sociological essay definition

What this handout is about

This handout introduces you to the wonderful world of writing sociology. Before you can write a clear and coherent sociology paper, you need a firm understanding of the assumptions and expectations of the discipline. You need to know your audience, the way they view the world and how they order and evaluate information. So, without further ado, let’s figure out just what sociology is, and how one goes about writing it.

What is sociology, and what do sociologists write about?

Unlike many of the other subjects here at UNC, such as history or English, sociology is a new subject for many students. Therefore, it may be helpful to give a quick introduction to what sociologists do. Sociologists are interested in all sorts of topics. For example, some sociologists focus on the family, addressing issues such as marriage, divorce, child-rearing, and domestic abuse, the ways these things are defined in different cultures and times, and their effect on both individuals and institutions. Others examine larger social organizations such as businesses and governments, looking at their structure and hierarchies. Still others focus on social movements and political protest, such as the American civil rights movement. Finally, sociologists may look at divisions and inequality within society, examining phenomena such as race, gender, and class, and their effect on people’s choices and opportunities. As you can see, sociologists study just about everything. Thus, it is not the subject matter that makes a paper sociological, but rather the perspective used in writing it.

So, just what is a sociological perspective? At its most basic, sociology is an attempt to understand and explain the way that individuals and groups interact within a society. How exactly does one approach this goal? C. Wright Mills, in his book The Sociological Imagination (1959), writes that “neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both.” Why? Well, as Karl Marx observes at the beginning of The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), humans “make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” Thus, a good sociological argument needs to balance both individual agency and structural constraints. That is certainly a tall order, but it is the basis of all effective sociological writing. Keep it in mind as you think about your own writing.

Key assumptions and characteristics of sociological writing

What are the most important things to keep in mind as you write in sociology? Pay special attention to the following issues.

The first thing to remember in writing a sociological argument is to be as clear as possible in stating your thesis. Of course, that is true in all papers, but there are a couple of pitfalls common to sociology that you should be aware of and avoid at all cost. As previously defined, sociology is the study of the interaction between individuals and larger social forces. Different traditions within sociology tend to favor one side of the equation over the other, with some focusing on the agency of individual actors and others on structural factors. The danger is that you may go too far in either of these directions and thus lose the complexity of sociological thinking. Although this mistake can manifest itself in any number of ways, three types of flawed arguments are particularly common: 

• The “ individual argument ” generally takes this form: “The individual is free to make choices, and any outcomes can be explained exclusively through the study of their ideas and decisions.” While it is of course true that we all make our own choices, we must also keep in mind that, to paraphrase Marx, we make these choices under circumstances given to us by the structures of society. Therefore, it is important to investigate what conditions made these choices possible in the first place, as well as what allows some individuals to successfully act on their choices while others cannot.
• The “ human nature argument ” seeks to explain social behavior through a quasi-biological argument about humans, and often takes a form such as: “Humans are by nature X, therefore it is not surprising that Y.” While sociologists disagree over whether a universal human nature even exists, they all agree that it is not an acceptable basis of explanation. Instead, sociology demands that you question why we call some behavior natural, and to look into the social factors which have constructed this “natural” state.
• The “ society argument ” often arises in response to critiques of the above styles of argumentation, and tends to appear in a form such as: “Society made me do it.” Students often think that this is a good sociological argument, since it uses society as the basis for explanation. However, the problem is that the use of the broad concept “society” masks the real workings of the situation, making it next to impossible to build a strong case. This is an example of reification, which is when we turn processes into things. Society is really a process, made up of ongoing interactions at multiple levels of size and complexity, and to turn it into a monolithic thing is to lose all that complexity. People make decisions and choices. Some groups and individuals benefit, while others do not. Identifying these intermediate levels is the basis of sociological analysis.

Although each of these three arguments seems quite different, they all share one common feature: they assume exactly what they need to be explaining. They are excellent starting points, but lousy conclusions.

Once you have developed a working argument, you will next need to find evidence to support your claim. What counts as evidence in a sociology paper? First and foremost, sociology is an empirical discipline. Empiricism in sociology means basing your conclusions on evidence that is documented and collected with as much rigor as possible. This evidence usually draws upon observed patterns and information from collected cases and experiences, not just from isolated, anecdotal reports. Just because your second cousin was able to climb the ladder from poverty to the executive boardroom does not prove that the American class system is open. You will need more systematic evidence to make your claim convincing. Above all else, remember that your opinion alone is not sufficient support for a sociological argument. Even if you are making a theoretical argument, you must be able to point to documented instances of social phenomena that fit your argument. Logic is necessary for making the argument, but is not sufficient support by itself.

Sociological evidence falls into two main groups: 

• Quantitative data are based on surveys, censuses, and statistics. These provide large numbers of data points, which is particularly useful for studying large-scale social processes, such as income inequality, population changes, changes in social attitudes, etc.
• Qualitative data, on the other hand, comes from participant observation, in-depth interviews, data and texts, as well as from the researcher’s own impressions and reactions. Qualitative research gives insight into the way people actively construct and find meaning in their world.

Quantitative data produces a measurement of subjects’ characteristics and behavior, while qualitative research generates information on their meanings and practices. Thus, the methods you choose will reflect the type of evidence most appropriate to the questions you ask. If you wanted to look at the importance of race in an organization, a quantitative study might use information on the percentage of different races in the organization, what positions they hold, as well as survey results on people’s attitudes on race. This would measure the distribution of race and racial beliefs in the organization. A qualitative study would go about this differently, perhaps hanging around the office studying people’s interactions, or doing in-depth interviews with some of the subjects. The qualitative researcher would see how people act out their beliefs, and how these beliefs interact with the beliefs of others as well as the constraints of the organization.

Some sociologists favor qualitative over quantitative data, or vice versa, and it is perfectly reasonable to rely on only one method in your own work. However, since each method has its own strengths and weaknesses, combining methods can be a particularly effective way to bolster your argument. But these distinctions are not just important if you have to collect your own data for your paper. You also need to be aware of them even when you are relying on secondary sources for your research. In order to critically evaluate the research and data you are reading, you should have a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods.

Units of analysis

Given that social life is so complex, you need to have a point of entry into studying this world. In sociological jargon, you need a unit of analysis. The unit of analysis is exactly that: it is the unit that you have chosen to analyze in your study. Again, this is only a question of emphasis and focus, and not of precedence and importance. You will find a variety of units of analysis in sociological writing, ranging from the individual up to groups or organizations. You should choose yours based on the interests and theoretical assumptions driving your research. The unit of analysis will determine much of what will qualify as relevant evidence in your work. Thus you must not only clearly identify that unit, but also consistently use it throughout your paper.

Let’s look at an example to see just how changing the units of analysis will change the face of research. What if you wanted to study globalization? That’s a big topic, so you will need to focus your attention. Where would you start?

You might focus on individual human actors, studying the way that people are affected by the globalizing world. This approach could possibly include a study of Asian sweatshop workers’ experiences, or perhaps how consumers’ decisions shape the overall system.

Or you might choose to focus on social structures or organizations. This approach might involve looking at the decisions being made at the national or international level, such as the free-trade agreements that change the relationships between governments and corporations. Or you might look into the organizational structures of corporations and measure how they are changing under globalization. Another structural approach would be to focus on the social networks linking subjects together. That could lead you to look at how migrants rely on social contacts to make their way to other countries, as well as to help them find work upon their arrival.

Finally, you might want to focus on cultural objects or social artifacts as your unit of analysis. One fine example would be to look at the production of those tennis shoes the kids seem to like so much. You could look at either the material production of the shoe (tracing it from its sweatshop origins to its arrival on the showroom floor of malls across America) or its cultural production (attempting to understand how advertising and celebrities have turned such shoes into necessities and cultural icons).

Whichever unit of analysis you choose, be careful not to commit the dreaded ecological fallacy. An ecological fallacy is when you assume that something that you learned about the group level of analysis also applies to the individuals that make up that group. So, to continue the globalization example, if you were to compare its effects on the poorest 20% and the richest 20% of countries, you would need to be careful not to apply your results to the poorest and richest individuals.

These are just general examples of how sociological study of a single topic can vary. Because you can approach a subject from several different perspectives, it is important to decide early how you plan to focus your analysis and then stick with that perspective throughout your paper. Avoid mixing units of analysis without strong justification. Different units of analysis generally demand different kinds of evidence for building your argument. You can reconcile the varying levels of analysis, but doing so may require a complex, sophisticated theory, no small feat within the confines of a short paper. Check with your instructor if you are concerned about this happening in your paper.

Typical writing assignments in sociology

So how does all of this apply to an actual writing assignment? Undergraduate writing assignments in sociology may take a number of forms, but they typically involve reviewing sociological literature on a subject; applying or testing a particular concept, theory, or perspective; or producing a small-scale research report, which usually involves a synthesis of both the literature review and application.

The critical review

The review involves investigating the research that has been done on a particular topic and then summarizing and evaluating what you have found. The important task in this kind of assignment is to organize your material clearly and synthesize it for your reader. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but looks for patterns and connections in the literature and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of what others have written on your topic. You want to help your reader see how the information you have gathered fits together, what information can be most trusted (and why), what implications you can derive from it, and what further research may need to be done to fill in gaps. Doing so requires considerable thought and organization on your part, as well as thinking of yourself as an expert on the topic. You need to assume that, even though you are new to the material, you can judge the merits of the arguments you have read and offer an informed opinion of which evidence is strongest and why.

Application or testing of a theory or concept

The application assignment asks you to apply a concept or theoretical perspective to a specific example. In other words, it tests your practical understanding of theories and ideas by asking you to explain how well they apply to actual social phenomena. In order to successfully apply a theory to a new case, you must include the following steps:

• First you need to have a very clear understanding of the theory itself: not only what the theorist argues, but also why they argue that point, and how they justify it. That is, you have to understand how the world works according to this theory and how one thing leads to another.
• Next you should choose an appropriate case study. This is a crucial step, one that can make or break your paper. If you choose a case that is too similar to the one used in constructing the theory in the first place, then your paper will be uninteresting as an application, since it will not give you the opportunity to show off your theoretical brilliance. On the other hand, do not choose a case that is so far out in left field that the applicability is only superficial and trivial. In some ways theory application is like making an analogy. The last thing you want is a weak analogy, or one that is so obvious that it does not give any added insight. Instead, you will want to choose a happy medium, one that is not obvious but that allows you to give a developed analysis of the case using the theory you chose.
• This leads to the last point, which is the analysis. A strong analysis will go beyond the surface and explore the processes at work, both in the theory and in the case you have chosen. Just like making an analogy, you are arguing that these two things (the theory and the example) are similar. Be specific and detailed in telling the reader how they are similar. In the course of looking for similarities, however, you are likely to find points at which the theory does not seem to be a good fit. Do not sweep this discovery under the rug, since the differences can be just as important as the similarities, supplying insight into both the applicability of the theory and the uniqueness of the case you are using.

You may also be asked to test a theory. Whereas the application paper assumes that the theory you are using is true, the testing paper does not makes this assumption, but rather asks you to try out the theory to determine whether it works. Here you need to think about what initial conditions inform the theory and what sort of hypothesis or prediction the theory would make based on those conditions. This is another way of saying that you need to determine which cases the theory could be applied to (see above) and what sort of evidence would be needed to either confirm or disconfirm the theory’s hypothesis. In many ways, this is similar to the application paper, with added emphasis on the veracity of the theory being used.

The research paper

Finally, we reach the mighty research paper. Although the thought of doing a research paper can be intimidating, it is actually little more than the combination of many of the parts of the papers we have already discussed. You will begin with a critical review of the literature and use this review as a basis for forming your research question. The question will often take the form of an application (“These ideas will help us to explain Z.”) or of hypothesis testing (“If these ideas are correct, we should find X when we investigate Y.”). The skills you have already used in writing the other types of papers will help you immensely as you write your research papers.

And so we reach the end of this all-too-brief glimpse into the world of sociological writing. Sociologists can be an idiosyncratic bunch, so paper guidelines and expectations will no doubt vary from class to class, from instructor to instructor. However, these basic guidelines will help you get started.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Cuba, Lee. 2002. A Short Guide to Writing About Social Science , 4th ed. New York: Longman.

Lunsford, Andrea A. 2015. The St. Martin’s Handbook , 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Ruszkiewicz, John J., Christy Friend, Daniel Seward, and Maxine Hairston. 2010. The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers , 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

How to write a sociological analysis: Examples

Sociological Analysis Introduction: Sociology is a systematic and scientific study of society. It focuses on different parts of society, and how it contributes to the entire equilibrium of society. Sociologists look into society from a different perspective and they analyze society in different ways. Some took a conflict perspective to view society, some took functionalists perspective. All these analyses are done scientifically and systematically as other natural scientists do. Sociologists are the scientists of society, who arrive at solutions to social issues and problems.

Sociological analysis is a systematic and organized analysis of human society, individuals and culture with a sociological perspective. It analyzes the cause and effect of the historical transformation of society. We have to view the factor and forces of social issues from a sociological perspective to begin a sociological analysis.

Types of sociological analysis

There are different ways of looking into society. There is no specific way to analyze society. We have to choose the most suitable way according to the problem that we choose to analyze. There are four main types of sociological analysis. Sociologists sometimes choose multiple types of analysis in a topic.

• Macro sociological analysis: Macro sociological analysis looks into society as a whole. It has a wide scope, broad in analysis. Macro sociologists look at a large number of the sector to study society. For example , if a sociologist’s studies the caste system within the Hindu social organization, the function, and the evolution of caste it is a macro-sociological analysis.
• Micro sociological analysis: Micro means an analysis that is narrow in scope, it focuses on limited phenomena. It focuses on the interaction between individuals. It is concerned with face to face social interactions. For example, a sociologist who studied the lifestyle of a particular sub-caste in a broad caste system is said to be a micro-sociological analysis.
• Quantitative analysis: It is a sociological analysis that studies society using numbers and figures or with the use of statistical tools. For example , if we study the consumer behaviour of youth in India (amount of consumption, income, educational level of youths).
• Qualitative analysis: it is the study of society by describing the situation in words or narrates the entire situation or problem. For example, a sociologist who studies marriage practices among Christian and describe the details of marriage practices like engagement, marriage day, etc.

Step to write a sociological analysis

• Choose a topic

The first step to a sociological analysis is to choose a topic. We have to choose a topic or a problem to analyze. Choose a topic that interests you. You have to choose a topic that is relevant and needs to analyze. The main aim is to choose a topic that serves the sociologists to contribute to the changes and evolution of society. You can choose topics related to social life. For example rural social life, urban social life, marriage , religion, etc.

2. Develop objectives

The next step is to write down your objectives. That is after you select the topic, you must concentrate on the main areas that you want to analyze within a topic. You have to take a general objective as well as specific objectives. Objectives are the driving factor of sociological analysis. For example, if we take marriage among Christians as a topic; we have to choose our general objective and that will be to analyze the marriage among Christians (in a particular area). And after this general objective, we have to choose our specific objectives. We may take, to study the marriage customs among Christian, to study the socio-economic factors of the respondents, to study the spacial factors involve in marriage, etc.

You can also add variables. There are two kinds of variables dependent and independent variables. After choosing variables you have to connect these two variables. For example, if the wage is an independent variable and gender is a dependent variable, you can relate how does the gender result in variation in a person’s wage or income. You have to relate the relationship between gender and wage.

3. Choose a theory

We have to choose a theory that relates to our topic. Sociologists choose different types of theory as their choice. For a powerful sociological analysis, we have to choose a theory. Without a theory, sociological analysis is not complete.

The following are the main sociological theoretical perspectives;

• Functionalist perspective

Functionalist theories view society as interdependent and interrelated parts that play a different function in society to maintain the social equilibrium and stability of the entire society. Without the proper functioning of any parts, the social equilibrium is not achieved. Functionalists look into these functions performed by the parts or aspects of society.

For example, if we look at culture as a topic. For functionalist culture is a way of life of people. It differs from one society to another. American culture is differing from Indian culture. According to the functionalists, Culture had various elements or parts that are related to one another. These interdependent parts can be named as norms, values, folklores, habits, lifestyles, customs, rituals, morals, etc. Famous anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski took a functionalist view to analyze society. He views the function that plays by different parts of society and how it maintains the overall stability of society. The people who share the same language, lifestyle, and values have a consensus and harmony.

• Conflict perspective

Conflict theories are one of the main theories used by sociologists to analyze the issues or contradictions in society. It views society as progressed through contradictions between people in society. And it is a continuous struggle between people to seek control over the resources and the overall society.

The famous sociologists Karl Marx took a conflict perspective to view society. We can put Marx theory to understand society. He opines that cultural values and ideas are created and sustained by the privileged groups to maintain their control over society. Marx views ideas are created by culture. That is the higher class use this ideology to perpetuate their needs. By doing this they maintain their dominance over the weaker section of society.

• Symbolic interaction

It is a micro-level sociological analysis that focuses on the interactions between individuals in a particular society. In other words, it is an analysis of face-to-face communication between two persons. It considers society as a total of interaction and communication between people.  

For example, if we put symbolic interactive perspective to culture. This view took culture as a product of continuous interactions between people. They not only view the interactions but how we interpret those interactions. In which there are many symbols and processes like myths, rituals, and habits by which we assign different meanings to them. Symbols are the main driving factor in culture. These symbols may be how we greet others, our facial expressions, gestures, words, etc and how others interpret our symbols. For example, we shake hands to greet others. For example, we can study the relationship between manager and supervisor in a company through symbolic interaction theory.  

4. Analysis and interpretation

After this, we have to analyze the data we collected for analysis. We have to classify, organize and tabulate our data (in case of quantitative analysis), case study, narration, (in case of qualitative data). In each represented data we have to explain our discussion, criticisms, arguments our interpretations, and findings. In this section, you have to write which group you interviewed or observed their attributes. If you choose a quantitative data collection you have to explain why you choose this in your analysis.      

5. Use proof in your analysis

Using empirical evidence in your analysis strengthens your writing. You have to highlight your proof in your analysis. Prove your major findings and points through scientific evidence. You can choose a theory to support your points. Or you can frame your theory with empirical evidence. It has to be logical and rational evidence, otherwise, it didn’t consider as evidence. In this section, you have to present the findings in a more reliable, accurate manner. You have to convince your reader that you arrive at finding what you intended to do. You have to convince the reader that you consider the in-depth detail in your analysis

In every sociological writing, you have to write concluding marks. In conclusion, you have to write your major findings. It has to be a brief explanation of your topic, analysis, interpretation, data used, theory to support your evidence. It includes your all analysis in a nutshell. You can make suggestions in your conclusion. And also urge future sociologists to research your topics. You can even pose a question to the readers. That will motivate them to conduct other research in this field.

Sociological analysis is a well-structured process that is followed in an organized and systematic way. It has to be followed by different steps and clear. It will help the readers to understand the sociological perspective of different trends, issues. And it also contributes to the systematic analysis of society.

Ashitha Mary

Hi, I’m Ashitha Mary K.L. I have post-graduated from Mahatma Gandhi University in 2021. I have completed my graduation and post-graduation in Sociology from St. Teresa’s College, Ernakulam, Kochi, Kerala. I’m a content writer since 2019. Interested in writing and reading. I have also had a certificate in Healing with the Arts course from the University of Florida. Interested in writing related to society. Currently working as a content writer in Sociology Group.

How to Write a Sociology Essay

Table of Contents

Introduction to Sociology Essay Writing

What is a sociology essay.

A sociology essay is an academic piece that explores various aspects of society and social behavior. It examines patterns, causes, and effects of social interactions among individuals and groups. The purpose of such an essay is to provide a detailed analysis and interpretation of social phenomena, guided by theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Importance of Sociological Inquiry and Critical Thinking

Sociological inquiry is vital as it fosters an understanding of the complexities of society and the various factors that shape human behavior. Critical thinking, on the other hand, is essential in sociology essay writing as it enables the evaluation of arguments, identification of biases, and development of coherent, evidence-based conclusions.

Understanding the Essay Question

Interpreting essay prompts.

To effectively respond to a sociology essay prompt:

• Read Carefully : Look for action words such as ‘discuss,’ ‘compare,’ or ‘analyze’ to understand what is expected.
• Highlight Keywords : Identify key themes, concepts, and sociological terms that are central to the question.

Identifying Key Themes and Concepts

• Break Down the Question : Dissect the question into smaller components to ensure all aspects are addressed.
• Relate to Sociological Theories : Connect the themes with relevant sociological theories and concepts.

Research and Preparation

Conducting sociological research.

• Start Broad : Gain a general understanding of the topic through reputable sources like academic journals and books.
• Narrow Focus : Hone in on specific studies or data that directly relate to your essay’s thesis.

Sourcing and Evaluating Literature

• Use Academic Databases : Access scholarly articles through databases such as JSTOR, Google Scholar, and Sociological Abstracts.
• Evaluate Sources : Check for the credibility, relevance, and timeliness of the literature.

Relevant Sociological Theories

• Theory Identification : Determine which sociological theories and theorists are pertinent to your essay topic.
• Application : Understand how these theories can be applied to the social issue or phenomenon you are examining.

Planning the Essay

Importance of essay structure.

Structuring an essay is crucial because it helps organize thoughts, supports the logical flow of ideas, and guides the reader through the arguments presented. A well-structured essay enhances clarity and readability, ensuring that each point made builds upon the last and contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Basic Essay Structure

Introduction : This is where you introduce your topic, provide background information, and present your thesis statement. It sets the stage for your argument.

Thesis Statement : A concise summary of the main point or claim of the essay, usually located at the end of the introduction.

Body Paragraphs : Each paragraph should cover a single point that supports your thesis. Start with a topic sentence, followed by analysis, evidence, and then a concluding sentence that ties the point back to the thesis.

Conclusion : Summarize the key arguments made in the essay and restate the thesis in the context of the evidence presented. Finish with thoughts on the implications, limitations, or suggestions for future research.

Writing the Essay

Crafting a strong thesis statement.

• Specificity : Your thesis should clearly state your position and the aspects of the topic you will explore.
• Scope : Make sure it’s neither too broad nor too narrow to be adequately covered within the essay’s length.
• Assertiveness : Present your thesis confidently and as a statement that you will back up with evidence.

Writing Effective Body Paragraphs

• Topic Sentences : Begin with a clear statement of the paragraph’s main idea.
• Coherence : Use transition words and phrases to maintain flow and show the relationship between paragraphs.
• Evidence Integration : Include data, quotations, or theories from sources that support your argument, always linking them back to your thesis.

Integrating Evidence

• Relevance : Ensure all evidence directly relates to and supports the paragraph’s topic sentence and the overall thesis.
• Credibility : Choose evidence from reputable, scholarly sources.
• Analysis : Don’t just present evidence; interpret it and explain its significance to your argument.

Maintaining Objectivity and Critical Perspective

• Balanced Analysis : Consider multiple viewpoints and avoid biased language.
• Critical Evaluation : Question the methodologies, findings, and biases in the literature you cite.
• Reflective Conclusion : Assess the strengths and limitations of your argument.

Referencing and Citation Style

Importance of citations.

Citations are essential in academic writing as they give credit to the original authors of ideas and information, allow readers to verify sources, and prevent plagiarism.

Common Citation Styles in Sociology

• APA (American Psychological Association) : Commonly used in the social sciences for both in-text citations and reference lists.
• ASA (American Sociological Association) : Specifically designed for sociology papers, this style features a parenthetical author-date format within the text and a detailed reference list at the end.

Each citation style has specific rules for formatting titles, author names, publication dates, and page numbers, so it’s important to consult the relevant style guide to ensure accuracy in your references.

Editing and Proofreading

Strategies for reviewing and refining the essay.

• Take a Break : After writing, step away from your essay before reviewing it. Fresh eyes can catch errors and inconsistencies more effectively.
• Read Aloud : Hearing your words can help identify awkward phrasing, run-on sentences, and other issues that might be missed when reading silently.
• Peer Review : Have a classmate or friend review your essay. They may catch errors you have overlooked and provide valuable feedback.
• Multiple Rounds : Edit for different aspects in each round—for example, content in one, grammar and syntax in another, and citations in the last.

Checklist of Common Errors to Avoid

• Spelling and Grammar : Misused words, typos, subject-verb agreement errors, and incorrect verb tenses.
• Punctuation : Overuse or incorrect use of commas, semicolons, and apostrophes.
• Structure : Lack of clear thesis, poorly structured paragraphs, or missing transitions.
• Clarity : Vague statements, unnecessary jargon, or overly complex sentences.
• Consistency : Fluctuations in tone, style, or tense.
• Citations : Inaccurate references or inconsistent citation style.

Summarizing Arguments

• Restate Thesis : Begin by restating your thesis in a new way, reflecting on the evidence presented.
• Highlight Key Points : Briefly recap the main arguments made in your body paragraphs, synthesizing them to show how they support your thesis.
• No New Information : Ensure that you do not introduce new ideas or evidence in the conclusion.

Presenting Final Thoughts

• Implications : Discuss the broader implications of your findings or argument.
• Limitations : Acknowledge any limitations in your research or analysis and suggest areas for future study.
• Final Statement : End with a strong, closing statement that reinforces the significance of your topic and leaves a lasting impression on the reader.

By carefully editing and proofreading your essay, you can enhance its clarity and coherence, ensuring that it effectively communicates your analysis and insights on the sociological topic. The conclusion serves as the final opportunity to underscore the importance of your findings and to reiterate how they contribute to our understanding of social phenomena.

Appendix A: Example Essay Outlines

An essay outline serves as a roadmap for the writer, indicating the structure of the essay and the sequence of arguments. An appendix containing example outlines could include:

Thematic Essay Outline :

• Background Information
• Thesis Statement
• Summary of Themes
• Restatement of Thesis
• Final Thoughts

Comparative Essay Outline :

• Overview of Subjects Being Compared
• Aspect 1 Comparison
• Evidence from Subject A
• Evidence from Subject B
• Comparative Analysis
• Summary of Comparative Points

These outlines would be followed by brief explanations of each section and tips on what information to include.

How to Write a Sociology Essay: A Simple Guide

The process of writing a sociology essay is like piecing together a puzzle of society, where each theory, study, and analysis forms a vital piece. It's about understanding how people interact, why societies work the way they do, and expressing these ideas in a thoughtful and organized manner. This article will guide you through the steps of how to write sociology essay A level, from brainstorming ideas to polishing your final draft, making the process less daunting and more manageable. And for those of you who lack time or motivation to work on this assignment, our sociology essay writing service will cater to all your needs.

What Is Sociology Essay?

A sociology essay is essentially an exploration and analysis of societal structures, behaviors, and dynamics using the tools and concepts provided by the field of sociology. This academic genre involves applying sociological theories, empirical research, and critical thinking to examine and interpret various aspects of human society. Unlike essays in other disciplines, the action items of how to write a sociology paper often emphasize understanding the intricate relationships between individuals and the broader social context, delving into questions of culture, institutions, power dynamics, inequality, and social change. The objective is not just to present facts but to offer insights into the underlying patterns and forces that shape human behavior and the functioning of societies.

When writing an essay on sociology, individuals typically use primary and secondary sources, drawing upon established sociological theories and applying them to real-world situations or case studies. The essay might explore topics ranging from the impact of social institutions like education or family on individuals to broader issues such as globalization, social stratification, or the dynamics of social movements. If you ask our experts to write essays for money , they will contribute to a deeper understanding of the social world and provoke critical discussions about the sociology complexities inherent in human societies through thoughtful analysis and interpretation.

Tips for Writing a Sociology Essay

Starting to write a sociology essay? No worries! This section is packed with practical tips to help you nail it. We'll walk you through everything from building a solid thesis to weaving in real-world examples – making sure your essay not only makes sense but also stands out. Ready to turn those sociological insights into a compelling piece of writing? Let's dive in!

Clearly Define Your Thesis

• Begin your essay on sociology with a well-defined thesis statement succinctly presenting the main argument or perspective you intend to explore in your paper.
• This will provide focus and direction for your sociology writing.

Thoroughly Understand the Sociological Concepts

• Demonstrate a strong grasp of sociological concepts and theories relevant to your topic.
• This involves not only defining key terms but also showcasing an understanding of their application within the broader social context.

Research Widely and Critically

• Conduct thorough sociology research using various reputable sources, such as academic journals, books, and empirical studies.
• Evaluate sources critically and select those that contribute robust evidence and insights to support your argument.

Create a Solid Outline

• Develop a clear and organized outline before diving into the actual writing.
• This roadmap will help structure your essay, ensuring a logical progression of ideas and a coherent presentation of your arguments.

Use Concrete Examples

• Support your arguments with concrete examples and relevant evidence.
• Whether drawing from real-world sociology cases, empirical studies, or historical events, providing specific examples strengthens your analysis and makes your essay more compelling.

Engage with Counterarguments

• Acknowledge and engage with counterarguments.
• This not only demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the topic but also strengthens your own argument by addressing potential criticisms.

Write a Cohesive Conclusion

• Summarize your main points and re-write your thesis in the conclusion.
• Avoid introducing new sociology information, but reflect on the broader implications of your findings and potentially suggest avenues for future research.

Edit and Revise

• Set aside time for editing and revising your essay.
• Check for clarity, coherence, and consistency in your arguments.
• Ensure your writing is concise and free of grammatical errors.

Cite Sources Properly

• Learn how to format a sociology paper in APA, MLA, or Chicago.
• Write accurate and consistent citations throughout your essay.
• Proper referencing adds credibility to your work.

Which Sociology Essay Topics to Choose (With Examples)?

Choosing the right sociology topics for essays is crucial for creating an engaging and insightful piece of writing. Firstly, consider your interests and passions within sociology. Selecting a topic that resonates with you will not only make the research process more enjoyable but also likely result in a more compelling essay. Whether examining gender roles, exploring racial dynamics, or delving into the complexities of social institutions, find a theme that sparks your curiosity.

Secondly, to learn how to write a good sociology essay, you should assess the current sociological landscape. Choose topics that are relevant and timely, as this ensures your essay contributes to ongoing discussions in the field. Issues such as globalization, technology's impact on society, or the evolving nature of social movements can provide a contemporary context for exploration. By addressing current societal challenges, your essay can offer fresh perspectives and insights, making it more engaging for you and your sociology readers.

Lastly, consider the scope and feasibility of the sociology essay question. Ensure it is neither too broad nor too narrow for the length of your essay. Strike a writing balance, allowing in-depth analysis while staying focused on a specific aspect of the chosen topic. This sociology writing approach ensures you can thoroughly explore the subject matter within the confines of your assignment, providing a well-rounded and comprehensive examination of the sociological issues at hand. Here’s a list of 30 social science essay topics to boost your creativity:

• The impact of social media on interpersonal relationships.
• Gender inequality in the workplace.
• Effects of education on social mobility.
• Influence of family structure on child development.
• The sociology of online dating.
• Examining racial profiling in law enforcement.
• Social consequences of income inequality.
• Role of religion in shaping societal norms.
• The rise of single-parent households.
• Impact of technology on social interaction.
• Juvenile delinquency and its societal causes.
• Stereotypes in the media and their effects.
• The sociology of fashion and cultural identity.
• Exploring youth subcultures.
• The stigma surrounding mental health.
• Societal attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals.
• Social effects of environmental pollution.
• The dynamics of cross-cultural communication.
• Influence of social class on educational opportunities.
• Examining the prison industrial complex.
• Social implications of immigration policies.
• Sociology of deviant behavior.
• The impact of globalization on local cultures.
• The social construction of beauty standards.
• Societal views on aging and the elderly.
• The role of social institutions in society.
• Exploring microaggressions in everyday life.
• The sociology of conspiracy theories.
• Social effects of gentrification.
• Societal perceptions of disability.

When you find a topic you like, you can either study it yourself or let our professional essay writers do the job for you, getting faster and more dependable results.

Sociology Essay Structure

In a sociology essay, write your thoughts in a clear and organized way so that readers can easily follow along. We start by diving into the topic, exploring different aspects and ideas, and using examples and evidence to support our points. Each part of the essay connects smoothly, like pieces of a puzzle, forming a complete picture of our argument. Finally, we wrap it up by summarizing what we've discussed and highlighting the broader significance of our sociology findings. This structure helps us convey complex sociological concepts in a way that's easy to understand and engaging to read. If any of the concepts are too difficult to comprehend, simply ask us, ‘ write my essays ,’ and our writers will take your task from here.

Introduction to Sociology Essay

A well-structured essay on sociology typically adheres to a standard format, beginning with an introduction that outlines the context, significance, and purpose of the essay. As you study how to write an introduction to a sociology essay, it should feature a clear and concise thesis statement. This central sociology sentence presents the main argument or perspective that will be explored in the essay. This section serves as a roadmap for the reader, providing an overview of the key themes to be addressed.

Body in Sociology Essay

Following the introduction, the essay's body is organized into paragraphs, each devoted to a specific aspect of the topic. These paragraphs should be structured logically, with a clear topic sentence introducing the main idea, followed by supporting evidence, examples, and sociology analysis. It's crucial to maintain coherence and flow between paragraphs, ensuring a seamless transition from one idea to the next. The essay's body allows for a comprehensive exploration of sociological concepts, theories, and empirical evidence, reinforcing the central thesis through a well-organized and cohesive argument. Here are 5 comprehensive tips on how to write body in sociology essay:

• Structure paragraphs logically with a main idea and smooth transitions.
• Support your points with relevant evidence, whether from research or examples.
• Go beyond description; critically evaluate evidence and discuss implications.
• Stick to the main point of each paragraph; avoid unnecessary tangents.
• For clarity, maintain a consistent writing tone and style throughout your essay.

Suddenly realized your deadline is too short? Simply order essay from skilled academic penmen, and consider your assignment ready.

Conclusion of Sociology Essay

Concluding the essay is the final section, where the writer summarizes the key points, restates the thesis in a nuanced manner, and reflects on the broader implications of the analysis. This section should avoid introducing new information but instead offer a thoughtful synthesis of the essay's main ideas. A strong sociology essay conclusion leaves a lasting impression, leaving the reader with a sense of closure and a deeper understanding of the sociological perspectives explored in the essay. How to write a conclusion for sociology essay? Maintain a clear and organized structure that ensures that the paper effectively communicates complex sociological ideas while engaging the reader from start to finish.

Editing and Proofreading

Knowing how to write sociology papers constitutes 70% of a great job done. The remaining 30% belongs to effective editing and proofreading. Start by reviewing the overall structure and coherence of your arguments, ensuring each paragraph contributes to the essay's main thesis. Next, scrutinize the clarity and consistency of your language, eliminating unnecessary jargon and ensuring a straightforward communication of ideas. Finally, meticulously check for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors, ensuring a polished and error-free presentation of your sociological analysis. Note that when you buy essay online , you won’t have to edit or proofread anything, as the service includes these activities on our behalf.

Sociology Essay Example

We’ve written several sociology essays examples for your convenience and inspiration. Remember that they are for reference purposes only! Don’t copy and paste them into your document for submission. If you like our sociology research papers examples, order one that will be written for you from scratch or write on your own to avoid plagiarism and damage to your academic integrity.

The Digital Canvas: Unraveling Youth Identity in the Age of Social Media

Social media platforms have become an integral part of contemporary youth culture, serving as both a mirror and a canvas for self-expression. This essay explores the multifaceted impact of social media on the formation and presentation of youth identity, examining how these digital spaces shape perceptions, relationships, and self-awareness.

Social media platforms, from Instagram to TikTok, have revolutionized the way young individuals construct and project their identities in today's interconnected world. As the virtual realm intertwines with real-life experiences, it poses critical questions about the authenticity and complexity of youth identity formation.

One significant aspect is the performative nature of identity on social media. The curated profiles and carefully selected content act as a digital stage where youth engage in a constant performance, showcasing aspects of their lives that align with societal expectations or online trends. This performative aspect influences self-esteem, as individuals navigate the fine line between authentic expression and the desire for social validation.

Social media's role in facilitating social comparison among youth is noteworthy. The constant exposure to peers' achievements, lifestyles, and experiences can lead to both inspiration and feelings of inadequacy. This comparative aspect influences the construction of youth identity as individuals navigate their unique identities in the context of a digitally connected and often competitive environment.

Social media platforms redefine the landscape of friendship and belonging among youth. Online connections and communities provide opportunities for global interaction, yet they also introduce challenges related to cyberbullying and the pressure to conform. Understanding the impact of these virtual relationships on youth identity is crucial for comprehending the evolving nature of social connections in contemporary society.

In conclusion, the digital era has fundamentally altered the terrain of youth identity. Social media, as a tool for both self-expression and social comparison, plays a central role in shaping how young individuals perceive themselves and relate to others. As society grapples with these transformations, it becomes imperative to navigate the nuanced intersections between online and offline identities, fostering an environment that supports authentic self-discovery and interpersonal connections.

The Dynamics of Economic Inequality and Social Mobility

In contemporary society, economic inequality stands as a pervasive challenge that not only reflects societal disparities but also significantly influences the prospects of social mobility. This essay delves into the intricate relationship between economic inequality and social mobility, examining how disparities in wealth and opportunities shape the life trajectories of individuals across different social strata.

Economic inequality has emerged as a defining feature of our times, with profound implications for the ability of individuals to move upward on the social ladder. This essay seeks to unravel the complex dynamics between economic inequality and social mobility, shedding light on the factors that either facilitate or hinder the pursuit of the proverbial American Dream.

One key aspect is the connection between income disparities and access to quality education. Children born into economically disadvantaged families often face limited educational resources, hindering their ability to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary for upward mobility. This perpetuates a cycle where economic disadvantage becomes an enduring barrier to social advancement.

Economic inequality manifests prominently in occupational segregation and wage disparities. Certain professions and industries offer more significant opportunities for economic advancement, while others remain marginalized and undervalued. The unequal distribution of resources and opportunities within the job market directly influences the potential for social mobility among different segments of the population.

The transmission of economic status across generations contributes significantly to the perpetuation of inequality. Economic advantages or disadvantages experienced by parents often shape the opportunities available to their children, creating a cycle that is challenging to break. Understanding this intergenerational dimension is crucial for comprehending the long-term effects of economic inequality on social mobility.

In conclusion, the intricate interplay between economic inequality and social mobility underscores the need for comprehensive societal measures. Addressing disparities in education, occupation, and intergenerational opportunities is essential for fostering a more equitable society, where individuals can pursue their aspirations irrespective of their economic background. As we navigate these challenges, the pursuit of a more inclusive and socially mobile society remains a critical goal for shaping the future of our communities.

A good essay on sociology is all about being organized, using evidence wisely, and thinking critically. The tips for aspiring writers provided here are like a toolkit to help you express your ideas effectively and make a meaningful contribution to the world of sociology. Keep in mind the importance of a clear thesis, backing up your points with good evidence, and thinking deeply about your topic. Also, don't forget to do thorough research and stick to the rules of academic writing. With these tips, your sociology essays can not only be academically solid but also interesting and thought-provoking. Alternatively, you can pay for essay on our website and move to other more important tasks for the day. In any case, happy writing!

Frequently asked questions

How to start a sociology essay, how to write a sociology essay university level, how long is a sociology essay.

She was flawless! first time using a website like this, I've ordered article review and i totally adored it! grammar punctuation, content - everything was on point

This writer is my go to, because whenever I need someone who I can trust my task to - I hire Joy. She wrote almost every paper for me for the last 2 years

Term paper done up to a highest standard, no revisions, perfect communication. 10s across the board!!!!!!!

I send him instructions and that's it. my paper was done 10 hours later, no stupid questions, he nailed it.

Sometimes I wonder if Michael is secretly a professor because he literally knows everything. HE DID SO WELL THAT MY PROF SHOWED MY PAPER AS AN EXAMPLE. unbelievable, many thanks

You Might Also Like

New Posts to Your Inbox!

Stay in touch

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 1. An Introduction to Sociology

Learning objectives.

1.1. What Is Sociology?

• Explain concepts central to sociology
• Describe the different levels of analysis in sociology: micro-sociology and macro-sociology
• Understand how different sociological perspectives have developed

1.2. The History of Sociology

• Explain why sociology emerged when it did
• Describe the central ideas of the founders of sociology
• Describe how sociology became a separate academic discipline

1.3. Theoretical Perspectives

• Explain what sociological theories are and how they are used
• Describe sociology as a multi-perspectival social science, which is divided into positivist, interpretive and critical paradigms
• Understand the similarities and differences between structural functionalism, critical sociology, and symbolic interactionism

1.4. Why Study Sociology?

• Explain why it is worthwhile to study sociology
• Identify ways sociology is applied in the real world

Introduction to Sociology

Concerts, sports games, and political rallies can have very large crowds. When you attend one of these events, you may know only the people you came with. Yet you may experience a feeling of connection to the group. You are one of the crowd. You cheer and applaud when everyone else does. You boo and yell alongside them. You move out of the way when someone needs to get by, and you say “excuse me” when you need to leave. You know how to behave in this kind of crowd.

It can be a very different experience if you are travelling in a foreign country and find yourself in a crowd moving down the street. You may have trouble figuring out what is happening. Is the crowd just the usual morning rush, or is it a political protest of some kind? Perhaps there was some sort of accident or disaster. Is it safe in this crowd, or should you try to extract yourself? How can you find out what is going on? Although you are in it, you may not feel like you are part of this crowd. You may not know what to do or how to behave.

Even within one type of crowd, different groups exist and different behaviours are on display. At a rock concert, for example, some may enjoy singing along, others may prefer to sit and observe, while still others may join in a mosh pit or try crowd surfing. On February 28, 2010, Sydney Crosby scored the winning goal against the United States team in the gold medal hockey game at the Vancouver Winter Olympics. Two hundred thousand jubilant people filled the streets of downtown Vancouver to celebrate and cap off two weeks of uncharacteristically vibrant, joyful street life in Vancouver. Just over a year later, on June 15, 2011, the Vancouver Canucks lost the seventh hockey game of the Stanley Cup finals against the Boston Bruins. One hundred thousand people had been watching the game on outdoor screens. Eventually 155,000 people filled the downtown streets. Rioting and looting led to hundreds of injuries, burnt cars, trashed storefronts and property damage totaling an estimated $4.2 million. Why was the crowd response to the two events so different?

A key insight of sociology is that the simple fact of being in a group changes your behaviour. The group is a phenomenon that is more than the sum of its parts. Why do we feel and act differently in different types of social situations? Why might people of a single group exhibit different behaviours in the same situation? Why might people acting similarly not feel connected to others exhibiting the same behaviour? These are some of the many questions sociologists ask as they study people and societies.

A dictionary defines sociology as the systematic study of society and social interaction. The word “sociology” is derived from the Latin word socius (companion) and the Greek word logos (speech or reason), which together mean “reasoned speech about companionship”. How can the experience of companionship or togetherness be put into words or explained? While this is a starting point for the discipline, sociology is actually much more complex. It uses many different methods to study a wide range of subject matter and to apply these studies to the real world.

The sociologist Dorothy Smith (1926 – ) defines the social as the “ongoing concerting and coordinating of individuals’ activities” (Smith 1999). Sociology is the systematic study of all those aspects of life designated by the adjective “social.” These aspects of social life never simply occur; they are organized processes. They can be the briefest of everyday interactions—moving to the right to let someone pass on a busy sidewalk, for example—or the largest and most enduring interactions—such as the billions of daily exchanges that constitute the circuits of global capitalism. If there are at least two people involved, even in the seclusion of one’s mind, then there is a social interaction that entails the “ongoing concerting and coordinating of activities.” Why does the person move to the right on the sidewalk? What collective process lead to the decision that moving to the right rather than the left is normal? Think about the T-shirts in your drawer at home. What are the sequences of linkages and social relationships that link the T-shirts in your chest of drawers to the dangerous and hyper-exploitive garment factories in rural China or Bangladesh? These are the type of questions that point to the unique domain and puzzles of the social that sociology seeks to explore and understand.

What Are Society and Culture?

Sociologists study all aspects and levels of society. A society is a group of people whose members interact, reside in a definable area, and share a culture. A culture includes the group’s shared practices, values, beliefs, norms and artifacts. One sociologist might analyze video of people from different societies as they carry on everyday conversations to study the rules of polite conversation from different world cultures. Another sociologist might interview a representative sample of people to see how email and instant messaging have changed the way organizations are run. Yet another sociologist might study how migration determined the way in which language spread and changed over time. A fourth sociologist might study the history of international agencies like the United Nations or the International Monetary Fund to examine how the globe became divided into a First World and a Third World after the end of the colonial era.

These examples illustrate the ways society and culture can be studied at different levels of analysis , from the detailed study of face-to-face interactions to the examination of large-scale historical processes affecting entire civilizations. It is common to divide these levels of analysis into different gradations based on the scale of interaction involved. As discussed in later chapters, sociologists break the study of society down into four separate levels of analysis: micro, meso, macro, and global. The basic distinction, however, is between micro-sociology and macro-sociology .

The study of cultural rules of politeness in conversation is an example of micro-sociology. At the micro- level of analysis, the focus is on the social dynamics of intimate, face-to-face interactions. Research is conducted with a specific set of individuals such as conversational partners, family members, work associates, or friendship groups. In the conversation study example, sociologists might try to determine how people from different cultures interpret each other’s behaviour to see how different rules of politeness lead to misunderstandings. If the same misunderstandings occur consistently in a number of different interactions, the sociologists may be able to propose some generalizations about rules of politeness that would be helpful in reducing tensions in mixed-group dynamics (e.g., during staff meetings or international negotiations). Other examples of micro-level research include seeing how informal networks become a key source of support and advancement in formal bureaucracies or how loyalty to criminal gangs is established.

Macro -sociology focuses on the properties of large-scale, society-wide social interactions: the dynamics of institutions, classes, or whole societies. The example above of the influence of migration on changing patterns of language usage is a macro-level phenomenon because it refers to structures or processes of social interaction that occur outside or beyond the intimate circle of individual social acquaintances. These include the economic and other circumstances that lead to migration; the educational, media, and other communication structures that help or hinder the spread of speech patterns; the class, racial, or ethnic divisions that create different slangs or cultures of language use; the relative isolation or integration of different communities within a population; and so on. Other examples of macro-level research include  examining why women are far less likely than men to reach positions of power in society or why fundamentalist Christian religious movements play a more prominent role in American politics than they do in Canadian politics. In each case, the site of the analysis shifts away from the nuances and detail of micro-level interpersonal life to the broader, macro-level systematic patterns that structure social change and social cohesion in society.

The relationship between the micro and the macro remains one of the key problems confronting sociology. The German sociologist Georg Simmel pointed out that macro-level processes are in fact nothing more than the sum of all the unique interactions between specific individuals at any one time (1908), yet they have properties of their own which would be missed if sociologists only focused on the interactions of specific individuals. Émile Durkheim’s classic study of suicide (1897) is a case in point. While suicide is one of the most personal, individual, and intimate acts imaginable, Durkheim demonstrated that rates of suicide differed between religious communities—Protestants, Catholics, and Jews—in a way that could not be explained by the individual factors involved in each specific case. The different rates of suicide had to be explained by macro-level variables associated with the different religious beliefs and practices of the faith communities. We will return to this example in more detail later. On the other hand, macro-level phenomena like class structures, institutional organizations, legal systems, gender stereotypes, and urban ways of life provide the shared context for everyday life but do not explain its nuances and micro-variations very well. Macro-level structures constrain the daily interactions of the intimate circles in which we move, but they are also filtered through localized perceptions and “lived” in a myriad of inventive and unpredictable ways.

The Sociological Imagination

Although the scale of sociological studies and the methods of carrying them out are different, the sociologists involved in them all have something in common. Each of them looks at society using what pioneer sociologist C. Wright Mills called the sociological imagination , sometimes also referred to as the “sociological lens” or “sociological perspective.” In a sense, this was Mills’ way of addressing the dilemmas of the macro/micro divide in sociology. Mills defined sociological imagination as how individuals understand their own and others’ pasts in relation to history and social structure (1959). It is the capacity to see an individual’s private troubles in the context of the broader social processes that structure them. This enables the sociologist to examine what Mills called “personal troubles of milieu” as “public issues of social structure,” and vice versa.

Mills reasoned that private troubles like being overweight, being unemployed, having marital difficulties, or feeling purposeless or depressed can be purely personal in nature. It is possible for them to be addressed and understood in terms of personal, psychological, or moral attributes, either one’s own or those of the people in one’s immediate milieu. In an individualistic society like our own, this is in fact the most likely way that people will regard the issues they confront: “I have an addictive personality;” “I can’t get a break in the job market;” “My husband is unsupportive;” etc. However, if private troubles are widely shared with others, they indicate that there is a common social problem that has its source in the way social life is structured. At this level, the issues are not adequately understood as simply private troubles. They are best addressed as public issues that require a collective response to resolve.

Obesity, for example, has been increasingly recognized as a growing problem for both children and adults in North America. Michael Pollan cites statistics that three out of five Americans are overweight and one out of five is obese (2006). In Canada in 2012, just under one in five adults (18.4 percent) were obese, up from 16 percent of men and 14.5 percent of women in 2003 (Statistics Canada 2013). Obesity is therefore not simply a private trouble concerning the medical issues, dietary practices, or exercise habits of specific individuals. It is a widely shared social issue that puts people at risk for chronic diseases like hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. It also creates significant social costs for the medical system.

Pollan argues that obesity is in part a product of the increasingly sedentary and stressful lifestyle of modern, capitalist society, but more importantly it is a product of the industrialization of the food chain, which since the 1970s has produced increasingly cheap and abundant food with significantly more calories due to processing. Additives like corn syrup, which are much cheaper to produce than natural sugars, led to the trend of super-sized fast foods and soft drinks in the 1980s. As Pollan argues, trying to find a processed food in the supermarket without a cheap, calorie-rich, corn-based additive is a challenge. The sociological imagination in this example is the capacity to see the private troubles and attitudes associated with being overweight as an issue of how the industrialization of the food chain has altered the human/environment relationship, in particular with respect to the types of food we eat and the way we eat them.

By looking at individuals and societies and how they interact through this lens, sociologists are able to examine what influences behaviour, attitudes, and culture. By applying systematic and scientific methods to this process, they try to do so without letting their own biases and pre-conceived ideas influence their conclusions.

Studying Patterns: How Sociologists View Society

All sociologists are interested in the experiences of individuals and how those experiences are shaped by interactions with social groups and society as a whole. To a sociologist, the personal decisions an individual makes do not exist in a vacuum. Cultural patterns and social forces put pressure on people to select one choice over another. Sociologists try to identify these general patterns by examining the behaviour of large groups of people living in the same society and experiencing the same societal pressures.

Understanding the relationship between the individual and society is one of the most difficult sociological problems, however. Partly this is because of the reified way these two terms are used in everyday speech. Reification refers to the way in which abstract concepts, complex processes, or mutable social relationships come to be thought of as “things.” A prime example of this is when people say that “society” caused an individual to do something or to turn out in a particular way. In writing essays, first-year sociology students sometimes refer to “society” as a cause of social behaviour or as an entity with independent agency. On the other hand, the “individual” is a being that seems solid, tangible, and independent of anything going on outside of the skin sack that contains its essence. This conventional distinction between society and the individual is a product of reification in so far as both society and the individual appear as independent objects. A concept of “the individual” and a concept of “society” have been given the status of real, substantial, independent objects. As we will see in the chapters to come, society and the individual are neither objects, nor are they independent of one another. An “individual” is inconceivable without the relationships to others that define his or her internal subjective life and his or her external socially defined roles.

The problem for sociologists is that these concepts of the individual and society and the relationship between them are thought of in terms established by a very common moral framework in modern democratic societies, namely that of individual responsibility and individual choice. Often in this framework, any suggestion that an individual’s behaviour needs to be understood in terms of that person’s social context is dismissed as “letting the individual off” of taking personal responsibility for their actions.

Talking about society is akin to being morally soft or lenient. Sociology, as a social science, remains neutral on these type of moral questions. The conceptualization of the individual and society is much more complex. The sociological problem is to be able to see the individual as a thoroughly social being and yet as a being who has agency and free choice. Individuals are beings who do take on individual responsibilities in their everyday social roles and risk social consequences when they fail to live up to them. The manner in which they take on responsibilities and sometimes the compulsion to do so are socially defined however. The sociological problem is to be able to see society as a dimension of experience characterized by regular and predictable patterns of behaviour that exist independently of any specific individual’s desires or self-understanding. Yet at the same time a society is nothing but the ongoing social relationships and activities of specific individuals.

Making Connections: Sociology in the Real World

The individual in society: choices of aboriginal gang members.

In 2010 the CBC program The Current aired a report about several young aboriginal men who were serving time in prison in Saskatchewan for gang-related activities (CBC   2010). They all expressed desires to be able to deal with their drug addiction issues, return to their families, and assume their responsibilities when their sentences were complete. They wanted to have their own places with nice things in them. However, according to the CBC report, 80 percent of the prison population in the Saskatchewan Correctional Centre were aboriginal and 20 percent of those were gang members. This is consistent with national statistics on aboriginal incarceration which showed that in 2010–2011, the aboriginal incarceration rate was 10 times higher than for the non-aboriginal population. While aboriginal people account for about 4 percent of the Canadian population, in 2013 they made up 23.2 percent of the federal penitentiary population. In 2001 they made up only 17 percent of the penitentiary population. Aboriginal overrepresentation in prisons has continued to grow substantially (Office of the Correctional Investigator 2013).The outcomes of aboriginal incarceration are also bleak. The federal Office of the Correctional Investigator summarized the situation as follows. Aboriginal inmates are:

• Routinely classified as higher risk and higher need in categories such as employment, community reintegration, and family supports
• Released later in their sentence (lower parole grant rates); most leave prison at Statutory Release or Warrant Expiry dates
• Overrepresented in segregation and maximum security populations
• Disproportionately involved in use-of-force interventions and incidents of prison self-injury
• More likely to return to prison on revocation of parole, often for administrative reasons, not criminal violations (2013)

The federal report notes that “the high rate of incarceration for aboriginal peoples has been linked to systemic discrimination and attitudes based on racial or cultural prejudice, as well as economic and social disadvantage, substance abuse and intergenerational loss, violence and trauma” (2013).

This is clearly a case in which the situation of the incarcerated inmates interviewed on the CBC program has been structured by historical social patterns and power relationships that confront aboriginal people in Canada generally. How do we understand it at the individual level however, at the level of personal decision making and individual responsibilities? One young inmate described how, at the age of 13, he began to hang around with his cousins who were part of a gang. He had not grown up with “the best life” with family members suffering from addiction issues and traumas. The appeal of what appeared as a fast and exciting lifestyle—the sense of freedom and of being able to make one’s own life, instead of enduring poverty—was compelling. He began to earn money by “running dope” but also began to develop addictions. He was expelled from school for recruiting gang members. The only job he ever had was selling drugs. The circumstances in which he and the other inmates had entered the gang life and the difficulties getting out of it they knew awaited them when they left prison reflect a set of decision-making parameters fundamentally different than those facing most non-aboriginal people in Canada.

A key basis of the sociological perspective is the concept that the individual and society are inseparable. It is impossible to study one without the other. German sociologist Norbert Elias called the process of simultaneously analyzing the behaviour of individuals and the society that shapes that behaviour figuration . He described it through a metaphor of dancing. There can be no dance without the dancers, but there can be no dancers without the dance. Without the dancers, a dance is just an idea about motions in a choreographer’s head. Without a dance, there is just a group of people moving around a floor. Similarly, there is no society without the individuals that make it up, and there are also no individuals who are not affected by the society in which they live (Elias 1978).

Since ancient times, people have been fascinated by the relationship between individuals and the societies to which they belong. The ancient Greeks might be said to have provided the foundations of sociology through the distinction they drew between physis (nature) and nomos (law or custom). Whereas nature or physis for the Greeks was “what emerges from itself” without human intervention, nomos in the form of laws or customs, were human conventions designed to constrain human behaviour. Histories by Herodotus (484–425 BCE)   was a proto-anthropological work that described the great variations in the nomos of different ancient societies around the Mediterranean, indicating that human social life was not a product of nature but a product of human creation. If human social life was the product of an invariable human or biological nature, all cultures would be the same. The concerns of the later Greek philosophers Socrates (469–399 BCE), Plato (428–347 BCE), and Aristotle (384–322 BCE) with the ideal form of human community (the polis or city-state) can be derived from the ethical dilemmas of this difference between human nature and human norms. The modern sociological term “norm” (i.e., a social rule that regulates human behaviour) comes from the Greek term nomos .

In the 13th century, Ma Tuan-Lin, a Chinese historian, first recognized social dynamics as an underlying component of historical development in his seminal encyclopedia, General Study of Literary Remains . The study charted the historical development of Chinese state administration from antiquity in a manner akin to contemporary institutional analyses. The next century saw the emergence of the historian some consider to be the world’s first sociologist, the Berber scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) of Tunisia. His Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History is known for going beyond descriptive history to an analysis of historical processes of change based on an understanding of “the nature of things which are born of civilization” (Khaldun quoted in Becker and Barnes 1961). Key to his analysis was the distinction between the sedentary life of cities and the nomadic life of pastoral peoples like the Bedouin and Berbers. The nomads, who exist independent of external authority, developed a social bond based on blood lineage and “ esprit de corps” (‘Asabijja) ,” which enabled them to mobilize quickly and act in a unified and concerted manner in response to the rugged circumstances of desert life. The sedentaries of the city entered into a different cycle in which esprit de corp is subsumed to institutional power and political factions and the need to be focused on subsistence is replaced by a trend toward increasing luxury, ease and refinements of taste. The relationship between the two poles of existence, nomadism and sedentary life, was at the basis of the development and decay of civilizations” (Becker and Barnes 1961).

However, it was not until the 19th century that the basis of the modern discipline of sociology can be said to have been truly established. The impetus for the ideas that culminated in sociology can be found in the three major transformations that defined modern society and the culture of modernity: the development of modern science from the 16th century onward, the emergence of democratic forms of government with the American and French Revolutions (1775–1783 and 1789–1799 respectively), and the Industrial Revolution beginning in the 18th century. Not only was the framework for sociological knowledge established in these events, but also the initial motivation for creating a science of society. Early sociologists like Comte and Marx sought to formulate a rational, evidence-based response to the experience of massive social dislocation and unprecedented social problems brought about by the transition from the European feudal era to capitalism. Whether the intention was to restore order to the chaotic disintegration of society, as in Comte’s case, or to provide the basis for a revolutionary transformation in Marx’s, a rational and scientifically comprehensive knowledge of society and its processes was required. It was in this context that “society” itself, in the modern sense of the word, became visible as a phenomenon to early investigators of the social condition.

The development of modern science provided the model of knowledge needed for sociology to move beyond earlier moral, philosophical, and religious types of reflection on the human condition. Key to the development of science was the technological mindset that Max Weber termed the disenchantment of the world : “principally there are no mysterious incalculable forces that come into play, but rather one can, in principle, master all things by calculation” (1919). Modern science abandoned the medieval view of the world in which God, “the unmoved mover,” defined the natural and social world as a changeless, cyclical creation ordered and given purpose by divine will. Instead modern science combined two philosophical traditions that had historically been at odds: Plato’s rationalism and Aristotle’s empiricism. Rationalism sought the laws that governed the truth of reason and ideas, and in the hands of early scientists like Galileo and Newton, found its highest form of expression in the logical formulations of mathematics. Empiricism sought to discover the laws of the operation of the world through the careful, methodical, and detailed observation of the world. The new scientific worldview therefore combined the clear and logically coherent conceptual formulation of propositions from rationalism with an empirical method of inquiry based on observation through the senses. Sociology adopted these core principles to emphasize that claims about society had to be clearly formulated and based on evidence-based procedures.

The emergence of democratic forms of government in the 18th century demonstrated that humans had the capacity to change the world. The rigid hierarchy of medieval society was not a God-given eternal order, but a human order that could be challenged and improved upon through human intervention. Society came to be seen as both historical and the product of human endeavours. Age of Enlightenment philosophers like Locke, Voltaire, Montaigne, and Rousseau developed general principles that could be used to explain social life. Their emphasis shifted from the histories and exploits of the aristocracy to the life of ordinary people. Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) extended the critical analysis of her male Enlightenment contemporaries to the situation of women. Significantly for modern sociology they proposed that the use of reason could be applied to address social ills and to emancipate humanity from servitude. Wollstonecraft for example argued that simply allowing women to have a proper education would enable them to contribute to the improvement of society, especially through their influence on children. On the other hand, the bloody experience of the democratic revolutions, particularly the French Revolution, which resulted in the “Reign of Terror” and ultimately Napoleon’s attempt to subjugate Europe, also provided a cautionary tale for the early sociologists about the need for sober scientific assessment of society to address social problems.

The Industrial Revolution in a strict sense refers to the development of industrial methods of production, the introduction of industrial machinery, and the organization of labour in new manufacturing systems. These economic changes emblemize the massive transformation of human life brought about by the creation of wage labour, capitalist competition, increased mobility, urbanization, individualism, and all the social problems they wrought: poverty, exploitation, dangerous working conditions, crime, filth, disease, and the loss of family and other traditional support networks, etc. It was a time of great social and political upheaval with the rise of empires that exposed many people—for the first time—to societies and cultures other than their own. Millions of people were moving into cities and many people were turning away from their traditional religious beliefs. Wars, strikes, revolts, and revolutionary actions were reactions to underlying social tensions that had never existed before and called for critical examination. August Comte in particular envisioned the new science of sociology as the antidote to conditions that he described as “moral anarchy.”

Sociology therefore emerged as an extension of the new worldview of science; as a part of the Enlightenment project and its appreciation of historical change, social injustice, and the possibilities of social reform; and as a crucial response to the new and unprecedented types of social problems that appeared in the 19th century. It did not emerge as a unified science, however, as its founders brought distinctly different perspectives to its early formulations.

August Comte: The Father of Sociology

The term sociology was first coined in 1780 by the French essayist Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès (1748–1836) in an unpublished manuscript (Fauré et al. 1999). In 1838, the term was reinvented by Auguste Comte (1798–1857). The contradictions of Comte’s life and the times he lived through can be in large part read into the concerns that led to his development of sociology. He was born in 1798, year 6 of the new French Republic, to staunch monarchist and Catholic parents, who lived comfortably off the father’s earnings as a minor bureaucrat in the tax office. Comte originally studied to be an engineer, but after rejecting his parents’ conservative views and declaring himself a republican and free spirit at the age of 13, he got kicked out of school at 18 for leading a school riot, which ended his chances of getting a formal education and a position as an academic or government official.

He became a secretary of the utopian socialist philosopher Claude Henri de Rouvroy Comte de Saint-Simon (1760–1825) until they had a falling out in 1824 (after St. Simon perhaps purloined some of Comte’s essays and signed his own name to them). Nevertheless, they both thought that society could be studied using the same scientific methods utilized in the natural sciences. Comte also believed in the potential of social scientists to work toward the betterment of society and coined the slogan “order and progress” to reconcile the opposing progressive and conservative factions that had divided the crisis-ridden, post-revolutionary French society. Comte proposed a renewed, organic spiritual order in which the authority of science would be the means to reconcile the people in each social strata with their place in the order. It is a testament to his influence that the phrase “order and progress” adorns the Brazilian coat of arms (Collins and Makowsky 1989).

Comte named the scientific study of social patterns positivism . He described his philosophy in a well-attended and popular series of lectures, which he published as The Course in Positive Philosophy (1830–1842) and A General View of Positivism (1848). He believed that using scientific methods to reveal the laws by which societies and individuals interact would usher in a new “positivist” age of history. His main sociological theory was the law of three stages , which held that all human societies and all forms of human knowledge evolve through three distinct stages from primitive to advanced: the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive.The key variable in defining these stages was the way a people understand the concept of causation or think about their place in the world.

In the theological stage, humans explain causes in terms of the will of anthropocentric gods (the gods cause things to happen). In the metaphysical stage, humans explain causes in terms of abstract, “speculative” ideas like nature, natural rights, or “self-evident” truths. This was the basis of his critique of the Enlightenment philosophers whose ideas about natural rights and freedoms had led to the French Revolution but also to the chaos of its aftermath. In his view, the “negative” or metaphysical knowledge of the philosophers was based on dogmatic ideas that could not be reconciled when they were in contraction. This lead to irreconcilable conflict and moral anarchy. Finally, in the positive stage, humans explain causes in terms of scientific procedures and laws (i.e., “positive” knowledge based on propositions limited to what can be empirically observed). Comte believed that this would be the final stage of human social evolution because science would reconcile the division between political factions of order and progress by eliminating the basis for moral and intellectual anarchy. The application of positive philosophy would lead to the unification of society and of the sciences (Comte 1830).

Although Comte’s positivism is a little odd by today’s standards, it inaugurated the development of the positivist tradition within sociology. In principle,  positivism is the sociological perspective that attempts to approach the study of society in the same way that the natural sciences approach the natural world. In fact, Comte’s preferred term for this approach was “social physics”—the “sciences of observation” applied to social phenomena, which he saw as the culmination of the historical development of the sciences. More specifically, for Comte, positivism:

• “Regards all phenomena as subjected to invariable natural laws”
• Pursues “an accurate discovery of these laws, with a view of reducing them to the smallest possible number”
• Limits itself to analyzing the observable circumstances of phenomena and to connecting them by the “natural relations of succession and resemblance” instead of making metaphysical claims about their essential or divine nature (Comte 1830)

While Comte never in fact conducted any social research and took, as the object of analysis, the laws that governed what he called the general human “mind” of a society (difficult to observe empirically), his notion of sociology as a positivist science that might effectively socially engineer a better society was deeply influential. Where his influence waned was a result of the way in which he became increasingly obsessive and hostile to all criticism as his ideas progressed beyond positivism as the “science of society” to positivism as the basis of a new cult-like, technocratic “religion of humanity.” The new social order he imagined was deeply conservative and hierarchical, a kind of a caste system with every level of society obliged to reconcile itself with its “scientifically” allotted place. Comte imagined himself at the pinnacle of society, taking the title of “Great Priest of Humanity.” The moral and intellectual anarchy he decried would be resolved, but only because the rule of sociologists would eliminate the need for unnecessary and divisive democratic dialogue. Social order “must ever be incompatible with a perpetual discussion of the foundations of society” (Comte 1830).

Karl Marx: The Ruthless Critique of Everything Existing

Karl Marx (1818–1883) was a German philosopher and economist. In 1848 he and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) co-authored the Communist Manifesto . This book is one of the most influential political manuscripts in history. It also presents in a highly condensed form Marx’s theory of society, which differed from what Comte proposed. Whereas Comte viewed the goal of sociology as recreating a unified, post-feudal spiritual order that would help to institutionalize a new era of political and social stability, Marx developed a critical analysis of capitalism that saw the material or economic basis of inequality and power relations as the cause of social instability and conflict. The focus of sociology, or what Marx called historical materialism (the “materialist conception of history”), should be the “ruthless critique of everything existing,” as he said in a letter to his friend Arnold Ruge. In this way the goal of sociology would not simply be to scientifically analyze or objectively describe society, but to use a rigorous scientific analysis as a basis to change it. This framework became the foundation of contemporary critical sociology .

Marx rejected Comte’s positivism with its emphasis on describing the logical laws of the general “mind.” For Marx, Comte’s sociology was a form of idealism , a way of explaining the nature of society based on the ideas that people hold. In an idealist perspective, people invent ideas of “freedom,” “morality,” or “causality,” etc. and then change their lives and society’s institutions to conform to these ideas. This type of understanding could only ever lead to a partial analysis of social life according to Marx. Instead he believed that societies grew and changed as a result of the struggles of different social classes over control of the means of production. Historical materialism is an approach to understanding society that explains social change and human ideas in terms of underlying changes in the “mode of production” or economy; i.e., the historical transformations in the way human societies act upon their material world (the environment and its resources) in order to use it to meet their needs. Marx argues therefore that the consciousness or ideas people have about the world develop from changes in this material, economic basis. As such, the ideas of people in hunter-gatherer societies will be different than the ideas of people in feudal societies, which in turn will be different from the ideas of people in capitalist societies.

The source of historical change and transition between different historical types of society was class struggle. At the time Marx was developing his theories, the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism had led to a massive increase in the wealth of society but also massive disparities in wealth and power between the owners of the factories (the bourgeoisie) and workers (the proletariat). Capitalism was still a relatively new economic system, an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of goods and the means to produce them. It was also a system that was inherently unstable and prone to crisis, yet increasingly global in its reach.

As Marx demonstrated in his masterpiece Capital (1867), capitalism’s instability is based on the processes by which capitalists accumulate their capital or assets, namely by engaging in cold-blooded competition with each other through the sale of commodities in the competitive market. There is a continuous need to expand markets for goods and to reduce the costs of production in order to create ever cheaper and more competitive products. This leads to a downward pressure on wages, the introduction of labour-saving technologies that increase unemployment, the failure of non-competitive businesses, periodic economic crises and recessions, and the global expansion of capitalism as businesses seek markets to exploit and cheaper sources of labour. Yet as he pointed out, it was the workers’ labour that actually produces wealth. The capitalists who owned the factories and means of production were in a sense parasitic on workers’ labour. The injustice of the system was palpable. Marx predicted that inequalities of capitalism would become so extreme that workers would eventually recognize their common class interests, develop a common “class consciousness” or understanding of their situation, and revolt. Class struggle would lead to the destruction of the institution of private capital and to the final stage in human history, which he called “communism.”

Although Marx did not call his analysis sociology, his sociological innovation was to provide a social analysis of the economic system. Whereas Adam Smith (1723–1790) and the political economists of the 19th century tried to explain the economic laws of supply and demand solely as a market mechanism (similar to the abstract discussions of stock market indices and investment returns in business pages of newspapers today), Marx’s analysis showed the social relationships that had created the market system and the social repercussions of their operation. As such, his analysis of modern society was not static or simply descriptive. He was able to put his finger on the underlying dynamism and continuous change that characterized capitalist society. In a famous passage from The Communist Manifesto , he and Engels described the restless and destructive penchant for change inherent in the capitalist mode of production:

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty, and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all which is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind (Marx and Engels 1848).

Marx was also able to create an effective basis for critical sociology in that what he aimed for in his analysis was, as he put it in another letter to Arnold Ruge, “the self-clarification of the struggles and wishes of the age.” While he took a clear and principled value position in his critique, he did not do so dogmatically, based on an arbitrary moral position of what he personally thought was good and bad. He felt rather that a critical social theory must engage in clarifying and supporting the issues of social justice that were inherent within the existing struggles and wishes of the age. In his own work, he endeavoured to show how the variety of specific work actions, strikes, and revolts by workers in different occupations for better pay, safer working conditions, shorter hours, the right to unionize, etc. contained the seeds for a vision of universal equality, collective justice, and ultimately the ideal of a classless society.

Harriet Martineau: The First Woman Sociologist?

Harriet Martineau (1802–1876) was one of the first women sociologists in the 19th century. There are a number of other women who might compete with her for the title of the first woman sociologist, such as Catherine Macauley, Mary Wollstonecraft, Flora Tristan, and Beatrice Webb, but Martineau’s specifically sociological credentials are strong. She was for a long time known principally for her English translation of Comte’s Course in Positive Philosophy. Through this popular translation she introduced the concept of sociology as a methodologically rigorous discipline to an English-speaking audience. But she also created a body of her own work in the tradition of the great social reform movements of the 19th century and introduced a sorely missing woman’s perspective into the discourse on society.

It was a testament to her abilities that after she became impoverished at the age of 24 with the death of her father, brother, and fiancé, she was able to earn her own income as the first woman journalist in Britain to write under her own name. From the age of 12, she suffered from severe hearing loss and was obliged to use a large ear trumpet to converse. She impressed a wide audience with a series of articles on political economy in 1832. In 1834 she left England to engage in two years of study of the new republic of the United States and its emerging institutions: prisons, insane asylums, factories, farms, Southern plantations, universities, hospitals, and churches. On the basis of extensive research, interviews and observations, she published Society in America and worked with abolitionists on the social reform of slavery (Zeitlin 1997). She also worked for social reform in the situation of women: the right to vote, have an education, pursue an occupation, and enjoy the same legal rights as men. Together with Florence Nightingale, she worked on the development of public health care, which led to early formulations of the welfare system in Britain (McDonald 1998).

Particularly innovative was her early work on sociological methodology, How to Observe Manners and Morals (1838) . In this volume she developed the ground work for a systematic social-scientific approach to studying human behaviour. She recognized that the issues of the researcher/subject relationship would have to be addressed differently in a social, as opposed to a natural, science. The observer, or “traveller,” as she put it, needed to respect three criteria to obtain valid research: impartiality, critique, and sympathy. The impartial observer could not allow herself to be “perplexed or disgusted” by foreign practices that she could not personally reconcile herself with. Yet at the same time she saw the goal of sociology to be the fair but critical assessment of the moral status of a culture. In particular, the goal of sociology was to challenge forms of racial, sexual, or class domination in the name of autonomy: the right of every person to be a “self-directing moral being.” Finally, what distinguished the science of social observation from the natural sciences was that the researcher had to have unqualified sympathy for the subjects being studied (Lengermann and Niebrugge 2007). This later became a central principle of Max Weber’s interpretive sociology , although it is not clear that Weber read Martineau’s work.

A large part of her research in the United States analyzed the situations of contradiction between stated public morality and actual moral practices. For example, she was fascinated with the way that the formal democratic right to free speech enabled slavery abolitionists to hold public meetings, but when the meetings were violently attacked by mobs, the abolitionists and not the mobs were accused of inciting the violence (Zeitlin 1997). This emphasis on studying contradictions followed from the distinction she drew between morals —society’s collective ideas of permitted and forbidden behaviour—and manners— the actual patterns of social action and association in society. As she realized the difficulty in getting an accurate representation of an entire society based on a limited number of interviews, she developed the idea that one could identify key “Things” experienced by all people—age, gender, illness, death, etc.—and examine how they were experienced differently by a sample of people from different walks of life (Lengermann and Niebrugge 2007). Martineau’s sociology therefore focused on surveying different attitudes toward “Things” and studying the anomalies that emerged when manners toward them contradicted a society’s formal morals.

Émile Durkheim: The Pathologies of the Social Order

Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) helped establish sociology as a formal academic discipline by establishing the first European department of sociology at the University of Bordeaux in 1895 and by publishing his Rules of the Sociological Method in 1895. He was born to a Jewish family in the Lorraine province of France (one of the two provinces along with Alsace that were lost to the Germans in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871). With the German occupation of Lorraine, the Jewish community suddenly became subject to sporadic anti-Semitic violence, with the Jews often being blamed for the French defeat and the economic/political instability that followed. Durkheim attributed this strange experience of anti-Semitism and scapegoating to the lack of moral purpose in modern society.

As in Comte’s time, France in the late 19th century was the site of major upheavals and sharp political divisions: the loss of the Franco-Prussian War, the Paris Commune (1871) in which 20,000 workers died, the fall and capture of Emperor Napoleon III (Napoleon I’s nephew), the creation of the Third Republic, and the Dreyfus Affair. This undoubtedly led to the focus in Durkheim’s sociology on themes of moral anarchy, decadence, disunity, and disorganization. For Durkheim, sociology was a scientific but also a “moral calling” and one of the central tasks of the sociologist was to determine “the causes of the general temporary malajustment being undergone by European societies and remedies which may relieve it” (1897). In this respect, Durkheim represented the sociologist as a kind of medical doctor, studying social pathologies of the moral order and proposing social remedies and cures. He saw healthy societies as stable, while pathological societies experienced a breakdown in social norms between individuals and society. The state of normlessness or anomie —the lack of norms that give clear direction and purpose to individual actions—was the result of “society’s insufficient presence in individuals” (1897).

His father was the eighth in a line of father-son rabbis. Although Émile was the second son, he was chosen to pursue his father’s vocation and was given a good religious and secular education. He abandoned the idea of a religious or rabbinical career, however, and became very secular in his outlook. His sociological analysis of religion in The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1912) was an example of this. In this work he was not interested in the theological questions of God’s existence or purpose, but in developing a very secular, sociological question: Whether God exists or not, how does religion function socially in a society? He argued that beneath the irrationalism and the “barbarous and fantastic rites” of both the most primitive and the most modern religions is their ability to satisfy real social and human needs. “There are no religions which are false” (Durkheim 1912) he said. Religion performs the key function of providing social solidarity in a society. The rituals, the worship of icons, and the belief in supernatural beings “excite, maintain or recreate certain mental states” (Durkheim 1912) that bring people together, provide a ritual and symbolic focus, and unify them. This type of analysis became the basis of the functionalist perspective in sociology. He explained the existence and persistence of religion on the basis of the necessary function it performed in unifying society.

Durkheim was also a key figure in the development of positivist sociology . He did not adopt the term positivism , because of the connection it had with Comte’s quasi-religious sociological cult. However, in Rules of the Sociological Method he defined sociology as the study of objective social facts . Social facts are those things like law, custom, morality, religious beliefs and practices, language, systems of money, credit and debt, business or professional practices, etc. that are defined externally to the individual. Social facts:

• Precede the individual and will continue to exist after he or she is gone
• Consist of details and obligations of which individuals are frequently unaware
• Are endowed with an external coercive power by reason of which individuals are controlled

For Durkheim, social facts were like the facts of the natural sciences. They could be studied without reference to the subjective experience of individuals. He argued that “social facts must be studied as things, that is, as realities external to the individual” (Durkheim 1895). Individuals experience them as obligations, duties, and restraints on their behaviour, operating independently of their will. They are hardly noticeable when individuals consent to them but provoke reaction when individuals resist.

In this way, Durkheim was very influential in defining the subject matter of the new discipline of sociology. For Durkheim, sociology was not about just any phenomena to do with the life of human beings but only those phenomena which pertained exclusively to a social level of analysis. It was not about the biological or psychological dynamics of human life, for example, but about the social facts through which the lives of individuals were constrained. Moreover, the dimension of human experience described by social facts had to be explained in its own terms. It could not be explained by biological drives or psychological characteristics of individuals. It was a dimension of reality sui generis (of its own kind, unique in its characteristics). It could not be explained by, or reduced to, its individual components without missing its most important features. As Durkheim put it, “a social fact can only be explained by another social fact” (Durkheim 1895).

This is the framework of Durkheim’s famous study of suicide. In Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897), Durkheim attempted to demonstrate the effectiveness of his rules of social research by examining suicide statistics in different police districts. Suicide is perhaps the most personal and most individual of all acts. Its motives would seem to be absolutely unique to the individual and to individual psychopathology. However, what Durkheim observed was that statistical rates of suicide remained fairly constant year by year and region by region. There was no correlation between rates of suicide and rates of psychopathology. Suicide rates did vary, however, according to the social context of the suicides: namely the religious affiliation of suicides. Protestants had higher rates of suicide than Catholics, whereas Catholics had higher rates of suicide than Jews. Durkheim argued that the key factor that explained the difference in suicide rates  (i.e., the statistical rates, not the purely individual motives for the suicides) were the different degrees of social integration of the different religious communities, measured by the amount of ritual and degree of mutual involvement in religious practice. The religious groups had differing levels of anomie, or normlessness, which Durkheim associated with high rates of suicide. Durkheim’s study was unique and insightful because he did not try to explain suicide rates in terms of individual psychopathology. Instead, he regarded the regularity of the suicide rates as a factual order, implying “the existence of collective tendencies exterior to the individual” (Durkheim 1897), and explained their variation with respect to another social fact: “Suicide varies inversely with the degree of integration of the social groups of which the individual forms a part” (Durkheim 1897).

Max Weber: Verstehende Soziologie

Prominent sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) established a sociology department in Germany at the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich in 1919. Weber wrote on many topics related to sociology including political change in Russia, the condition of German farm workers, and the history of world religions. He was also a prominent public figure, playing an important role in the German peace delegation in Versailles and in drafting the ill-fated German (Weimar) constitution following the defeat of Germany in World War I.

Weber is known best for his 1904 book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism . He noted that in modern industrial societies, business leaders and owners of capital, the higher grades of skilled labour, and the most technically and commercially trained personnel were overwhelmingly Protestant. He also noted the uneven development of capitalism in Europe, and in particular how capitalism developed first in those areas dominated by Protestant sects. He asked, “Why were the districts of highest economic development at the same time particularly favourable to a revolution in the Church?” (i.e., the Protestant Reformation (1517–1648)) (Weber 1904). His answer focused on the development of the Protestant ethic— the duty to “work hard in one’s calling”—in particular Protestant sects such as Calvinism, Pietism, and Baptism.

As opposed to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church in which poverty was a virtue and labour simply a means for maintaining the individual and community, the Protestant sects began to see hard, continuous labour as a spiritual end in itself. Hard labour was firstly an ascetic technique of worldly renunciation and a defence against temptations and distractions: the unclean life, sexual temptations, and religious doubts. Secondly, the Protestant sects believed that God’s disposition toward the individual was predetermined and could never be known or influenced by traditional Christian practices like confession, penance, and buying indulgences. However, one’s chosen occupation was a “calling” given by God, and the only sign of God’s favour or recognition in this world was to receive good fortune in one’s calling. Thus material success and the steady accumulation of wealth through personal effort and prudence was seen as a sign of an individual’s state of grace. Weber argued that the ethic , or way of life, that developed around these beliefs was a key factor in creating the conditions for both the accumulation of capital, as the goal of economic activity, and for the creation of an industrious and disciplined labour force.

In this regard, Weber has often been seen as presenting an idealist explanation of the development of capital, as opposed to Marx’s historical materialist explanation. It is an element of cultural belief that leads to social change rather than the concrete organization and class struggles of the economic structure. It might be more accurate, however, to see Weber’s work building on Marx’s and to see his Protestant ethic thesis as part of a broader set of themes concerning the process of rationalization . Why did the Western world modernize and develop modern science, industry, and democracy when, for centuries, the Orient, the Indian subcontinent, and the Middle East were technically, scientifically, and culturally more advanced than the West? Weber argued that the modern forms of society developed in the West because of the process of rationalization: the general tendency of modern institutions and most areas of life to be transformed by the application of instrumental reason—rational bureaucratic organization, calculation, and technical reason—and the overcoming of “magical” thinking (which we earlier referred to as the “disenchantment of the world”). As the impediments toward rationalization were removed, organizations and institutions were restructured on the principle of maximum efficiency and specialization, while older, traditional (inefficient) types of organization were gradually eliminated.

The irony of the Protestant ethic as one stage in this process was that the rationalization of capitalist business practices and organization of labour eventually dispensed with the religious goals of the ethic. At the end of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber pessimistically describes the fate of modern humanity as an “iron cage.” The iron cage is Weber’s metaphor for the condition of modern humanity in a technical, rationally defined, and “efficiently” organized society. Having forgotten its spiritual or other purposes of life, humanity succumbs to an order “now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production” (Weber 1904). The modern subject in the iron cage is “only a single cog in an ever-moving mechanism which prescribes to him an essentially fixed route of march” (Weber 1922).

Weber also made a major contribution to the methodology of sociological research. Along with the philosophers Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) and Heinrich Rickert (1863–1936), Weber believed that it was difficult if not impossible to apply natural science methods to accurately predict the behaviour of groups as positivist sociology hoped to do. They argued that the influence of culture on human behaviour had to be taken into account. What was distinct about human behaviour was that it is essentially meaningful. Human behaviour could not be understood independently of the meanings that individuals attributed to it. A Martian’s analysis of the activities in a skateboard park would be hopelessly confused unless it  understood that the skateboarders were motivated by the excitement of risk taking and the pleasure in developing skills. This insight into the meaningful nature of human behaviour even applied to the sociologists themselves, who, they believed, should be aware of how their own cultural biases could influence their research. To deal with this problem, Weber and Dilthey introduced the concept of Verstehen , a German word that means to understand in a deep way. In seeking Verstehen , outside observers of a social world—an entire culture or a small setting—attempt to understand it empathetically from an insider’s point of view.

In his essay “The Methodological Foundations of Sociology,” Weber described sociology as “a science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects” (Weber 1922). In this way he delimited the field that sociology studies in a manner almost opposite to that of Émile Durkheim. Rather than defining sociology as the study of the unique dimension of external social facts, sociology was concerned with social action : actions to which individuals attach subjective meanings. “Action is social in so far as, by virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by the acting individual (or individuals), it takes account of the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course” (Weber 1922). The actions of the young skateboarders can be explained because they hold the experienced boarders in esteem and attempt to emulate their skills even if it means scraping their bodies on hard concrete from time to time. Weber and other like-minded sociologists founded interpretive sociology whereby social researchers strive to find systematic means to interpret and describe the subjective meanings behind social processes, cultural norms, and societal values. This approach led to research methods like ethnography, participant observation, and phenomenological analysis whose aim was not to generalize or predict (as in positivistic social science), but to systematically gain an in-depth understanding of social worlds. The natural sciences may be precise, but from the interpretive sociology point of view their methods confine them to study only the external characteristics of things.

Georg Simmel: A Sociology of Forms

Georg Simmel (1858–1918) was one of the founding fathers of sociology, although his place in the discipline is not always recognized. In part, this oversight may be explained by the fact that Simmel was a Jewish scholar in Germany at the turn of 20th century, and until 1914 was unable to attain a proper position as a professor due to anti-Semitism. Despite the brilliance of his sociological insights, the quantity of his publications, and the popularity of his public lectures as Privatdozent at the University of Berlin, his lack of a regular academic position prevented him from having the kind of student following that would create a legacy around his ideas. It might also be explained by some of the unconventional and varied topics that he wrote on: the structure of flirting, the sociology of adventure, the importance of secrecy, the patterns of fashion, the social significance of money, etc. He was generally seen at the time as not having a systematic or integrated theory of society. However, his insights into how social forms emerge at the micro-level of interaction and how they relate to macro-level phenomena remain valuable in contemporary sociology.

Simmel’s sociology focused on the key question, “How is society possible?” His answer led him to develop what he called formal sociology , or the sociology of social forms. In his essay “The Problem of Sociology,” Simmel reaches a strange conclusion for a sociologist: “There is no such thing as society ‘as such.’” “Society” is just the name we give to the “extraordinary multitude and variety of interactions [that] operate at any one moment” (Simmel 1908). This is a basic insight of micro-sociology. However useful it is to talk about macro-level phenomena like capitalism, the moral order, or rationalization, in the end what these phenomena refer to is a multitude of ongoing, unfinished processes of interaction between specific individuals . Nevertheless, the phenomena of social life do have recognizable forms, and the forms do guide the behaviour of individuals in a regularized way. A bureaucracy is a form of social interaction that persists from day to day. One does not come into work one morning to discover that the rules, job descriptions, paperwork, and hierarchical order of the bureaucracy have disappeared. Simmel’s questions were: How do the forms of social life persist? How did they emerge in the first place? What happens when they get fixed and permanent?

Simmel notes that “society exists where a number of individuals enter into interaction” (1908). What he means is that whenever people gather, something happens that would not have happened if the individuals had remained alone. People attune themselves to one another in a way that is very similar to musicians tuning their instruments to one another. A pattern or form of interaction emerges that begins to guide or coordinate the behaviour of the individuals. An example Simmel uses is of a cocktail party where a subtle set of instructions begins to emerge which defines what can and cannot be said. In a cocktail party where the conversation is light and witty, the effect would be jarring of someone suddenly trying to sell you an insurance policy or talking about the spousal abuse they had suffered. The person would be thought of as being crass or inappropriate. Similarly in the pleasant pastime of flirtation, if one of the parties began to press the other to consummate the flirtation by having sex, the flirtation would be over. Flirtation is a form of interaction in which the answer to the question of having sex—yes or no—is perpetually suspended.

In both examples, Simmel argued that the social interaction had taken on a specific form . Both were examples of what he called the play form of social interaction, or pure “sociability”: the pleasure people experience from the mere fact of being together, regardless of the content of the interaction (Simmel 1910). If the cocktail party conversation suddenly turns to a business proposition or an overly personal confession, it is no longer playful. The underlying form of the interaction has been violated, even if the participants were not consciously aware that they had adopted a particular form of interaction. Simmel proposed that sociology would be the study of the social forms that recur in different contexts and with different social contents. The same play form governs the interaction in two different contexts with two different contents of interaction: one is the free-ranging content of polite conversation; the other is sexual desire. Among other common forms that Simmel studied were superiority and subordination, cooperation, competition, division of labour, and money transactions. These forms can be applied in a variety of different contexts to give social form to a variety of different contents or specific drives: erotic, spiritual, acquisitive, defensive, playful, etc. The emphasis on forms is why Simmel called his approach to the study of society “formal sociology.”

Simmel’s focus on how social forms emerge became very important for micro-sociology, symbolic interactionism, and the studies of hotel lobbies, cigarette girls, and street-corner societies, etc. popularized by the Chicago School in the mid-20th century. His analysis of the creation of new social forms was particularly tuned in to capturing the fragmentary everyday experience of modern social life that was bound up with the unprecedented nature and scale of the modern city. In his lifetime, the city of Berlin where he lived and taught for most of his career had become a major European metropolis of 4 million people by 1900, after the unification of Germany in the 1870s. However, his work was not confined to micro-level interactions. He developed an analysis of the tragedy of culture in which he argued that the cultural creations of “subjective culture”—like the emergent social forms created by people in their face-to-face interactions, as well as art, literature, political analyses, etc.—tended to detach themselves from lived experience and become fixed and elaborated in the form of “objective culture”—the accumulated products of human cultural creation. There are intrinsic limits to an individual’s ability to organize, appreciate, and assimilate these forms. As the quantity of objective culture increases and becomes more complex, it becomes progressively more alienating, incomprehensible, and overwhelming. It takes on a life of its own and the individual can no longer see him- or herself reflected in it. Music, for example, can be enriching, but going to an orchestral performance of contemporary music can often be baffling, as if you need an advanced music degree just to be able to understand that what you are hearing is music.

In his famous study “The Metropolis and Mental Life,” Simmel described how the built environment and the sheer size and anonymity of the city had become a social form, which he called the “metropolitan way of life.” Although the metropolis, its architecture, and the variety of ways of life it contained were products of human creation and expression, as an entity it confronted the individual as a kind of overwhelming monstrosity that threatened to swallow him or her up in its “social-technological mechanism” (Simmel 1903). As a means of self-protection against the city’s overpowering sensory input, people cut themselves off from potentially enriching contact with others and become cold, callous, indifferent, impatient, and blasé.

Making Connections: Social Policy & Debate

How do working moms impact society.

What constitutes a “typical family” in Canada has changed tremendously over the past decades. One of the most notable changes has been the increasing number of mothers who work outside the home. Earlier in Canadian society, most family households consisted of one parent working outside the home and the other being the primary child care provider. Because of traditional gender roles and family structures, this was typically a working father and a stay-at-home mom. Research shows that in 1951 only 24 percent of all women worked outside the home (Li 1996). In 2009, 58.3 percent of all women did, and 64.4 percent of women with children younger than three years of age were employed (Statistics Canada 2011).

Sociologists interested in this topic might approach its study from a variety of angles. One might be interested in its impact on a child’s development, another may explore its effect on family income, while a third might examine how other social institutions have responded to this shift in society. A sociologist studying the impact of working mothers on a child’s development might ask questions about children raised in child care settings. How is a child socialized differently when raised largely by a child care provider rather than a parent? Do early experiences in a school-like child care setting lead to improved academic performance later in life? How does a child with two working parents perceive gender roles compared to a child raised with a stay-at-home parent? Another sociologist might be interested in the increase in working mothers from an economic perspective. Why do so many households today have dual incomes? Has this changed the income of families substantially? How do women’s dual roles in the household and in the wider economy affect their occupational achievements and ability to participate on an equal basis with men in the workforce? What impact does the larger economy play in the economic conditions of an individual household? Do people view money—savings, spending, debt—differently than they have in the past?

Curiosity about this trend’s influence on social institutions might lead a researcher to explore its effect on the nation’s educational and child care systems. Has the increase in working mothers shifted traditional family responsibilities onto schools, such as providing lunch and even breakfast for students? How does the creation of after-school care programs shift resources away from traditional school programs? What would the effect be of providing a universal, subsidized child care program on the ability of women to pursue uninterrupted careers?

As these examples show, sociologists study many real-world topics. Their research often influences social policies and political issues. Results from sociological studies on this topic might play a role in developing federal policies like the Employment Insurance maternity and parental benefits program, or they might bolster the efforts of an advocacy group striving to reduce social stigmas placed on stay-at-home dads, or they might help governments determine how to best allocate funding for education. Many European countries like Sweden have substantial family support policies, such as a full year of parental leave at 80 percent of wages when a child is born and heavily subsidized, high-quality daycare and preschool programs. In Canada, a national subsidized daycare program existed briefly in 2005 but was scrapped in 2006 by the Conservative government and replaced with a $100-a-month direct payment to parents for each child. Sociologists might be interested in studying whether the benefits of the Swedish system—in terms of children’s well-being, lower family poverty, and gender equality—outweigh the drawbacks of higher Swedish tax rates.

Sociologists study social events, interactions, and patterns. They then develop theories to explain why these occur and what can result from them. In sociology, a theory is a way to explain different aspects of social interactions and create testable propositions about society (Allan 2006). For example, Durkheim’s proposition that differences in suicide rate can be explained by differences in the degree of social integration in different communities is a theory.

As this brief survey of the history of sociology suggests, however, there is considerable diversity in the theoretical approaches sociology takes to studying society. Sociology is a multi-perspectival science : a number of distinct perspectives or paradigms offer competing explanations of social phenomena. Paradigms are philosophical and theoretical frameworks used within a discipline to formulate theories, generalizations, and the research performed in support of them. They refer to the underlying organizing principles that tie different constellations of concepts, theories, and ways of formulating problems together (Drengson 1983). Talcott Parsons’ reformulation of Durkheim’s and others work as structural functionalism in the 1950s is an example of a paradigm because it provided a general model of analysis suited to an unlimited number of research topics. Parsons proposed that any identifiable structure (e.g., roles, families, religions, or states) could be explained by the particular function it performed in maintaining the operation of society as a whole. Critical sociology and symbolic interactionism would formulate the explanatory framework and research problem differently.

The multi-perspectival approach of sociology can be confusing to the newcomer, especially given most people’s familiarity with the more “unified perspective” of the natural sciences where divisions in perspective are less visible. The natural sciences are largely able to dispense with issues of multiple perspective and build cumulative explanations based on the “facts” because the objects they study are indifferent to their observation. The chemical composition and behaviour of a protein can be assumed to be the same wherever it is observed and by whomever it is observed. The same cannot be said of social phenomena, which are mediated by meanings and interpretations, divided by politics and value orientations, subject to historical change and human agency, characterized by contradictions and reconciliations, and transfigured if they are observed at a micro or macro-level. Social reality is different , depending on the historical moment, the perspective, and the criteria from which it is viewed.

Nevertheless, the different sociological paradigms do rest on a form of knowledge that is scientific, if science is taken in the broad sense to mean the use of reasoned argument, the ability to see the general in the particular, and the reliance on evidence from systematic observation of social reality. Within this general scientific framework, however, sociology is broken into the same divisions that separate the forms of modern knowledge more generally. By the time of the Enlightenment the unified perspective of Christendom had broken into three distinct spheres of knowledge: the natural sciences, hermeneutics (or interpretive sciences), and critique (Habermas 1972). Sociology is similarly divided into three types of sociological knowledge, each with its own strengths, limitations, and practical uses:  positivist sociology , interpretive sociology , and critical sociology . Within these three types of sociological knowledge, four paradigms have come to dominate sociological thinking: structural functionalism , critical sociology , feminism ,   and symbolic interactionism .

The positivist perspective in sociology—introduced above with regard to the pioneers of the discipline August Comte and Émile Durkheim—is most closely aligned with the forms of knowledge associated with the natural sciences. The emphasis is on empirical observation and measurement (i.e., observation through the senses), value neutrality or objectivity, and the search for law-like statements about the social world (analogous to Newton’s laws of gravity for the natural world). Since mathematics and statistical operations are the main forms of logical demonstration in the natural scientific explanation, positivism relies on translating human phenomena into quantifiable units of measurement. It regards the social world as an objective or “positive” reality, in no essential respects different from the natural world. Positivism is oriented to developing a knowledge useful for controlling or administering social life, which explains its ties to the projects of social engineering going back to Comte’s original vision for sociology. Two forms of positivism have been dominant in sociology since the 1940s: quantitative sociology and structural functionalism .

Quantitative Sociology

In contemporary sociology, positivism is based on four main “rules” that define what constitutes valid knowledge and what types of questions may be reasonably asked (Bryant 1985):

• The rule of empiricism: We can only know about things that are actually given in experience. We cannot validly make claims about things that are invisible, unobservable, or supersensible like metaphysical, spiritual, or moral truths.
• The rule of value neutrality: Scientists should remain value-neutral in their research because it follows from the rule of empiricism that “values” have no empirical content that would allow their validity to be scientifically tested.
• The unity of the scientific method: All sciences have the same basic principles and practices whether their object is natural or human.
• Law-like statements: The type of explanation sought by scientific inquiry is the formulation of general laws (like the law of gravity) to explain specific phenomena (like the falling of a stone).

Much of what is referred to today as quantitative sociology fits within this paradigm of positivism. Quantitative sociology uses statistical methods such as surveys with large numbers of participants. Researchers analyze data using statistical techniques to see if they can uncover patterns of human behaviour. Law-like relationships between variables are often posed in the form of statistical relationships or multiple linear regression formulas that quantify the degree of influence different causal or independent variables have on a particular outcome (or dependent variable). For example, the degree of religiosity of an individual in Canada, measured by the frequency of church attendance or religious practice, can be predicted by a combination of different independent variables such as age, gender, income, immigrant status, and region (Bibby 2012).

Structural Functionalism

Structural Functionalism also falls within the positivist tradition in sociology due to Durkheim’s early efforts to describe the subject matter of sociology in terms of objective social facts —“social facts must be studied as things, that is, as realities external to the individual” (Durkheim 1895)—and to explain them in terms of their social functions. Durkheim argued that in order to study society, sociologists have to look beyond individuals to social facts: the laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashions, rituals, and all of the cultural rules that govern social life (Durkheim 1895). Each of these social facts serves one or more functions within a society. For example, one function of a society’s laws may be to protect society from violence, while another is to punish criminal behaviour, while another is to preserve public health.

Following Durkheim’s insight, structural functionalism sees society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of individuals who make up that society. In this respect, society is like a body that relies on different organs to perform crucial functions. In fact the English philosopher and biologist Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) likened society to a human body. He argued that just as the various organs in the body work together to keep the entire system functioning and regulated, the various parts of society work together to keep the entire society functioning and regulated (Spencer 1898). By parts of society, Spencer was referring to such social institutions as the economy, political systems, health care, education, media, and religion. Spencer continued the analogy by pointing out that societies evolve just as the bodies of humans and other animals do (Maryanski and Turner 1992).

As we have seen, Émile Durkheim developed a similar analogy to explain the structure of societies and how they change and survive over time. Durkheim believed that earlier, more primitive societies were held together because most people performed similar tasks and shared values, language, and symbols. There was a low division of labour, a common religious system of social beliefs, and a low degree of individual autonomy. Society was held together on the basis of mechanical solidarity : a shared collective consciousness with harsh punishment for deviation from the norms. Modern societies, according to Durkheim, were more complex. People served many different functions in society and their ability to carry out their function depended upon others being able to carry out theirs. Modern society was held together on the basis of a division of labour or organic solidarity: a complex system of interrelated parts, working together to maintain stability, i.e., an organism (Durkheim 1893). According to this sociological paradigm, the parts of society are interdependent. The academic relies on the mechanic for the specialized skills required to fix his or her car, the mechanic sends his or her children to university to learn from the academic, and both rely on the baker to provide them with bread for their morning toast. Each part influences and relies on the others.

According to American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1881–1955), in a healthy society, all of these parts work together to produce a stable state called dynamic equilibrium (Parsons 1961). Parsons was a key figure in systematizing Durkheim’s views in the 1940s and 1950s. He argued that a sociological approach to social phenomena must emphasize the systematic nature of society at all levels of social existence: the relation of definable “structures” to their “functions” in relation to the needs or “maintenance” of the system. His AGIL schema provided a useful analytical grid for sociological theory in which an individual, an institution, or an entire society could be seen as a system composed of structures that satisfied four primary functions:

• Adaptation (A): how the system adapts to its environment
• Goal attainment (G): how the system determines what its goals are and how it will attain them
• Integration (I): how the system integrates its members into harmonious participation and social cohesion
• (Latent) Pattern Maintenance (L): how basic cultural patterns, values, belief systems, etc. are regulated and maintained

So for example, the social system as a whole relied on the economy to distribute goods and services as its means of adaptation to the natural environment; on the political system to make decisions as it means of goal attainment ; on roles and norms to regulate social behaviour as its means of social integration; and on culture to institutionalize and reproduce common values as its means of latent pattern maintenance.  Following Durkheim, he argued that these explanations of social functions had to be made at the level of systems and not involve the specific wants and needs of individuals. In a system, there is an interrelation of component parts where a change in one component affects the others regardless of the perspectives of individuals.

Another noted structural functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), pointed out that social processes often have many functions. Manifest functions are the consequences of a social process that are sought or anticipated, while latent functions are the unsought consequences of a social process. A manifest function of college education, for example, includes gaining knowledge, preparing for a career, and finding a good job that utilizes that education. Latent functions of your college years include meeting new people, participating in extracurricular activities, or even finding a spouse or partner. Another latent function of education is creating a hierarchy of employment based on the level of education attained. Latent functions can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Social processes that have undesirable consequences for the operation of society are called dysfunctions . In education, examples of dysfunction include getting bad grades, truancy, dropping out, not graduating, and not finding suitable employment.

The main criticisms of both quantitative positivism and structural functionalism have to do with the way in which social phenomena are turned into objective social facts. On one hand, interpretive sociology suggests that the quantification of variables in quantitative sociology reduces the rich complexity and ambiguity of social life to an abstract set of numbers and statistical relationships that cannot capture the meaning it holds for individuals. Measuring someone’s depth of religious belief or “religiosity” by the number of times they attend church in a week explains very little about the religious experience. Similarly, interpretive sociology argues that structural functionalism , with its emphasis on systems of structures and functions tends to reduce the individual to the status of a sociological dupe, assuming pre-assigned roles and functions without any individual agency or capacity for self-creation.

On the other hand, critical sociology challenges the conservative tendencies of quantitative sociology and structural functionalism. Both types of positivist analysis represent themselves as being objective, or value-neutral, which is a problem in the context of critical sociology’s advocacy for social justice. However, both types of positivism also have conservative assumptions built into their basic approach to social facts. The focus in quantitative sociology on observable facts and law-like statements presents a historical and deterministic picture of the world that cannot account for the underlying historical dynamics of power relationships and class or other contradictions. One can empirically observe the trees but not the forest so to speak. Similarly, the focus on the needs and the smooth functioning of social systems in structural functionalism supports a conservative viewpoint because it tends to see the functioning and dynamic equilibrium of society as good or normal, whereas change is pathological. In Davis and Moore’s famous essay “Some Principles of Stratification” (1944) for example, the authos argued that social inequality was essentially “good” because it functioned to preserve the motivation of individuals to work hard to get ahead. Critical sociology challenges both the justice and practical consequences of social inequality.

Table 1.1. Sociological Theories or Perspectives. Different sociological perspectives enable sociologists to view social issues through a variety of useful lenses.

Interpretive Sociology

The interpretive perspective in sociology is aligned with the hermeneutic traditions of the humanities like literature, philosophy, and history. The focus is on understanding or interpreting human activity in terms of the meanings that humans attribute to it. Max Weber’s Verstehende (understanding) sociology is often cited as the origin of this perspective in sociology because of his emphasis on the centrality of meaning and intention in social action:

Sociology… is a science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects. In “action” is included all human behaviour when and in so far as the acting individual attaches a subjective meaning to it…. [Social action is] action mutually oriented to that of each other (Weber 1922).

This emphasis on the meaningfulness of social action is taken up later by phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and symbolic interactionism. The interpretive perspective is concerned with developing a knowledge of social interaction as a meaning-oriented practice. It promotes the goal of greater mutual understanding and the possibility of consensus among members of society.

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism provides a theoretical perspective that helps scholars examine the relationship of individuals within their society. This perspective is centred on the notion that communication—or the exchange of meaning through language and symbols—is how people make sense of their social worlds. As pointed out by Herman and Reynolds (1994), this viewpoint sees people as active in shaping their world, rather than as entities who are acted upon by society (Herman and Reynolds 1994). This approach looks at society and people from a micro-level perspective.

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is considered one of the founders of symbolic interactionism. His work in Mind, Self and Society (1934) on the “self” as a social structure and on the stages of child development as a sequence of role-playing capacities provides the classic analyses of the perspective.

His student Herbert Blumer (1900–1987) synthesized Mead’s work and popularized the theory. Blumer coined the term “symbolic interactionism” and identified its three basic premises:

• Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things.
• The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society.
• These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he or she encounters (Blumer 1969).

In other words, human interaction is not determined in the same manner as natural events. Nor do people directly react to each other as forces acting upon forces or as stimuli provoking automatic responses. Rather people interact indirectly , by interpreting the meaning of each other’s actions, gestures, or words. Interaction is symbolic in the sense that it occurs through the mediation, exchange, and interpretation of symbols. One person’s action refers beyond itself to a meaning that calls out for the response of the other: it indicates what the receiver is supposed to do; it indicates what the actor intends to do; and together they form a mutual definition of the situation, which enables joint action to take place. Social life can be seen as the stringing together or aligning of multiple joint actions.

Social scientists who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of interaction between individuals. Their studies often involve observation of one-on-one interactions. For example, while a structural functionalist studying a political protest might focus on the function protest plays in realigning the priorities of the political system, a symbolic interactionist would be more interested in seeing the ways in which individuals in the protesting group interact, or how the signs and symbols protesters use enable a common definition of the situation—e.g., an environmental or social justice “issue”—to get established.

The focus on the importance of symbols in building a society led sociologists like Erving Goffman (1922–1982) to develop a framework called dramaturgical analysis . Goffman used theatre as an analogy for social interaction and recognized that people’s interactions showed patterns of cultural “scripts.” In social encounters, individuals make a claim for a positive social status within the group—they present a “face”—but it is never certain that their audience will accept their claim. There is always the possibility that individuals will make a gaff that prevents them from successfully maintaining face. They have to manage the impression they are making in the same way and often using the same type of “props” as an actor. Moreover, because it can be unclear what part a person may play in a given situation, he or she has to improvise his or her role as the situation unfolds. This led to Goffman’s focus on the ritual nature of social interaction—the way in which the “scripts” of social encounters become routine, repetitive, and unconscious. Nevertheless, the emphasis in Goffman’s analysis, as in symbolic interactionism as a whole, is that the social encounter, and social reality itself, is open and unpredictable. Social reality is not predetermined by structures, functions, roles, or history (Goffman 1958).

Symbolic interactionism has also been important in bringing to light the experiences and worlds of individuals who are typically excluded from official accounts of the world. Howard Becker’s Outsiders (1963) for example described the process of labelling in which individuals come to be characterized or labelled as deviants by authorities. The sequence of events in which a young person is picked up by police for an offence, defined as a “young offender,” processed by the criminal justice system, and then introduced to the criminal subculture through contact with experienced convicts is told from the subjective point of view of the young person. The significance of labelling theory is to show that individuals are not born deviant or criminal, but become criminal through an institutionalized symbolic interaction with authorities. As Becker says:

… social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction creates deviance , and by applying those roles to particular people and labelling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by other of rules and sanctions to an “offender.” The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behaviour that people so label (1963).

Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, because they seek to understand the symbolic worlds in which research subjects live.

Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of remaining objective. Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interaction. Proponents, of course, consider this one of its greatest strengths.

One of the problems of sociology that focuses on micro-level interactions is that it is difficult to generalize from very specific situations, involving very few individuals, to make social scientific claims about the nature of society as a whole. The danger is that, while the rich texture of face-to-face social life can be examined in detail, the results will remain purely descriptive without any explanatory or analytical strength. In a similar fashion, it is very difficult to get at the historical context or relations of power that structure or condition face-to-face symbolic interactions. The perspective on social life as an unstructured and unconstrained domain of agency and subjective meanings has difficulty accounting for the ways that social life does become structured and constrained.

Making Connections: The Big Picture

A global culture.

Sociologists around the world are looking closely for signs of what would be an unprecedented event: the emergence of a global culture. In the past, empires such as those that existed in China, Europe, Africa, and Central and South America linked people from many different countries, but those people rarely became part of a common culture. They lived too far from each other, spoke different languages, practised different religions, and traded few goods. Today, increases in communication, travel, and trade have made the world a much smaller place. More and more people are able to communicate with each other instantly—wherever they are located—by telephone, video, and text. They share movies, television shows, music, games, and information over the internet. Students can study with teachers and pupils from the other side of the globe. Governments find it harder to hide conditions inside their countries from the rest of the world.

Sociologists are researching many different aspects of this potential global culture. Some are exploring the dynamics involved in the social interactions of global online communities, such as when members feel a closer kinship to other group members than to people residing in their own country. Other sociologists are studying the impact this growing international culture has on smaller, less-powerful local cultures. Yet other researchers are exploring how international markets and the outsourcing of labour impact social inequalities. Sociology can play a key role in people’s ability to understand the nature of this emerging global culture and how to respond to it.

Critical Sociology

The critical perspective in sociology has its origins in social activism, social justice movements, revolutionary struggles, and radical critique. As Karl Marx put it, its focus was the “ruthless critique of everything existing” (Marx 1843). The key elements of this analysis are the emphases on power relations and the understanding of society as historical—subject to change, struggle, contradiction, instability, social movement and radical transformation. Rather than objectivity and value neutrality, the tradition of critical sociology promotes practices of liberation and social change in order to achieve universal social justice. As Marx stated, “the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it” (1845). This is why it is misleading to call critical sociology “conflict theory” as some introductory textbooks do. While conflict is certainly central to the critical analyses of power and domination, the focus of critical sociology is on developing types of knowledge and political action that enable emancipation from power relations (i.e., from the conditions of conflict in society). Historical materialism, feminism, environmentalism, anti-racism, queer studies, and poststructuralism are all examples of the critical perspective in sociology.

One of the outcomes of a systematic analysis such as these is that it generates questions about the relationship between our everyday life and issues concerning social justice and environmental sustainability. In line with the philosophical traditions of the Enlightenment, critical sociology is sociology with an “emancipatory interest” (Habermas 1972); that is, a sociology that seeks not simply to understand or describe the world, but to use sociological knowledge to change and improve the world, to emancipate people from conditions of servitude. What does the word critical mean in this context? Critical sociologists argue that it is important to understand that the critical tradition in sociology is not about complaining or being “negative.” Nor is it about adopting a moral position from which to judge people or society. It is not about being “subjective” or “biased” as opposed to “objective.” As Herbert Marcuse put it in One Dimensional Man (1964), critical sociology involves two value judgments:

• The judgment that human life is worth living, or rather that it can be and ought to be made worth living
• The judgment that, in a given society, specific possibilities exist for the amelioration of human life and specific ways and means of realizing these possibilities

Critical sociology therefore rejects the notion of a value-free social science, but does not thereby become a moral exercise or an individual “subjective” value preference as a result. Being critical in the context of sociology is about using objective, empirical knowledge to assess the possibilities and barriers to improving or “ameliorating” human life.

Historical Materialism

The tradition of historical materialism that developed from Karl Marx’s work is one of the central frameworks of critical sociology. As we noted in the discussion of Marx above, historical materialism concentrates on the study of how our everyday lives are structured by the connection between relations of power and economic processes. The basis of this approach begins with the macro-level question of how specific relations of power and specific economic formations have developed historically. These form the context in which the institutions, practices, beliefs, and social rules (norms) of everyday life are situated. The elements that make up a culture—a society’s shared practices, values, beliefs, and artifacts—are structured by the society’s economic mode of production : the way human societies act upon their environment and its resources in order to use them to meet their needs. Hunter-gatherer, agrarian, feudal, and capitalist modes of production have been the economic basis for very different types of society throughout world history.

It is not as if this relationship is always clear to the people living in these different periods of history, however. Often the mechanisms and structures of social life are obscure. For example, it might not have been clear to the Scots who were expelled from their ancestral lands in Scotland during the Highland clearances of the 18th and 19th centuries and who emigrated to the Red River settlements in Rupert’s Land (now Manitoba) that they were living through the epochal transformation from feudalism to capitalism. This transition was nevertheless the context for the decisions individuals and families made to emigrate from Scotland and attempt to found the Red River Colony. It might also not have been clear to them that they were participating in the development of colonial power relationships between the indigenous people of North America and the Europeans that persist up until today. Through contact with the Scots and the French fur traders, the Cree and Anishinabe were gradually drawn out of their own indigenous modes of production and into the developing global capitalist economy as fur trappers and provisioners for the early European settlements. It was a process that eventually led to the loss of control over their lands, the destruction of their way of life, the devastating spread of European diseases, the imposition of the Indian Act, the establishment of the residential school system, institutional and everyday racism, and an enduring legacy of intractable social problems.

In a similar way, historical materialism analyzes the constraints that define the way individuals review their options and make their decisions in present-day society. From the types of career to pursue to the number of children to have, the decisions and practices of everyday life must be understood in terms of the 20th century shift to corporate ownership and the 21st century context of globalization in which corporate decisions about investments are made.

The historical materialist approach emphasizes three components (Naiman 2012). The first is that everything in society is related—it is not possible to study social processes in isolation. The second is that everything in society is dynamic (i.e., in a process of continuous social change). It is not possible to study social processes as if they existed outside of history. The third is that the tensions that form around relationships of power and inequality in society are the key drivers of social change. In the language of Marx, these tensions are based on “contradictions” built into the organization of the economic or material relationships that structure our livelihoods, our relationships to each other, our relationship to the environment, and our place within the global community. It is not possible to study social processes as if they were independent of the historical formations of power that both structure them and destabilize them.

Another major school of critical sociology is feminism. From the early work of women sociologists like Harriet Martineau, feminist sociology has focused on the power relationships and inequalities between women and men. How can the conditions of inequality faced by women be addressed? As Harriet Martineau put it in Society in America (1837):

All women should inform themselves of the condition of their sex, and of their own position. It must necessarily follow that the noblest of them will, sooner or later, put forth a moral power which shall prostrate cant [hypocracy], and burst asunder the bonds (silken to some but cold iron to others) of feudal prejudice and usages. In the meantime is it to be understood that the principles of the Declaration of Independence bear no relation to half of the human race? If so, what is the ground of this limitation?

Feminist sociology focuses on analyzing the grounds of the limitations faced by women when they claim the right to equality with men.

Inequality between the genders is a phenomenon that goes back at least 4,000 years (Lerner 1986). Although the forms and ways in which it has been practised differ between cultures and change significantly through history, its persistence has led to the formulation of the concept of patriarchy. Patriarchy refers to a set of institutional structures (like property rights, access to positions of power, relationship to sources of income) that are based on the belief that men and women are dichotomous and unequal categories. Key to patriarchy is what might be called the dominant gender ideology toward sexual differences: the assumption that physiological sex differences between males and females are related to differences in their character, behaviour, and ability (i.e., their gender). These differences are used to justify a gendered division of social roles and inequality in access to rewards, positions of power, and privilege. The question that feminists ask therefore is: How does this distinction between male and female, and the attribution of different qualities to each, serve to organize our institutions (e.g., the family, law, the occupational structure, religious institutions, the division between public and private) and to perpetuate inequality between the sexes?

Feminism is a distinct type of critical sociology. There are considerable differences between types of feminism, however; for example, the differences often attributed to the first wave of feminism in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the second wave of feminism from the 1950s to the 1970s, and the third wave of feminism from the 1980s onward. Despite the variations between different types of feminist approach, there are four characteristics that are common to the feminist perspective:

• Gender is a central focus or subject matter of the perspective.
• Gender relations are viewed as a problem: the site of social inequities, strains, and contradictions.
• Gender relations are not immutable: they are sociological and historical in nature, subject to change and progress.
• Feminism is about an emancipatory commitment to change: the conditions of life that are oppressive for women need to be transformed.

One of the keen sociological insights that emerged with the feminist perspective in sociology is that “the personal is political.” Many of the most immediate and fundamental experiences of social life—from childbirth to who washes the dishes to the experience of sexual violence—had simply been invisible or regarded as unimportant politically or socially. Dorothy Smith’s development of standpoint theory was a key innovation in sociology that enabled these issues to be seen and addressed in a systematic way (Smith 1977). She recognized from the consciousness-raising exercises and encounter groups initiated by feminists in the 1960s and1970s that many of the immediate concerns expressed by women about their personal lives had a commonality of themes. These themes were nevertheless difficult to articulate in sociological terms let alone in the language of politics or law.

Part of the issue was sociology itself. Smith argued that instead of beginning sociological analysis from the abstract point of view of institutions or systems, women’s lives could be more effectively examined if one began from the “actualities” of their lived experience in the immediate local settings of “everyday/everynight” life. She asked, What are the common features of women’s everyday lives? From this standpoint, Smith observed that women’s position in modern society is acutely divided by the experience of dual consciousness . Every day women crossed a tangible dividing line when they went from the “particularizing work in relation to children, spouse, and household” to the institutional world of text-mediated, abstract concerns at work, or in their dealings with schools, medical systems, or government bureaucracies. In the abstract world of institutional life, the actualities of local consciousness and lived life are “obliterated” (Smith 1977). While the standpoint of women is grounded in bodily, localized, “here and now” relationships between people, due to their obligations in the domestic sphere, society is organized through “relations of ruling,” which translate the substance of actual lived experiences into abstract bureaucratic categories. Power and rule in society, especially the power and rule that constrain and coordinate the lives of women, operate through a problematic “move into transcendence” that provides accounts of social life as if it were possible to stand outside of it. Smith argued that the abstract concepts of sociology, at least in the way that it was taught at the time, only contributed to the problem.

Whereas critical sociologists often criticize positivist and interpretive sociology for their conservative biases, the reverse is also true. In part the issue is about whether sociology can be “objective,” or value-neutral, or not. However, at a deeper level the criticism is often aimed at the radical nature of critical analyses. Marx’s critique of capitalism and the feminist critique of patriarchy for example led to very interesting insights into how structures of power and inequality work, but from a point of view that sees only the most revolutionary transformation of society as a solution.

Critical sociology is also criticized from the point of view of interpretive sociology for overstating the power of dominant groups to manipulate subordinate groups. For example, media representations of women are said to promote unobtainable standards of beauty or to reduce women to objects of male desire. This type of critique suggests that individuals are controlled by media images rather than recognizing their independent ability to reject media influences or to interpret media images for themselves. In a similar way, critical sociology is criticized for implying that people are purely the products of macro-level historical forces rather than individuals with a capacity for individual and collective agency. To be fair, Marx did argue that “Men make their own history;” it is just that they “do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances encountered, given, and transmitted from the past” (Marx 1851).

Farming and Locavores: How Sociological Perspectives Might View Food Consumption

The consumption of food is a commonplace, daily occurrence, yet it can also be associated with important moments in our lives. Eating can be an individual or a group action, and eating habits and customs are influenced by our cultures. In the context of society, our nation’s food system is at the core of numerous social movements, political issues, and economic debates. Any of these factors might become a topic of sociological study.

A structural-functional approach to the topic of food consumption might be interested in the role of the agriculture industry within the nation’s economy and how this has changed from the early days of manual-labour farming to modern mechanized production. Food production is a primary example of how human systems adapt to environmental systems. In many respects the concerns of environmentalists and others with respect to the destructive relationship between industrial agriculture and the ecosystem are the results of a dysfunctional system of adaptation. The concept of sustainable agriculture points to the changes needed to return the interface between humans and the natural environment to a state of dynamic equilibrium.

A sociologist viewing food consumption through a symbolic interactionist lens would be more interested in micro-level topics, such as the symbolic use of food in religious rituals, or the role it plays in the social interaction of a family dinner. This perspective might also study the interactions among group members who identify themselves based on their sharing a particular diet, such as vegetarians (people who don’t eat meat) or locavores (people who strive to eat locally produced food). The increasing concern that people have with their diets speaks to the way that the life of the biological body is as much a symbolic reality, interpreted within contemporary discourses on health risks and beauty, as it is a biological reality.

A critical sociologist might be interested in the power differentials present in the regulation of food, exploring where people’s right to information intersects with corporations’ drive for profit and how the government mediates those interests. Or a critical sociologist might be interested in the power and powerlessness experienced by local farmers versus large farming conglomerates. In the documentary Food Inc., the plight of farmers resulting from Monsanto’s patenting of seed technology is depicted as a product of the corporatization of the food industry. Another topic of study might be how nutrition varies between different social classes.

When Bernard Blishen picked up the phone one day in 1961, he was surprised to hear Chief Justice Emmett Hall on the other end of the line asking him to be the research director for the newly established Royal Commission on Health Services. Publically funded health care had been introduced for the first time in Canada that year by a socialist Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) government in Saskatchewan amid bitter controversy. Doctors in Saskatchewan went on strike and private health care insurers mounted an expensive anti-public health care campaign. Because it was a Conservative government commission, appointed by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, Blishen’s colleagues advised him that it was going to be a whitewash document to defend the interests of private medical care. However, Blishen took on the project as a challenge, and when the commission’s report was published it advocated that the Saskatchewan plan be adopted nationally (Vaughan 2004).

Blishen went on to work in the field of medical sociology and also created a widely used index to measure socioeconomic status known as the Blishen scale. He received the Order of Canada in 2011 in recognition of his contributions to the creation of public health care in Canada.

Since it was first founded, many people interested in sociology have been driven by the scholarly desire to contribute knowledge to this field, while others have seen it as way not only to study society, but also to improve it. Besides the creation of public health care in Canada, sociology has played a crucial role in many important social reforms such as equal opportunity for women in the workplace, improved treatment for individuals with mental and learning disabilities, increased recognition and accommodation for people from different ethnic backgrounds, the creation of hate crime legislation, the right of aboriginal populations to preserve their land and culture, and prison system reforms.

The prominent sociologist Peter L. Berger (1929– ), in his 1963 book Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective , describes a sociologist as “someone concerned with understanding society in a disciplined way.” He asserts that sociologists have a natural interest in the monumental moments of people’s lives, as well as a fascination with banal, everyday occurrences. Berger also describes the “aha” moment when a sociological theory becomes applicable and understood:

[T]here is a deceptive simplicity and obviousness about some sociological investigations. One reads them, nods at the familiar scene, remarks that one has heard all this before and don’t people have better things to do than to waste their time on truisms—until one is suddenly brought up against an insight that radically questions everything one had previously assumed about this familiar scene. This is the point at which one begins to sense the excitement of sociology (Berger 1963).

Sociology can be exciting because it teaches people ways to recognize how they fit into the world and how others perceive them. Looking at themselves and society from a sociological perspective helps people see where they connect to different groups based on the many different ways they classify themselves and how society classifies them in turn. It raises awareness of how those classifications—such as economic and status levels, education, ethnicity, or sexual orientation—affect perceptions.

Sociology teaches people not to accept easy explanations. It teaches them a way to organize their thinking so that they can ask better questions and formulate better answers. It makes people more aware that there are many different kinds of people in the world who do not necessarily think the way they do. It increases their willingness and ability to try to see the world from other people’s perspectives. This prepares them to live and work in an increasingly diverse and integrated world.

Sociology in the Workplace

Employers continue to seek people with what are called “transferable skills.” This means that they want to hire people whose knowledge and education can be applied in a variety of settings and whose skills will contribute to various tasks. Studying sociology can provide people with this wide knowledge and a skill set that can contribute to many workplaces, including:

• An understanding of social systems and large bureaucracies
• The ability to devise and carry out research projects to assess whether a program or policy is working
• The ability to collect, read, and analyze statistical information from polls or surveys
• The ability to recognize important differences in people’s social, cultural, and economic backgrounds
• Skills in preparing reports and communicating complex ideas
• The capacity for critical thinking about social issues and problems that confront modern society (Department of Sociology, University of Alabama)

Sociology prepares people for a wide variety of careers. Besides actually conducting social research or training others in the field, people who graduate from college with a degree in sociology are hired by government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and corporations in fields such as social services, counselling (e.g., family planning, career, substance abuse), designing and evaluating social policies and programs, health services, polling and independent research, market research, and human resources management. Even a small amount of training in sociology can be an asset in careers like sales, public relations, journalism, teaching, law, and criminal justice.

Please “Friend” Me: Students and Social Networking

The phenomenon known as Facebook was designed specifically for students. Whereas earlier generations wrote notes in each other’s printed yearbooks at the end of the academic year, modern technology and the internet ushered in dynamic new ways for people to interact socially. Instead of having to meet up on campus, students can call, text, and Skype from their dorm rooms. Instead of a study group gathering weekly in the library, online forums and chat rooms help learners connect. The availability and immediacy of computer technology has forever changed the ways students engage with each other.

Now, after several social networks have vied for primacy, a few have established their place in the market and some have attracted niche audience. While Facebook launched the social networking trend geared toward teens and young adults, now people of all ages are actively “friending” each other. LinkedIn distinguished itself by focusing on professional connections, serving as a virtual world for workplace networking. Newer offshoots like Foursquare help people connect based on the real-world places they frequent, while Twitter has cornered the market on brevity.

These newer modes of social interaction have also spawned questionable consequences, such as cyberbullying and what some call FAD, or Facebook addiction disorder. In an international study of smartphone users aged 18 to 30, 60 percent say they are “compulsive” about checking their smartphones and 42 percent admit to feeling “anxious” when disconnected; 75 percent check their smartphones in bed; more than 33 percent check them in the bathroom and 46 percent email and check social media while eating (Cisco 2012). An International Data Corporation (IDC) study of 7,446 smartphone users aged 18 to 44 in the United States in 2012 found that:

• Half of the U.S. population have smartphones and of those 70 percent use Facebook. Using Facebook is the third most common smartphone activity, behind email (78 percent) and web browsing (73 percent).
• 61 percent of smartphone users check Facebook every day.
• 62 percent of smartphone users check their device first thing on waking up in the morning and 79 percent check within 15 minutes. Among 18-to-24-year-olds the figures are 74 percent and 89 percent, respectively.
• Smartphone users check Facebook approximately 14 times a day.
• 84 percent of the time using smartphones is spent on texting, emailing and using social media like Facebook, whereas only 16 percent of the time is spent on phone calls. People spend an average of 132 minutes a day on their smartphones including 33 minutes on Facebook.
• People use Facebook throughout the day, even in places where they are not supposed to: 46 percent use Facebook while doing errands and shopping; 47 percent when they are eating out; 48 percent while working out; 46 percent in meetings or class; and 50 percent while at the movies.

The study noted that the dominant feeling the survey group reported was “a sense of feeling connected” (IDC 2012). Yet, in the international study cited above, two-thirds of 18- to 30-year-old smartphone users said they spend more time with friends online than they do in person.

All of these social networks demonstrate emerging ways that people interact, whether positive or negative. Sociologists ask whether there might be long-term effects of replacing face-to-face interaction with social media. In an interview on the Conan O’Brian Show that ironically circulated widely through social media, the comedian Louis CK described the use of smartphones as “toxic.” They do not allow for children who use them to build skills of empathy because the children do not interact face to face, or see the effects their comments have on others. Moreover, he argues, they do not allow people to be alone with their feelings. “The thing is, you need to build an ability to just be yourself and not be doing something. That’s what the phones are taking away” (NewsComAu 2013). What do you think? How do social media like Facebook and communication technologies like smartphones change the way we communicate? How could this question be studied?

AGIL schema Talcott Parsons’ division of society into four functional requisites: A daptation, G oal attainment, I ntegration, and L atent pattern maintenance

anomie a social condition or normlessness in which a lack of clear norms fails to give direction and purpose to individual actions

capitalism an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership and production of goods and their sale in a competitive market

content the specific reasons or drives that motivate individuals to interact

critical sociology a theoretical perspective that focuses on inequality and power relations in society in order to achieve social justice and emancipation through their transformation

culture  includes the group’s shared practices, values, beliefs, norms and artifacts

disenchantment of the world the replacement of magical thinking by technological rationality and calculation

dominant gender ideology  the belief that physiological sex differences between males and females are related to differences in their character, behaviour, and ability

dramaturgical analysis a technique sociologists use in which they view society through the metaphor of theatrical performance

dual consciousness the experience of a fissure or dividing point in everyday life where one crosses a line between irreconcilable forms of consciousness or perspective

dynamic equilibrium a stable state in which all parts of a healthy society are working together properly

dysfunctions social patterns that have undesirable consequences for the operation of society

feminism the critical analysis of the way gender differences in society structure social inequality

figuration the process of simultaneously analyzing the behaviour of an individual and the society that shapes that behaviour

formal sociology a sociology that analytically separates the contents from the forms of social interaction to study the common forms that guide human behaviour

function  the part a recurrent activity plays in the social life as a whole and the contribution it makes to structural continuity

functionalism (functionalist perspective) a theoretical approach that sees society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of individuals that make up that society

historical materialism an approach to understanding society that explains social change, human ideas, and social organization in terms of underlying changes in the economic (or material) structure of society

idealism an approach to understanding society that emphasizes that the nature of society and social change is determined by a society’s ideas, knowledge, and beliefs

idealist one who believes in idealism

interpretive sociology a perspective that explains human behaviour in terms of the meanings individuals attribute to it

labelling a social process in which an individual’s social identity is established through the imposition of a definition by authorities

latent functions the unrecognized or unintended consequences of a social process

law of three stages the three stages of evolution that societies develop through: theological, metaphysical, and positive

macro-sociology a wide-scale view of the role of social structures within a society

manifest functions sought consequences of a social process

mechanical solidarity social solidarity or cohesion through a shared collective consciousness with harsh punishment for deviation from the norms

metaphysical stage a stage of social evolution in which people explain events in terms of abstract or speculative ideas

micro-sociology the study of specific relationships between individuals or small groups

mode of production the way human societies act upon their environment and its resources in order to use them to meet their needs

multi-perspectival science a science that is divided into competing or diverse paradigms

organic solidarity social solidarity or cohesion through a complex division of labour and restitutive law

paradigms philosophical and theoretical frameworks used within a discipline to formulate theories, generalizations, and the experiments performed in support of them

patriarchy institutions of male power in society

positive stage a stage of social evolution in which people explain events in terms of scientific principles and laws

positivism (positivist perspective or positivist sociology) the scientific study of social patterns based on methodological principles of the natural sciences

Protestant ethic the duty to work hard in one’s calling

quantitative sociology statistical methods such as surveys with large numbers of participants

rationalization the general tendency of modern institutions and most areas of life to be transformed by the application of instrumental reason

reification referring to abstract concepts, complex processes or mutable social relationships as “things”

social action actions to which individuals attach subjective meanings

social facts the external laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashions, rituals, and cultural rules that govern social life

social reform an approach to social change that advocates slow, incremental improvements in social institutions rather than rapid, revolutionary change of society as a whole

social solidarity the social ties that bind a group of people together such as kinship, shared location, and religion

society  is a group of people whose members interact, reside in a definable area, and share a culture

sociological imagination the ability to understand how your own unique circumstances relate to that of other people, as well as to history in general and societal structures in particular

sociology the systematic study of society and social interaction

standpoint theory the examination of how society is organized and coordinated from the perspective of a particular social location or perspective in society

structural functionalism see functionalism

symbolic interactionism a theoretical perspective through which scholars examine the relationship of individuals within their society by studying their communication (language and symbols)

theological stage a stage of social evolution in which people explain events with respect to the will of God or gods

theory a proposed explanation about social interactions or society

tragedy of culture the tendency for the products of human cultural creation to accumulate and become increasingly complex, specialized, alienating, or oppressive

Verstehen German for “understanding”; in sociology it refers to the use of empathy, or putting oneself in another’s place, to understand the motives and logic of another’s action

Section Summary

1.1. What Is Sociology? Sociology is the systematic study of society and social interaction. In order to carry out their studies, sociologists identify cultural patterns and social forces and determine how they affect individuals and groups. They also develop ways to apply their findings to the real world.

1.2. The History of Sociology Sociology was developed as a way to study and try to understand the changes to society brought on by the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries. Some of the earliest sociologists thought that societies and individuals’ roles in society could be studied using the same scientific methodologies that were used in the natural sciences, while others believed that is was impossible to predict human behaviour scientifically, and still others debated the value of such predictions. Those perspectives continue to be represented within sociology today.

1.3. Theoretical Perspectives Sociologists develop theories to explain social events, interactions, and patterns. A theory is a proposed explanation of those patterns. Theories have different scales. Macro-level theories, such as structural functionalism and conflict theory, attempt to explain how societies operate as a whole. Micro-level theories, such as symbolic interactionism, focus on interactions between individuals.

1.4. Why Study Sociology? Studying sociology is beneficial both for the individual and for society. By studying sociology people learn how to think critically about social issues and problems that confront our society. The study of sociology enriches students’ lives and prepares them for careers in an increasingly diverse world. Society benefits because people with sociological training are better prepared to make informed decisions about social issues and take effective action to deal with them.

Section Quiz

1.1. What Is Sociology? 1. Which of the following best describes sociology as a subject?

• the study of individual behaviour
• the study of cultures
• the study of society and social interaction
• the study of economics

2. Wright Mills once said that sociologists need to develop a sociological __________ to study how society affects individuals.

• imagination

3. A sociologist defines society as a group of people who reside in a defined area, share a culture, and who:

• work in the same industry
• speak different languages
• practise a recognized religion

4. Seeing patterns means that a sociologist needs to be able to:

• compare the behaviour of individuals from different societies
• compare one society to another
• identify similarities in how social groups respond to social pressure
• compare individuals to groups

1.2. The History of Sociology 5. Which of the following was a topic of study in early sociology?

6. Which founder of sociology believed societies changed due to class struggle?

• Émile Comte
• Herbert Spencer

7. The difference between positivism and interpretive sociology relates to:

• whether individuals like or dislike their society
• whether research methods use statistical data or person-to-person research
• whether sociological studies can predict or improve society
• all of the above

8. Which would a quantitative sociologists use to gather data?

• a large survey
• a literature search
• an in-depth interview
• a review of television programs

9. Weber believed humans could not be studied purely objectively because they were influenced by:

• their culture
• their genetic makeup
• the researcher

1.3. Theoretical Perspectives 10. Which of these theories is most likely to look at the social world on a micro-level?

• structural functionalism
• conflict theory
• symbolic interactionism

11. Who believed that the history of society was one of class struggle?

• Émile Durkheim
• Erving Goffmann
• George Herbert Mead

12. Who coined the phrase symbolic interactionism?

• Herbert Blumer
• Lester F. Ward
• W. I. Thomas

13. A symbolic interactionist may compare social interactions to:

• human organs
• theatrical roles

14. Which research technique would most likely be used by a symbolic interactionist?

• participant observation
• quantitative data analysis
• none of the above

15. Which sociologist described sociology as the study of social forms?

1.4. Why Study Sociology? 16. Studying Sociology helps people analyze data because they learn:

• interview techniques
• to apply statistics
• to generate theories

17. Berger describes sociologists as concerned with:

• monumental moments in people’s lives
• common everyday life events
• both a and b

Short Answer

• What do you think C. Wright Mills meant when he said that to be a sociologist, one had to develop a sociological imagination?
• Describe a situation in which a choice you made was influenced by societal pressures.
• What do you make of Karl Marx’s contributions to sociology? What perceptions of Marx have you been exposed to in your society, and how do those perceptions influence your views?
• Do you tend to place more value on qualitative or quantitative research? Why? Does it matter what topic is being studied?
• Which theory do you think better explains how societies operate—structural functionalism or conflict theory? Why?
• Do you think the way people behave in social interactions is more due to the cause and effect of external social constraints or more like actors playing a role in a theatrical production? Why?
• How do you think taking a sociology course might affect your social interactions?
• What sort of career are you interested in? How could studying sociology help you in this career?

Further Research

1.1. What Is Sociology? Sociology is a broad discipline. Different kinds of sociologists employ various methods for exploring the relationship between individuals and society. Check out more about sociology at http://openstaxcollege.org/l/what-is-sociology .

1.2. The History of Sociology Many sociologists helped shape the discipline. To learn more about prominent sociologists and how they changed sociology check out http://openstaxcollege.org/l/ferdinand-toennies .

1.3. Theoretical Perspectives People often think of all conflict as violent, but many conflicts can be resolved nonviolently. To learn more about nonviolent methods of conflict resolution check out the Albert Einstein Institution http://openstaxcollege.org/l/ae-institution

1.4. Why Study Sociology? Social communication is rapidly evolving due to ever improving technologies. To learn more about how sociologists study the impact of these changes check out http://openstaxcollege.org/l/media

1.1. What Is Sociology? CBC. 2010. “Part 3: Former Gang Members,”  The Current , CBC Radio. September 14. Retrieved February 24, 2014, from http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2010/09/september-14-2010.html

Durkheim, Émile. 1951 [1897]. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York: Free Press.

Elias, Norbert. 1978. What Is Sociology? New York: Columbia University Press.

Mills, C. Wright. 2000 [1959]. The Sociological Imagination . 40th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Office of the Correctional Investigator. 2013. “Backgrounder: Aboriginal Offenders—A Critical Situation.” Government of Canada . Retrieved February 24, 2014  from http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/oth-aut/oth-aut20121022info-eng.aspx

Pollan, Michael. 2006. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. NY: Penguin Press.

Simmel, Georg. 1971 [1908]. “The problem of sociology.” Pp. 23–27 in   Georg Simmel: On individuality and social forms , edited by D. Levine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smith, Dorothy. 1999. Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Statistics Canada. 2013. “Overweight and obese adults (self-reported), 2012.” Statistics Canada Health Fact Sheets. Catalogue 82-625-XWE. Retrieved February 24, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2013001/article/11840-eng.htm

Becker, Howard and Harry Barnes. 1961. Social Thought from Lore to Science (Volume 1). New York: Dover Publications.

Collins, Randall and Michael Makowsky. 1989. The Discovery of Society.   New York: Random House.

Comte, August. 1975 [1830]. “The Nature and Importance of the Positive Philosophy.” In  Auguste Comte and positivism : the essential writings , edited by  Gertrud Lenzer. NY: Harper and Row.

Durkheim, Émile. 1964 [1895]. The Rules of Sociological Method , 8th ed., edited by J. Mueller, E. George and E. Caitlin. Translated by S. Solovay. New York: Free Press.

Durkheim, Émile 1997 [1895]. “The Rules of Sociological Method.” Pp. 207–211 in Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader , edited by Ian McIntosh.   New York: New York University Press.

Durkheim, Émile 1997 [1897]. “Suicide: A Study in Sociology.” Pp. 212–231 in  Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader , edited by    Ian McIntosh. New York: New York University Press.

Durkheim, Émile 1997 [1912]. “Religion and Society.” Pp. 232–247 in  Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader , edited by  Ian McIntosh. New York:    New York University Press.

Fauré, Christine, Jacques Guilhaumou, Jacques Vallier, and Françoise Weil. 2007 [1999]. Des Manuscrits de Sieyès, 1773–1799 , Volumes I and II. Paris: Champion.

Lengermann, Patricia and Jill Niebrugge. 2007. The Women Founders: Sociology and Social Theory, 1830–1930.  Longrove, Ill: Waveland Press.

Li, Peter. 1996. The Making of Post-War Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy . Hamburg: Otto Meissner Verlag.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1977  [1848]. The Communist Manifesto. Pp. 221–247 in  Karl Marx: Selected Writings,  edited by  David McLellan. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

McDonald, Lynn. 1998. Women Theorists on Society and Politics. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Simmel, Georg. 1971 [1908]. “The problem of sociology.” Pp. 23–27  in  Georg Simmel: On individuality and social forms , edited by D. Levine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Simmel, Georg. 1971 [1910]. “Sociability.” Pp. 127–140  in Georg Simmel: On individuality and social forms, edited by D. Levine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Simmel, Georg. (1971[1903]). “Metropolis and Mental Life.” Pp. 324–339  in  Georg Simmel: On individuality and social forms , edited by D. Levine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Statistics Canada. 2011 Women in Canada: A Gender Based Statistical Report. (Catalogue no. 89-503-X). Retrieved January 31, 2014  from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/89-503-x2010001-eng.pdf

Weber, Max. 1958 [1904]. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Weber, Max. 1969 [1919]. “Science as a Vocation.” Pp. 129-158 in  From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology , edited by  H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills.   NY: Oxford University Press.

Weber, Max. 1997 [1922]. “Definitions of Sociology and Social Action.” Pp 157–164  Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader , edited by Ian McIntosh. NY: New York University Press.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. 1792. A Vindication of the Rights of Women with Strictures on Moral and Political Subjects. London: Joseph Johnson.

Zeitlin, Irving. 1997.  Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory.  Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Allan, Kenneth. 2006. Contemporary Social and Sociological Theory: Visualizing Social Worlds . Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Becker, Howard. 1963. Outsiders : Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Macmillan.

Bibby, Reginald. 2012. A New Day: The Resilience & Restructuring of Religion in Canada. Lethbridge: Project Canada Books

Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bryant, Christopher. 1985. Positivism in Social Theory and Research. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert Moore. 1944. “Some Principles of Stratification.” Americam Sociological Review. 10(2):242–249.

Drengson, Alan. 1983. Shifting Paradigms: From Technocrat to Planetary Person. Victoria, BC: Light Star Press.

Durkheim, Émile. 1984 [1893]. The Division of Labor in Society . New York: Free Press.

Durkheim, Émile. 1964 [1895]. The Rules of Sociological Method , edited by J. Mueller, E. George and E. Caitlin. 8th ed. Translated by S. Solovay. New York: Free Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1958. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life . Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Social Sciences Research Centre.

Habermas, 1972. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

Herman, Nancy J. and Larry T. Reynolds. 1994. Symbolic Interaction: An Introduction to Social Psychology . Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

LaRossa, R. and D.C. Reitzes. 1993. “Symbolic Interactionism and Family Studies.” Pp. 135–163 in Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach , edited by P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz. New York: Springer.

Lerner, Gerda. 1986. The Creation of Patriarchy . NY: Oxford University Press.

Marcuse, Herbert. 1964. One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Martineau, Harriet. 1837. Society in America. New York: Saunders and Otley. Retrieved February 24, 2014 from  https://archive.org/details/societyinamerica02martiala

Maryanski, Alexandra and Jonathan Turner. 1992. The Social Cage: Human Nature and the Evolution of Society . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Marx, Karl. 1977 [1845]. “Theses on Feuerbach.” Pp. 156–158 in   Karl Marx: Selected Writings , edited by David McLellan. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Marx, Karl. 1977 [1851]. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Pp. 300–325 in Karl Marx: Selected Writings , edited by David McLellan . Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Marx, Karl. 1978 [1843]. “For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing.” Pp. 12–15 in  The Marx-Engels Reader , edited by  R. C. Tucker. New York: W. W. Norton.

Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Naiman, Joanne. 2012. How Societies Work, (5th ed.). Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing.

Parsons, T. 1961. Theories of Society: Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory . New York: Free Press.

Smith, Dorothy. 1977.  Feminism and Marxism: A Place to Begin, a Way to Go.  Vancouver: New Star Books.

Spencer, Herbert. 1898. The Principles of Biology . New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Weber, Max. 1997 [1922]. “Definitions of Sociology and Social Action.” Pp 157–164 in  Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader, edited by  Ian McIntosh. NY: New York University Press.

Berger, Peter L. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective . New York: Anchor Books.

Cisco. 2102.  Gen Y: New Dawn for Work, Play, Identity Cisco Connected World Technology Report. Retrieved February 4, 2012 from  http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns1120/2012-CCWTR-Chapter1-Global-Results.pdf

Department of Sociology, University of Alabama. N.d. Is Sociology Right for You? . Huntsville: University of Alabama. Retrieved January 19, 2012 from  http://www.uah.edu/la/departments/sociology/about-sociology/why-sociology

IDC. 2012. Always Connected: How Smartphones and Social Media Keep Us Connected IDC Research Report. Retrieved February 4, 2014 from  https://fb-public.app.box.com/s/3iq5x6uwnqtq7ki4q8wk

NewsComAu. 2013. “Comedian Louis CK’s compelling philosophy: ‘Smartphones are toxic’.” NewsComAu September 21. Retrieved February 4, 2014 from http://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/comedian-louis-ck8217s-compelling-philosophy-8216smartphones-are-toxic8217/story-fn6vihic-1226724328876

Vaughan, Frederick. 2004.  Aggressive in Pursuit: The Life of Justice Emmett Hall.  Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Solutions to Section Quiz

1. C | 2. B | 3. A | 4. C | 5. B | 6. B | 7. C | 8. A | 9. B | 10. D | 11. B | 12. A | 13. D | 14. B | 15. B | 16. D | 17. C

Image Attributions

Figure 1.1  Canada Day National Capital by Derek Hatfield ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_Day_National_Capital.jpg ) used under CC BY 2.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en )

Figure 1.2. Il (secondo?) bacio più famoso della storia: Vancouver Riot Kiss by Pasquale Borriello (https://www.flickr.com/photos/pazca/5844049845/in/photostream/) used under CC BY 2.0 ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ )

Figure 1.4   c  Ibn Khaldun by Waqas Ahmed ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ibn_Khaldun.jpg ) used under CC BY-SA 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en );

Figure 1.5.   Newton-WilliamBlake by William Blake ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(Blake)#mediaviewer/File:Newton-WilliamBlake.jpg ) is in the public domain ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain )

Figure 1.6 Hon. T.C. Douglas by Lieut. G. Barry Gilroy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tommycropped.jpg ) is in public domain

Figure 1.8.  Harriet Martineau portrait ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harriet_martineau_portrait.jpg ) is in the public domain ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain ).

Figure 1.9.  Emile Durkheim ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emile_Durkheim.jpg)  is in the public domain ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain ).

Figure 1.10.  Max Weber ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Max_Weber_1917.jpg ) is in the public domain ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain ).

Figure 1.11.  Georg Simmel by Julius Cornelius Schaarwächter ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Georg_Simmel.jpg ) is in the public domain ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain ).

Figure 1.14. Hon. T.C. Douglas, Premier of Saskatchewan by Lieut. G. Barry Gilroy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tommycropped.jpg ) is in public domain.

Figure 1.15.  The Last of the Clan by Thomas Faed ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Faed_-_The_Last_of_the_Clan.JPG )  is in the public domain ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain ).

Introduction to Sociology - 1st Canadian Edition Copyright © 2014 by William Little and Ron McGivern is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

1.3 Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section you should be able to:

• Describe the ways that sociological theories are used to explain social institutions.
• Differentiate between functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.

Sociologists study social events, interactions, and patterns, and they develop theories to explain why things work as they do. In sociology, a theory is a way to explain different aspects of social interactions and to create a testable proposition, called a hypothesis , about society (Allan 2006).

For example, although suicide is generally considered an individual phenomenon, Émile Durkheim was interested in studying the social factors that affect it. He studied social solidarity , social ties within a group, and hypothesized that differences in suicide rates might be explained by religious differences. Durkheim gathered a large amount of data about Europeans and found that Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than Catholics. His work supports the utility of theory in sociological research.

Theories vary in scope depending on the scale of the issues that they are meant to explain. Macro-level theories relate to large-scale issues and large groups of people, while micro-level theories look at very specific relationships between individuals or small groups. Grand theories attempt to explain large-scale relationships and answer fundamental questions such as why societies form and why they change. Sociological theory is constantly evolving and should never be considered complete. Classic sociological theories are still considered important and current, but new sociological theories build upon the work of their predecessors and add to them (Calhoun, 2002).

In sociology, a few theories provide broad perspectives that help explain many different aspects of social life, and these are called paradigms . Paradigms are philosophical and theoretical frameworks used within a discipline to formulate theories, generalizations, and the experiments performed in support of them. Three paradigms have come to dominate sociological thinking because they provide useful explanations: structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.

Functionalism

Functionalism , also called structural-functional theory, sees society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of the individuals in that society. Functionalism grew out of the writings of English philosopher and biologist, Herbert Spencer, who saw similarities between society and the human body. He argued that just as the various organs of the body work together to keep the body functioning, the various parts of society work together to keep society functioning (Spencer, 1898). The parts of society that Spencer referred to were the social institutions , or patterns of beliefs and behaviors focused on meeting social needs, such as government, education, family, healthcare, religion, and the economy.

Émile Durkheim applied Spencer’s theory to explain how societies change and survive over time. Durkheim believed that society is a complex system of interrelated and interdependent parts that work together to maintain stability (Durkheim, 1893), and that society is held together by shared values, languages, and symbols. He believed that to study society, a sociologist must look beyond individuals to social facts such as laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashion, and rituals, which all serve to govern social life (Durkheim, 1895). Alfred Radcliffe-Brown (1881–1955), a social anthropologist, defined the function of any recurrent activity as the part it played in social life as a whole, and therefore the contribution it makes to social stability and continuity (Radcliffe-Brown 1952). In a healthy society, all parts work together to maintain stability, a state called dynamic equilibrium by later sociologists such as Parsons (1961).

Durkheim believed that individuals may make up society, but in order to study society, sociologists have to look beyond individuals to social facts. . Each of these social facts serves one or more functions within a society. For example, one function of a society’s laws may be to protect society from violence, while another is to punish criminal behavior, while another is to preserve public health.

Another noted structural functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), pointed out that social processes often have many functions. Manifest functions are the consequences of a social process that are sought or anticipated, while latent functions are the unsought consequences of a social process. A manifest function of a college education, for example, includes gaining knowledge, preparing for a career, and finding a good job that utilizes that education. Latent functions of your college years include meeting new people, participating in extracurricular activities, or even finding a spouse or partner. Another latent function of education is creating a hierarchy of employment based on the level of education attained. Latent functions can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Social processes that have undesirable consequences for the operation of society are called dysfunctions . In education, examples of dysfunction include getting bad grades, truancy, dropping out, not graduating, and not finding suitable employment.

One criticism of the structural-functional theory is that it can’t adequately explain social change even though the functions are processes. Also problematic is the somewhat circular nature of this theory: repetitive behavior patterns are assumed to have a function, yet we profess to know that they have a function only because they are repeated. Furthermore, dysfunctions may continue, even though they don’t serve a function, which seemingly contradicts the basic premise of the theory. Many sociologists now believe that functionalism is no longer useful as a macro-level theory, but that it does serve a useful purpose in some mid-level analyses.

Big Picture

A global culture.

Sociologists around the world look closely for signs of what would be an unprecedented event: the emergence of a global culture. In the past, empires such as those that existed in China, Europe, Africa, and Central and South America linked people from many different countries, but those people rarely became part of a common culture. They lived too far from each other, spoke different languages, practiced different religions, and traded few goods. Today, increases in communication, travel, and trade have made the world a much smaller place. More and more people are able to communicate with each other instantly—wherever they are located—by telephone, video, and text. They share movies, television shows, music, games, and information over the Internet. Students can study with teachers and pupils from the other side of the globe. Governments find it harder to hide conditions inside their countries from the rest of the world.

Sociologists research many different aspects of this potential global culture. Some explore the dynamics involved in the social interactions of global online communities, such as when members feel a closer kinship to other group members than to people residing in their own countries. Other sociologists study the impact this growing international culture has on smaller, less-powerful local cultures. Yet other researchers explore how international markets and the outsourcing of labor impact social inequalities. Sociology can play a key role in people’s abilities to understand the nature of this emerging global culture and how to respond to it.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory looks at society as a competition for limited resources. This perspective is a macro-level approach most identified with the writings of German philosopher and economist Karl Marx, who saw society as being made up of individuals in different social classes who must compete for social, material, and political resources such as food and housing, employment, education, and leisure time. Social institutions like government, education, and religion reflect this competition in their inherent inequalities and help maintain the unequal social structure. Some individuals and organizations are able to obtain and keep more resources than others, and these “winners” use their power and influence to maintain social institutions. The perpetuation of power results in the perpetuation of oppression.

Several theorists suggested variations on this basic theme like Polish-Austrian sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838–1909) who expanded on Marx’s ideas by arguing that war and conquest are the bases of civilizations. He believed that cultural and ethnic conflicts led to states being identified and defined by a dominant group that had power over other groups (Irving, 2007).

German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) agreed with Marx but also believed that, in addition to economic inequalities, inequalities of political power and social structure cause conflict. Weber noted that different groups were affected differently based on education, race, and gender, and that people’s reactions to inequality were moderated by class differences and rates of social mobility, as well as by perceptions about the legitimacy of those in power. A reader of Marx, Georg Simmel believed that conflict can help integrate and stabilize a society. He said that the intensity of the conflict varies depending on the emotional involvement of the parties, the degree of solidarity within the opposing groups, and the clarity and limited nature of the goals. Simmel also showed that groups work to create internal solidarity, centralize power, and reduce dissent. The stronger the bond, the weaker the discord. Resolving conflicts can reduce tension and hostility and can pave the way for future agreements.

In the 1930s and 1940s, German philosophers, known as the Frankfurt School, developed critical theory as an elaboration on Marxist principles. Critical theory is an expansion of conflict theory and is broader than just sociology, incorporating other social sciences and philosophy. A critical theory is a holistic theory and attempts to address structural issues causing inequality. It must explain what’s wrong in current social reality, identify the people who can make changes, and provide practical goals for social transformation (Horkeimer, 1982).

More recently, inequality based on gender or race has been explained in a similar manner and has identified institutionalized power structures that help to maintain inequality between groups. Janet Saltzman Chafetz (1941–2006) presented a model of feminist theory that attempts to explain the forces that maintain gender inequality as well as a theory of how such a system can be changed (Turner, 2003). Similarly, critical race theory grew out of a critical analysis of race and racism from a legal point of view. Critical race theory looks at structural inequality based on white privilege and associated wealth, power, and prestige.

Sociology in the Real World

Farming and locavores: how sociological perspectives might view food consumption.

The consumption of food is a commonplace, daily occurrence. Yet, it can also be associated with important moments in our lives. Eating can be an individual or a group action, and eating habits and customs are influenced by our cultures. In the context of society, our nation’s food system is at the core of numerous social movements, political issues, and economic debates. Any of these factors might become a topic of sociological study.

A structural-functional approach to the topic of food consumption might analyze the role of the agriculture industry within the nation’s economy and how this has changed from the early days of manual-labor farming to modern mechanized production. Another might study the different functions of processes in food production, from farming and harvesting to flashy packaging and mass consumerism.

A conflict theorist might be interested in the power differentials present in the regulation of food, by exploring where people’s right to information intersects with corporations’ drive for profit and how the government mediates those interests. Or a conflict theorist might examine the power and powerlessness experienced by local farmers versus large farming conglomerates, such as the documentary Food Inc., which depicts as resulting from Monsanto’s patenting of seed technology. Another topic of study might be how nutrition varies between different social classes.

A sociologist viewing food consumption through a symbolic interactionist lens would be more interested in microlevel topics, such as the symbolic use of food in religious rituals, or the role it plays in the social interaction of a family dinner. This perspective might also explore the interactions among group members who identify themselves based on their sharing a particular diet, such as vegetarians (people who don’t eat meat) or locavores (people who strive to eat locally produced food).

Just as structural functionalism was criticized for focusing too much on the stability of societies, conflict theory has been criticized because it tends to focus on conflict to the exclusion of recognizing stability. Many social structures are extremely stable or have gradually progressed over time rather than changing abruptly as conflict theory would suggest.

Symbolic Interactionist Theory

Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theory that focuses on the relationships among individuals within a society. Communication—the exchange of meaning through language and symbols—is believed to be the way in which people make sense of their social worlds. Theorists Herman and Reynolds (1994) note that this perspective sees people as being active in shaping the social world rather than simply being acted upon.

George Herbert Mead is considered a founder of symbolic interactionism though he never published his work on it (LaRossa and Reitzes, 1993). Mead’s student, Herbert Blumer (1900-1987), coined the term “symbolic interactionism” and outlined these basic premises: humans interact with things based on meanings ascribed to those things; the ascribed meaning of things comes from our interactions with others and society; the meanings of things are interpreted by a person when dealing with things in specific circumstances (Blumer 1969). If you love books, for example, a symbolic interactionist might propose that you learned that books are good or important in the interactions you had with family, friends, school, or church. Maybe your family had a special reading time each week, getting your library card was treated as a special event, or bedtime stories were associated with warmth and comfort.

Social scientists who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of interaction between individuals. Their studies often involve observation of one-on-one interactions. For example, while a conflict theorist studying a political protest might focus on class difference, a symbolic interactionist would be more interested in how individuals in the protesting group interact, as well as the signs and symbols protesters use to communicate their message.

The focus on the importance of symbols in building a society led sociologists like Erving Goffman (1922-1982) to develop a technique called dramaturgical analysis . Goffman used theater as an analogy for social interaction and recognized that people’s interactions showed patterns of cultural “scripts.” He argued that individuals were actors in a play. We switched roles, sometimes minute to minute—for example, from student or daughter to dog walker. Because it can be unclear what part a person may play in a given situation, he or she has to improvise his or her role as the situation unfolds (Goffman, 1958).

Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, because they seek to understand the symbolic worlds in which research subjects live.

Constructivism is an extension of symbolic interaction theory which proposes that reality is what humans cognitively construct it to be. We develop social constructs based on interactions with others, and those constructs that last over time are those that have meanings which are widely agreed-upon or generally accepted by most within the society. This approach is often used to examine what’s defined as deviant within a society. There is no absolute definition of deviance, and different societies have constructed different meanings for deviance, as well as associating different behaviors with deviance.

One situation that illustrates this is what you believe you’re to do if you find a wallet in the street. In the United States, turning the wallet in to local authorities would be considered the appropriate action, and to keep the wallet would be seen as deviant. In contrast, many Eastern societies would consider it much more appropriate to keep the wallet and search for the owner yourself. Turning it over to someone else, even the authorities, would be considered deviant behavior.

Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of remaining objective. Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interaction. Proponents, of course, consider this one of its greatest strengths.

Sociological Theory Today

These three approaches still provide the main foundation of modern sociological theory though they have evolved. Structural-functionalism was a dominant force after World War II and until the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, sociologists began to feel that structural-functionalism did not sufficiently explain the rapid social changes happening in the United States at that time. The women’s movement and the Civil Rights movement forced academics to develop approaches to study these emerging social practices.

Conflict theory then gained prominence, with its emphasis on institutionalized social inequality. Critical theory, and the particular aspects of feminist theory and critical race theory, focused on creating social change through the application of sociological principles. The field saw a renewed emphasis on helping ordinary people understand sociology principles, in the form of public sociology.

Gaining prominence in the wake of Mead’s work in the 1920s and 1930s, symbolic interactionism declined in influence during the 1960s and 1970s only to be revitalized at the turn of the twenty-first century (Stryker, 1987). Postmodern social theory developed in the 1980s to look at society through an entirely new lens by rejecting previous macro-level attempts to explain social phenomena. Its growth in popularity coincides with the rise of constructivist views of symbolic interactionism.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-3-theoretical-perspectives-in-sociology

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.S: Sociology and the Sociological Perspective (Summary)

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 2008

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

• Although Americans enjoy much freedom of thought and action, society constrains their views and behaviors.
• The sociological perspective emphasizes that our social backgrounds influence our attitudes, behaviors, and life chances. The chances of committing even an individual act such as suicide depend to some degree on the group backgrounds from which we come.
• Because sociology deals in generalizations and not laws, people don’t always behave and think in the patterns sociologists predict. For every sociological generalization, there are many exceptions.
• Personal experience, common sense, and the media are all valuable sources of knowledge about various aspects of society, but they often present a limited or distorted view of these aspects.
• A theme of sociology is the debunking motif. This means that sociological knowledge aims to look beyond on-the-surface understandings of social reality.
• According to C. Wright Mills, the sociological imagination involves the ability to realize that personal troubles are rooted in problems in the larger social structure. The sociological imagination thus supports a blaming-the-system view over a blaming-the-victim view.
• Theoretical perspectives in sociology generally divide into macro and micro views. Functionalism emphasizes the functions that social institutions serve to ensure the ongoing stability of society. Conflict theory focuses on the conflict among different racial, ethnic, social class, and other groups and emphasizes how social institutions help ensure inequality. Two micro perspectives, symbolic interactionism and utilitarianism or more commonly referred to as exchange theory, focus on interaction among individuals. Symbolic interactionism focuses on how individuals interpret the meanings of the situations in which they find themselves, while utilitarianism emphasizes that people are guided in their actions by a desire to maximize their benefits and to minimize their disadvantages.
• Sociological research follows the scientific method. A major goal is to test hypotheses suggesting how an independent variable influences a dependent variable. Hypotheses can concern several units of analysis: the person, the organization, and the geographical region.
• The major sources of information for sociological research are surveys, experiments, field research, and existing data. Surveys are the most common research method in sociology, but field research provides richer and more detailed information.
• To be sure that an independent variable affects a dependent variable, we must be certain that the two variables are statistically related, that the independent variable precedes the dependent variable in time, and that the relationship between the two variables is not spurious.
• Several ethical standards guide sociological research. Among the most important of these are the rights to privacy and confidentiality and to freedom from harm. Some sociologists have risked imprisonment to protect these rights.

USING SOCIOLOGY

Imagine that you are the mayor of a city of about 100,000 residents. Similar to many other cities, yours has a mixture of rich and poor neighborhoods. Because you and one of your key advisers were sociology majors in college, you both remember that the type of neighborhoods in which children grow up can influence many aspects of their development. Your adviser suggests that you seek a large federal grant to conduct a small field experiment to test the effects of neighborhoods in your city. In this experiment, 60 families from poor neighborhoods would be recruited to volunteer. Half of these families would be randomly selected to move to middle-class neighborhoods with their housing partially subsidized (the experimental group), and the other 30 families would remain where they are (the control group). A variety of data would then be gathered about the children in both groups of families over the next decade to determine whether living in middle-class neighborhoods improved the children’s cognitive and social development.

You recognize the potential value of this experiment, but you also wonder whether it is entirely ethical, as it would be virtually impossible to maintain the anonymity of the families in the experimental group and perhaps even in the control group. You also worry about the political problems that might result if the people already in the middle-class neighborhoods object to the new families moving into their midst. Do you decide to apply for the federal grant? Why or why not?

Exploring Sociology: Its Definition and Importance

Table of Contents

Have you ever wondered about the invisible threads that connect us in society? What about the underlying patterns that shape our interactions, institutions, and identities? This is where sociology comes into play—a discipline that doesn’t just observe the social world but seeks to understand it in all its complexity. Let’s embark on a journey to explore the definition of sociology and grasp its profound importance in our lives.

What is sociology?

Sociology is the systematic study of social behavior and human groups. It focuses on understanding social relationships, the functioning of society, and the myriad ways people interact within these contexts. The essence of sociology lies in its perspective, which sees the broader social patterns that influence individual and group life.

The sociological perspective

Sociologists look beyond individual psychology to examine the influences of culture, social structure s, and group interactions. This perspective helps us to see general social patterns in the behavior of particular individuals and offers insights into how our personal experiences are shaped by social forces.

Key concepts in sociology

• Social structure: This refers to the organized pattern of social relationships and social institutions that together compose society.
• Social institutions: These are the major arenas of social life in which durable routines and patterns of behavior take place, such as the family, education, religion, and the economy.
• Social interactions: The ways in which people act with other people and react to how other people are acting.
• Social identity: How individuals define themselves in relationship to groups they are a part of (or in relationship to groups they choose not to be a part of).

Why is sociology important?

Sociology provides us with a unique way of looking at our world and our place within it. It challenges common sense beliefs and helps to debunk myths about social life by encouraging us to question the obvious and to look deeper into the workings of society.

Understanding social change

Sociologists study the causes and consequences of social change, which is an essential part of understanding the evolving nature of society. Whether it’s technological advancements, shifts in cultural norms, or changes in political systems, sociology helps us to analyze and adapt to these transformations.

Promoting social justice

By examining issues of inequality, power, and social justice, sociology provides a critical framework for understanding and addressing societal problems. It equips us with the knowledge to engage in informed activism and policy-making.

Informing public policy

Sociological research influences public policy by providing empirical evidence and theoretical insights that can lead to more effective solutions for social issues, from education reform to healthcare access.

The relationship between sociology and our everyday lives

It’s easy to overlook the relevance of sociology in our everyday lives, but its influence is omnipresent. From the way we raise our children to the structure of our work environments, sociological factors shape our experiences and opportunities.

Influencing personal development

Understanding sociological principles can influence how we see ourselves and interact with others. It can shape our choices about relationships, education, and careers.

Shaping our communities

Sociology helps us to understand the dynamics of our communities, including issues of cohesion, conflict, and the impact of social policies on community well-being.

Guiding business and marketing

Businesses use sociological research to better understand consumer behavior and market trends , which is crucial in a rapidly changing global economy.

By now, it’s clear that sociology is not just an academic discipline; it’s a lens through which we can view the world. It empowers us to understand the underlying social currents that shape our lives and provides us with the tools to navigate and influence the complex web of society. Sociology is both a mirror and a map: It reflects the world we live in and charts a course for understanding and action.

What do you think? How has your understanding of sociology changed after reading this? Can you identify ways in which sociological perspectives influence your daily life decisions and interactions?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

Introduction to Sociology

1 Thinking Sociologically

• Sociological Methods
• Sociology in Everyday Life
• Sociology and other Disciplines
• In What Way Sociological Looks at Reality
• Observe Interpret and Validate Sociological Perspectives

2 Emergence of Sociology and Social Anthropology

• Emergence of Sociology
• Social and Economic Changes that Swept 19th Century European Society
• The Rise of Sociological Theory
• Emergence of Social Anthropology
• Emergence of Modern Social Anthropology
• Pioneers of Social Anthropology

3 Relationship of Sociology with Anthropology

• Nature of Sociology and Social Anthropology
• Emergence and History of Sociology
• Emergence and History of Anthropology
• Similarities between Sociology and Anthropology
• Differences between Sociology and Anthropology

4 Relationship of Sociology with Psychology

• Definition of Sociology
• Sociology and Psychology: The Possible Interlink
• Social Psychology: Historical Development
• Defining Social Psychology
• Inter-disciplinary Approach to Social Psychology
• Scope of Social Psychology
• Your Sociological Tool Kit
• Concepts and Methods of Sociology used in Social Psychology
• Perspectives in Sociological Social Psychology
• Objectives of Research in Social Psychology
• Importance of Sociological Social Psychology

5 Relationship of Sociology with History

• Defining History
• Relationship of Sociology with History
• Difference Between Sociology and History
• Historical Sociology as Sub-Discipline

6 Relationship of Sociology with Economics

• Definition of Economics
• Differences between Sociology and Economics
• Definitions Given by Different Economist and their Relation to Sociology
• Definitions Given by Different Sociologists and their Relation to Economics
• Economic Sociology as a Sub-Discipline of Sociology
• Common Issues Concerning both Sociology and Economics

7 Relationship of Sociology with Political Science

• Definition of Political Science
• Shift in the Focus of Political Science
• Relationship between Sociology and Political Science
• Differentiating between Political Sociology and Sociology of Politics
• Political Culture
• Political Socialisation
• Political Capital

8 Culture and Society

• Culture and Biology
• Culture Trait and Culture Complex
• Characteristics of Culture
• Types of Culture: Material and Non-material Culture
• Elements of Culture
• Culture and Civilization
• Cultural Change
• Cultural Diversity
• Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism
• Multiculturalism
• Globalisation and Culture
• Culture in Indian Context

9 Social Groups and Community

• Definitions of Community
• Characteristics of Community
• Elements of Community Sentiment
• Community and Association
• Definition of Social Group
• Bases of Classification of Groups
• Primary and Secondary Groups
• Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft
• In Group and Out Group
• Reference Group
• Social Group and Community Differences

10 Associations and Institutions

• Meaning and Definition of Association
• Main Characteristics of an Association
• Defining Institutions
• Purpose of Institutions
• Types of Institutions
• Perspectives on Social Institutions

11 Status and Role

• The Concept of Status
• Ascribed and Achieved Status
• Master Status
• The Concept of Role
• Role Theory
• Classification of Roles
• Role Systems: Simple and Complex Societies
• Dimensions of Roles

12 Socialisation

• Socialisation – Meaning and Definitions
• Types of Socialisation
• Theories of Socialisation
• Agents of Socialisation

13 Structure and Function

• From Positivism to Functionalism
• The Premises of Functionalism
• Functionalism in Social Anthropology: Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski
• Functionalism of Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton

14 Social Control and Change

• Meaning and Definition of Social Control
• Types of Social Control
• Agencies of Social Control
• Concept and Meaning of Social Change
• Approaches to Understanding Social Change
• Factors of Social Change
• Impact of Social Change

15 Evolutionary Perspective

• The Beginning of the Concept of Social Evolution
• The Organic Analogy and Biological Theories of Evolution
• Theories of Cultural Evolution
• Limitation of Classical Evolutionary Theory
• Neo-Evolutionary Theories

16 Functionalism

• Founders of Functionalism
• Later Functionalists

17 Structuralism

• Claude Levi-Strauss and Structuralism
• The Concept of Culture as Understood by Levi-Strauss
• The Structural Analysis of Myths
• Ethnography and Structural Analysis
• Critical Points of View

18 Conflict Perspective

• The Classical Theorists
• Modern Conflict Schools
• Elite Theory
• Recent Trends in Conflict Theory

19 Interpretive Sociology

• Meaning and Definition
• Differences Between Interpretive and Positivist Sociology
• Origins of Interpretive Sociology
• Branches of Interpretive Sociology
• Limitations of Interpretive Sociology

20 Symbolic Interactionism

• George Herbert Mead: Basic Concepts
• The Emergence of Symbolic Interactionism
• Other Schools of Thought
• Erving Goffman and the Dramaturgical Approach
• Recent Studies

21 Feminist Perspective

• Socio-Historical Background
• Liberal Feminism
• Radical Feminism
• Marxist Feminism
• Socialist Feminism
• Post Modern and Third Wave Feminism
• Multicultural and Postcolonial Feminism

22 Dalit Perspective

• Defining Dalits: A Sociological Perspective
• Demand for a Different Perspective
• Theoretical Rationale of ‘Dalit Perspective’
• Defining Dalit Perspective

23 Division of Labour- Durkheim and Marx

• Socio-Economic Setting and Meaning of ‘Division of Labour’
• Durkheim’s Views on Division of Labour
• Marx’s Views on Division of Labour
• A Comparison

24 Religion- Durkheim and Weber

• Definition of Religion — Beliefs and Rites
• Durkheim’s Study of ‘Totemism’
• Religion and Science
• The Religion of India
• The Religion of China
• Ancient Judaism
• Durkheim and Weber — A Comparison

25 Capitalism- Marx and Weber

• Karl Marx on Capitalism
• Max Weber on Capitalism
• Marx and Weber – A Comparison

26 Social change and transformation

• Concept of Social Change and Social Transformation
• Theories of Social Change
• Rate of Social Change

Share on Mastodon

What is the Sociological Perspective – Understanding Sociology

The sociological perspective is a way of understanding society that emphasizes the interconnectedness of social structures, institutions, and cultural norms. At its core, sociology seeks to explain how society works and why it operates the way it does. By analyzing social phenomena through a sociological lens, we can gain new insights into issues such as power dynamics, inequality, and cultural values .

Table of Contents

In this article, we will explore what the sociological perspective is and why it’s important for understanding society. We will define key concepts such as social structure, culture, institutions, power, and inequality. Additionally, we will provide real-life examples to illustrate how the sociological perspective can be applied in practice. Finally, we will address common criticisms of sociology and conclude with a summary of the key takeaways from this discussion.

Defining the Sociological Perspective

Sociology is the scientific study of human society and social behavior. It seeks to understand how individuals interact with one another, as well as how groups and societies are structured and function.

The sociological perspective is a way of understanding society that emphasizes the interconnectedness of social structures, institutions, and cultural norms. Unlike other ways of understanding society, such as psychology or economics, sociology takes a holistic approach that considers multiple factors when analyzing social phenomena.

For example, while psychology might focus on individual behavior and motivations, sociology would examine how larger societal forces shape those behaviors and motivations. Similarly, while economics might focus on market dynamics and financial systems, sociology would examine how those systems affect different groups within society in terms of income inequality or access to resources.

Overall, the sociological perspective provides a unique lens through which we can analyze complex social issues and understand the interconnectedness of various societal factors.

Key Concepts of the Sociological Perspective

Social Structure, Power and Culture are the key concepts used by sociologists to analyze society through a variety of different lenses. For example, they might examine how social structures like race or gender impact individuals’ experiences within institutions like education or healthcare. Alternatively, they might study cultural norms and practices in order to understand how they shape behavior and attitudes.

By considering these concepts together, sociologists can gain a deeper understanding of how different aspects of society are interconnected and how they contribute to larger patterns of inequality or power dynamics. Through this analysis, sociologists can identify potential areas for change and work towards creating more equitable societies.

Social Structure

Social structure is a central concept in sociology that refers to the patterns of relationships and social arrangements that shape society. These structures can take many forms, including formal institutions like governments or schools, as well as informal social norms and expectations.

One important aspect of social structure is social hierarchy, which refers to the ranking of individuals or groups within society based on factors like wealth, status, or power. These hierarchies can be based on a variety of characteristics such as race, gender, age, or occupation. For example, in many societies men have traditionally held higher status and power than women.

Institutions are also very important. These are established systems or organizations within society that serve specific purposes such as education (schools), government (political institutions), healthcare (hospitals), or finance (banks). Institutions play a crucial role in shaping social structure by providing frameworks for behavior and expectations for individuals.

Another important aspect of social structure is roles. Roles are sets of expectations for how individuals should behave in different situations based on their position within society. For example, parents are expected to provide for and raise their children while teachers are expected to educate and mentor students.

Social norms also play a key role in shaping social structures. Norms refer to the unwritten rules and expectations for behavior that govern interactions between individuals and groups within society. They can vary widely across different cultures and communities.

Social structure provides a framework for understanding how different aspects of society work together to create larger patterns of behavior and inequality. By analyzing these patterns through a sociological lens, researchers can gain insights into how societies function.

Culture is a complex and multi-faceted concept that refers to the shared beliefs, values, practices, and symbols that define a particular group or society. It encompasses everything from language and social customs to art, music, and literature. Culture is not fixed or static but rather evolves over time as people interact with each other and their environment.

One important aspect of culture is its role in shaping individuals’ identities and worldviews. Cultural norms and traditions can influence how people perceive themselves and others, as well as how they approach various aspects of life like work, family, or religion.

Institutional structures often reflect cultural values and norms. For example, educational institutions may prioritize academic achievement as a reflection of cultural values around the importance of knowledge and learning.

Power is a fundamental concept in sociology that refers to the ability to influence or control others. It can be exerted through various means, including physical force, economic leverage, or social norms and expectations. It can also be exercised at different levels, from individual interactions to broader social structures and institutions.

Social structures and institutions often play a key role in determining power dynamics within society. For example, political institutions may hold significant power over citizens by regulating laws and policies.

Economic institutions like corporations and banks may have significant influence over individuals through their control of resources and wealth.

Inequality is another important concept related to power in sociology. Inequality refers to differences in access to resources, opportunities, and power among different groups within society. These differences can be based on a variety of factors such as race, gender, class, or age.

Inequalities are often reinforced through social structures and institutions that perpetuate disparities in power and privilege. For example, gender inequality may be reinforced through institutionalized norms that place greater value on traditionally masculine traits or roles.

Applying the Sociological Perspective to Real-Life Examples

Example 1: covid-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a current event that can be analyzed through a sociological perspective. This global crisis has had significant impacts on individuals, communities, and societies around the world.

By applying a sociological framework, we can gain insights into how social structures and institutions have shaped the spread of the virus and its impact on different groups within society. For example, research has shown that individuals from marginalized communities like low-income neighborhoods or racial minorities are more likely to be affected by the pandemic due to pre-existing inequalities in access to healthcare and other resources.

Additionally, analyzing the pandemic through a sociological lens can provide insights into how individuals and communities respond to crises. Sociologists have studied how social norms and expectations influence behaviors like mask-wearing or social distancing during pandemics.

Example 2: Black Lives Matter Movement

The Black Lives Matter movement is another example where the sociological perspective can be applied in practice. This social movement aims to address systemic racism and violence against Black individuals in America.

By analyzing this movement through a sociological framework, we can gain insights into how power dynamics shape social structures and institutions that perpetuate racial inequality. Sociologists have studied how institutionalized racism operates at various levels of society, including education, criminal justice systems, and political institutions.

Additionally, studying the Black Lives Matter movement through a sociological lens provides insights into how collective action can bring about change within society. Sociologists have studied how social movements develop over time and what factors contribute to their success or failure.

Criticisms of the Sociological Perspective

Sociology, like any other field of study, has faced criticism and challenges over time. Some common critiques of sociology include:

Lack of objectivity . Critics argue that sociology is not an objective science because it is influenced by the researcher’s own biases and values.

Limited scope . Some argue that sociology focuses too much on macro-level social structures and institutions, neglecting the experiences of individuals and their agency.

Inadequate methods . Others criticize sociology for relying too heavily on quantitative methods at the expense of qualitative research, which can provide more in-depth insights into social phenomena.

Political bias . Some have accused sociologists of having a political bias, either towards liberal or conservative ideologies.

However, it’s important to note that sociology has evolved over time and continues to adapt to new challenges. For example:

Objectivity . While complete objectivity may be impossible, sociologists strive to minimize bias through rigorous research methods and peer review processes.

Scope . Sociology has expanded its scope over time to include micro-level analyses of individual experiences and agency as well as macro-level analyses of social structures and institutions.

Methods . Sociologists now use a variety of both quantitative and qualitative research methods to gain a more comprehensive understanding of social phenomena.

Political bias. Sociologists are trained to maintain objectivity in their research regardless of their personal beliefs or political affiliations.

While there are valid criticisms of sociology as a field, it continues to evolve and adapt in response to new challenges. By addressing these critiques head-on and continuing to refine its methods and theories, sociology can continue to provide valuable insights into how society operates.

Final Thoughts the Sociological Perspective

In this article, we explored the sociological perspective and its application in practice. We used examples from current events like the COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement to illustrate how analyzing social phenomena through a sociological framework can provide new insights and perspectives.

We also acknowledged some common critiques of sociology, including lack of objectivity, limited scope, inadequate methods, and political bias. However, we explained how sociology has evolved over time to address these critiques and continues to adapt to new challenges.

Understanding society through a sociological perspective is valuable for individuals and society as a whole because it allows us to see beyond individual experiences and recognize the larger social structures and institutions that shape our lives. By understanding these forces at work within society, we can identify areas where change may be needed to promote greater equity and justice for all individuals.

In conclusion, the sociological perspective provides a unique lens through which we can analyze social phenomena and gain a deeper understanding of society. By continuing to refine our methods and theories, sociology can continue to provide valuable insights into how society operates and how we can work towards building a more just and equitable world.

Anthropology Glossary Terms starting with S

Social Contract Theory

Sociological Perspective

Substantivist Formalist Debate

Disclosure:  Please note that some of the links in this post are affiliate links. When you use one of  my affiliate links , the company compensates me. At no additional cost to you, I’ll earn a commission, which helps me run this blog and keep my in-depth content free of charge for all my readers.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2 Classical Sociological Theories

A Roberts loom in a weaving shed in 1835 (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Learning Objectives

2.0 industrial societies.

• Understand the impact of the industrial revolution.

2.1. Theoretical Perspectives on the Formation of Modern Society

• Describe Durkheim’s functionalist view of modern society.
• Understand the critical sociology view of modern society.
• Explain the difference between Marx’s concept of alienation and Weber’s concept of rationalization.
• Identify how feminists analyze the development of society.

2.2. Living in Capitalist Society

• Understand the relationship between capitalism and the incessant change of modern life.

2.1 The Impact of the Industrial Revolution

In the 18th century, Europe experienced a dramatic rise in technological invention, ushering in an era known as the Industrial Revolution. What made this period remarkable was the number of new inventions that influenced people’s daily lives. Within a generation, tasks that had until this point required months of labour became achievable in a matter of days. Before the Industrial Revolution, work was largely person- or animal-based, relying on human workers or horses to power mills and drive pumps. In 1782, James Watt and Matthew Boulton created a steam engine that could do the work of 12 horses by itself.

Steam power began appearing everywhere. Instead of paying artisans to painstakingly spin wool and weave it into cloth, people turned to textile mills that produced fabric quickly at a better price, and often with better quality. Rather than planting and harvesting fields by hand, farmers were able to purchase mechanical seeders and threshing machines that caused agricultural productivity to soar. Products such as paper and glass became available to the average person, and the quality and accessibility of education and health care soared. Gas lights allowed increased visibility in the dark, and towns and cities developed a nightlife.

One of the results of increased wealth, productivity, and technology was the rise of urban centres. Serfs and peasants, expelled from their ancestral lands, flocked to the cities in search of factory jobs, and the populations of cities became increasingly diverse. The new generation became less preoccupied with maintaining family land and traditions, and more focused on survival. Some were successful in acquiring wealth and achieving upward mobility for themselves and their family. Others lived in devastating poverty and squalor. Whereas the class system of feudalism had been rigid, and resources for all but the highest nobility and clergy were scarce, under capitalism social mobility (both upward and downward) became possible.

It was during the 18th and 19th centuries of the Industrial Revolution that sociology was born. Life was changing quickly and the long-established traditions of the agricultural eras did not apply to life in the larger cities. Masses of people were moving to new environments and often found themselves faced with horrendous conditions of filth, overcrowding, and poverty. Social science emerged in response to the unprecedented scale of the social problems of modern society.

It was during this time that power moved from the hands of the aristocracy and “old money” to the new class of rising bourgeoisie who were able to amass fortunes in their lifetimes. In Canada, a new cadre of financiers and industrialists like Donald Smith (1st Baron Strathcona and Mount Royal) and George Stephen (1st Baron Mount Stephen) became the new power players, using their influence in business to control aspects of government as well. Eventually, concerns over the exploitation of workers led to the formation of labour unions and laws that set mandatory conditions for employees. Although the introduction of new “postindustrial” technologies (like computers) at the end of the 20th century ended the industrial age, much of our social structure and social ideas — such as the nuclear family, left-right political divisions, and time standardization — have a basis in industrial society.

2.1 Theoretical Perspectives on the Formation of Modern Society

While many sociologists have contributed to research on society and social interaction, three thinkers provide the basis of modern-day perspectives. Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber developed different theoretical approaches to help us understand the development of modern capitalist society. In the following discussion of  modern society , we examine Durkheim’s, Marx’s and Weber’s analytical focus on another foundational sociological concept: social structure .As we saw in Chapter 1, social structures can be defined as general patterns of social behaviour and organization that persist through time. Here Durkheim’s analysis focuses on the impacts of the growing division of labour as a uniquely modern social structure, Marx’s on the economic structures of capitalism (private property, class, competition, crisis, etc.), and Weber’s on the rationalized structures of modern organization. While the aspect of modern structure that Durkheim, Marx and Weber emphasize differs, their common approach is to stress the impact of social structure on culture and ways of life rather than the other way around. This remains a key element of sociological explanation today.

Émile Durkheim and Functionalism

Émile Durkheim’s (1858-1917) key focus in studying modern society was to understand the conditions under which social and moral cohesion could be reestablished.  He observed that European societies of the 19th century had undergone an unprecedented and fractious period of social change that threatened to dissolve society altogether.  In his book The Division of Labour in Society (1893/1960), Durkheim argued that as modern societies grew more populated, more complex, and more difficult to regulate, the underlying basis of solidarity or unity within the social order needed to evolve. His primary concern was that the cultural glue that held society together was failing, and that the divisions between people were becoming more conflictual and unmanageable. Therefore Durkheim developed his school of sociology to explain the principles of cohesiveness of societies (i.e., their forms of social solidarity ) and how they change and survive over time. He thereby addressed one of the fundamental sociological questions: why do societies hold together rather than fall apart?

Two central components of social solidarity in traditional, premodern societies were the common collective conscience — the communal beliefs, morals, and attitudes of a society shared by all — and high levels of social integration — the strength of ties that people have to their social groups. These societies were held together because most people performed similar tasks and shared values, language, and symbols. There was a low division of labour, a common religious system of social beliefs, and a low degree of individual autonomy. Society was held together on the basis of mechanical solidarity : a minimal division of labour and a shared collective consciousness with harsh punishment for deviation from the norms. Such societies permitted a low degree of individual autonomy. Essentially there was no distinction between the individual conscience and the collective conscience.

Societies with mechanical solidarity act in a mechanical fashion; things are done mostly because they have always been done that way. If anyone violated the collective conscience embodied in laws and taboos, punishment was swift and retributive . This type of thinking was common in preindustrial societies where strong bonds of kinship and a low division of labour created shared morals and values among people, such as among the feudal serfs. When people tend to do the same type of work, Durkheim argued, they tend to think and act alike.

Modern societies, according to Durkheim, were more complex. Collective consciousness was increasingly weak in individuals and the ties of social integration that bound them to others were increasingly few. Modern societies were characterized by an increasing diversity of experience and an increasing division of people into different occupations and specializations. They shared less and less commonalities that could bind them together.  However, as Durkheim observed, their ability to carry out their specific functions depended upon others being able to carry out theirs. Modern society was increasingly held together on the basis of a division of labour or organic solidarity: a complex system of interrelated parts, working together to maintain stability, i.e., like an organism (Durkheim, 1893/1960).

According to his theory, as the roles individuals in the division of labour become more specialized and unique, and people increasingly have less in common with one another, they also become increasingly interdependent on one another. Even though there is an increased level of individual autonomy — the development of unique  personalities and the opportunity to pursue individualized interests — society has a tendency to cohere because everyone depends on everyone else. The academic relies on the mechanic for the specialized skills required to fix his or her car, the mechanic sends his or her children to university to learn from the academic, and both rely on the baker to provide them with bread for their morning toast. Each member of society relies on the others. In premodern societies, the structures like religious practice that produce shared consciousness and harsh retribution for transgressions function to maintain the solidarity of society as a whole; whereas in modern societies, the occupational structure and its complex division of labour function to maintain solidarity through the creation of mutual interdependence.

While the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity is, in the long run, advantageous for a society, Durkheim noted that it creates periods of chaos and “normlessness.” One of the outcomes of the transition is social anomie . Anomie — literally, “without norms” — is a situation in which society no longer has the support of a firm collective consciousness. There are no clear norms or values to guide and regulate behaviour. Anomie was associated with the rise of industrial society, which removed ties to the land and shared labour; the rise of individualism, which removed limits on what individuals could desire; and the rise of secularism, which removed ritual or symbolic foci and traditional modes of moral regulation. During times of war or rapid economic development, the normative basis of society was also challenged. People isolated in their specialized tasks tend to become alienated from one another and from a sense of collective conscience. However, Durkheim felt that as societies reach an advanced stage of organic solidarity, they avoid anomie by redeveloping a set of shared norms. According to Durkheim, once a society achieves organic solidarity, it has finished its development.

Karl Marx and Critical Sociology

For Marx, the creation of modern society was tied to the emergence of capitalism as a global economic system. In the mid-19th century, as industrialization was expanding, Karl Marx (1818–1883) observed that the conditions of labour became more and more exploitative. The large manufacturers of steel were particularly ruthless, and their facilities became popularly dubbed “satanic mills” based on a poem by William Blake. Marx’s colleague and friend, Frederick Engels, wrote The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844, which described in detail the horrid conditions.

Such is the Old Town of Manchester, and on re-reading my description, I am forced to admit that instead of being exaggerated, it is far from black enough to convey a true impression of the filth, ruin, and uninhabitableness, the defiance of all considerations of cleanliness, ventilation, and health which characterise the construction of this single district, containing at least twenty to thirty thousand inhabitants. And such a district exists in the heart of the second city of England, the first manufacturing city of the world (1812).

Add to that the long hours, the use of child labour, and exposure to extreme conditions of heat, cold, and toxic chemicals, and it is no wonder that Marx referred to capital as “dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks” (Marx, 1867/1995).

As we saw at the beginning of the chapter, Marx’s explanation of the exploitative nature of industrial society draws on a more comprehensive theory of the development of human societies from the earliest hunter-gatherers to the modern era: historical materialism . For Marx, the underlying structure of societies and of the forces of historical change was predicated on the relationship between the “base and superstructure” of societies.  In this model, society’s economic structure forms its base , on which the culture and other social institutions rest, forming its superstructure . For Marx, it is the base—the economic mode of production— that determines what a society’s culture, law, political system, family form, and, most importantly, its typical form of struggle or conflict will be like. Each type of society—hunter-gatherer, pastoral, agrarian, feudal, capitalist—could be characterized as the total way of life that forms around different economic bases.

Marx saw economic conflict in society as the primary means of change. The base of each type of society in history — its economic mode of production — had its own characteristic form of economic struggle. This was because a mode of production is essentially two things: the means of production of a society — anything that is used in production to satisfy needs and maintain existence (e.g., land, animals, tools, machinery, factories, etc.) — and the relations of production of a society — the division of society into economic classes  (the social roles allotted to individuals in production). Marx observed historically that in each epoch or type of society since the early “primitive communist” foraging societies, only one class of persons has owned or monopolized the means of production. Different epochs are characterized by different forms of ownership and different class structures: hunter-gatherer (classless/common ownership), agricultural (citizens/slaves), feudal (lords/peasants), and capitalism (capitalists/“free” labourers). As a result, the relations of production have been characterized by relations of domination since the emergence of private property in the early Agrarian societies. Throughout history, societies have been divided into classes with opposed or contradictory interests. These “class antagonisms,” as he called them, periodically lead to periods of social revolution in which it becomes possible for one type of society to replace another.

The most recent revolutionary transformation resulted in the end of feudalism. A new revolutionary class emerged from among the freemen, small property owners, and middle-class burghers of the medieval period to challenge and overthrow the privilege and power of the feudal aristocracy. The members of the bourgeoisie or capitalist class were revolutionary in the sense that they represented a radical change and redistribution of power in European society. Their power was based in the private ownership of industrial property, which they sought to protect through the struggle for property rights, notably in the English Civil War (1642–1651) and the French Revolution (1789–1799). The development of capitalism inaugurated a period of world transformation and incessant change through the destruction of the previous class structure, the ruthless competition for markets, the introduction of new technologies, and the globalization of economic activity.

As Marx and Engels put it in The Communist Manifesto:

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment.” It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation…. The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society (1848/1977).

However, the rise of the bourgeoisie and the development of capitalism also brought into existence the class of “free” wage labourers, or the proletariat . The proletariat were made up largely of guild workers and serfs who were freed or expelled from their indentured labour in feudal guild and agricultural production and migrated to the emerging cities where industrial production was centred. They were “free” labour in the sense that they were no longer bound to feudal lords or guildmasters. The new labour relationship was based on a contract. However, as Marx pointed out, this meant in effect that workers could sell their labour as a commodity to whomever they wanted, but if they did not sell their labour they would starve. The capitalist had no obligations to provide them with security, livelihood, or a place to live as the feudal lords had done for their serfs. The source of a new class antagonism developed based on the contradiction of fundamental interests between the bourgeois owners and the wage labourers: where the owners sought to reduce the wages of labourers as far as possible to reduce the costs of production and remain competitive, the workers sought to retain a living wage that could provide for a family and secure living conditions. The outcome, in Marx and Engel’s words, was that “society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (1848/1977).

Making Connections: Sociological Concepts

Marx and the theory of alienation.

For Marx, what we do defines who we are. What it is to be “human” is defined by the capacity we have as a species to creatively transform the world in which we live to meet our needs for survival. Humanity at its core is Homo faber (“Man the Creator”). In historical terms, in spite of the persistent nature of one class dominating another, the element of humanity as creator existed. There was at least some connection between the worker and the product, augmented by the natural conditions of seasons and the rising and setting of the sun, such as we see in an agricultural society. But with the bourgeois revolution and the rise of industry and capitalism, workers now worked for wages alone. The essential elements of creativity and self-affirmation in the free disposition of their labour was replaced by compulsion. The relationship of workers to their efforts was no longer of a human nature, but based purely on animal needs. As Marx put it, the worker “only feels himself freely active in his animal functions of eating, drinking, and procreating, at most also in his dwelling and dress, and feels himself an animal in his human functions” (1932/1977).

Marx described the economic conditions of production under capitalism in terms of alienation. Alienation refers to the condition in which the individual is isolated and divorced from his or her society, work, or the sense of self and common humanity. Marx defined four specific types of alienation that arose with the development of wage labour under capitalism.

Alienation from the product of one’s labour. An industrial worker does not have the opportunity to relate to the product he or she is labouring on. The worker produces commodities, but at the end of the day the commodities not only belong to the capitalist, but serve to enrich the capitalist at the worker’s expense. In Marx’s language, the worker relates to the product of his or her labour “as an alien object that has power over him [or her]” (1932/1977). Workers do not care if they are making watches or cars; they care only that their jobs exist. In the same way, workers may not even know or care what products they are contributing to. A worker on a Ford assembly line may spend all day installing windows on car doors without ever seeing the rest of the car. A cannery worker can spend a lifetime cleaning fish without ever knowing what product they are used for.

Alienation from the process of one’s labour. Workers do not control the conditions of their jobs because they do not own the means of production. If someone is hired to work in a fast food restaurant, that person is expected to make the food exactly the way they are taught. All ingredients must be combined in a particular order and in a particular quantity; there is no room for creativity or change. An employee at Burger King cannot decide to change the spices used on the fries in the same way that an employee on a Ford assembly line cannot decide to place a car’s headlights in a different position. Everything is decided by the owners who then dictate orders to the workers. The workers relate to their own labour as an activity that does not belong to them.

Alienation from others. Workers compete, rather than cooperate. Employees vie for time slots, bonuses, and job security. Different industries and different geographical regions compete for investment. Even when a worker clocks out at night and goes home, the competition does not end. As Marx commented in The Communist Manifesto , “No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker” (1848/1977).

Alienation from one’s humanity. A final outcome of industrialization is a loss of connectivity between a worker and what makes them truly human. Humanity is defined for Marx by “conscious life-activity,” but under conditions of wage labour this is taken not as an end in itself — only a means of satisfying the most base, animal-like needs. The “species being” (i.e.,  conscious activity) is only confirmed when individuals can create and produce freely, not simply when they work to reproduce their existence and satisfy immediate needs like animals.

Taken as a whole, then, alienation in modern society means that individuals have no control over their lives. There is nothing that ties workers to their occupations. Instead of being able to take pride in an identity such as being a watchmaker, automobile builder, or chef, a person is simply a cog in the machine. Even in feudal societies, people controlled the manner of their labour as to when and how it was carried out. But why, then, does the modern working class not rise up and rebel?

In response to this problem, Marx developed the concept of false consciousness . False consciousness is a condition in which the beliefs, ideals, or ideology of a person are not in the person’s own best interest. In fact, it is the ideology of the dominant class (here, the bourgeoisie capitalists) that is imposed upon the proletariat. Ideas such as the emphasis of competition over cooperation, of hard work being its own reward, of individuals as being the isolated masters of their own fortunes and ruins, etc. clearly benefit the owners of industry. Therefore, to the degree that workers live in a state of false consciousness, they are less likely to question their place in society and assume individual responsibility for existing conditions.

Like other elements of the superstructure, “consciousness,” is a product of the underlying economic; Marx proposed that the workers’ false consciousness would eventually be replaced with class consciousness  — the awareness of their actual material and political interests as members of a unified class. In The Communist Manifesto , Marx and Engels wrote,

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians (1848/1977).

Capitalism developed the industrial means by which the problems of economic scarcity could be resolved and, at the same time, intensified the conditions of exploitation due to competition for markets and profits. Thus emerged the conditions for a successful working class revolution. Instead of existing as an unconscious “class in itself,” the proletariat would become a “class for itself” and act collectively to produce social change (Marx and Engels, 1848/1977). Instead of just being an inert strata of society, the class could become an advocate for social improvements. Only once society entered this state of political consciousness would it be ready for a social revolution. Indeed, Marx predicted that this would be the ultimate outcome and collapse of capitalism.

To summarise, for Marx, the development of capitalism in the 18th and 19th centuries was utterly revolutionary and unprecedented in the scope and scale of the societal transformation it brought about. In his analysis, capitalism is defined by a unique set of features that distinguish it from previous modes of production like feudalism or agrarianism:

• The means of production (i.e., productive property or capital) are privately owned and controlled.
• Capitalists purchase labour power from workers for a wage or salary.
• The goal of production is to profit from selling commodities in a competitive-free market.
• Profit from the sale of commodities is appropriated by the owners of capital. Part of this profit is reinvested as capital in the business enterprise to expand its profitability.
• The competitive accumulation of capital and profit leads to capitalism’s dynamic qualities: constant expansion of markets, globalization of investment, growth and centralization of capital, boom and bust cycles, economic crises, class conflict, etc.

These features are structural, meaning that they are built-into, and reinforced by, the institutional organization of the economy. They are structures, or persistent patterns of social relationship that exist, in a sense, prior to individuals’ personal or voluntary choices and motives. As structures, they can be said to define the rules or internal logic that underlie the surface or observable characteristics of a capitalist society: its political, social, economic, and ideological formations. Some isolated cases may exist where some of these features do not apply, but they define the overall system that has come to govern the contemporary global economy.

Marx’s analysis of the transition from feudalism to capitalism is historical and materialist because it focuses on the changes in the economic mode of production to explain the transformation of the social order. The expansion of the use of money, the development of commodity markets, the introduction of rents, the accumulation and investment of capital, the creation of new technologies of production, and the early stages of the manufactory system, etc. led to the formation of a new class structure (the bourgeoisie and the proletariat), a new political structure (the nation state), and a new ideological structure (science, human rights, individualism, rationalization, the belief in progress, etc.). The unprecedented transformations that created the modern era — urbanization, colonization, population growth, resource exploitation, social and geographical mobility, etc. — originated in the transformation of the mode of production from feudalism to capitalism. “Only the capitalist production of commodities revolutionizes … the entire economic structure of society in a manner eclipsing all previous epochs” (Marx, 1878). In the space of a couple of hundred years, human life on the planet was irremediably and radically altered. As Marx and Engels put it, capitalism had “create[d] a world after its own image” (1848/1977 ).

Max Weber and Interpretive Sociology

Like the other social thinkers discussed here, Max Weber (1864–1920) was concerned with the important changes taking place in Western society with the advent of capitalism. Arguably, the primary focus of Weber’s entire sociological oeuvre was to determine how and why Western civilization and capitalism developed, and where and when they developed. Why was the West the West? Why did the capitalist system develop in Europe and not elsewhere? Like Marx and Durkheim, he feared that capitalist industrialization would have negative effects on individuals but his analysis differed from theirs in significant respects. Key to the answer to his questions was the concept of rationalization . If other societies had failed to develop modern capitalist enterprise, modern science, and modern, efficient organizational structures, it was because in various ways they had impeded the development of rationalization. Weber’s question was: what are the consequences of rationality for everyday life, for the social order, and for the spiritual fate of humanity?

Unlike Durkheim’s functionalist emphasis on the sources of social solidarity and Marx’s critical emphasis on the materialist basis of class conflict, Weber’s interpretive perspective on modern society emphasizes the development of a rationalized worldview or stance , which he referred to as the disenchantment of the world : “principally there are no mysterious incalculable forces that come into play, but rather one can, in principle, master all things by calculation” (1919/1969).  In other words, the processes of rationalization and disenchantment refer principally to the mode in which modern individuals and institutions interpret or analyze the world and the problems that confront them. As we saw in Chapter 3, rationalization refers to the general tendency in modern society for all institutions and most areas of life to be transformed by the application of rational principles of efficiency and calculation. It overcomes forms of magical thinking and replaces them with cold, objective calculations based on principles of technical efficiency. Older styles of social organization, based on traditional principles of religion, morality, or custom, cannot compete with the efficiency of rational styles of organization and are gradually replaced.

To Weber, capitalism itself became possible through the processes of rationalization. The emergence of capitalism in the West required the prior existence of rational, calculable procedures like double-entry bookkeeping, free labour contracts, free market exchange, and predictable application of law so that it could operate as a form of rational enterprise. Unlike Marx who defined capitalism in terms of the ownership of private property, Weber defined it in terms of its rational processes. For Weber, capitalism is as a form of continuous, calculated economic action in which every element is examined with respect to the logic of investment and return. As opposed to previous types of economic action in which wealth was acquired by force and spent on luxuries, capitalism rested “on the expectation of profit by the utilization of opportunities for exchange, that is, on (formally) peaceful chances for profit.” This implied a continual rationalization of commercial procedures in terms of the logic of capital accumulation. “Where capitalist acquisition is rationally pursued, the corresponding action is adjusted to calculations in terms of capital” (Weber, 1904/1958).

Weber’s analysis of rationalization did not exclusively focus on the conditions for the rise of capitalism however. Capitalism’s “rational” reorganization of economic activity was only one aspect of the broader process of rationalization and disenchantment. Modern science, law, music, art, bureaucracy, politics, and even spiritual life could only have become possible, according to Weber, through the systematic development of precise calculations and planning, technical procedures, and the dominance of “quantitative reckoning.”  He felt that other non-Western societies, however highly sophisticated, had impeded these developments by either missing some crucial element of rationality or by holding to non-rational organizational principles or some element of magical thinking. For example, Babylonian astronomy lacked mathematical foundations, Indian geometry lacked rational proofs, Mandarin bureaucracy remained tied to Confucian traditionalism and the Indian caste system lacked the common “brotherhood” necessary for modern citizenship.

Weber argued however that although the process of rationalization leads to efficiency and effective, calculated decision making, it is in the end an irrational system. The emphasis on rationality and efficiency ultimately has negative effects when taken to its conclusion. In modern societies, this is seen when rigid routines and strict adherence to performance-related goals lead to a mechanized work environment and a focus on efficiency for its own sake. To the degree that rational efficiency begins to undermine the substantial human values it was designed to serve (i.e., the ideals of the good life, ethical values, the integrity of human relationships, the enjoyment of beauty and relaxation) rationalization becomes irrational.

An example of the extreme conditions of rationality can be found in Charlie Chaplin’s classic film Modern Times (1936). Chaplin’s character works on an assembly line twisting bolts into place over and over again. The work is paced by the unceasing rotation of the conveyor belt and the technical efficiency of the division of labour. When he has to stop to swat a fly on his nose all the tasks down the line from him are thrown into disarray. He performs his routine task to the point where he cannot stop his jerking motions even after the whistle blows for lunch. Indeed, today we even have a recognized medical condition that results from such tasks, known as “repetitive stress syndrome.”

For Weber, the culmination of industrialization and rationalization results in what he referred to as the iron cage , in which the individual is trapped by the systems of efficiency that were designed to enhance the well-being of humanity. We are trapped in a cage, or literally a “steel housing”( stahlhartes Gehäuse ), of efficiently organized processes because rational forms of organization have become indispensable. We must continuously hurry and be efficient because there is no time to “waste.” Weber argued that even if there was a social revolution of the type that Marx envisioned, the bureaucratic and rational organizational structures would remain. There appears to be no alternative. The modern economic order “is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production which today determine the lives of all individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with economic acquisition, with irresistible force” (Weber, 1904/1958).

Max Weber and the Protestant Work Ethic

If Marx’s analysis is central to the sociological understanding of the structures that emerged with the rise of capitalism, Max Weber is a central figure in the sociological understanding of the effects of capitalism on modern subjectivity: how our basic sense of who we are and what we might aspire to has been defined by the culture and belief system of capitalism. The key work here is Weber’s Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905/1958) in which he lays out the characteristics of the modern ethos of work. Why do we feel compelled to work so hard?

An ethic or ethos refers to a way of life or a way of conducting oneself in life. For Weber, the Protestant work ethic was at the core of the modern ethos. It prescribes a mode of self-conduct in which discipline, work, accumulation of wealth, self-restraint, postponement of enjoyment, and sobriety are the focus of an individual life.

In Weber’s analysis, the ethic was indebted to the religious beliefs and practices of certain Protestant sects like the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Baptists who emerged with the Protestant Reformation (1517–1648). The Protestant theologian Richard Baxter proclaimed that the individual was “called” to their occupation by God, and therefore, they had a duty to “work hard in their calling.” “He who will not work shall not eat” (Baxter, as cited in Weber, 1958). This ethic subsequently worked its way into many of the famous dictums popularized by the American Benjamin Franklin, like “time is money” and “a penny saved is two pence dear” (i.e., “a penny saved is a penny earned”).

In Weber’s estimation, the Protestant ethic was fundamentally important to the emergence of capitalism, and a basic answer to the question of how and why it could emerge. Throughout the period of feudalism and the domination of the Catholic Church, an ethic of poverty and non-materialist values was central to the subjectivity and worldview of the Christian population. From the earliest desert monks and followers of St. Anthony to the great Vatican orders of the Franciscans and Dominicans, the image of Jesus was of a son of God who renounced wealth, possessions, and the material world. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25). We are of course well aware of the hypocrisy with which these beliefs were often practiced, but even in these cases, wealth was regarded in a different manner prior to the modern era. One worked only as much as was required. As Thomas Aquinas put it “labour [is] only necessary … for the maintenance of individual and community. Where this end is achieved, the precept ceases to have any meaning” (Aquinas, as cited in Weber, 1958). Wealth was not “put to work” in the form of a gradual return on investments as it is under capitalism. How was this medieval belief system reversed? How did capitalism become possible?

The key for Weber was the Protestant sects’ doctrines of predestination, the idea of the personal calling, and the individual’s direct, unmediated relationship to God. In the practice of the Protestant sects, no intermediary or priest interpreted God’s will or granted absolution. God’s will was essentially unknown. The individual could only be recognized as one of the predestined “elect” — one of the saved — through outward signs of grace: through the continuous display of moral self-discipline and, significantly, through the accumulation of earthly rewards that tangibly demonstrated God’s favour. In the absence of any way to know with certainty whether one was destined for salvation, the accumulation of wealth and material success became a sign of spiritual grace rather than a sign of sinful, earthly concerns. For the individual, material success assuaged the existential anxiety concerning the salvation of his or her soul. For the community, material success conferred status.

Weber argues that gradually the practice of working hard in one’s calling lost its religious focus, and the ethic of “sober bourgeois capitalism” (Weber, 1905/1958) became grounded in discipline alone: work and self-improvement for their own sake . This discipline of course produces the rational, predictable, and industrious personality type ideally suited for the capitalist economy. For Weber, the consequence of this, however, is that the modern individual feels compelled to work hard and to live a highly methodical, efficient, and disciplined life to demonstrate their self-worth to themselves as much as anyone. The original goal of all this activity — namely religious salvation — no longer exists. It is a highly rational conduct of life in terms of how one lives, but is simultaneously irrational in terms of why one lives. Weber calls this conundrum of modernity the iron cage . Life in modern society is ordered on the basis of efficiency, rationality, and predictability, and other inefficient or traditional modes of organization are eliminated. Once we are locked into the “technical and economic conditions of machine production” it is difficult to get out or to imagine another way of living, despite the fact that one is renouncing all of the qualities that make life worth living: spending time with friends and family, enjoying the pleasures of sensual and aesthetic life, and/or finding a deeper meaning or purpose of existence. We might be obliged to stay in this iron cage “until the last ton of fossilized coal is burnt” (Weber, 1905/1958).

Her-story: The History of Gender Inequality

Missing in the classical theoretical accounts of modernity is an explanation of how the developments of modern society, industrialization, and capitalism have affected women differently from men. Despite the differences in Durkheim’s, Marx’s, and Weber’s main themes of analysis, they are equally androcentric to the degree that they cannot account for why women’s experience of modern society is structured differently from men’s, or why the implications of modernity are different for women than they are for men. They tell his-story but neglect her-story.

Recall from Chapter 3:   Androcentricism is a perspective in which male concerns, male attitudes, and male practices are presented as “normal” or define what is significant and valued in a culture. Women’s experiences, activities, and contributions to society and history are ignored, devalued, or marginalized.

For most of human history, men and women held more or less equal status in society. In hunter-gatherer societies gender inequality was minimal as these societies did not sustain institutionalized power differences. They were based on cooperation, sharing, and mutual support. There was often a gendered division of labour in that men are most frequently the hunters and women the gatherers and child care providers (although this division is not necessarily strict), but as women’s gathering accounted for up to 80% of the food, their economic power in the society was assured. Where headmen lead tribal life, their leadership is informal, based on influence rather than institutional power (Endicott, 1999). In prehistoric Europe from 7000 to 3500 BCE, archaeological evidence indicates that religious life was in fact focused on female deities and fertility, while family kinship was traced through matrilineal (female) descent (Lerner, 1986).

It was not until about 6,000 years ago that gender inequality emerged. With the transition to early agrarian and pastoral types of societies, food surpluses created the conditions for class divisions and power structures to develop. Property and resources passed from collective ownership to family ownership with a corresponding shift in the development of the monogamous, patriarchal (rule by the father) family structure. Women and children also became the property of the patriarch of the family. The invasions of old Europe by the Semites to the south, and the Kurgans to the northeast, led to the imposition of male-dominated hierarchical social structures and the worship of male warrior gods. As agricultural societies developed, so did the practice of slavery. Lerner (1986) argues that the first slaves were women and children.

The development of modern, industrial society has been a two-edged sword in terms of the status of women in society. Marx’s collaborator Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) argued in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884/1972)   that the historical development of the male-dominated monogamous family originated with the development of private property. The family became the means through which property was inherited through the male line. This also led to the separation of a private domestic sphere and a public social sphere. “Household management lost its public character. It no longer concerned society. It became a private service; the wife became the head servant, excluded from all participation in social production” (1884/1972). Under the system of capitalist wage labour, women were doubly exploited. When they worked outside the home as wage labourers they were exploited in the workplace, often as cheaper labour than men. When they worked within the home, they were exploited as the unpaid source of labour needed to reproduce the capitalist workforce. The role of the proletarian housewife was tantamount to “open or concealed domestic slavery” as she had no independent source of income herself (Engels, 1884/1972). Early Canadian law, for example, was based on the idea that the wife’s labour belonged to the husband. This was the case even up to the famous divorce case of Irene Murdoch in 1973, who had worked the family farm in the Turner Valley, Alberta, side by side with her husband for 25 years. When she claimed 50% of the farm assets in the divorce, the judge ruled that the farm belonged to her husband, and she was awarded only $200 a month for a lifetime of work (CBC, 2001).

On the other hand, feminists note that gender inequality was more pronounced and permanent in the feudal and agrarian societies that proceeded capitalism. Women were more or less owned as property, and were kept ignorant and isolated within the domestic sphere. These conditions still exist in the world today. The World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report (2014) shows that in a significant number of countries women are severely restricted with respect to economic participation, educational attainment, political empowerment, and basic health outcomes. Yemen, Pakistan, Chad, Syria, and Mali were the five worst countries in the world in terms of women’s inequality.

Yemen is the world’s worst country for women in 2014, according to the WEF. In addition to being one of the worst countries in women’s economic participation and opportunity, Yemen received some of the world’s worst scores in relative educational attainment and political participation for females. Just half of women in the country could read, versus 83% of men. Further, women accounted for just 9% of ministerial positions and for none of the positions in parliament. Child marriage is a huge problem in Yemen. According to Human Rights Watch, as of 2006, 52% of Yemeni girls were married before they reached 18, and 14% were married before they reached 15 years of age (Hess, 2014).

With the rise of capitalism, Engels noted that there was also an improvement in women’s condition when they began to work outside the home. Writers like Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) in her Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792/1997) were also able to see, in the discourses of rights and freedoms of the bourgeois revolutions and the Enlightenment, a general “promise” of universal emancipation that could be extended to include the rights of women. The focus of the Vindication of the Rights of Women was on the right of women to have an education, which would put them on the same footing as men with regard to the knowledge and rationality required for “enlightened” political participation and skilled work outside the home. Whereas property rights, the role of wage labour, and the law of modern society continued to be a source for gender inequality, the principles of universal rights became a powerful resource for women to use in order to press their claims for equality.

As the World Economic Forum (2014) study reports, “good progress has been made over the last years on gender equality, and in some cases, in a relatively short time.” Between 2006 and 2014, the gender gap in the measures of economic participation, education, political power, and health narrowed for 95% of the 111 countries surveyed. In the top five countries in the world for women’s equality — Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark — the global gender gap index had closed to 80% or better. (Canada was 19th with a global gender gap index of 75%).

One of the key arguments that sociologists draw from Marx’s analysis is to show that capitalism is not simply an economic system but a social system. The dynamics of capitalism are not a set of obscure economic concerns to be relegated to the business section of the newspaper, but the architecture that underlies the newspaper’s front page headlines; in fact, every headline in the paper. At the time when Marx was developing his analysis, capitalism was still a relatively new economic system, an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of goods and the means to produce them. It was also a system that was inherently unstable and prone to crisis, yet increasingly global in its reach. Today capitalism has left no place on earth and no aspect of daily life untouched.

As a social system, one of the main characteristics of capitalism is incessant change, which is why the culture of capitalism is often referred to as modernity . The cultural life of capitalist society can be described as a series of successive “presents,” each of which defines what is modern, new, or fashionable for a brief time before fading away into obscurity like the 78 rpm record, the 8-track tape, and the CD. As Marx and Engels put it, “Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty, and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fast-frozen relations … are swept away, all new ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air…” (1848/1977, p. 224). From the ghost towns that dot the Canadian landscape to the expectation of having a lifetime career, every element of social life under capitalism has a limited duration.

alienation: The condition in which an individual is isolated from his or her society, work, sense of self and/or common humanity.

anomie : A situation of uncertain norms and regulations in which society no longer has the support of a firm collective consciousness.

bourgeoisie : The owners of the means of production in a society.

class consciousness : Awareness of one’s class position and interests.

collective conscience : The communal beliefs, morals, and attitudes of a society.

disenchantment of the world : The replacement of magical thinking by technological rationality and calculation.

false consciousness : When a person’s beliefs and ideology are in conflict with his or her best interests.

industrial societies : Societies characterized by a reliance on mechanized labour to create material goods.

iron cage : A situation in which an individual is trapped by the rational and efficient processes of social institutions.

mechanical solidarity: Social solidarity or cohesion through a shared collective consciousness with harsh punishment for deviation from the norms.

organic solidarity :   Social solidarity or cohesion through a complex division of labour, mutual interdependence and restitutive law.

proletariat : The wage labourers in capitalist society.

rationalization : The general tendency in modern society for all institutions and most areas of life to be transformed by the application of rationality and efficiency.

social class: A group defined by a distinct relationship to the means of production.

social integration : How strongly a person is connected to his or her social group.

social structure:  General patterns of social behaviour and organization that persist through time.

Section Summary

2.1. Theoretical Perspectives on the Formation of Modern Society Émile Durkheim believed that as societies advance, they make the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity. For Karl Marx, society exists in terms of class conflict. With the rise of capitalism, workers become alienated from themselves and others in society. Sociologist Max Weber noted that the rationalization of society can be taken to unhealthy extremes. Feminists note that the androcentric point of view of the classical theorists does not provide an adequate account of the difference in the way the genders experience modern society.

Section Quiz

2.1. Theoretical Perspectives on Society 1. Organic solidarity is most likely to exist in which of the following types of societies?

• hunter-gatherer
• agricultural

2. According to Marx, the _____ own the means of production in a society.

• proletariat
• bourgeoisie

3. Which of the following best depicts Marx’s concept of alienation from the process of one’s labour?

• A supermarket cashier always scans store coupons before company coupons because she was taught to do it that way.
• A businessman feels that he deserves a raise, but is nervous to ask his manager for one; instead, he comforts himself with the idea that hard work is its own reward.
• An associate professor is afraid that she won’t be given tenure and starts spreading rumours about one of her associates to make herself look better.
• A construction worker is laid off and takes a job at a fast food restaurant temporarily, although he has never had an interest in preparing food before.

4. The Protestant work ethic is based on the concept of predestination, which states that ________.

• performing good deeds in life is the only way to secure a spot in Heaven.
• salvation is only achievable through obedience to God.
• no person can be saved before he or she accepts Jesus Christ as his or her saviour.
• God has already chosen those who will be saved and those who will be damned.

5. The concept of the iron cage was popularized by which of the following sociological thinkers?

• Émile Durkheim
• Friedrich Engels

6. Émile Durkheim’s ideas about society can best be described as ________.

• functionalist.
• conflict theorist.
• symbolic interactionist.
• rationalist.

[Quiz answers at end of chapter]

Further Research

2.1. Types of Societies The Maasai are a modern pastoral society with an economy largely structured around herds of cattle. Read more about the Maasai people and see pictures of their daily lives: http://openstaxcollege.org/l/The-Maasai

2.2. Theoretical Perspectives on Society One of the most influential pieces of writing in modern history was Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ The Communist Manifesto . Visit this site to read the original document that spurred revolutions around the world: http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Communist-Party

Solutions to Section Quiz

1 B, | 2 C, | 3 D, | 4 D, | 5 A, | 6 A [Return to quiz]

Introduction to Sociology (Custom edition for SS108 Mohawk College) Copyright © 2016 by William Little is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Your Article Library

Essay on sociology: the meaning of sociology (800 words).

ADVERTISEMENTS:

This article provides information about the meaning of Sociology as a science:

Sociology as a science and particularly as a separate field of study is of recent origin. It is the youngest of the social sciences. August Comte, the father of sociology, first of conceived the word ‘sociology’ in, 1839. He had intended to name the new science social physics, but he rejected this term after a Belgian scholar, Adolphe Quetelet, began to make statistical studies of society and to call his area of Endeavour social physics.

Image Courtesy : 2.bp.blogspot.com/_oJiC4AmR4UU/S_BwtxtAhqI/AAAAAAAAAjc/nOwJZfxIlyU/s1600/LSE+Cities.jpg

The word sociology is a barbaric combination of Latin word ‘socius’ and Greek word Logus, Logus connotes study on a high level and socius points to society. Thus, etymologically, sociology means the study of society on a highly generalised or abstract level. In other words, the etymological meaning of sociology is the ‘science of society’.

In a primary way, society may be defined as men or human beings in interdependence. Men in interdependence therefore may be taken as the subject matter of sociology. Other sciences study men as individuals or as collections of individuals but do not study their interdependence.

Sociology is the science of society as a whole. No other social science endeavours to study society in totality. Social sciences like history, economics, political science, anthropology, psychology etc. deal with particular aspect of society. Political science deals with political institutions and political activities.

History deals with unique events relating to past. Economic is concerned with activities relating to production and consumption. These social sciences do not give a complete picture of the society. Sociology on the other hand, studies society in its entirety.

It essentially and fundamentally deals with that network of social relationships we call society. Science has been defined as a body of knowledge. Sociology is also a body of knowledge about society. Sociology as science of society refers to a body of knowledge about society which has been empirically tested. Society may be defined as the complicated network and ever-changing pattern of social relationships. Sociology is the science of society, thus defined.

Sociology has been defined in number of ways by different scholars. There are as many definitions of sociology as there are sociologists. To understand more fully what sociology is about some of its definitions may be cited as follows:

In 1839, Comte defined sociology as the science of human association or the study of gregarious life. In 1851, he attempted to give more flesh and blood to the said definition in his work System of Positive Politics. He conceived of sociology as an abstract theoretical science of social phenomena. According to him it is the business of sociology to discover and abstract social laws and thereby to explain the social phenomena.

Sociology is the study of groups. According to many sociologists, sociology studies man as a member of the -group and as a participant in culture. Man is never an individual in isolation. It has been said that the group is the datum of sociology, not the individual human being. Sociology studies human beings in their group relations, human behaviour in terms of groups and groupings.

Harry M. Johnson writes,” Sociology is the science that deals with social groups: their internal forms or modes of organisation, the processes that tend to maintain or change these forms of organisation, and the relations between groups.”

Sociology is the study of social relationships. Small defines sociology as “the science of social relations”. According to R.E. Park and F.W. Burgess, “Sociology is the science of collective behaviour. Sociology may be defined as a body of scientific knowledge about human relationships, says J. F. Cuber.

“In the broadest sense, sociology is the study of human interactions and interrelations, their conditions and consequences”, says Morris Ginsberg.

According to Maclver and Page “sociology is ‘about’ social relationships, the network of relationship we call society”.

F.H. Giddings defines sociology as “the science of social phenomena”

Max Weber defines Sociology as “the science which attempts the interpretative understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its cause and effects”.

A careful examination of definitions shows that sociologist differ in their opinion about the definitions of sociology. However, we may find following views about its definitions.

1. Sociology is a science of society.

2. Sociology is the study of groups or social system.

3. Sociology is the study of social relationships.

4. Sociology is the study of human interactions and interrelations, their conditions and consequences.

5. Sociology is the study of social action.

6. Sociology is the study of social phenomena.

Sociology is the scientific study of human social life and groups. It is study of societies, giving special emphasis on modern societies. Sociology is the systematic study of social institutions; their nature, functions and interactions, sequences of continuity and change.

Related Articles:

• Contribution of Political Science to Sociology
• Sociology: What is the Scope of Sociology? (595 Words)

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Module 1: Foundations of Sociology

The sociological imagination, learning outcomes.

• Define the sociological imagination
• Apply the sociological imagination

Figure 1.  The sociological imagination enables you to look at your life and your own personal issues and relate them to other people, history, or societal structures.

Many people believe they understand the world and the events taking place within it, even though they have not actually engaged in a systematic attempt to understanding the social world, as sociologists do. In this section, you’ll learn to think like a sociologist.

The sociological imagination , a concept established by C. Wright Mills (1916-1962) provides a framework for understanding our social world that far surpasses any common sense notion we might derive from our limited social experiences. Mills was a contemporary sociologist who brought tremendous insight into the daily lives of society’s members. Mills stated: “Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both” [1] .  The sociological imagination is making the connection between personal challenges and larger social issues. Mills identified “troubles” (personal challenges) and “issues” (larger social challenges), also known as biography, and history, respectively. Mills’ sociological imagination allows individuals to see the relationships between events in their personal lives (biography), and events in their society (history). In other words, this mindset provides the ability for individuals to realize the relationship between their personal experiences and the larger society in which they live their lives.

Personal troubles are private problems experienced within the character of the individual and the range of their immediate relation to others. Mills identified that we function in our personal lives as actors and actresses who make choices about our friends, family, groups, work, school, and other issues within our control. We have a degree of influence on the outcome of matters within this personal level. A college student who parties 4 nights out of 7, who rarely attends class, and who never does his homework has a personal trouble that interferes with his odds of success in college. However, when 50% of all college students in the United States never graduate, we label it as a larger social issue.

Larger social or public issues are those that lie beyond one’s personal control and the range of one’s inner life. These pertain to broader matters of organization and process, which are rooted in society rather than in the individual. Nationwide, students come to college as freshmen who are often ill-prepared to understand the rigors of college life. They haven’t often been challenged enough in high school to make the necessary adjustments required to succeed in college. Nationwide, the average teenager text messages, surfs the Net, plays video games, watches TV, spends hours each day with friends, and works at least part-time. Where and when would he or she get experience focusing attention on college studies and the rigorous self-discipline required to transition into college?

The real power of the sociological imagination is found in how we learn to distinguish between the personal and social levels in our own lives. This includes economic challenges. For example, many students do not purchase required textbooks for college classes at both 2-year colleges and 4-year colleges and universities. Many students simply do not have the money to purchase textbooks, and while this can seem like a “choice,” some of the related social issues include rising tuition rates, decreasing financial aid, increasing costs of living and decreasing wages. The Open Educational Resource (OER) movement has sought to address this  personal trouble  as a  public issue  by partnering with institutional consortia and encouraging large city and state institutions to adopt OER materials. A student who does not purchase the assigned textbook might see this as a private problem, but this student is part of a growing number of college students who are forced to make financial decisions based on structural circumstances.

A majority of personal problems are not experienced as exclusively personal issues, but are influenced and affected by social norms, habits, and expectations. Consider issues like homelessness, crime, divorce, and access to healthcare. Are these all caused by personal choices, or by societal problems? Using the sociological imagination, we can view these issues as interconnected personal and public concerns.

For example, homelessness may be blamed on the individuals who are living on the streets. Perhaps their personal choices influenced their position; some would say they are lazy, unmotivated, or uneducated. This approach of blaming the victim fails to account for the societal factors that also lead to homelessness—what types of social obstacles and social failings might push someone towards homelessness? Bad schools, high unemployment, high housing costs, and little family support are all social issues that could contribute to homelessness. C. Wright Mills, who originated the concept of the sociological imagination, explained it this way: “the very structure of opportunities has collapsed. Both the correct statement of the problem and the range of possible solutions require us to consider the economic and political institutions of the society, and not merely the personal situation and character of a scatter of individuals.”

Watch the following video to see an example of how the sociological imagination is used to understand the issue of obesity.

• Mills, C. W.: 1959, The Sociological Imagination, Oxford University Press, London. ↵
• Modification, adaptation, and original content. Authored by : Sarah Hoiland for Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• The Sociological Imagination. Provided by : College of the Canyons. Located at : https://www.canyons.edu/Offices/DistanceLearning/OER/Documents/Open%20Textbooks%20At%20COC/Sociology/SOCI%20101/The%20Sociological%20Imagination.pdf . Project : Sociology 101. License : CC BY: Attribution
• People graphic. Authored by : Peggy_Marco. Provided by : pixabay. Located at : https://pixabay.com/en/network-society-social-community-1019778/ . License : CC0: No Rights Reserved

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Sociological Imagination — Sociological Imagination: Definition, Importance, and Applications

Sociological Imagination: Definition, Importance, and Applications

• Categories: Sociological Imagination

About this sample

Words: 650 |

Published: Jan 31, 2024

Words: 650 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Definition and explanation of sociological imagination, the importance of sociological imagination, application of sociological imagination, criticisms and limitations of sociological imagination.

• C. Wright Mills. "The Sociological Imagination." Oxford University Press, 1959.
• Giddens, Anthony. "Sociology." Polity Press, 2006.
• Mills, Theodore. "The Sociological Imagination and Its Promise." Perspectives on Politics, vol. 8, no. 4, 2010, pp. 1007–1015.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 639 words

3 pages / 1177 words

3 pages / 1439 words

1 pages / 519 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Sociological Imagination

In conclusion, sociological imagination provides a powerful framework for understanding society by connecting personal experiences with larger social forces. By recognizing the distinction between personal troubles and public [...]

Sociological imagination is a concept put forward by the sociologist C. Wright Mills in 1959. It refers to the ability to see the intersection between personal troubles and public issues, and to understand how these two are [...]

The concept of the sociological imagination, as formulated by C. Wright Mills, has been a cornerstone of sociological theory and practice since its in 1959. In his seminal work, Mills argued that individuals must look beyond [...]

Sociological imagination is a concept introduced by sociologist C. Wright Mills in 1959. It refers to the ability to see and understand the connections between individual experiences and larger social forces. This concept has [...]

The sociological imagination is not a concept familiar to most people. This concept is used to describe the ability to “think yourself away from the familiar routines of everyday life” and to essentially look at them through a [...]

The first thing to note whilst reading ‘The Sociological Imagination’ (first published in 1959) is that when C. Write Mills refers to “man”/ “men” he is in fact referring to the entire population rather than specifically the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, what is sociological imagination how can you use it.

General Education

Have you ever wondered why your family cooks turkey on Thanksgiving? If you ask, you might get all kinds of reasons: because it’s tradition, because it tastes good, because it’s what the pilgrims ate back in the early days of America. All of those factors—taste, personal history, and world history—lead to one small action of you eating turkey on a holiday.

That’s the premise of sociological imagination. Like imagination in the more typical sense, the sociological imagination asks us to use our brains to think differently about things and consider why we do the things we do.

In this article, we’ll introduce the concept of sociological imagination, its history, how it changed the sociological field, and how you can use it every day to change your way of thinking about the world.

What Is Sociological Imagination?

The sociological imagination is a method of thinking about the world. As you may have guessed, it’s part of the field of sociology, which studies human society.

When you put “sociological”—studying society—and “imagination”—the concept of forming new ideas, often creatively—together, you get a pretty good definition of the concept: a method of thinking about both individuals and society by considering a variety of sociological contexts. 

The societal imagination encourages people to think about their lives not just on an individual level, but also considering societal, biological, and historical context. Societal context tells us about our culture—when we consider it, we think about how our desires, actions, and thoughts are shaped by our community and how that community is changing. Biological context tells us about how “human nature” impacts our desires and needs. And lastly, historical context considers our place in time; how have events of the past led up to where we are currently?

Basically, the concept of sociological imagination suggests that who you are as an individual is also the you shaped by your immediate surroundings, your family, your friends, your country, and the world as a whole. You may make individual choices about what to eat for lunch, but what you choose—a tuna sandwich, lobster ravioli, or shrimp tacos—is also determined by societal factors like where you live and what you’ve grown up eating.

To use the sociological imagination is to shift your perspective away from yourself and look at things more broadly, bringing in context to individual actions.

If you’re thinking about lunch, you’re probably more likely to choose something that’s familiar to you. In another culture or even another part of your city, a person who is very similar to you might choose a different food because of what’s familiar to them. If we zoom out a little further, we might realize that people in landlocked states might be unlikely to choose a seafood-based lunch at all because fresh fish is more expensive than it is on the coast. Zoom out more, and you might realize that fish isn’t even on the menu for some cultures because of societal taboos or restrictions.

And those are just spatial boundaries. You can also consider your family’s relationship with eating fish, or how your cultural and ethnic heritage impacted where you are, what food you have access to, and your personal tastes. All of this lets you see yourself and your culture in a new light, as a product of society and history.

In this sense, using a sociological imagination lets you look at yourself and your culture as a third-party observer. The goal is not to be dispassionate and distant, but rather to see yourself not as “natural” or “normal,” as a part of larger systems, the same way that all people are.

Why the Sociological Imagination Is Useful

Part of the appeal of using a sociological imagination is that it helps people avoid apathy . In this context, apathy refers to a sense of indifference or disinterest in examining the morality of their leaders. According to C. Wright Mills , creator of the idea of sociological imagination, if we accept that our beliefs, traditions, and actions are all normal and natural, we are less likely to interrogate when our leaders and community members do things that are immoral.

Considering sociological context allows individuals to question and change society rather than just live in it. When we understand historical and social contexts, we’re better equipped to look at our actions and the actions of our community as a result of systems—which can be changed—rather than as inherent to humanity.

In more technical terms, Mills was challenging the dominant structural functionalist approach to sociology. Structural functionalism suggests that society is composed of different structures that shape the interactions and relationships between people, and those relationships can be understood and analyzed to help us learn more about a society.

What differed for Mills and his concept of the sociological imagination was that he believed that society was not only a series of systems, but that the role of the individual should also be considered. In fact, Mills believed that social structures arise because of conflict between groups , typically the elite and the others, such as the government and the citizens or the rich and the poor.

Where Does the Term Come From?

As previously mentioned, C. Wright Mills is the origin of the term “sociological imagination.” In his 1959 book The Sociological Imagination , the Columbia University professor of sociology suggested that sociologists rethink the way they were engaging with the field. During his time, many sociologists engaged in a sort of top-down view of the world, focusing on systems rather than on individuals. Mills believed both were important, and that society should be understood as a relationship between different systems that originated in conflict.

Though his book has since been named one of the most important sociological texts of the 20th century, Mills was not popular among his contemporaries. Mills was particularly concerned with class in social spheres, particularly the elite and the military, and how conflict between the elite and the non-elite impacted the actions of individuals and vice-versa.

Mills was also opposed to the tendency of sociologists to observe rather than act. He believed that sociology was a great tool for changing the world, and believed that using the sociological imagination encouraged people of all kinds, including sociologists, to expose and respond to social injustice.

Mills referred to the tendency of sociologists to think in abstraction “grand theory.” This tendency led to sociologists of the time being more concerned with organization and taxonomy over understanding—because Mills was so concerned with the experience of the individual as well as the experience of the whole, this contributed to his feeling that the sociological field was too far removed from the actual humans that comprise society.

Because so much of Mills’ ideas of the sociological imagination were intended to bring sociologists closer to the people and their concerns, he developed a series of tenets to encourage them to think differently.

Mills’ Sociological Imagination Tips

Mills' book was all about how the sociological imagination could help society, but it wasn't only a theoretical approach.  The Sociological Imagination contained tips for sociologists as well as the general public to help them better contextualize the world!

Avoid Existing Sets of Procedures

So much of sociology was based on existing systems that Mills felt the field focused on method over humanity. To combat this, he suggested that sociologists should function as individuals and propose new theories and methodologies that could challenge and enhance established norms.

Be Clear and Concise

Mills believed that some of the academic language used in the field of sociology encouraged the sense of distance that so troubled him. Instead, he advocated that sociologists be clear and concise when possible, and that they do not couch their theories in language intended to distance themselves from society and from criticism.

Observe the Macro and Micro

Prior to Mills’ work, structural functionalism was the primary philosophy of the field. Mills disagreed with the top-down approach to sociology, and encouraged sociologists to engage with the macro, as they had been doing, in addition to the micro. He believed that history is comprised of both the big and small, and that study of each is required for a robust field.

Observe Social Structure as Well as Milieu

Building off of his last point, Mills also suggested that social structure and individual actions, which he called “milieu,” were interconnected and equally worthy of study. He explained that individual moments, as well as long spans of time, were equally necessary to understanding society.

Avoid Arbitrary Specialization

Mills advocated for a more interdisciplinary approach to sociology. Part of the sociological imagination is thinking outside of the boundaries of yourself; to do so, Mills suggested that sociologists look beyond their specialized fields toward a more comprehensive understanding.

Always Consider Humanity and History

Because so much of sociology in the time of Mills’ writing was concerned with systems, he advocated for more consideration of both humanity and history. That meant looking at human experience on an individual and societal level, as well as within a specific and broad historical context.

Understand Humanity as Historical and Social Actors

Mills wanted sociologists to consider humans as products of society, but also society as products of humanity. According to Mills, people may act on an individual basis, but their individual desires and thoughts are shaped by the society in which they live. Therefore, sociologists should consider human action as a product of not just individual desires, but also historical and social actors.

Consider Individuals in Connection with Social Issues—Public is Personal, Personal is Public

One of Mills’ biggest points was that an individual problem is often also a societal problem. He suggested that sociologists should look beyond the common discourse and find alternate explanations and considerations.

 2 In-Depth Sociological Imagination Examples

The sociological imagination can be complex to wrap your mind around, particularly if you’re not already a sociologist. When you take this idea and apply it to a specific example, however, it becomes a lot easier to understand how and why it works to broaden your horizons. As such, we've developed two in-depth sociological imagination examples to help you understand this concept.

Buying a Pair of Shoes

Let’s start with a pretty basic example—buying a pair of shoes. When you think about buying a new pair of shoes, your explanation may be fairly simple, such as that you need a new pair of shoes for a particular purpose, like running or a school dance, or that you simply like the way they look. Both of those things may be true, but using your sociological imagination takes you out of the immediacy of those to answers and encourages you to think deeper.

So let’s go with the first explanation that you need a new pair of running shoes. Our first step toward using the sociological imagination is asking yourself ‘why?’ Well, so you can go running, of course! But why do you want to go running, as opposed to any other form of exercise? Why get into exercise at all? Why new running shoes rather than used ones?

Once you start asking these questions, you can start to see how it’s not just an individual choice on your part —the decision to buy running shoes is a product of the society you live in, your economic situation, your local community, and so on. Maybe you want to go running because you want to get into shape, and your favorite Instagram profile is big into running. Maybe you recently watched a news report about heart health and realized that you need a new exercise regimen to get into shape. And maybe you’ve chosen new shoes over used ones because you have the financial means to purchase a name-brand pair.

If you were a different person in a different context—say if you lived in a poorer area, or an area with more crime, or another country where other forms of exercise are more practical or popular—you might have made different choices. If you lived in a poorer area, designer shoes may not even be available to you. If there was a lot of crime in your area, running might be an unsafe method of exercise. And if you lived in another country, maybe you’d take up biking or tai chi or bossaball.

When you consider these ideas, you can see that while you’re certainly an individual making individual decisions, those decisions are, in part, shaped by the context you live in. That’s using your sociological imagination—you’re seeing how the personal decision of buying a pair of running shoes is also public, in that what is available to you, what societal pressures you experience, and what you feel are all shaped by your surroundings.

Who People Choose to Marry

Marriage for love is the norm in American culture, so we assume that the same is true and always has been true. Why else would anybody marry?

When we use our sociological imaginations, we can figure it out. You might get married to your partner because you love them, but why else might you get married? Well, it can make your taxes simpler, or make you more qualified to get a home loan. If your partner is from another country, it might help them stay within the US. So even in the United States, where marriage is typically thought of as a commitment of love, there are multiple other reasons you might get married.

Throughout history, marriage was a means to make alliances or acquire property, usually with a woman as a bargaining chip. Love wasn’t even part of the equation—in fact, in ancient Rome one politician was ousted from the Senate for having the gall to kiss his wife in public .

It wasn’t until the 17th and 18th centuries that love became a reason to marry, thanks to the Enlightenment idea that lives should be dedicated to pursuing happiness. But at that point, women were still seen more like property than people—it wasn’t until the women’s rights movements of the 1900s that American women advocated for their own equality in marriage.

In other cultures, polygamy might be acceptable, or people might have arranged marriages, where a person’s family chooses their spouse for them. That sounds strange to us, but only because in our culture the norm is marrying for love, with other reasons, such as financial or immigration concerns, being secondary.

So even for an individual, there might be multiple factors at play in the decision to be made. You may never articulate these desires because getting married for love is our cultural norm (and it wouldn’t sound very good in a wedding speech), but these kinds of considerations do have subconscious effects on our decision-making.

Sociological Imagination in the Sociology Community

As you might have gathered from the numerous challenges Mills’ concept of the sociological imagination posed to established practices, he wasn’t a super popular figure in sociology during his time.

Many sociologists were resistant to Mills’ suggested changes to the field. In fact, Mills is sometimes heralded to be ahead of his time , as the values he espoused about human connection and societal issues were prominent thoughts in the 1960s, just after his death. 

One of his former students wrote about how Mills stood in contrast to other sociologists of the era, saying:

“Mills’s very appearance was a subject of controversy. In that era of cautious professors in gray flannel suits he came roaring into Morningside Heights on his BMW motorcycle, wearing plaid shirts, old jeans and work boots, carrying his books in a duffel bag strapped across his broad back. His lectures matched the flamboyance of his personal image, as he managed to make entertaining the heavyweight social theories of Mannheim, Ortega and Weber. He shocked us out of our Silent Generation torpor by pounding his desk and proclaiming that every man should build his own house (as he himself did a few years later) and that, by God, with the proper study, we should each be able to build our own car! “Nowadays men often feel that their private lives are a series of traps,” Mills wrote in the opening sentence of The Sociological Imagination, and I can hear him saying it as he paced in front of the class, speaking not loudly now but with a compelling sense of intrigue, as if he were letting you in on a powerful secret.”

Though Mills’ philosophy is hugely important to today’s sociology field, his skewering of power and the myopic nature of his era’s academics didn’t make him many friends .

However, as time has gone on, the field has come to regard him differently. His challenge to the field helped reshape it into something that is concerned with the macro as well as the micro. Conversations—even negative ones—about Mills’ proposals helped circulate his ideas, leading to The Sociological Imagination eventually being voted as the second most important sociological text of the 20th century .

How to Apply Sociological Imagination to Your Own Life

The great thing about sociological imagination is that you don’t need to be a trained sociologist to do it. You don’t need a huge vocabulary or a deep understanding of sociological texts—just the willingness to step outside of your own viewpoint and consider the world in context.

This helps you escape your own perspective and think about the world differently. That can mean you’re able to make decisions less tinged with cultural bias—maybe you don’t need those expensive running shoes after all.

To train your sociological imagination, get into the habit of asking questions about behavior that seems “normal” to you. Why do you think it’s normal? Where did you learn it? Are there places it may not be seen as normal?

Consider a relatively common tradition like Christmas, for example. Even if you don’t come from a particularly religious family, you may still celebrate the holiday because it’s common in our society. Why is that? Well, it could be that it’s a tradition. But where did that tradition come from? Probably from your ancestors, who may have been more devout than your current family. You can trace this kind of thinking backward and consider your personal history, your family history, and the surrounding cultural context (not all cultures celebrate Christmas, of course!) to understand how something that feels “normal” got to that state.

But cultural context isn’t the only important part of the sociological imagination—Mills also suggested that sociologists should consider the personal and the public, as well. When you come upon something that seems like a personal issue, think about it in a societal context. Why might that person behave the way that they do? Are there societal causes that might contribute to their situation?

A common example of this is the idea of unemployment. If you are unemployed, you may feel simultaneous feelings of frustration, unease, and even self-loathing. Many people blame themselves for their lack of a job, but there are societal factors at play, too. For example, there may simply be no jobs available nearby, particularly if you’re trained in a specific field or need to hit a certain income level to care for your family. You may have been laid off due to poor profits, or even because you live in a place where it’s legal to terminate employment based on sexuality or gender identity. You may be unable to find work because you’re spending so much time caring for your family that you simply don’t have time to apply for many jobs.

So while unemployment may seem like a personal issue, there are actually lots of societal issues that can contribute to it. Mills’ philosophy asks us to consider both in conversation with one another—it’s not that individuals have no free will, but rather that each person is a product of their society as well as an individual.

What’s Next?

Psychology, like sociology, can give us insight into human behavior. If you're thinking of studying psychology in the future, this list of psychology master's programs can give you a great look at which colleges have the best programs!

Sociology can even help you understand works of literature, like The Great Gatsby ! Learn more about F. Scott Fitzgerald's take on the American Dream from our guide.

A good understanding of history is one of the core pieces to a good sociological imagination. To improve your historical knowledge, consider these high school history classes you should take !

Melissa Brinks graduated from the University of Washington in 2014 with a Bachelor's in English with a creative writing emphasis. She has spent several years tutoring K-12 students in many subjects, including in SAT prep, to help them prepare for their college education.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Karl Marx Sociologist: Contributions and Theory

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Marxism is a social, political, and economic theory proposed by Karl Marx in the 19th century, and Marxists are those who ascribe to the ideas of Marxism.

Karl Marx was a German philosopher interested in exploring the relationship between the economy and the people working within the economic system.

Marx’s theory was strongly based on the struggles of the working class during the Industrial Revolution in Europe. He explained how there are power relationships between the capitalists and the workers, which are exploitative and would eventually cause class conflict.

According to Marx, the workers are those from a low social class, which he termed the proletariat, whereas those few in charge, the wealthy bosses, owners, and managers, are what he termed the bourgeoisie.

The proletariat are the individuals who perform labor that is then taken and sold by the bourgeoisie so that they themselves receive profit while the workers receive minimal wages.

Noteworthy writings of Marxism include Capital by Marx and The Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Friedrich Engels. These writings describe the features of Marxist ideology, including the struggle of the working class, capitalism, and how a classless society is needed to end the class conflict.

Key Takeaways

• Karl Marx was a German philosopher who, in the 19th century, began exploring the relationship between the economy and the people who work within the economic system.
• The basic idea of Marx’s theory is that society is characterized by the struggle between the workers and those in charge. The workers are those of lower social classes, which he termed the proletariat.
• The few in charge, who are the bosses, owners, and managers of an upper social class, are what he termed the bourgeoisie. The proletariat are the individuals who perform the labor, while the bourgeoisie obtains the profits from this labor. From this system, Marx argued that the workers are exploited while those in power get more powerful and wealthier.
• The workers are viewed as slaves of the bourgeoisie, given wages for their labor that is the minimum subsidence so that they can just about survive while also depending on their labor that they cannot simply quit (Marx & Engels, 2019).
• The writings ‘Capital’ by Marx and ‘The Communist Manifesto’ written by Marx and Friedrich Engels are noteworthy pieces that lay out what is now referred to as Marxism.
• These writings discuss capitalism, which is believed to eventually stagnate due to the increased struggle between the social classes.
• Marxist ideology predicts that there will be a proletariat revolution whereby capitalism will end, to be replaced by communism.

The Basic Principles Of Marx’s Theory

Class struggle.

Marx argued that there were two social classes; the working-class laborers, known as the proletariat, and the wealthy bourgeoise, who controlled the workers.

Marx argued that there is a struggle between the social classes. While the bourgeoisie is concerned with the means of producing via the laborers, those who conduct the labor, the proletariat , want to end this exploitation.

Marx explained that there is a constant conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. While the bourgeoisie aims to make as much profit as possible by exploiting the labor of others, the proletariat is dissatisfied with this exploitation and wants to end it.

Class tensions are thought to increase with the opposing desires of those who want bigger profits and the workers who defend their right to fair pay and working conditions.

Competition in the market and the desire for bigger profits compels the bourgeoisie to further exploit their workers, who defend their rights and working conditions. These opposing desires of pushing the rate of exploitation in opposite directions create class tensions.

Over time, there is a broader division of labor and increased use of machinery to complete the labor. Marx and Engels argued that with this came an increase in the burden of toil, whether by the work hours getting longer, an increase in the amount of work in a given time, or by the increased speed of the machinery.

The workers are viewed as slaves of the bourgeoisie and the machine, given wages for their labor that is the minimum subsidence so they can just about survive while also depending on their labor (Marx & Engels, 2019).

The struggle between social classes was initially confined to individual factories. However, as capitalism matured, personal struggles became generalized to coalitions across factories and eventually manifested at societal levels (Rummel, 1977).

Marxists believe that the division between classes will widen with the exploitation of the workers deteriorating so severely that the social structure collapses and transforms into a proletarian revolution . A classless society will pursue erasing any exploitation or political authority (Rummel, 1977).

Theory of Capitalism

Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals have the means of control over their own property, with the motivation to make as much profit as possible.

Marx describes capitalists as those who exploit the hard work of the laborers and pay them as little as possible to ensure the highest profits. The capitalists believe they are entitled to the profits made from their workers’ labor, which Marx viewed as theft.

Marx described the capitalists as the bourgeoisie business owners who organized the means of production, such as any tools or machinery used, and were entitled to any profit made.

Marxists believe that most societies are capitalist. That such a system is accepted without the need for violence or coercion is said to reflect the fact that the capitalists have a strong influence over ideas in society (Rose, 2005).

Marx saw profit as theft since the capitalists are stealing the hard work of the laborers, selling goods and services for an enormous profit while paying the laborers as little as possible. Workers’ labor is bought and sold like any other commodity.

That such a system is accepted without the need for violence or coercion reflects the fact that the capitalists have a strong influence over ideas in society (Rosen, 2005).

Marx viewed capitalism as an unstable system that would eventually result in a series of crises. The means of exploitation built into a capitalist economic system will be the source of social revolt and ultimately lead to capitalism”s dismantling.

Marx and Engels proposed that there would eventually be a proletariat revolution caused by continued exploitation by capitalists. The workers will revolt due to increasingly worse working conditions and wages.

In The Communist Manifesto , Marx and Engels proposed that after the proletariat revolution, the means of production from the bourgeoisie would end and be replaced with collective ownership over economic assets. This is a move from capitalism to communism.

The result of the revolution is that capitalism will be replaced by a classless society in which private property will be replaced with collective ownership. This will mean that society will become communist. With private property abolished, the means of production will come to a common agreement, what is called the communal ownership of goods.

Communism would aim to create a classless society in which no social class would exploit the labor of the other. In a communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, enrich, and promote the laborer’s existence (Marx & Engels, 2019).

According to Marxism, the key features of a communist society are that there would be no private property or inherited wealth, steeply graduated income tax, centralized control of the banking, communication, and transport industries, and free public education (Marx & Engels, 2019).

Conflict Theory

Karl Marx is known as the developer of conflict theory . This is the idea that society is in a state of perpetual conflict because of two or more groups with competing and incompatible interests. It is the theory that power struggles and dynamics drive societal change.

Marx concentrated on the conflict between the social classes: those of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat . The power the bourgeoisie hold can be found in their material resources, accumulated wealth, and social status.

As capitalism develops, there are fewer but more powerful individuals in the upper class, which creates conflict with a majority oppressed class. The two groups are in a struggle, and resources are unjustly distributed to the few.

Marx reasoned that as the social conditions worsened for the workers (e.g., through lower pay), they would develop a class consciousness that revealed that their exploitation was at the hands of the capitalist. The workers can make demands to ease the conflict, but conditions would eventually get worse again.

According to Marx, the only way to end the cycle of conflict is to bring about communism.

Theory Of Alienation

Alienation means the lack of power, control, and fulfillment experienced by workers in capitalist societies in which the means of producing goods are privately owned and controlled.

Marx described a division of labor , meaning that the production workers increasingly feel separated from their work. Workers have moved away from an artisanal approach to work when one person works on one product.

With the increase in machinery, technological advancements, and assembly lines where many people work on one product, there is a loss of meaning to individual workers (Marx, 1992).

As this division of labor increases along with the extent of production required for the market, the workers become more dependent on their labor for mere survival. As capitalist production becomes more technical, the workers’ productivity increases, but the final product of their labor is not for the worker to enjoy – it is the property of the capitalist (Prychitko, 2002).

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels suggest that under capitalism, the proletariat loses all individual character, becoming ‘an appendage of the machine’; thus, their work becomes alien (Marx & Engels, 2019).

The proletariat loses agency over their work lives, instead, this is determined by the bourgeoisie, including when and how long to work. Thus, the workers view their labor as something alien to them.

Marx describes alienated labor as forced and involuntary labor in which the worker finds no purpose, pleasure, contentment, or power. The worker feels isolated and insignificant, seeing their labor as purely for wages (Mukhopadhyay, 2020).

As the division of labor increases along with the extent of production required for the market, the workers become more dependent on their labor for mere survival. Their productivity increases as capitalist production become more technical, but as a result, the final product is not for them to enjoy, rather, it is the property of the capitalist (Prychitko, 2002).

Thus, the workers view their labor as something alien. Not only the object but the process of production is alien, for it is no longer a creative activity.

Marx describes alienated labor in his writings as forced and involuntary labor in which the worker finds no purpose, pleasure, contentment, or power. The worker feels isolated and insignificant, seeing their labor as purely for wages (Mukhopadhyay, 2020).

Historical Materialism

Marx proposed a theory of historical materialism in which he describes stages or epochs that societies pass through. These are primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, and advanced communism.

Marx used historical materialism to attempt to explain where society has come from, why it is the way that it is, and where it is heading.

Primitive communism was a time when society was free of social class divisions, and there were simply hunters and gathers who obtained enough food for survival. Since there was not a surplus of production, there was no exploitation.

Slave society is thought of as the first stage of exploitation. This is when there was a division between the wealthy aristocrats and those who were slaves. This epoch gave way to more advanced productive forces, with the means of production being by the people who were the property of the slaveowners.

Feudalism was a dominant social system in medieval Europe, and society was divided into landowners and land occupiers. It was a system in which people were given land and protection by the nobles, who had to work and fight for them in return. Essentially, in feudalism, the landowners exploited the land occupiers.

Marx proposed that the current society is a capitalist one in which there are private property owners who exploit the labor of their workers, whom they pay as little as possible to obtain high profits. This epoch is viewed as the wealthiest in society exploiting the poorest.

Marx’s prediction for the next epoch of society is that it will be an advanced communist one. In a communist society, there would be shared resources and wealth and no exploitation.

This was Marx’s idea of a utopia in which the system benefits most people in society rather than a small minority.

Critical Theory

Marxism would come to facilitate the development of critical theories and cultural studies.

Critical theory  is a philosophical approach to culture — especially literature — that seeks to confront the social, historical, and ideological forces and structures of power that produce and constrain culture.

The first and most notable critical theorists are the members of the Frankfurt School (Bohman, 2005).

The critical method of analysis has far-reaching academic influence. Often, critical theorists are preoccupied with critiquing modernity and capitalist society, the definition of what it means to be free in society, and the detection of wrongs in society.

Critical theorists often use a specific interpretation of Marxist philosophy focusing on economic and political ideas such as commodification, reification, fetishization, and the critique of mass culture.

Stages of Societal Development in Marxism

Marxism believes that economic systems in societies go through five stages, these are:

1. Primitive Communism

Marx and Engels conceptualized society prior to antiquity as free of social class division as hunter-gatherers gathered just enough to survive. Because everyone in this system worked for subsistence, there was no surplus production, thus making exploitation impossible.

2. Antiquity

Antiquity, to Marx, represented the first stage of exploitation between two classes, as the dynamic between aristocrats and their slaves and servants characterized society.

3. Feudalism

The second stage of exploitation in Marx’s vision of society was medieval society. Divided into landowners and occupiers, the lords and landlords exploited those who cultivated their lands by taking a portion of their yield.

4. Capitalist Society

Marxism focuses most heavily on the ills of contemporary capitalist society. In this system, anyone could trade with anyone and were free to make money from their own goods and services.

However, according to Marx and Engels, this just as powerfully bred injustice through the exploitation of the poor by the rich. Marx and Engels were particularly inspired by the conditions of their era, the industrial revolution.

Karl Marx was born in what is now Western Germany, and he experienced England at the turn of the Industrial Revolution.

Witnessing first-hand the exploitation of British factory workers, the pair conducted a series of profiles of laborers and collaboratively authored The Communist Manifesto (Prychitko, 1991).

Although the ideas of Marxism seemed to take hold by the first half of the twentieth century, as the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and the spread of communism came to define much of Eastern Europe, their association — the USSR — began to reject Marxist ideology, entering a transition toward private property rights and a market exchange system.

The societies of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, and the other Soviet states shifted to a capitalist and consumerist system, and the USSR collapsed in 1991 (Prychitko, 2002).

5. Advanced Communism

After the fall of the current capitalist system, Marx predicted a utopian society involving shared resources, wealth, and equality.

Strengths of Marxism

Marx’s ideas of society are a source of many useful insights and arguments, many of which remain relevant for modern analyses of society. While some ideas may have lost some relevance, the legacy of Marxism has endured (Burawoy & Wright, 2001).

Karl Marx has remained a prominent and influential figure in the world of sociology. In particular, his ideas on conflict theory gave rise to other conflict theories that developed later, including race-conflict theory, gender-conflict theory, and intersectional theory .

These theories provide sociologists with ways to understand power, control, freedom, and exploitation in society.

Due to Marx’s understanding of capitalism, we have a better understanding of how society functions and why we may have certain ideas about labor.

Marx provided the understanding that capitalism may be the cause of why society holds these views and how it teaches us to be competitive and conformist.

Many institutions are believed to use capitalist ideology to justify inequalities. For instance, educational institutions socialize children into working hard and being obedient.

With the increase of technological advancements in the workplace and the seemingly excessive number of products in the modern world – a lot of which would be considered non-essential- supports Marx’s ideas about capitalism.

Marxism can help sociologists understand how past revolutions have occurred in capitalist societies. It is considered a social theory of vital importance for understanding the issues and possibilities of social change and social reproduction in modern societies.

While not every element within Marxism is sustainable, Marxist ideas can be built upon to challenge and transform it (Burawoy & Wright, 2001).

Criticisms of Marxism

Marxism can be criticized for being overly simplistic in the idea of society being split into two social classes. There are different levels of wealth in society, so it is more likely that there are several social classes.

Likewise, Marx’s theory ignores other factors that contribute to social inequality, such as a person’s race and religion. A person’s gender is also mostly ignored by Marxism. Feminists would suggest that gender provides a greater social division in society rather than social class.

Marxism is argued to be a doctrine with little relevance for serious social change. It is said to be ideological for mobilizing political parties and social movements but lacks scientific credibility (Burawoy & Wright, 2001). It is thought to be unlikely that there would be total social class equality in a communist society.

Further, communist ideas have been introduced in some countries and have not fared well. For instance, there was a fall of communism in the former socialist state of the USSR. Therefore, a Marxist society, while promising in theory, may not be fully sustainable unless reconstructed.

In general, there are negative connotations about those who are unemployed, considering those who take too much time off as lazy and holding the belief that more belongings make people happier.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main goals of marxism.

The main goal of Marxism is to achieve a classless society that is not only adopted in one society but on a global scale.

Marx’s idea was to design a social system that eliminates exploitation and differences in power between groups of people.

In communism, the proletariat has political power, and private property is abolished. In a communist society, private ownership will be replaced with collective ownership over economic assets.

What Is The Importance of Marxism In Society?

Karl Marx is one of the most prominent and influential figures in sociological theory. These ideas on conflict theory have given rise to different conflict theories, such as race-conflict theory, gender-conflict theory, and intersectional theory.

Marx’s explanations of capitalism have provided a deep understanding of how society functions and enabled people to think critically about the labor they do.

Marx further offered that capitalism may be why society holds particular views about labor, including negative judgments about those who do not work and why people are competitive and conformist.

Is Marxism Still Relevant Today?

While some ideas of Marxism may be outdated and may not necessarily be a comprehensive theory for social change, they can still help understand some of the key social mechanisms in a society divided by class.

Marxism offers a way to understand history and economics, as well as an explanation of the global capitalist crisis. It can be argued that exploitation is still at the heart of a capitalist system enforced by those in the upper social classes.

Marxism also captures how capitalism develops and impacts specific world regions, specifically how some regions are developed unevenly relative to one another. Marxists would argue that unregulated commodification comes with environmental hazards, the costs of which are becoming increasingly clear (Fasenfest, 2018).

What were the criticisms of Marx on capitalism?

Karl Marx criticized capitalism for its inherent exploitation of the working class, who, he argued, were not fairly compensated for their labor. He also highlighted the alienation workers experience due to a lack of control over the production process and the products they create.

Marx further criticized capitalism’s tendency towards periodic economic crises and its creation of social inequality through the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the bourgeoisie, or the capitalist class.

Burawoy, M., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Sociological marxism. In Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 459-486). Springer, Boston, MA.

Callinicos, A. (2011). The revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx. Haymarket Books.

Fasenfest, D. (2018). Is Marx still relevant?.  Critical Sociology , 44(6), 851-855.

Marx, K. (1873).  Capital: A critical analysis of capitalist production . Humboldt.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1967). The communist manifesto . 1848. Trans. Samuel Moore. London: Penguin, 15.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2019). The communist manifesto. In Ideals and Ideologies  (pp. 243-255). Routledge.

Mukhopadhyay, R. (2020). Karl Marx”s Theory of Alienation . Available at SSRN 3843057.

Poulantzis, N. (1975). Social Classes in Contemporary Capitalism . London: New Left Books.

Prychitko, D. L. (Ed.). (2002).  Markets, Planning, and Democracy: Essays after the Collapse of Communism . Edward Elgar Publishing.

Rosen, M. (2005). Marx, Karl. Ed. Edward Craig. The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 619-631.

Rummel, R. J. (1977). Understanding conflict and war: Vol. 3: Conflict in perspective.  Beverly Hills: Sage.

Related Articles

Latour’s Actor Network Theory

Cultural Lag: 10 Examples & Easy Definition

Value Free in Sociology

Cultural Capital Theory Of Pierre Bourdieu

Pierre Bourdieu & Habitus (Sociology): Definition & Examples

Two-Step Flow Theory Of Media Communication

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Long-Overlooked Molecule That Will Define a Generation of Science

By Thomas Cech

Dr. Cech is a biochemist and the author of the forthcoming book “The Catalyst: RNA and the Quest to Unlock Life’s Deepest Secrets,” from which this essay is adapted.

From E=mc² to splitting the atom to the invention of the transistor, the first half of the 20th century was dominated by breakthroughs in physics.

Then, in the early 1950s, biology began to nudge physics out of the scientific spotlight — and when I say “biology,” what I really mean is DNA. The momentous discovery of the DNA double helix in 1953 more or less ushered in a new era in science that culminated in the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003, which decoded all of our DNA into a biological blueprint of humankind.

DNA has received an immense amount of attention. And while the double helix was certainly groundbreaking in its time, the current generation of scientific history will be defined by a different (and, until recently, lesser-known) molecule — one that I believe will play an even bigger role in furthering our understanding of human life: RNA.

You may remember learning about RNA (ribonucleic acid) back in your high school biology class as the messenger that carries information stored in DNA to instruct the formation of proteins. Such messenger RNA, mRNA for short, recently entered the mainstream conversation thanks to the role they played in the Covid-19 vaccines. But RNA is much more than a messenger, as critical as that function may be.

Other types of RNA, called “noncoding” RNAs, are a tiny biological powerhouse that can help to treat and cure deadly diseases, unlock the potential of the human genome and solve one of the most enduring mysteries of science: explaining the origins of all life on our planet.

Though it is a linchpin of every living thing on Earth, RNA was misunderstood and underappreciated for decades — often dismissed as nothing more than a biochemical backup singer, slaving away in obscurity in the shadows of the diva, DNA. I know that firsthand: I was slaving away in obscurity on its behalf.

In the early 1980s, when I was much younger and most of the promise of RNA was still unimagined, I set up my lab at the University of Colorado, Boulder. After two years of false leads and frustration, my research group discovered that the RNA we’d been studying had catalytic power. This means that the RNA could cut and join biochemical bonds all by itself — the sort of activity that had been thought to be the sole purview of protein enzymes. This gave us a tantalizing glimpse at our deepest origins: If RNA could both hold information and orchestrate the assembly of molecules, it was very likely that the first living things to spring out of the primordial ooze were RNA-based organisms.

That breakthrough at my lab — along with independent observations of RNA catalysis by Sidney Altman at Yale — was recognized with a Nobel Prize in 1989. The attention generated by the prize helped lead to an efflorescence of research that continued to expand our idea of what RNA could do.

In recent years, our understanding of RNA has begun to advance even more rapidly. Since 2000, RNA-related breakthroughs have led to 11 Nobel Prizes. In the same period, the number of scientific journal articles and patents generated annually by RNA research has quadrupled. There are more than 400 RNA-based drugs in development, beyond the ones that are already in use. And in 2022 alone, more than $1 billion in private equity funds was invested in biotechnology start-ups to explore frontiers in RNA research.

What’s driving the RNA age is this molecule’s dazzling versatility. Yes, RNA can store genetic information, just like DNA. As a case in point, many of the viruses (from influenza to Ebola to SARS-CoV-2) that plague us don’t bother with DNA at all; their genes are made of RNA, which suits them perfectly well. But storing information is only the first chapter in RNA’s playbook.

Unlike DNA, RNA plays numerous active roles in living cells. It acts as an enzyme, splicing and dicing other RNA molecules or assembling proteins — the stuff of which all life is built — from amino acid building blocks. It keeps stem cells active and forestalls aging by building out the DNA at the ends of our chromosomes.

RNA discoveries have led to new therapies, such as the use of antisense RNA to help treat children afflicted with the devastating disease spinal muscular atrophy. The mRNA vaccines, which saved millions of lives during the Covid pandemic, are being reformulated to attack other diseases, including some cancers . RNA research may also be helping us rewrite the future; the genetic scissors that give CRISPR its breathtaking power to edit genes are guided to their sites of action by RNAs.

Although most scientists now agree on RNA's bright promise, we are still only beginning to unlock its potential. Consider, for instance, that some 75 percent of the human genome consists of dark matter that is copied into RNAs of unknown function. While some researchers have dismissed this dark matter as junk or noise, I expect it will be the source of even more exciting breakthroughs.

We don’t know yet how many of these possibilities will prove true. But if the past 40 years of research have taught me anything, it is never to underestimate this little molecule. The age of RNA is just getting started.

Thomas Cech is a biochemist at the University of Colorado, Boulder; a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1989 for his work with RNA; and the author of “The Catalyst: RNA and the Quest to Unlock Life’s Deepest Secrets,” from which this essay is adapted.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .