, who described
and explained the explosive capitalist market that had taken over Europe at that time
in his popular book, The Wealth of Nations.
Then Germany became the first country in the world to make primary school
education compulsory for all its citizens, a dramatic endorsement of the usefulness of
secular knowledge. It created a huge pool of potential students of higher learning,
and Germany’s universities became the most respected in the world, a reputation that
held for centuries. The greatest scholars from all over the world arrived in Germany
to complete their educations. A virtual stampede of students from the USA left for
Europe, for most U.S. universities were still dominated by religious instruction until
late into the 1800s. There were many great novelists and poets in the USA, but
fewer scientists of merit at that time.
Page 8 of 29
Psychology followed economics as the next social science to break out as its own
independent discipline. It evolved as a cross between philosophy and medicine, and
then as a practical means of dealing with the many victims of stress.
Anthropology (the study of traditional cultures) sprang to life about the same time in
reaction to Europe’s discovery of tribal societies with vastly diverse cultures in the
Americas and Africa. These cultures were of great interest to Europeans for they had
not been foretold in any religious documents. Prior to the discoveries of these tribes,
European society had formerly portrayed itself as a God-given social order, an idea
that anthropology often contradicted. Thus anthropology had a revolutionary edge to
its discipline that was missing in psychology.
Sociology finally emerged as a combination of anthropology, politics, economics and
even social reform! Yes, sociology had a split personality. Like anthropology,
sociology was a study of groups, but sociology tended to study modern society,
and leaned towards solving social problems through greater use of statistical
analysis than the other social sciences during these early days.
From the beginning, the key to sociology’s solutions was a more fair distribution of
wealth and power in society. It was an explosively controversial “reformist” stance
that is referred to as a “progressive” or even "radical" approach in the USA today.
Sociology has often been seen by powerful groups in history as too dangerous to
tolerate. It was a double threat to the established order for, like anthropology, it had
the courage to disagree with established ideas and traditions, and it also promoted
social changes that supported oppressed groups that were often despised by the
wealthy and powerful.
When the Nazi movement became popular in Germany it was primarily that nation's
anthropologists and sociologists that criticized its ideas as illogical and racist. Hitler
cracked down on both disciplines, wiping out the entire secular wing of sociology
between 1933 and 1945. Many of the survivors fled to France and some to the USA
when France became occupied by German Nazis.
Thus, for a brief period, the USA became a sanctuary for sociologists (especially
Jewish sociologists) during the Nazi madness before World War II. Most, like Levi
Strauss, returned to Europe after the war. But enough remained to change the
uniquely conservative character of sociology in the USA, giving it worldly influences
that make it a richer discipline today and an excitingly sharp controversial edge.
In 1892, John D. Rockefeller put millions of dollars behind the first effort to compete
with German academic excellence when he founded the University of Chicago.
Faculty was lured from all over the world to teach there, but the “Chicago School” of
sociology was rather tame in its approach to social problems because of its wealthy
and conservative founder.
Page 9 of 29
The University of Chicago was the dominant location of the sociological
discipline in the USA until long after World War II. Since then, the USA’s top
sociologists ran off to Harvard, Columbia, Berkeley and the University of Wisconsin.
Today, sociology departments exist in every institution of higher learning. A very,
weak version of sociology can usually be found in the nation’s high schools as well.
THE FOUNDERS OF SOCIOLOGY, IN TIME ORDER
August Comte (1798-1857)
The term “sociology” was first used by French philosopher August Comte, who
argued in 1838 for a scientific approach to the understanding of social stability and
social change. Comte’s excitement led him to boast that sociologists would
unlock the secrets of society like a secular “priesthood of humanity.” However,
Comte’s sociology resembled philosophy much more than science in the beginning.
There were a lot of theories put forward, but not much scientific testing to determine
their accuracy.
August Comte
Harriet Martineau (1802-1876)
The first prominent woman sociologist built on Comte’s demand for a scientific
sociology. She suggested a set of objective research tools (one important example
was the “random sample,” that made it possible to survey a huge population) that
would be adopted later by others.
Page 10 of 29
Martineau’s study of the difference between English and American society became a
bestselling book, but was ignored by both governments, because it criticized slavery
and the oppression of women in that period.
Harriet Martineau
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
The ideas of the wealthy and highly educated Scott known as Herbert Spencer do not
appear in all introductory sociology texts, for he has become somewhat of an
embarrassment to the discipline. His attempt to explain the differences between rich
and poor segments of a society as merely a difference between well-adapted or
poorly-adapted individuals is racist by today’s standards. Misinterpreting Darwin’s
theory of ‘natural selection,’ Spencer claimed that the rich were the clear
winners of the evolutionary process, and that the poor were the losers. His
thinking was labeled “Social Darwinism.”
Herbert Spencer
Page 11 of 29
Spencer claimed that it would be dangerous to tamper with this evolutionary process
by helping the poor, for society would just be propping up poorly-adapted losers. At a
point at which (mostly Protestant) England could have saved one million starving Irish
Catholics during the potato crop failures in the mid-1800s, Spencer was asked by
Parliament for his advice. He suggested that nothing should be done to help the
poor, but that food should be sold into Irish markets so that the rich there (who
happened to be the wealthy Protestant landlords favored by England) could buy it
and survive while the poor died off around them, thereby “improving” society in the
long term. Parliament took his advice which gravely deepened this historic tragedy
for the starving Irish Catholics.
War was good for society as well, according to Spencer. War sorted out winners and
losers on the planet. And because the poor always fight the wars, war was a means
of ridding societies of these “maladapted” citizens. His theory was - and still is - a
convenient one to the powerful, the wealthy and the educated elite, for it allows them
to dismiss the needs of impoverished citizens and justify the great wealth of the rich.
Adolph Hitler’s effort to create a “super-race” at the expense of Jews, Blacks and
others would place him into the Social Darwinist category as well, and many of the
stereotypes told about the poor, minorities or other powerless people today are
rooted in the related belief that there is something inherently defective about these
groups, with the opposite being true of the wealthy, or at least, the white race.
Spencer’s hybrid theory was a terrible misuse of Darwin’s original theory of evolution
because his explanation for inequality ignored the effect of oppressive tactics on the
poor. It ignored the corruption of government processes that created and sustained
the rich, the huge theft of resources during colonial plundering of smaller nations, and
other historical factors which caused certain groups to become impoverished.
Social Darwinism’s popularity among the wealthy was phenomenal. The rich
appreciated having a “scientific” stamp of approval on their bloodlines, and were not
anxious to admit the absurdity of Spencer’s untested spin on Darwinism.
Yet on a different topic, Spencer did contribute a useful image of society to the
sociological discipline. He described the organization of a human society as if it were
a giant living organism. Spencer suggested that the various parts of society (labor,
management, old, young etc.) may seem separate, but are totally interdependent.
They may provide different functions, but they are all vital parts of ONE social body,
just as the arms and legs of an animal are ultimately interdependent. As a society
becomes organized, it gradually becomes its own separate beast, greater than
the sum of its parts. Most sociologists strongly agree with Spencer on that point.
Page 12 of 29
Spencer’s ideas helped trigger the flight of poor starving Irish Catholics to the U.S colonies during and
after the potato famine in the mid 1800s. As this grim Irish artwork (above) suggests, many died in
passage. The anger is still evident today in the sign (below) honoring an Irish Republican Army soldier
who died in a hunger strike protesting English/Protestant domination of Ireland.
Photos: Gary Payne
Page 13 of 29
Karl Marx (1818-1883)
Although German-born Karl Marx is still the most quoted author in academic
journals worldwide[3] the average U.S. citizen has had little or no contact with his
controversial writings or ideas. Marx was – and still is – the most famous critic of
capitalist economic systems: the private ownership of the means of
production. He is also the most famous critic of religious institutions. Since
we in the USA live in a very capitalist and religious country, Marx has been
unofficially censored from most textbooks and other media to avoid
contradictions to our nation’s dominant economic and religious interests.
Even today, many authors are reluctant to say anything positive about Marx’s ideas,
fearing occupational repercussions. Their fear is not merely paranoia, for several
scholars, artists, actors and writers who favored Marxist ideas were imprisoned in the
1950s while others fled the country, as we shall see in Chapter 2.
Karl Marx
Marx predicted that the selfishness and inequality in capitalist economies would
eventually force the working poor to seize control from the wealthy owners of the
“means of production” (the factories, farms, mills, mines, etc). He claimed that
these workers would then create a more humane classless society, sharing the
profits in communities in such an elegant and selfless way that government would no
Page 14 of 29
longer be necessary. This is a simplified description of what Marx called
Communism. Many revolutionary movements since then have used his ideas for
inspiration, but Marx would be dismayed at some of their tactics. Even before his life
was over, he felt compelled to reject some of the activities that were taking place in
his name.
Born into a Jewish family, Marx learned to fear religion. His father, a Jewish attorney,
was forced by Christians to convert in order to be able to work. His scholarly
investigation of the world’s religions led Marx to think that they were not the answer to
humanity’s problems. In fact, he felt that religion was a major cause of humanity’s
problems. Marx called religion the “opiate of the masses.” He felt that the
concept of eventual escape from this world into Heaven was not only fictitious, but
also lulled individuals into inactivity on issues that they should be raging against while
alive: slavery, child labor, hunger and inequality. It was a stinging attack on society’s
two most powerful groups: religious leaders and wealthy capitalists.
Religious leaders did not forgive Marx for his criticisms. They joined with the rich in
chasing him from Germany. He left his job as a newspaper editor and fled to France,
then later fled to England, where he continued to write until he died. Along the way,
Marx met Friedrich Engels, a very wealthy factory manager who recognized the
genius of Marx and later bankrolled much of his written work. It was a strange
friendship, given the anti-rich message Marx was putting out, but Engels turned out to
have quite a passion for justice despite his wealth, and a terrific intellect as well.
Engels’ name was soon found alongside Karl Marx, as they co-authored The
Communist Manifesto and much later, Das Kapital (Translation: “The Money.”)
Engels
Marx
Engels secretly ghost-wrote some pieces that he had Marx sign as author, probably
out of fear of what might happen to him. But this pair of social critics left a volume of
written material that has been a thorn in the side of powerful interests ever since.
Their “follow the money” approach to understanding all social arrangements cast a
new light on events from infant mortality to campaign contributions. Marx & Engels’
Page 15 of 29
approach is known in sociology today as “conflict theory.” The social safety net
of government programs that exists in Europe and to a lesser extent in the USA is
among many positive outcomes that flowed - in part – because of their criticisms.
Max Weber (1864-1920)
Many sociology texts portray German sociologist Weber’s ideas as contrary to Karl
Marx claiming that Weber’s life was “a debate with the ghost of Karl Marx” (who
was born a half century earlier). Nevertheless, Weber had a deep respect for Marx’s
writings. Weber’s mother was a devout Protestant, but his father was a prominent
politician working secretly in the service of wealthy German manufacturers. In this
environment, Weber quickly learned the hidden realities of how the wealthy control
government. His was an upbringing with revelations similar to that of Marx.
But unlike Marx, Weber decided that society could best be understood by a “follow
the ideas” approach, rather than “follow the money.” Weber concentrated on the
effects of powerful cultural ideas – especially religious ideas. Since these ideas are
held to be sacred, they are rarely questioned, and therefore may be passed on
across countless human generations, profoundly influencing the behavior and beliefs
of those societies for centuries. He suggested that ideas controlled society, not just
wealth.
Max Weber
Page 16 of 29
Since each culture on the planet evolves over time with its own unique set of ideas
that explain creation, etc., each culture becomes different and unique. So for Weber,
the force that determines what a nation is like is that particular set of ideas that
originated in its cultural history.
For example, Weber claimed that capitalism was an outcome of the values found in
Protestant ideology: hard work, independence and honesty. Weber suggested that
capitalism would not have developed without Protestant values. This claim
appeared in his famous work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
which was a counter argument to Marx, who had claimed that religious ideas
were merely tools of wealthy people, used to enslave the poor.
The other great debate Weber had with Marx had to do with the wisdom of creating a
society based on equality, as Marx had suggested was inevitable and good. Weber
felt that ending exploitation of the poor was a worthy goal, but one that would
require huge government bureaucracies to achieve, and this might become
even more of a controlling menace than inequality itself.
Of course, Weber’s argument was welcomed by wealthy and powerful people who
found it very convenient not to pay higher taxes to support the poor, but there was
also some truth to it. The “withering away” of governments in socialist/communist
countries that Marx had predicted would happen has never occurred. In fact, these
governments (as in Cuba) are typically very large. Weber might say, “ominous.”
On the other hand, corporation capitalism has also seen huge and expensive
bureaucracies emerge like Wal-mart, Amazon and McDonald’s, especially their
military operations. So…Weber’s criticism of government-run societies seems a bit
misguided today. In fact, strongly socialist countries like Cuba which run their
economies almost entirely by government have seen huge improvements in living
standards of their populations under socialism. And so, this debate continues.
Because Weber thought each society unique, he rejected the notion of universal laws
that govern every society. He came up with the concept of “ideal types” to describe
and compare societies. However, by his own standards, his system isn’t very useful
for a general understanding of humankind, because social strategies that might
improve one society would not necessarily improve another, since each would be
unique.
In recent years, Weber’s “ideal types” have fallen out of favor in sociology after
several universal social facts have been found by statisticians to influence all
societies (for example: greater social inequality = greater societal violence rates).
But Weber’s confrontation with the ideas of Karl Marx have tempered sociology ever
since.
Page 17 of 29
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)
Until the French sociologist/anthropologist Emile Durkheim arrived on the scene,
sociology was a random collection of thinkers with nothing much to tie them together
except a focus on groups and institutions. But that changed dramatically after
Durkheim, the first sociological researcher, completed his statistical study of
suicide and revealed his conclusions to the academic world. His method of scientific
testing of social theories became the core technique employed by sociologists.
Durkheim understood that the key to the scientific method (for any science) is to look
for conditions under which something happens and then contrast this with conditions
under which it does not happen. In sociology, we do this as we search to discover
general laws that govern social behavior, and might therefore explain it. Identifying
those laws might allow us to find solutions to some very serious social problems.
Emile Durkheim
Previous to Durkheim’s study of suicide, human behavior had been considered to be
determined primarily within the mind of the individual. This is the basic idea behind
the discipline of psychology. Christian doctrine is deeply rooted in similar thinking
with its concepts of individual salvation/damnation, which depended only on the free
will of the individual. The social environment around the individual was generally
ignored as irrelevant. This perspective is still popular today, especially in the USA.
Page 18 of 29
But Durkheim’s research, published in his book Suicide, was a landmark study that
jarred the academic and religious communities out of complacency. He
demonstrated that suicide – seemingly the most individual act one could ever imagine
(because it is an act performed by an individual to that same individual, usually
without consulting others) – was not merely about the individual suicide victim’s mind.
Durkheim found by examining medical records and death certificates that the rates of
suicide varied wildly from nation to nation, and within those nations it varied by
religious affiliation. If suicide was truly an individual act, the country of origin and
religious affiliation of the victims should not have influenced the rates of suicide. But
Durkheim found that nationality and religious affiliation had a huge influence.
Durkheim also found that the popular methods of suicide and the reasons given for
attempting suicide were entirely different from culture to culture. Again, if suicide was
determined by the individual, these cultural factors should not have mattered. But
they did, and dramatically! Suicide occurred in patterns that were strongly associated
with cultural factors. When these patterns were seen, explanations could be tested,
and the reality of suicide could be revealed.
The question became: how can social factors like religious affiliation be so powerful
that they may determine whether or not a person commits suicide? Durkheim
theorized that individual behavior is molded by social ties to others in intimate
groups (examples: families, church members, and friends) that interact in unique
ways according to the cultural ideas that they traditionally hold.
For Jews, a core tradition was a dependence on other Jews, and working together.
Among orthodox Jews was the idea of collective salvation, a concept that
strengthened their social ties and greatly increased their immunity to suicide. But for
Protestants, a spirit of independence was traditional. This independent spirit has
undoubtedly triggered some benefits in other realms, but it led to fewer and weaker
social ties, and the highest rate of suicide among studied religions. This supported
Durkheim’s “social ties” theory, and when tested statistically by examining death
certificates, it held up in nation after nation.
If a (seemingly) individual act like suicide is not an individual act…then…what act is?
The striking and unavoidable conclusion is that even what seems to be individual
behavior, or free will, is really determined socially, that is, by what is around us in our
social environment. At least, the main determinant of behavior is at the social level,
and not at the individual level.
Interestingly, much of this social influence goes unnoticed by the individual. That is
because these social influences surround us from our first childhood memories so we
as individuals tend to take them for granted – the effect is nearly invisible to the vast
majority of citizens unless they study it statistically. But very few of us view our social
Page 19 of 29
world in this scientific way. And so…we don’t really understand our own behavior, or
the behavior of others.
Yes, Durkheim’s conclusions were - and still are - controversial. Sociology found
itself contradicting the most cherished core belief of Western civilization. For if it was
the social environment that determined most of our behavior, how could anyone be
blamed for inappropriate or “criminal” acts, and how could anyone be applauded for
“good” behavior? How could prison sentences be justified? How could immense
fortunes be justified, especially in a country with substantial poverty? Neither the
prince nor the pauper truly deserved the fate they had been handed, for their fates
were not primarily of their own making. The same contradiction applied to the
religious concept of the sinner and the saint, regarding salvation and damnation.
There are far-reaching social implications for Durkheim’s findings. He opened a door
of inquiry that has never been closed, although many have shoved hard against it.
Gary Payne 2011
The wisdom of Durkheim’s “social ties” argument really becomes apparent when people from
individualistic cultures in the USA visit people from co-operative cultures like these Hammer tribe children
in East Africa. The amazing closeness of their relationships makes them act more like a single organism
than separate individuals and this has profound consequences for their behavior. Durkheim’s research
demonstrated that cultural factors are the primary determinants of human behavior.
Page 20 of 29
Without Durkheim’s addition to sociology, a purely sociological discipline might not
have survived. The great sociological thinkers might just have been absorbed by
other disciplines with which they were closely connected already. But after
Durkheim’s work had been published and the academic world could not refute it,
sociologists suspected that all human behaviors were primarily social outcomes.
Armed with Durkheim’s model of statistical analysis, sociological researchers began
searching for other statistical evidence of the effect of social and cultural factors on
individual behaviors.
Nearly a century later, sociologists have found that there are many measurable social
conditions (like the level of poverty, or education) that can be statistically correlated to
individual outcomes, from homicide rates to infant mortality rates. This knowledge
has led most modern societies -notably in Europe, Canada and Japan- to redesign
government policy in ways that have encouraged individuals to act in a more positive
manner. This has led to better health, lower crime, and greater equality.
But some societies, including our own, are still strongly attached to individualistic
thinking due to their particular religious and economic histories. The shift towards
sociological policies has been delayed, with significant consequences (see Table1.1
below). The United States has fallen behind most modern industrial democratic
nations in the march towards a better future. Even freedom has been curtailed in the
USA, as our nation maintains the highest rate of incarceration in world history.[4]
Durkheim’s research has yet to be fully applied to our nation’s social policy.
TABLE 1.1
SOCIAL INDICATORS OF DEVELOPED NATIONS : YEAR 2015
The USA has the most money, yet worst outcomes
Source: CIA World Factbook*
USA
FRN
BRIT
GERM
JAPN
CANA
$55K
40K
40K
45K
38K
45K
10K
Infant Mortality per 100K 590
330
440
340
210
460
460
Life Expectancy
81.8
80.5
80.6
84.7
81.8
78.4
4
2
1
1
3
1
Per Capita Income
AIDS cases per 1000
79.7
6
CUBA**
*Not every nation reports this data every year, the most recent year is reported here. Figures are rounded. **Cuba is not a democratic or
industrially developed nation and thus does not fit well in this comparison. I posted its figures here to demonstrate why so many
very poor nations have wished to copy the impressive Cuban socialist model. How is Cuba doing compared to our rich nation?
Page 21 of 29
20th Century Sociologists in the USA, in Time Order
Jane Addams (1860-1935)
The founders of sociology were great thinkers and theoreticians. But for sociological
principles to be placed into practice, social activists were required to step forward and
engage the political process. This can be tough work, and not everyone is cut out for
it. An amazing exception was Jane Addams.
Addams had withstood a tough childhood in which her mother had passed away
when she was two years old. Later Addams entered medical school in Philadelphia,
but was forced to drop out because of illness. She understood hard times, and
personal disadvantage.
On a visit to England, Addams noticed that the poor were generally better treated
than in the United States, where little or no social safety net existed. Addams opened
Hull House in Chicago, which housed poor immigrants that were flooding into the
USA at that time from Europe. Hull House was not merely a poorhouse, however.
She used it as a think-tank for progressive ideas, a place where intellectuals could
meet to plan legislative campaigns. Addams won a Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts
in 1931. She published written pieces in the prestigious American Sociological
Review and was a tireless lobbyist for the rights of children.
Jane Addams
Page 22 of 29
W.E.B. DuBois (1868-1963)
The first person of color to earn a doctoral degree in sociology at prestigious Harvard
University was William DuBois, an African American from Massachusetts. DuBois
taught at a number of universities, and discovered along the way that his degree did
not protect him from discrimination. He was a founding member of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which was originally
controlled by whites. DuBois was the only black board member at NAACP, and then
became editor of its widely-read journal Crisis for over two decades.
W.E.B. Du Bois
DuBois became a famous critic of World War 1(as did Jane Addams), which he
claimed was merely a battle among rich countries to see which won the right to steal
the fantastically abundant natural resources of Africa. Du Bois was truly international
in his outlook; he also fought for the rights of Africans in Africa. He finally died at the
age of 95 while traveling through Ghana. By then he had renounced his U.S.
citizenship as a reaction to discrimination he faced here in the land of his birth.
C. Wright Mills (1916-1962)
One of the most vocal critics of economic inequality arrived on the scene at a time
when it was dangerous to speak out against the system in the USA. A man of
enormous personal courage, C. Wright Mills published The Power Elite in 1957,
which provided considerable evidence that the nation’s policies were being controlled
-not by voters- but behind the scenes by large corporations and top military leaders.
The nation was going through a wave of rabid anti-communism at the time, violating
the rights of free speech of countless actors, writers, publishers, movie directors and
producers that had been critical of greed among the rich. Mills’ The Power Elite
made him a target for harassment by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Page 23 of 29
C. Wright Mills
However, unlike many social critics in the 1950s, Mills was never imprisoned despite
his opinions which were designed to alert the public to a similar hidden agenda to that
which Marx and Engels had warned about earlier. In an unthinkable irony, Mills’
warning was soon supported by President Dwight Eisenhower, a former General in
the U.S. Army and Commander of U.S. forces in World War II. His final speech as
President startled the public by suggesting that the “military industrial complex” had
indeed grown too powerful for the good of the nation. It was like a page from Mills’
book, which Eisenhower had undoubtedly read. Below is a quote from President
Eisenhower's famous speech:
“We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This
conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American
experience.
The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every
office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must
not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the
very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced
power exists and will persist…” [5]
Page 24 of 29
As a conservative Republican - and former Commander in Chief of all Allied forces in World War I IEisenhower seemed an unlikely supporter of themes in The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills. But as
President, he had witnessed war profiteering and undue corporate influence in governmental affairs.
Yet C. Wright Mills is best known for another work he produced, The
Sociological Imagination, in which he encouraged his readers and students to
peer through the haze of their own limited personal experience. Mills wanted
them to see far more than their own families and schools and churches and
communities ever intended that they see, to become truly aware of the wider world, of
points of view that challenge the traditional and sometimes sacred beliefs they were
raised with, and to find creative new ways to make the world a better place.
Dr. Martin Luther King (1929 - 1968)
The youngest person ever to receive a Nobel Peace prize was the famous civil rights
activist, Dr. Martin Luther King. Although he is often regarded primarily as a religious
figure, Dr. King’s background in sociology at Morehouse University in Atlanta - where
he earned his Bachelor’s degree – is less well known. He was looking for a method
to make peaceful changes against a backdrop of intense white resistance to black
equality.
Page 25 of 29
Courtesy Marion S. Trikosko, Flickr Public Domain
Dr. King (center) chats with Malcolm X before a news conference in 1964. Both of these gifted civil rights
leaders were assassinated by 1968; neither man had reached 40 years of age.
This led King to India in the 1950s to study the techniques of “non-violent noncooperation” which had been used successfully by social activist Mahatma Gandhi to
win independence from British colonial occupation without significant bloodshed. By
the time blacks in the USA began demanding civil rights in the early 1960s, King was
a seasoned sociologist who understood how inequality could be peacefully
challenged. He then used Gandhi’s strategy to change our nation for the better.
King’s peaceful marches – and the Montgomery bus boycott he helped to engineer were often met with violence by white citizen groups and massive brutal arrests by
police. These glaring episodes of open racism became a national embarrassment as
they were filmed by reporters and aired on television. This triggered a worldwide
public outpouring of support for the civil rights movement. Historic legislation passed
that many U.S. citizens point to as the most important achievement of the 20 th
century. It might not have had a chance without Dr. King’s willingness to reach
outside his own culture’s ideas for a social solution borrowed from India. Both Dr.
King, and his mentor Gandhi, lived to see enormous social progress as a result of
their activism. But both were assassinated soon afterwards. Dr. King was one of
several black civil rights leaders who were gunned down in the 1960s; he was shot to
death on the balcony of a motel in Memphis, Tennessee. His legacy lives on.
Page 26 of 29
The variation of teen birth statistics from nation to nation is so extreme (more than 10 times!) that only cultural
factors could explain it. Each culture is like a unique machine pumping out unique behavioral outcomes. This
explains why - year after year – the numbers remain fairly similar. The cultures tend to change only slowly.
SOCIOLOGY’S MAIN THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
Sociologists use science to cut through the fog of opinion. Imagine for a moment that
we wanted to know the answer to this question: “Is inequality a cause of violent
crime?” This question could be turned into a statistically testable theoretical
statement. Well respected computer programs can use U.S. census data and
homicide rates to measure the relationship of inequality and violence, county by
county, state by state, and nation by nation. The results of these measurements
confirm the theory. We now know beyond a significant doubt that increases in
inequality increases violent crime rates. Therefore, if we want to reduce violence, we
could reduce inequality through changing tax rates or other governmental tactics.
But the first sociological pioneers like Marx and Spencer offered “grand theories”
(called theoretical perspectives) that covered more social phenomena than could be
tested at one time. What most modern sociological researchers have done to keep
their research practical and scientific is to test parts of these perspectives, one piece
at a time. This allows objectivity without losing track of the basic point of view.
Gradually, three main theoretical perspectives have survived to this day in sociology,
and they will pop up continuously in class discussion: the Functionalist, Conflict, and
Interactionist perspectives. We will define the first two perspectives below here in
FIGURE 1.1, and the Interactionist perspective will be addressed in Chapters 4 & 5.
Page 27 of 29
FIGURE 1.1: THE CONFLICT VS. FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVES
FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE Originators: Herbert Spencer & E. Durkheim
Society’s Image: Society’s parts work like the parts of a body, in harmony, providing
functions for each other and the whole of society.
Explanation for the Social Order: Individuals are just naturally cooperative, and we
willingly accept the social system as it is, like ants working together in an ant farm.
Basic Research Question: What function is provided by the social arrangement
being studied?
View of Social Change: If it is rapid change it may cause breaks in vital social ties
between individuals, causing social problems. Very rapid changes like successful
labor strikes thus would be seen as a dysfunction, a disorder in society.
Weakness: The functionalist perspective is a conservative viewpoint, because it
does not question unfairness and unequal power arrangements in a social system,
and does not encourage change towards justice. Its research findings are often
convenient for the powerful because their advantage is not the main point of interest.
CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE
Originators: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
Society’s Image: Society is like a poker game of competing interests, fighting to get
their share.
Explanation for the Social Order: Order is maintained by force and coercion. We
follow the rules like ants in an ant farm because we have to, we are forced to.
Basic Research Question: Who benefits from any given social arrangement?
View of Social Change: It is necessary for justice, and equality. Labor strikes for
higher wages or better working conditions are beneficial to society.
Weakness: This perspective doesn’t sufficiently recognize that people do want to
cooperate, even in systems that aren’t perfectly fair and just. Also, some claim
conflict theory is too “materialistic,” for it seems to suggest that wealth is the only
measure of human happiness.
Page 28 of 29
REFERENCES
[1]
Bertorelle, Giorgio, 2003. US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[2]
Collin, Randall, 1994. Four Sociological Traditions. Oxford University Press.
[3]
A World of Sociological Facts, Harper's Index and McGraw-Hill, Harper's Magazine, [taken from 1/94-2/96 listing].
[4]
Siegel, Larry J. Criminology. 7th edition. (Belmont CA: West Wadsworth, 2002.)
Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040. To read the entire speech, paste
the following: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
[5]
Page 29 of 29