MINISTERY OF EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS
Belarus State Economic University
REFERAT:
«SPECIFICITY OF SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE»
Minsk 2008
1. The concept of social reality and social fact
Very often we come across the concept of social reality and believe that
social reality is something that can be understood and learnt. But yet
the given concept hasn’t been defined precisely in sociology and it is
often used as a synonym of such concepts as “social life”, “society”,
“social world”, “social and historic existence” etc. Moreover, the
problem is made more complicated due to the fact that judgments “social
reality” and “social world” belong to different theoretic paradigms.
Theorists are united only by the circumstance that human social world
can be learnt.
In sociology there are two dominating theoretic approaches –
individualistic and positivistic ones that specifically explain the
nature of social reality. The individualistic position views social
reality as a result of purposeful or sensible human behaviour. An
Austrian sociologist Alfred Schutz, founder of phenomenology, defines
social reality as “a total sum of objects and phenomena of social world”
in the way how social world is shaped in everyday consciousness of
people living among other people and connected with them by various
interactions. Thus, social reality is an everyday world, experienced and
interpreted by people living in it; it is a world of meanings which are
typical notions about the objects of this world.
In contrast to an individualistic approach, a positivistic approach
suggests a viewpoint according to which social reality is something with
its own life having an external and compulsory character to a person
(i.e. that his behaviour is determined by reality) and materializing
human consciousness.
The ideas of the positivistic position were shaped under the influence
of a French sociologist Emile Durkheim who is considered its smartest
representative. This approach suggests interpreting the concept of
social reality through the prism of a social fact. According to the
paradigm of a social fact, social reality is represented by two groups
of social facts – social structures and social institutions, and
emphasis is made on the nature of their interaction. E. Durkheim
believed that social facts are characterized by specific properties;
they are samples of thoughts, actions and feelings which are capable to
exist outside man and have a compulsory influence which makes man
acquire and interiorize them.
The concept of a social fact was criticized by Sigmund Freud and his
followers, supporters of the paradigm of social behaviour. They consider
the concept metaphysical as it ignores human behaviour which, in their
opinion, is a single social reality.
Many theorists agree that social reality is formed in the process of
people’s social interactions; it is a result of their consciousness and
activities in a definite limited territorial and temporal (historic)
area. Social reality may be fixed in people’s behaviours, in the
character of their value orientations, in forms of life organizion and
in role behaviour. A summarized index of social reality is culture
considered as a system of values, social norms of life, patterns of
behavior, language, character of communications, customs and traditions,
material culture etc.
As levels of interactions may differ, levels of social reality or social
life may also differ. A social world of man, group, society or world
community can be spoken about. Very often differences between these
social worlds may be polar. A proof is a layer of beggars existing in an
economically prosperous society like in the USA, France or Great
Britain, or people with a very low cultural level in a highly cultural
society.
What is a social fact? Traditionally, world is divided into three groups
of facts. The first group includes biological facts such as breathing,
nutrition, sleeping, human recreation etc. The second group includes
psychological ones such as emotions of love, hatred or perception,
emotions giving satisfaction, for instance while admiring works of art.
The third group includes social facts connected with social
relationships and society. The term “social fact” was coined by E.
Durkheim to describe human behaviour that is not attributed to the
human’s characteristic but to social facts. He considered social facts
as things that force people to do certain behaviours.
A social fact is a socially meaningful event or a totality of
homogeneous events typical for a definite sphere of the society or
definite social processes.
In the ontological meaning, a social fact is any event or any totality
of events which took place at a definite time at definite circumstances,
no matter whether or not they were watched by researchers or other
subjects who were not participants of the given events. As social facts
become known only by registration, they are considered true or reliable
in case they are given a grounded description taking into consideration
their whole integrity and their connections with essential
characteristics of a social situation.
The following fragments of social reality can be fixed as social facts:
· behavioural socially meaningful people’s acts, i.e. what they do;
· results or products of people’s activities acquiring social
significance, i.e. material and cultural artifacts;
· people’s verbal acts, i.e. socially significant expressed views,
judgments, opinions;
· different interactions.
But the point is how to see if a social fact is reliable. As a rule,
scientific grounds of social facts depend on the researcher’s world
outlook, the objective character of the sociological theory, in the
concepts of which social facts are measured or described, and
reliability of the method and technique of registration of sociological
data characterizing the manifestation of this or that social fact.
Let’s consider the following example. A man is buying a packed trip to
Thailand for a family of four. In Thailand they’ll spend a fortnight. A
psychologist would like to know why the man decided on Thailand. An
economist would like to see if there could be another way to spend
money. A sociologist would see that it is a family of four and would
like to find out how the wife and children could influence on the head
of the family’s decision. Thus, one and the same fact is explained in a
different way by different sciences.
2. Laws and categories of sociology
As sociology is a relatively young science, its system of laws and
categories is still being actively formed. For any science, having such
a system is a basic question of its status as it is categories and laws
where the obtained knowledge is concentrated in.
A direct object of research of sociology is the social in the process of
its development, transformation, usage, management at different levels
of a social system. So the first mostly wide category is the concept of
“the social”. Other important concepts include “social interactions”,
“social institutions”, “social groups” etc. In sociology there are a lot
of categories that reflect qualitative state of social processes such as
collectivism, groupism, social homogeneity, social differences and
interests etc. But the kernel of any science is its laws. A law is known
to be reflection of significant, stable and necessary ties taking place
both inside of a process, system or phenomenon and between them. As a
rule, laws are expressed in categories. So each branch of science has
its language. When specialists speak their professional language, other
people can hardly or not understand them. A famous joke explains that
science happens when known things or phenomena are spoken about in the
language impossible to understand.
A famous Russian sociologist G.V. Osipov defines a social law as
relatively stable and systematically reproduced relationships between
peoples, nations, classes, socio-demographic and professional groups,
between the society and social organization, society and labour
collective, society and family, society and personality etc.
Sociology should be noted to deal with social laws that take place in
all spheres of human activities and differ from each other by the form
of their influence, the area of extending etc. For instance, some laws
embrace only small groups or classes, others – the society as a whole.
Like all scientific laws, social laws possess the following
characteristics:
· a law acts only under certain conditions;
· under certain conditions a law is displayed without any exceptions;
· conditions, under which a social law acts, are realized not in full
measure but partially and approximately.
For instance, a statement like “A constructive social conflict in the
organization is always solved after getting rid of the causes of its
emergence unless external factors influence or/and redistribution of
recourses within the organization take place” describes the action of a
social law because its conditions are clearly defined. It means that in
the organization it’s impossible to completely avoid influence of
external factors or hinder material resources and information from
redistributing within the organization. On the other hand, it may happen
that external factors don’t influence so the law is realized partially.
Social laws can be divided into two main groups: those of functioning,
or organizing, and those of development. Of primary importance are laws
describing integrity of the organization and development of the whole
society and civilization. They are called all-sociological or grand
laws. For instance, dependence of any social phenomenon on correlation
of the basis and superstructure, law of time economy etc.
A specific character of a grand law’s functioning is determined by a
definite social and economic structure (formation) because any social
phenomenon depends on the level of the society’s development, way of
production of material and spiritual wealth. Different formations with
common grand laws differ from each other by the specificity of these
laws’ functioning. For instance, an economic or political crisis in the
society may develop against positions of political leaders, parties and
sometimes against the will of the majority of the population. A typical
example is the destruction of the USSR against a position occupied by
the majority of the country’s population.
Besides there are some laws typical for the family, labour organization,
personality in a social group etc. It is them that form the carcass of
specialized theories.
3. Structure of sociological knowledge
Modern sociological knowledge is of a complex inner structure. As any
other sciences, historically sociology developed in two basic directions
– fundamental and applied. But sociologists, representatives of
different paradigms, used different criteria and concepts for defining
one and the same event and phenomenon that resulted in confusing. So
nowadays, sociological knowledge is structured as follows.
The first structure is macro- and micro-sociology. The point is that for
the first decades of its existence sociology developed in Europe as
macro-sociology pretending to reveal global laws of the society, and
this aim is reflected in its name. But soon micro-sociology appeared to
stop philosophizing about the society in general and get down to
learning human behaviour in different social conditions, motivations of
human deeds, mechanisms of interpersonal interactions etc.
Since then the development of sociology has gone along two parallel
directions that were of little correlation with each other.
Macro-sociologists operated with the concepts “society”, “social
system”, “social institution”, “civilization”, “culture” etc. It means
they used abstract categories. Micro-sociologists preferred discussing
stimuli of human behaviour and people’s reactions, factors determining
their certain deeds, deviant behaviour etc.
Macro-sociology is sociology investigating large-scale social systems
and historically long processes taking place in the society. Another
area of its interest is tendencies of the society’s development in
general. As macro-sociology is often referred to as a fundamental
science, most of its attention is paid to social institutions such as
the family, religion, education etc. and to political and economic
systems of social order It also studies interrelations between different
parts of the society and dynamics of their changing.
Micro-sociology is sociology studying small-scale social structures,
groups and direct interpersonal relationships. The object of
micro-sociological research is a human as a member of the group,
association or community.
So a criterion for differentiation between macro- and micro-sociology is
basically their contents: macro-sociology is destined to study laws,
factors and perspectives of development of the society and its largest
parts (civilizations) while micro-sociology studies relationships
between groups and individuals.
The second structure is fundamental theoretic and applied empirical
sociologies. Fundamental theoretic sociology gives answers to questions
what is investigated (i.e. it defines the object and subject of
research) and how to investigate (i.e. main methods of sociology are
meant). Fundamental sociology is to get new knowledge on social
development. That’s why it concerns with social and philosophic
comprehension of most general problems of the society’s development and
functioning and a personality’s place in it. That’s why its concepts are
characterized by a high level of abstraction. Fundamental sociology does
not investigate such definite units as a social group or social process,
and this point presents its most distinctive feature. It is the
fundamental level where sociology realizes its interrelations with other
sciences such as philosophy, history, psychology etc.
Applied empiric sociology studies and suggests ways of influence on
social reality and social communities. It is to give conception about
real processes of social development, being engaged in forecasting,
projecting and forming a social policy, working out recommendations for
social governance. It is also to find out means to achieve socially
important goals, implement propositions of fundamental sociology and
methods of social planning and forecasting. So the criterion for
differentiating between fundamental and applied sociology is the
character of sociological knowledge: abstract and practical.
Some researchers thought that development of macro-sociology lead to
formation of modern fundamental sociology, so as development of
micro-sociology – to applied sociology. The idea has a ration to exist
but it can’t be accepted true in full measure. Macro- and
micro-sociology have two levels, both fundamental and empiric ones.
Macro-sociologists (E. Durkheim, M. Weber, F. Toennis, P.A. Sorokin)
were very active in carrying out empiric sociological researches, and
micro-sociologists (representatives of the American sociological school
G. Mead, G. Homans, P. Blau) became founders of most significant
sociological theories. It only means that macro- and micro-sociology
developed both as fundamental and applied.
The third structure came to existence not long ago. Sociology is a
relatively young science that historically emerged from social
philosophy and psychology. First sociological theories were fundamental,
being based on observations, conclusions and generalizations of
different sides of social life. To work out such a theory a researcher
needs exact data of certain social facts which constitute the society’s
structure and the process of changing. These data are obtained with
methods of empiric research (interviews, observations, experiments
etc.). Gathered empiric facts are processed and generalized; after doing
it, a researcher can make primary theoretic conclusions about definite
phenomena of social life. Fundamental theories and empiric researches
should be closely connected as pure theorizing without knowing definite
facts of social realm becomes impracticable. At the same time empiric
researches which are not supported with fundamental theoretic
conclusions cannot explain the nature of most social phenomena.
In the first third of the XX century a sharply increased level of
empiric researches demanded a universal theoretic apparatus to explain
the results of research. But the apparatus of fundamental sociology
couldn’t be applied to studying such various social phenomena as the
family, deviant behaviour, social governance etc. In its turn,
fundamental sociology was in great need of empiric information as
empiric researches were carried out, as a rule, to meet
narrow-practical, utilitarian needs and it was hard to make up an entity
of them. It resulted in creating a breakout between fundamental
sociology and empiric researches that became an obstacle in the way of
developing sociology and prevented researchers from uniting their
efforts.
However, the way out was found in formation of one more level of
sociological knowledge under the name of middle range theories. The term
was introduced by an American sociologist Robert Merton who, in his work
“Social theory and social structure” published in 1949, stated a number
of propositions of middle range theories – concepts of manifest and
latent function, social dysfunction, referent group etc. Middle range
theories, to R. Merton’s mind, had to unite empiric generalizations and
theoretic conceptions to counterbalance T. Parsons’s universal theory.
Levels of sociological knowledge
Grand/ all- sociological theories Learning social structures Learning
social development, integration and disintegration processes Learning
a personality’s development Learning models, methods and techniques of
sociological reseach
Social institutions
Social communities
Social processes
Middle
range theories
Sociology of family
Sociology of science
Sociology of education
Sociology of religion
Sociology of labour
Sociology of arts etc.
Sociology of small groups
Sociology of organization
Sociology of crowd
Sociology of strata, classes
Ethnosociology
Feminist sociology etc.
Sociology of conflicts
Sociology of town
Sociology of social movements
Sociology of deviant behaviour
Sociology of mobility and migration etc.
Primary generalization of empiric data
Carrying out empiric sociological researches in social groups and
institutions
At present there exist a number of middle range theories that occupy an
intermediate place between theories of the grand or all-sociological
level and empiric generalization of primary sociological information.
They are aimed at generalizing and structuring empiric data within
definite areas of sociological knowledge (the family, organization,
deviant behaviour, conflict etc.) applying both the ideas and
terminology borrowed from fundamental sociological theories and specific
concepts, definitions formed only for the given branch of sociological
research.
When emerged, middle range theories created a number of indisputable
advantages. First, researchers were given a possibility to make up solid
theoretic grounds for investigating definite areas of human activities,
not applying to the conceptual apparatus of fundamental theories;
second, middle range theories allow to exercise close interaction with
people’s real life as the subject of their research.
Middle range theories gave birth to rather a narrow specialization of
sociologists who work, for instance, only in the area of the family or
management, gather empiric data, generalize them and make theoretic
conclusions within the given area of applied sociological knowledge.
That’s why these theories bear an applied, or branch character. At the
same time, applied theories enabled to increase effectiveness of
fundamental researches because sociologists were given an opportunity to
generalize theoretic outcomes in separate sociological branches without
constant applying to first-hand empiric data.
All middle range theories can be conditionally divided into three
groups: those of social institutions, social communities and specialized
social processes. Theories of the first group investigate complex social
dependences and relationships; those of the second one consider
structural units of the society (social groups, classes, communities
etc.); those of the third one study social processes and changes.
In each group the number of middle range theories is constantly
increasing as far as learning the society is deepening, and sociology as
a science is developing. Sociologists, who study applied social
problems, work out a specific conceptual apparatus, carry out empiric
researches of their issues, generalize the given data, make theoretic
generalizations and combine them into a theory within their own branch.
Thus, sociology is not some monosemantic or homogeneous formation
because it includes different levels of sociological knowledge. Although
at each of the given levels the notion of the subject of research, goals
and objectives are given a definite expression to, in all cases
sociology is represented as a scientific system. It means that its main
goal is to get scientific knowledge about the society on the whole or
about its parts and subsystems.
Additional literature
· Blau P. Exchange and Power in Social Life. (3rd edition). – New
Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1992. – 354 p.
· Bourdeiu P. Logic of Practice. – Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990. – 382
p.
· Coser L. The Functions of Social Conflict. – Glencoe, Ill: Free Press,
1956. – 188 p.
· Durkheim E. The Division of Labour in Society. – New York, NY: Free
Press; 1997. – 272 p.
· Durkheim E. Suicide. – New York, NY: Free Press; 1951. – 345 p.
· Goldthorpe J. H. Class Analysis and the Reorientation of Class Theory.
– British Journal of Sociology, 1996, # 47.
· Homans G. Elementary Forms of Social Behavior. (2nd edition) – New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974.
Нашли опечатку? Выделите и нажмите CTRL+Enter
