Download SOCIOLOGY: UNIT ONE - Marshall Community Schools

SOCIOLOGY: UNIT ONE
“Who am I, why am I here?” These famous, or should I say infamous, words were spoken by James
Stockdale during the 1992 Vice Presidential debate. Stockdale was the chosen running mate of
independent candidate Ross Perot, who had enough public support at the time to be invited to join in
the Presidential debates that year, making it a three way debate between himself, President George
H.W. Bush and the challenger Bill Clinton. This situation also extended itself into the Vice Presidential
debates, where Stockdale squared off against then current Vice President Dan Quayle, and Bill Clinton’s
running mate, Albert Gore, Jr.
During the debate, Stockdale, who was virtually unknown at large in the American public, had many
of what may be described laughingly today as “senior moments” where he would forget what he was
saying midway through a sentence, wandered away from the podium and towards the other candidates,
and forgot to turn his hearing aid on for a portion of the questioning by the moderator. Following the
debate, the nation was abuzz about his performance, and he became the butt of jokes on such shows as
Saturday Night Live where he, and his performance, were parodied by Phil Hartman.
So just why was James Stockdale there, and the chosen Vice Presidential running mate of billionaire
Ross Perot, why was this seemingly befuddled and absent minded old man chosen to be the person one
breath away from the Presidency had Perot been elected? It turns out there was more to the story than
the American public knew about James Stockdale. He was a retired Admiral in the U.S. Navy, who had
been shot down over Vietnam while serving as commander of an aircraft carrier air wing during that
conflict. He survived and was taken as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese, the highest ranking
person in the Navy to have been captured. Stockdale was held as a prisoner of war in the Hoa Lo prison
for the next seven and one-half years. As the senior naval officer, he was one of the primary organizers
of prisoner resistance. Tortured routinely and denied medical attention for the severely damaged leg he
suffered during capture, Stockdale created and enforced a code of conduct for all prisoners which
governed torture, secret communications, and behavior. In the summer of 1969, he was locked in leg
irons in a bath stall and routinely tortured and beaten. When told by his captors that he was to be
paraded in public, Stockdale slit his scalp with a razor to purposely disfigure himself so that his captors
could not use him as propaganda. When they covered his head with a hat, he beat himself with a stool
until his face was swollen beyond recognition. When Stockdale was discovered with information that
could implicate his friends' "black activities", he slit his wrists so they could not torture him into
confession. Stockdale was released as a prisoner of war on February 12, 1973. His shoulders had been
wrenched from their sockets, his leg shattered by angry villagers and a torturer, and his back broken. He
received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1976. Debilitated by his captivity and mistreatment,
Stockdale could not stand upright and could barely walk upon his return to the United States, which
prevented his return to active flying status. In deference to his previous service, the Navy kept him on
active duty, steadily promoting him over the next few years before he retired as a vice admiral.
Stockdale came to know businessman and presidential candidate H. Ross Perot through his wife's
work in establishing an organization to represent the families of Vietnam POWs. On March 30, 1992,
Perot announced that he had asked Stockdale to be his provisional Vice Presidential nominee on Ross
Perot's 1992 independent ticket. Perot intended to replace Stockdale with another candidate, but did
not do so before he dropped out of the race in July 1992.
Perot eventually re-entered the race in the fall of 1992, with Stockdale still in place as the vicepresidential nominee. Stockdale was not informed that he would be participating in the October 13 vicepresidential debate held in Atlanta, Georgia, until a week before the event. He had no formal
preparation for the debate, unlike his opponents Al Gore and Dan Quayle, and did not discuss any
political issues with Perot beforehand. So, as you can see, there was much more to the presence of
Admiral Stockdale, and more to the man, than was let on. However, what the public did see of him, and
the resulting comedic escapades of Phil Hartman, left a very different impression of Admiral James
Stockdale than what his life in actuality was.
So, why, in a Sociology class, are we talking about an obscure piece of American Vice Presidential
history? The answer is two-fold, and should begin with the analysis that James Stockdale was an
American hero that nobody knew, and as a result, he was portrayed by societal institutions as an inept
buffoon. More importantly, however, are the words he used to introduce himself to that same public
and society at large, “Who am I?” This is the central question that Sociologists study, and their answer
reflects what happened to Admiral Stockdale.
First off, we should understand that Sociology is one of seven fields of study to arise from the study of
History itself. These fields of study include History, Political Science, Economics, Psychology, Sociology,
Anthropology, Archaeology and Geography. History has always been a contentious field of study in that
its own history is marked by the central tenet of discovering truth. Unfortunately, it has not always
been as forthcoming with that particular nugget of treasure as its authors have frequently allowed their
own biases and viewpoints to interfere with the unbiased presentation of facts. In fact, in order to
understand what Sociology is, and how it became this, we must reach even further back into the history
of History itself, and examine why the truth was so elusive in this field.
To do so, we must understand that while Archaeology is the study of artifacts, History is the study of
written records, and without writing, there can be no History. The first recorded instances of writing
were pictograms, writing represented by pictures. It was first used by scribes to record numbers of
items stored, and how much of what went where. In other words, writing became intimately tied to
memory. As this first writing was merely lists of things, not only did it inaccurately portray truth, but it
also left much to be desired in what to take away from it in the ways of lessons. A good way to look at
that statement would be to imagine reading a grocery list you found from years ago to a friend, what
lesson could they learn and be prepared to share with others from it?
The lack of applicable lessons, by which we mean, something to examine and learn from in regards of
what to do and not to do in our own futures, was also the weakness of the next phase of history; the
chronicle. Chronicles were used to record events only, with no interpretation of their meaning. It also
relied heavily on imperfect memory, as it was another means of preserving it, however, unlike the first
writings; it was intended for long term generational use. It was little more than a list, but it did give
dates and what events occurred on those dates. For example, this excerpt from the Irish Annals,
written by a group of monks who wished to record the past through their chronicles has this entry for
March, 824 A.D. “Scelec was raided by heathens and Étgal was carried away as booty, and he perished
with hunger because of them.” Who was Étgal, and why was he important enough to note in the
annals? Who were these heathens? Where did they come from, and why did they attack Scelec? Why
did they take Étgal? All of these questions lead us to the second element necessary for the study of
History, and that is inquiry or the interpretation of events in order to derive some meaning from them.
The first known person to add this element to the study of writing, and is now considered the “Father
of History,” was the Greek philosopher named Herodotus. He was the first person known to have
applied philosophical inquiry to written documents. He did this by demonstrating a systematic
collection of source materials to research; he tested their accuracy through comparison with one
another, and then arranged his research into a well-constructed narrative. His first major work was a
comprehensive examination of the wars between Persia and Greece. He described his process, and
defined the study of History in the introduction to this work entitled The Persian Wars, as such;
“Herodotus of Halicarnassus, his histories are here set down to
preserve the memory of the past by putting on record the
astonishing achievements both of our own and of other peoples,
and more particularly, to show how they came into conflict.”
Of course his interpretation of the events meaning to the daily lives of Greeks was hotly contested.
The father of Philosophy, Socrates, even went so far as to describe Herodotus as “The Father of Lies.”
So, if interpretations of the meaning of historical events can differ, where again, do we find the truth
that we can universally learn from? To complicate matters further, History has been used for other
purposes throughout the centuries, by historians who have their own objectives, goals, agendas, and
biases.
Take for example, History used as the great story; if History is intended to impart meaning and a
lesson for future generations, does the truth even matter? Can’t a great story set in the past, with,
perhaps, some basis for truth, serve as well for this purpose? Take for example the stories of the Iliad
and the Odyssey, or the tale of the lost continent of Atlantis, or even fabulous Troy and the Greeks
bearing their gift of the Trojan Horse. Many take these stories as fables, but there has been proven to
be an element of historical truth in them, as no one thought Troy had really existed until the 1920’s
when a daring young archaeologist discovered it in modern day Turkey. The great story can also be used
as propaganda. Julius Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, paints him as a great general and
conqueror in order to influence the people of Rome to give him power. While presenting a great story
with him as the leading character, the Commentaries also provide a great deal of information on the
Celtic peoples (the Gauls) that he conquered. Other historians have used the great man/propaganda
method to win favor with men who would fund their works, or support them in some way in return. If
truth, for that matter, is not that important to providing material to teach a lesson, then why bother at
all? Then you can impart any lesson you want freely, including why some individuals or groups are
superior to others.
Despite these issues and fundamental questions about the methods used to produce History, for
nearly 4,000 years it was dominated by the great story used as propaganda, or to draw out moral
lessons and it was only the actions of men that moved it forward. The Catholic Church was fond of this
method as a means to impart lessons and the lives of Jesus and the saints, as well their own theological
interpretations of scripture. The Renaissance of the early 15th century, and resulting increase in literacy,
as well as changes in religious thought during the accompanying Enlightenment, forced man to consider
the nature of truth, and if the history they were learning was true. The impetus for this questioning
came when multitudes of the population could now read the Bible, and found that it said nothing about
confession, a priest having to absolve you, nor having to pay for the privilege. As a matter of fact, much
of what the Catholic Church taught could not be found in the Bible. So, if the church could not be
trusted to impart truth in their histories, then who? If these histories were not true, then what was
History for, who moved it, and what was its purpose? It was about this time that several learned men,
philosophers, developed multiple theories on the nature of truth, what it was, and how we acquire the
knowledge to recognize it. One of these men was an English scientist named Francis Bacon. Bacon is
considered the father of modern science for, among many things, creating what we refer to today as the
scientific method. The scientific method is a way of gaining knowledge in order to lead to truth. It
always begins with a person’s (the scientist) curiosity, and thus is born a question, such as “Why do we
have war?” The scientist would then take his best educated guess as to the answer, and develop what
we call the hypothesis. For example, “We have war because men are inherently aggressive and violent
creatures.” A scientist using the scientific method would then have to develop some sort of experiment
to test their hypothesis. Experiments, by necessity, are designed to collect quantitative data, or in other
words, non-emotionally biased numbers, that when analyzed can either prove or disprove a hypothesis.
When enough experiments are done that can show a general trend that the hypothesis usually holds,
and then this becomes a theory. If the repeated results of several experiments almost always follow
this theory, it can be said to be a law. Theories and laws, because they can be applied to repeated
manifestations of an experiment and receive the same results are said by followers of the scientific
method to then be “truth.”
Most of these followers of the Baconian Method (another term for describing the scientific method)
could be found in the hard sciences of chemistry, astronomy, biology and physics. However, in the late
17th and continuing into the early 20th centuries, in what has come to be known as the “Age of Reason,”
there came a group of men who were convinced that observable phenomena that could be tested and
proven to repeat itself, in what today we call the scientific method, was the only means to arrive at
objective truth in the soft or social sciences as well. In order to do this, a collection of empirical (based
on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.)
evidence was required. Hence, these rational and scientific minds came to be known as empiricists.
When an empiricist looked at a question such as “Why do we have wars?” they would of course refer
to the field of History to answer the question. However, all the study of history could offer would be
biased and theoretical explanations of the past phenomena of war in human history. This was a starting
point, as it gave a theoretical perspective, and a place to begin collecting actual scientific data.
Perspective is important, as it guides the development of a hypothesis, or reasoned explanation. For
example, for someone who subscribes to an economic perspective, the scarcity of resources would
explain why societies go to war. For someone who prefers a psychological perspective, then the
individual need for glory may explain why leaders take us into war. For those who subscribe to a more
sociological based perspective, however, war can be caused by many things other than those two.
Before we get into that unique Sociological perspective of history, let’s examine the differences
between the other social sciences and Sociology. All of the Social Sciences do share common traits in
that they attempt to utilize empirical evidence and examine it, and look for repeating instances of it, in
order to verify hypotheses and construct theories of how things happen in human experience, and why.
Where they differ, however, is in their perspective, as mentioned above. So, we will examine each of
the fields of the social sciences, and what their unique perspectives are, beginning with one of the
oldest; Economics.


Economics: The study of the choice of allocation of scarce resources in conditions of unlimited
demand for them. The perspective of the economist is rooted in the idea that individuals make
choices that will benefit them especially, and taken in total, is what moves human events and
history along.
Psychology is very similar to Sociology, however, much as Economics, it studies the individual
and why individuals choose to act as they do, and that it is individual personality and intelligence
traits that, when taken as a whole, guides human events and history along. Sociologists
deridingly refer to this individualistic perspective as psychological reductionism.
It was these two fields that came before, and led to, the creation of the social science of Sociology.
Whereas Economics is the study of choice, Sociologists could argue that there is no choice, that
decisions are already made based on the constructs of what societies will allow through their
organization and accepted rules of behavior, and as psychology studies individual traits and how they
affect human interaction, Sociology studies how groups of people interact with each other through
organization and cultures. This outlook on what moves humanity and human history is known as the
Sociological Perspective. The study of the fields of Political Science (a social science discipline
concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government),
and Anthropology (the science of human beings; especially: the study of human beings and their
ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social
relations, and culture) arise from this sociological perspective. The fields of Geography (study of the
physical features of the earth and its atmosphere, and of human activity as it affects and is affected by
these,) and Archaeology (The study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and
the analysis of artifacts,) mix elements of the sociological perspective in with their unique outlooks as
well in order to understand human history.
As Psychology and Economics were growing, an empiricist named Auguste Comte called for the
creation of a science that would aid in understanding the massive societal changes that were occurring
as a result of the industrial revolution and the advent of the modern era.
Until the 18th century, most Europeans lived in small, semiautonomous, agricultural villages. These
villages were part of larger countries, whose rulers- generally kings- had begun to build empires and to
promote international trade. But affairs of state and imported goods had little impact on the average
man and woman. Most people lived their entire lives in the village where their parents, grandparents,
and more distant ancestors had been born. Every villager knew every other villager. Nearly everybody
attended the same church. Travel was rare: There were no railroads or even stage coaches, and
highway robbery was a real danger. Gossip was local: There were no newspapers or regular postal
deliveries, much less radios or telephones.
The family was the heart of village life, providing and caring for its own. Home served as a
combination storehouse, workshop, school, hospital, and nursing home for the elderly. Nearly all
families were farmers, though most did not own the land they worked. Rather, they rented from a
landlord (often a member of the aristocracy) under agreements dating back centuries. This social order
was thought to be ordained by God and was seldom questioned. A few people were born to rule, while
the great majority was born to toil. Fathers had authority over their families, landlords over their
tenants, and monarchs over all of their subjects. People knew their duty and their place. Little changed
from one generation to the next.
Life in these preindustrial villages was far from idyllic. Landlords exploited their tenants, often taxing
them to the brink of starvation. Neighbors argued with neighbors, and family feuds sometimes spanned
generations. Sanitation was poor, medical care primitive and early death common. But, however hard
life was the boundaries of behavior and rules of society were known. Though some long term changes
were always taking place, they were generally slow and not very visible to ordinary people. In a few
places, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries brought the seeds of modern life. The Protestant
Reformation encouraged new ideas, and agricultural improvements brought a higher standard of living.
But for most everyday purposes, people could still predict the future from the past.
Change gathered speed in early modern Europe. Scientific thinking and research utilizing empirical
thought, new inventions, the growth of cities, and the conquest of colonies were all important to
societal change. But it took two dramatic political events in the late 18th century to really shock people
into realizing how the traditional social order had been challenged.
The American and French Revolutions showed that old notions of duty, tradition, and submission to
authority were being replaced with new ideas of individual rights, equality, and freedom, threatening
monarchies everywhere. At the same time, a new class of capitalist entrepreneurs was gaining wealth
and power, pushing aside the old landed aristocracy. The political term revolution was soon applied to
these rapid social and economic changes.
The Industrial Revolution altered both the physical and the social landscape. In the nineteenth
century, factories were built; coal mines opened, and railroad and telegraph lines laid, destroying the
isolation that had sheltered traditional agricultural communities. Pushed by inventions that reduced the
need for farm labor, and pulled by the lure of wages, people left their ancestral villages in ever
increasing numbers. Factory towns appeared almost overnight, and urban populations mushroomed.
By 1850, more people in Great Britain lived in towns and cities than in the countryside. The United
States became predominantly urban sometime after that in the early 20th century.
Traditional social relationships were torn apart in the process. Social interaction in factory towns was
far more impersonal than in small rural villages. Often people did not know many of their neighbors and
co-workers, much less have face to face dealings with their employers. Machine production put many
people out of work. Urban riots and squalor created an unsettling image of mass poverty and the threat
of crime or rebellion within European societies.
In addition to sweeping changes at home, the growth of colonial empires and international trade
brought Europeans into contact with peoples whose customs and values were quite different from their
own. Most Europeans believed that their own culture was clearly superior. They believed that they
were rational creatures while others were slaves to superstition or to primitive, animal passions. But
scholars were perplexed by cultural diversity. Where had European civilization come from, and where
was it headed?
It was from this social and intellectual turmoil that sociology was born. Common sense explanations
of the world, based on past experience, no longer applied. Social philosophy, which dealt with what
society should be like, could not explain what was currently happening in the real world. What
governments, businesses and ordinary citizens needed was a science of society- a large body of factual
information put into perspective by systematically tested theories- that would help them understand
and adapt to the modern era. Thus, what Auguste Comte termed Sociology, came into being, and
Comte came to be known as the father of modern sociology. Apart from its creation, his main
contribution to the science was through his philosophy of positivism, which regards society as
resembling the physical, natural and biological, world which has patterns, regularities and laws,
observed and defined by the natural sciences of mathematics, physics, biology, astronomy, and
chemistry. He advocated the creation of social science and the adoption of the methods used by natural
scientists to address the problems of societies at large. These included such things as observation and
experimentation in the study of social life, and that social scientists should use the scientific approach to
study two main social forces; social change and social order. Through the contributions of Comte, and
the many other Sociologists that came after him, the coherent understanding of what the study of
Sociology is came to be defined as; the social science that studies the impact of social institutions on
the development of people and history in order to guide political, legal and moral policy making for all.
The rise of scientific thinking was itself one of the major social changes in Europe. The early
sociologists were both part of the scientific tide that was sweeping Europe and observers of it. Adapting
ideas and methods from the physical sciences, they gathered empirical data and constructed theories
that are still influential today. They developed the five key concepts of social structure, social action,
functional integration, power, and culture.
Social Structure is a concept that refers to the patterns of social relationships we develop throughout
our lives as humans. For example, marriage, employment, neighbors, etc., are all social relationships we
develop. Social structure also includes our social position, which can in part be defined as what we do
for a living (i.e., priest, teacher, doctor, lawyer, carpenter, President, etc.). It also includes demographic,
numerical, and statistical divisions of people such as the percentage of U.S. citizens above the age of 65,
or the entire population of China. Social structures often change, but are rarely affected by the
individual unless it is on a small scale. Otherwise, people normally adapt to these changes, making
choices within the framework of the existing and current social structure.
Social Action is behavior which is shaped by a person’s understandings, interpretations, and
intentions, and which is in response to, coordinated with, or oriented toward the actions of others. In
other and simpler terms, it is basically the choices you or I make as a result of the actions and choices of
others. Social action can involve the large scale coordination of thousands of people, such as forming a
church or organizing a government or governmental program, or can only involve the formation of
interpersonal relationships such as making a new friend at school. It is difficult to separate any action
you take as an individual from that of a social action. Let’s take for example the choice of whether to
have a turkey or a ham sandwich for lunch some Saturday. Surely that can be considered to be an
individual choice, with no consequences to, or impact of others on my choice. However, perhaps you
choose ham because it is on sale as a result of a surplus of pork products on the market that is causing
many farmers to quit the profession; or perhaps you choose turkey because it is a healthier alternative
and you are watching your weight because the media has portrayed the ideal individual as slim and
calorie conscious. All of these considerations then make the individual choice of whether to have a ham
or a turkey sandwich much more globally based, and therefore not a simple individual choice, but rather
a complex social action.
Functional Integration is merely the ways in which the different parts of a social system are often so
closely interrelated that what happens in one affects the others, and is influenced by them in turn. For
example, the military depends on manufacturers for equipment, the manufacturers depend on the
schools for knowledgeable and capable employees, schools depend on the government for financial
help, and the government depends on the military for its protection and defense. Functionally
integrated systems can also produce dysfunctions, which are unintended side effects that are not good
for the system. An example of this would be the pollution caused by manufacturing as a consequence of
modern industry.
Power is the capacity of one social actor (an individual or group or organization) to get others to do
its will, or to ensure that it will benefit from the actions of others. For example, businesses in America
have made a social system where it is impossible to get a high paying job without a college degree. This
requirement ensures that they will have highly educated and capable employees performing key
functions, so it benefits from your action in choosing a college education, and in turn partly forces you to
choose such an education. Other situations of power occur every day. Why are you sitting in a
classroom Monday through Friday not doing necessarily what you desire, but rather sitting quietly and
listening to a teacher talk about subjects that may not even interest you? Why when you see a police
cruiser at the next corner do you instinctively slow down your own vehicle? Why do you try to be back
at or before 11:30, or at least try to hide the fact that you did not make it back by that time, when your
parents state that is your curfew? The reasoning behind this all has to do with power, where it is
located, and who has it.
The last of the five key concepts is Culture. A culture is composed of the language, norms, values,
beliefs, knowledge, and symbols that make up a way of life. It is the understanding of how to act that
people share with one another in any stable, self-reproducing group. The concept of culture is used to
describe the distinctive way of life of a nation or a people. If we look at the broad descriptor “western
culture” we can see these characteristics in that most of what comprises the culture speaks a Latin
based or heavily influenced language, they believe in the worth of the individual, value hard work, have
beliefs rooted in Christianity and the Christian tradition, possess the base knowledge necessary for
scientific reasoning, and understand that a line through the picture of an actions means, “Do not do
this!” Someone from an eastern culture, like the Chinese, however, find most of these concepts and
practices foreign to them, as we would find their language, practices and beliefs foreign to us.
The development of these five key principles and how they are shown to affect our everyday lives is
varied. Many of the early influential founders of the science of Sociology disagreed with each other
about the impacts and importance of each of the five key concepts, though they all, in theory, agreed
that each existed and was vital. Since sociological theory builds on previous theory, it is important to
understand the foundations laid by some of the early great thinkers in the field.
The first of these we will examine is Adam Smith. Though not specifically a sociologist himself, his
theories dealt a great deal with, and were influential on other sociologist’s views of social action. Adam
Smith is considered to be the father of the modern science of Economics. His most famous work was a
book entitled “The Wealth of Nations” which laid out the basic fundamental concepts of modern
economic science. Amongst these was the belief that individual decisions and action could add up to
the beneficial organization of the entire society. He posited that people make choices on the basis of
very rational cost to benefit analyses. These choices are individual choices where the individual
considers mainly the consequences to themselves, and not to others. Smith’s theory was that these
individual choices motivated purely by self-interest were good in the aggregate (each individual part
which in total constitutes a whole), as they guided the society, much as an invisible hand, into creating
what the society desired, and leading to the betterment of all. This concept of social action is known as
Rational Choice Theory and is used to study and model what rational actors, or those people who
consider the costs and benefits of an action prior to choosing one, would do given certain interests,
abilities, and conditions. His theory utilizes the concept of functional integration as well as social action,
in that it sees society as a self-regulating system, in which many different parts, all acting in their own
interests, are meshed together through market forces to form an integrated whole that functions for the
common good. His model allowed him to evaluate cultural patterns to see whether they led people
astray by obscuring their true interests or was in accord with what unbiased rational actors would
choose. Most of Smith’s influence on Sociology has been the development of theories to counter and
oppose his own, rather than the direct use of his rational choice theory to describe human actions.
Perhaps no theoretical philosopher has influenced Sociology, or the other Social Sciences, as much as
Karl Marx. Marx theories rested on a construct of the concept of power that had to do with class
struggle. To Marx, the interest of the proletariat (workers) and the bourgeoisie (capitalists, business
owners) are inherently contradictory and lead to a power struggle. According to Marx, capitalists are
driven to maximize profits by exploiting workers and holding their wages at the lowest possible levels.
The workers, who suffered then, were therefore driven to overthrow the capitalist system, seize the
means of production and establish a classless society in which wealth could be distributed evenly. Of
course the capitalists and the government they supported would use all of the power they could to stop
workers from changing the social order. However, with no money to back them, which the capitalists
had in plenty, the only power the proletariat holds is in their numbers, and it is the sheer number of
peoples in the working class that would have to come together in order to overthrow their capitalist
oppressors. Marx’s struggle in describing how this shift in power would occur had to do with changing
the culture established, in his mind, by the capitalists. This culture promoted hard work, starting at the
bottom, and trying to better oneself through clean and righteous living in order to move into the
bourgeoisie. The establishment of this culture kept members of the proletariat working hard, following
the societal rules laid out by the bourgeoisie, in the slim hope that they could one day be a part of it. By
its very nature then, class conflict was built not just into the organizations that employed people’s labor,
but also into government, and society as a whole. Social structure was rooted in economic production
and class relation according to Marx, and has always shaped social action and even culture.
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and
journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to
one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight
that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large,
or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
-
Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels The Communist Manifesto 1848
Since the proletariat only has strength in numbers, then to utilize that strength, they
would have to combine to achieve similar goals in a form of social action or collective
struggle where by themselves they had little power, but if they joined together in unions and
political parties, they could gain the power. However, this would require not only a change
in the actions taken by these actors, but also would require a change in the culture.
Individual members of the proletariat would have to develop class consciousness, or the
ability to identify their own selfish interests to be the same in the long term as those of all
other workers and members of the proletariat, and therefore give up selfish short term
needs in order to focus on the long term needs of the working class in total. Workers had to
break free from the cultural ideal of individuality promoted by the capitalists, and until that
time, capitalists would use their power to shape the workers’ religious beliefs, leisure
activities, and consumer preferences, and create in them a false consciousness of their
individual worth being more important than the whole, which would in turn prevent them
from realizing they were being exploited. To Marx, then, it was ultimately the culture that
reinforced the power of the elites in capitalism’s class based social structure, and prevented
the social action necessary to overthrow it. Only class consciousness, and the subsequent
revolution that would come from it, would allow for the workers to use the power of
government to change the social structure. Hence, the communist slogan, “Workers of the
World Unite!” and the calls from communist organizations throughout history for revolution.
While Marx’s focus was on what divided people, Emile Durkheim was more concerned with what
brought people together. He called this binding together social solidarity, the key to which was the key
concept of functional integration. It refers to the ties in a society that bind people together as one.
What forms the basis of solidarity varies between societies. In simple societies it may be mainly based
around kinship and shared values. In more complex societies there are various theories as to what
contributes to a sense of social solidarity.
To Durkheim, there were two forms of social solidarity; mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity.
Mechanical Solidarity is based on strongly shared beliefs, values, and customs and is what holds
together small, simple, tribal societies and traditional agricultural villages where everyone views the
world in much the same way and engages in the same activities. Organic Solidarity, on the other hand,
is what holds large, complex, modern societies together, and is based on a complex division of labor.
People are interconnected because differences in their skills and roles make them need each other in
order to survive. If we examine the role of the baker in each of these forms of social solidarity, we can
more easily see what Durkheim means. The baker in a society held together through mechanical
solidarity was most likely the son of the local baker. He would know what farmers bring in his grain, and
would most likely mill it himself, what breads the community prefers, and when the local festivals and
events are that would require him to bake more product. On the other hand, his counterpart in a
society held together by organic solidarity would most likely not know all of the ins and outs of the
bread making process, but only the baking portion, as he was most likely not brought up in a family of
bakers, he would depend on independent grain sellers who know where to get the best prices and top
quality grains, an independent mill that turns large quantities of this grain into flour, and would depend
on advance customer orders in order to understand the demand for more or less of his product, and
what types of bread his customers enjoy more, and would therefore need a management expert to
quantify how to judge this demand. In other words, in an organically solidified society, the baker would
depend much more on experts in particular fields in the process, rather than just on his own knowledge
of the process as a whole.
From this example, you should be able to tell that functional integration is greatest in modern
societies that are based on organic solidarity. Durkheim’s focus emphasized the ways in which different
social activities and institutions, such as families, corporations, courts, schools and clubs, fit together
and support one another, even when no one plans the whole thing. The rules that independently guide
it derive from each society’s culture by providing a sense of limits, and ideas about what members of the
society can reasonably expect from one another. However, when these expectations deviate too far
from realities, societies can suffer from what Durkheim referred to as anomie, a state in which the
breakdown of social norms or rules make it difficult for people to maintain a clear sense of who they
are, where their lives will take them, and what it all means. A good example of this is the recent public
debate over homosexual marriage. For centuries there has been a common understanding of what
marriage means. The more homosexual marriage becomes accepted, the more confusion it causes in
several segments of our society. Does this mean, since we allow people to marry only because they love
one another, that I can then love more than one person, and so have multiple spouses? What if I am in
love with my sister is it then acceptable for us to marry now? These are issues where the expectation of
this societal change is unknown, and until we clearly redefine what marriage is will cause confusion, and
anger in some segments of society, as well as a great deal of debate; or what Durkheim called anomie.
Durkheim also coined the term social fact (the enduring properties of social life that shape or
constrain the actions individuals can take, and because they are properties of social life, they cannot be
located in the isolated individual, but appear as external even though individuals participate in them, i.e.
the economy, which no one person or group designed or created, nor controls, or rates of social
phenomena, such as suicide.) For Durkheim, sociology was 'the science of social facts'. The task of the
sociologist was to search for correlations between social facts in order to reveal laws of social structure.
Having discovered these, the sociologist could then determine whether a given society is 'healthy' or
'pathological' and prescribe appropriate remedies. Within social facts Durkheim distinguished material
and nonmaterial social facts. Material social facts have to do with the physical social structures which
influence the individual. Nonmaterial social facts are values, norms and conceptually held beliefs.
Among the most noted of Durkheim's work was his discovery of the 'social fact' of suicide rates. By
carefully examining police suicide statistics in different districts, Durkheim was able to 'demonstrate'
that the suicide rate of Catholic communities is lower than that of Protestant communities. He ascribed
this to a social (as opposed to individual) cause. This was considered groundbreaking and remains
influential even today. Initially, Durkheim's 'discovery of social facts' was seen as significant because it
promised to make it possible to study the behavior of entire societies, rather than just of particular
individuals.
Max Weber took the understanding of social facts even farther, as he believed that they had to be
evaluated using the scientific method, and were only the cumulative results of the social action of
individuals. Weber argued that sociologists must be able to arrive at an explanation for why individuals
do what they do, and not just a collection of social facts indicating what exactly they do. While Adam’s
theory stated that the analysis of an individual’s objective interests was what was needed, Weber
postulated that sociologists have to see the action from the point of view of the individual, subjectively,
and think of their personal thoughts and feelings. Sociologists had to interpret, not just observe, in an
approach Weber called verstehen, a German word that means empathetic understanding.
It has often been said that Max Weber was engaged in an argument with Marx’s ghost, as many of his
theories seemed to be in opposition, and in answer to Marx. For example, unlike Marx who saw the
history of western culture as a conflict between classes, Weber saw it as a shift from traditional ways of
thinking to more rational, scientific ways of thinking. The traditional way called for people to accept the
wisdom of the past as a guide to the future and strive to follow the ways of their ancestors. The rational
way called for people to make a logical assessment of the consequences of an act before deciding how
to behave. An allegory to demonstrate this change would be the young girl who became ill. In a more
traditional age, the past history of those who suffered from similar illnesses showed that hanging garlic
around a room helped clear it of the evil spirits that were causing the sickness. In a more rational age,
the young girl may simply get some medicine from a doctor that has been proven in scientific trials to
fight the illness. Weber developed this theory of traditional to rational thinking in an age where science
was first becoming the principal means of acquiring knowledge, and the emergence of government
based on the rule of law, and the development of capitalism, were also becoming very popular, and
demonstrated rational analysis. Weber felt that Marx had put too much emphasis on economic
structure, and not changes and advances of knowledge in a society. Weber felt that a culture had to
change first, such as in changes in knowledge, before changes in the social structure could occur, such as
in economic justice. Marx, on the other hand, as already discussed, felt that change in the social
structure, particularly economic conditions, had to happen before there could be a change in the
culture.
Like Marx, Weber felt that power and conflict were fundamental aspects of social life, however,
Weber argued that individuals care more about social factors such as race, religion, and personal tastes,
and that these factors meant more to them, and influenced their decision making more than did their
economic condition. These other social factors are the basis of status groups, or particular traits that
define a social group, which to Weber were just as important as economic class. For example, in the
1920’s and 1930’s working class whites were working diligently to unionize, in order to use their
collective strength to gain concessions from employers that would benefit and improve all of their
conditions. There was a large group of people that they could have added to their own collective
numbers in order to become more powerful, and that was working class African Americans. However,
the white union members fervently denied African-Americans membership, and actively sought
concessions that would bar them from most employment prospects on an equal footing with white
union members. Of course, this blatant racism was diametrically opposed to their best interests, but
they pursued it anyway.
George H. Mead was an American sociologist who theorized that much of human behavior is
determined not only by the objective facts of a situation, but also by how people define that situation,
or the meanings they give to it. He has been quoted as stating that, “If men define situations as real,
then they are real in their consequences.” For example, if you feel that walking the streets of a large city
at night is too dangerous, that is defining the situation, regardless of what the actual criminal statistics
may say about the safety of this action. Mead came to the understanding that we learn what behavior
and events mean through interaction with others. He felt that even our sense of identity or self is
shaped through social interaction. Since a person’s thoughts or feelings cannot be determined without
language, then we depend on the symbols of language, such as facial expressions, sounds, actions and
words, or the symbols all cultures use and are understood across cultures to determine our behavior.
This is known as symbolic interaction. We feel walking on the streets of a large city at night is
dangerous, because a friend told us about her cousin’s neighbor’s sister that was mugged a few weeks
ago Or, another example, why would young people smoke cigarettes even when all objective medical
evidence points to the dangers of doing so? The answer is in the definition of the situation that people
create. Studies find that teenagers are well informed about the risks of tobacco, but they also think that
smoking is cool, that they themselves will be safe from harm, and that smoking projects a positive image
to their peers. So, the symbolic meaning of smoking overrides the actual facts regarding smoking and
risk.
Contemporary Sociological theories are based on the theories of these influential early Sociologists.
For example, Structural-Functionalism (known widely as just Functionalism) draws on Mead, Durkheim
and Weber and emphasizes functional integration and social structure. Functionalism interprets each
part of the society in terms of how it contributes to the stability of the whole society. The different
parts are primarily the institutions of society, each of which is organized to fill different needs and each
of which has particular consequences for the form and shape of society. In other words, the parts all
depend on each other. From this perspective, disorganization in the system, such as deviant behavior,
leads to change because societal components must adjust to achieve stability. When one part of the
system is not working or is dysfunctional, it affects all other parts and creates social problems, which
leads to social change.
Conflict Theory emphasizes the role of coercion and power in producing social order. This
perspective is derived from the works of Karl Marx, who saw society as fragmented into groups that
compete for social and economic resources. Social order is maintained by domination, with power in
the hands of those with the greatest political, economic, and social resources. When consensus exists, it
is attributable to people being united around common interests, often in opposition to other groups.
According to conflict theory, inequality exists because those in control of a disproportionate share of
society’s resources actively defend their advantages. The masses are not bound to society by their
shared values, but by coercion at the hands of those in power. This perspective emphasizes social
control, not consensus and conformity. Groups and individuals advance their own interests, struggling
over control of societal resources. Those with the most resources exercise power over others with
inequality and power struggles resulting. There is great attention paid to class, race, and gender in this
perspective because they are seen as the grounds of the most pertinent and enduring struggles in
society. Whereas most other sociological theories focus on the positive aspects of society, conflict
perspective focuses on the negative, conflicted, and ever-changing nature of society. Unlike
functionalists who defend the status quo, avoid social change, and believe people cooperate to effect
social order, conflict theorists challenge the status quo, encourage social change (even when this means
social revolution), and believe rich and powerful people force social order on the poor and the weak.
Conflict theorists, for example, may interpret as “elite, ” a school board that raises taxes to pay for new
programs that raise the prestige of a local school district as self-serving rather than as beneficial for
students. Today, conflict theorists find social conflict between any groups in which the potential for
inequality exists: racial, gender, religious, political, economic, and so on. Even theories of non-violence
rely on conflict theory to justify their actions, such as if a large number of subjects of a government
choose to disobey that government, then that government would have no power to stop it. Conflict
theorists note that unequal groups usually have conflicting values and agendas, causing them to
compete against one another. This constant competition between groups forms the basis for the everchanging nature of society. Critics of the conflict perspective point to its overly negative view of society.
The theory ultimately attributes humanitarian efforts, altruism, democracy, civil rights, and other
positive aspects of society to capitalistic designs to control the masses, not to inherent interests in
preserving society and social order.
Other Modern Sociological Theories include Feminist Theory- Feminist theory is one of the major
contemporary sociological theories, which analyzes the status of women and men in society with the
purpose of using that knowledge to better women's lives. Feminist theory is most concerned with giving
a voice to women and highlighting the various ways women have contributed to society.
Critical Theory- Critical theory is a type of social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing
society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it.
Critical theories aim to dig beneath the surface of social life and uncover the assumptions that keep us
from a full and true understanding of how the world works.
Structural Strain Theory- Robert K. Merton developed the structural strain theory as an extension of
the functionalist perspective on deviance. This theory traces the origins of deviance to the tensions that
are caused by the gap between cultural goals and the means people have available to achieve those
goals.
Sociobiology- Sociobiology is the application of evolutionary theory to social behavior. It is based on
the premise that some behaviors are at lease partly inherited and can be affected by natural selection.
Labeling Theory- Labeling theory is one of the most important approaches to understanding deviant
and criminal behavior. It begins with the assumption that no act is intrinsically criminal. Definitions of
criminality are established by those in power through the formulation of laws and the interpretation of
those laws by police, courts, and correctional institutions.
Social Learning Theory- Social learning theory is a theory that attempts to explain socialization and
its effect of the development of the self. It looks at the individual learning process, the formation of self,
and the influence of society in socializing individuals. Social learning theory is commonly used by
sociologists to explain deviance and crime.
Social Exchange Theory- One way of analyzing social interaction is through the social exchange
theory. This model interprets society as a series of interactions that are based on estimates of rewards
and punishments. According to this view, our interactions are determined by the rewards or
punishments that we receive from others and all human relationships are formed by the use of a
subjective cost-benefit analysis. The theory has its roots in economics as well as sociology and
psychology.
Chaos Theory- Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, however it has applications in several
disciplines, including sociology and other social sciences. In the social sciences, chaos theory is the study
of complex non-linear systems of social complexity. It is not about disorder, but rather is about very
complicated systems of order.
Social Phenomenology- Social phenomenology is an approach within the field of sociology that aims
to reveal what role human awareness plays in the production of social action, social situations and social
worlds. In essence, phenomenology is the belief that society is a human construction.
All of these philosophers, and early and contemporary Sociologists, were attempting to answer the
same question that Admiral Stockdale posed. To answer this question, they looked at and defined how
one’s culture and interaction with the groups that made up their society guided their development
within that society. They offer several differing theories as to how this occurs, but they all attempted to
answer the fundamental question within the framework that is the social science of Sociology. So, the
purpose of the field of Sociology, and the reason for its study, is to help us look more objectively at the
society in which we live. It directs attention to how the parts of society fit together as well as the causes
and consequences of social change. In modern industrial-bureaucratic societies we are faced with an
increasingly complex and rapidly changing social milieu. A study of sociology provides the conceptual
tools and methodologies for understanding the contemporary scene. By focusing on the external
constraints to social action it helps us better understand ourselves and the motivations of others around
us. While we are all creatures of our society, we are also the creators--sociology provides the tools so
that we can take a more active role in that creation, a role that is essential if we hope to achieve a more
just society. To that end, students should know the fundamental questions that will guide their study of
the science, and these are;







Is the “Self” a construct of society, or of individualistic determination?
If the “Self” is a construct of society, then what societal factors go into making up who we are?
If the “Self” is a construct of society, can we design societies to create individuals who follow
basic constructs we deem acceptable?
What constructs should societies deem as acceptable, and why?
Is it morally acceptable to engineer societies for these reasons?
If it is morally acceptable, how do we engineer a society to meet our ideals?
Who should determine the ideals that define the ideal society?
So, how do we determine the answers to these guiding questions? Or, in other words, how do we
study Sociology? To engage in this field requires the application of what famous Sociologist C. Wright
Mills called The Sociological Imagination. The sociological imagination is the ability to see things socially
and how they interact and influence each other. To have a sociological imagination, a person must be
able to pull away from the situation and think from an alternative point of view, or, be objective. It
requires us to "think ourselves away from our daily routines and look at them anew". To acquire
knowledge, it is important to break free from the immediacy of personal circumstances and put things
into a wider context, rather than following a routine. The actions of people are much more important
than the acts themselves. Another way of describing sociological imagination is the understanding that
social outcomes are shaped by social context, actors, and social actions. To expand on that definition, it
is understanding that some things in society may lead to a certain outcome. The actors mentioned in the
definition are things like norms and motives, the social context are like country and time period and the
social action is the stuff we do that affects other people. The things we do are shaped by; the situation
we are in, the values we have, and the way people around us act. These things are examined to how
they all relate to some sort of outcome. Sociological imagination can also be considered as the capacity
to see things socially, how they interact, and influence each other. Things that shape these outcomes
include (but are not limited to social norms, what people want to gain out of something (their motives
for doing something), and the social context in which they live (For example; country, time period,
people with whom they associate). Basically, as an aspect of sociological imagination, what people do is
shaped by all these things that result in some sort of outcome. Admiral Stockdale was seen as a
buffoon, because of the social interaction of late night comedy, political posturing, and the lack of media
involvement in letting the public know what his life story really was, as an example. Not just his
individual actions on stage the night of the debate. In order to see this, one must use sociological
imagination, and not just be limited to what was seen that night.
Sociology is also studied as an empirical science, or a field of study that applies a systematic
enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions
about the universe. In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not
only the knowledge itself. The way in which we pursue scientific knowledge is through the scientific
method. The theme of the next chapter is the Sociological Science Research Methodology, and we will
go in depth into how to study Sociology using the scientific method.
Once we have completed our study as Sociologists, what can we do with this information, or, how do
we apply our study? Sociology can be applied aanywhere we want a deeper understanding of how
humans interact with each other and with and within large groups within a society. This information is
then used to




Develop law and policy
Examine morality and justice
Provide organizational development, and
Guide interactions between individuals and groups to obtain desired
consequences.
Now that we know what Sociology is, we can begin to answer the questions Admiral Stockdale asked
nearly 20 years ago, not only about himself, but about each of us. Through the study of Sociology we
can begin to address the fundamental questions that guide it using reasoned thought and imagination.
We may not always agree with the bias of the field that the individual is not involved in the shaping of
his own identity, but we also cannot disallow the impact of our society on the development of the same.
To what degree, and in what manner, only the study of the field will allow us to see.